Sitting of 11 March 1919

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Milford Docks Bill.
Chepstow Water Bill.
Ordered, That the Bills be committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  RUSSIA.

    BOLSHBVISTS.
    l. Lieutenant-Colonel Sir S. HOAREasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Bolshevists have adopted the regular policy of taking and murdering hostages, including the wives and children of anti-Bolshevists; and whether he can give the House any information in this connection?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): There is good reason to believe that this is the case. His Majesty's Government have information to the effect that wives and children of officers who have been forced to join the Red Army are kept as hostages, and that in case the officers desert their wives and children are arrested or cut off from all food supplies.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that the same practices are carried out by the anti-Bolshevists?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no information to that effect.

    BERNE CONFERENCE DELEGATES.
    Sir S. HOAREasked whether the Bolshevist Government have agreed to the visit to Russia of Messrs. Ramsay Macdonald and C. R. Buxton as the British representatives of the Berne International Labour Conference?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: It is understood from a wireless telegram sent by the Russian Bolshevist Government on 20th February, that that Government has agreed to the visit to Russia of representatives of the Berne International Labour Conference. Messrs. Ramsay Macdonald and C. R. Buxton were, however, not mentioned by name in that telegram.

    RELATIONS WITH GERMANY.
    Sir S. HOAREasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the late Kurt Eisner's statement that the Bolshevists and German Governments are still in close relations; and whether he is aware that the German deputy Kohn has confessed in the Assembly at Weimar that in November he was given one million roubles by the Bolshevists for distribution in Germany?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: No definite information has yet been obtained in regard to the statement referred to in the first portion of my hon. and gallant Friend's question. A telegraphic Press report has been received of the confession by Kohn mentioned in the last portion of the question.

  CHURCH OF ST. SOFIA.
  Sir S. HOAREasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received a communication from Constantinople stating that the Turks intend to blow up the Church of St. Sofia if any public expression of opinion takes place in the United Kingdom in favour of the restitution of one of the oldest Christian churches in Europe to Christendom; whether, if any such communication has been received, the Allies intend to submit to the throat rather than to safeguard the church by the forces at their disposal in Constantinople; and whether the British Government will, without delay, notify the Turkish Government that the Turkish Government will be held directly responsible for any damage that is done to the fabric?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Secretary of State received no official communication in the sense mentioned in the first part of the question, but information to that effect was conveyed to those who are interested in the matter in this country. His Majesty's High Commissioner received instructions more than two months ago to take all possible measures for the protection of the building. In the opinion of the Secretary of State, which has been conveyed to my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Chelsea, this is one of those questions in which publicity is more likely to provoke trouble than to avoid it.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Have steps teen taken to protect the interests of the very large number of Mahomedans in the British Empire in connection with this building?
  Major E. WOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a strong feeling on this subject exists in this country, as shown by the widely signed memorial which appeared in yesterday's Press?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am aware of that fact, but in the opinion of His Majesty's Government it is advisable not to say too much about this question.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Have any steps been actually taken to protect the church of St. Sofia?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes. Admiral Calthorp is taking all measures which it is possible for him to take with the troops at his disposal.

  IRELAND (RESOLUTION OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES).
  Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information as to a resolution having been adopted by the American House of Representatives on the subject of the government of Ireland; and, if so, will he make a formal protest against interference by a foreign Legislature in the domestic affairs of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am informed by His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington that such a resolution was passed by the House of Representatives on the 4th March, but was not considered by the Senate, as unanimous consent for bringing it forward could not be obtained.
  Mr. McNEILL: Can any representations be made on this subject?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: No. In the opinion of His Majesty's Government, it is quite impossible to make any representations of the kind indicated by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. McNEILL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a British Ambassador was recalled from Washington some years ago for privately expressing an opinion in connection with American politics?

  BRITISH OFFICERS AND GERMAN GIRLS (MARRIAGES).
  Colonel BURNasked the Secretary of State for War if any reports have reached him of impending marriages abroad between British officers and German girls; and whether this is a breach of military discipline and can be dealt with as such?
  Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I am informed that no such reports have reached the War Office. The latter part of the question, therefore, does not arise.
  Colonel BURN: In the event of this proving to be true, will the military authorities take steps to bring to book those who are trying to arrange these marriages, as it is a matter which would be a cause of much public criticism?

  DEMOBILISATION.

    OFFICER CADETS.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there is a strong feeling of dissatisfaction among officer cadets who, after passing the test for commissioned rank at the training schools, have been granted temporary commissions and then demobilised without pay, gratuity, or pension; and whether he will permit these cadet officers to continue to serve if they wish to?
    Captain GUEST: I can readily understand and sympathise with the disappointment of these cadets, overtaken by the Armistice before they had become officers. But my hon. and gallant Friend will realise that it was not possible to continue creating officers on the full pay list when the need for their services had dis-

    1057
    appeared. Cadets who desired to return to their units in their former status have been allowed to do so. Of course they will receive what is due to them in respect of their previous service.
    Colonel YATE: As vacancies occur in the ranks of officers will priority of appointment be given to these men who have qualified?
    Captain GUEST: There is a vast number of men who have claims in priority to those men.

    ROYAL ARMY SERVICE CORPS (TRANSPORT SECTION).
    Lieutenant-Colonel SPENDER CLAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that those non-commissioned officers and men of the Mechanical Transport Section, Royal Army Service Corps, who enlisted before 1916 at the abnormally high rate of 6s. a day, are still refused demobilisation, notwithstanding the fact that their pre-war employers have complied with every requirement of the demobilisation directorate of the War Office and of the Resettlement Department of the Ministry of Labour; and whether he can see his way to reduce the cost of the Army administration by issuing the necessary orders for the immediate demobilisation of these men without exception?
    Captain GUEST: Men of the corps referred to are being demobilised as the exigencies of the Service permit and subject to the liability to be retained if required for the military machinery of demobilisation until they can be relieved or their services dispensed with. Every effort is being made to replace men so retained as early as possible.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Will priority be given to those men who enlisted before 1916?

    TROOPS IN INDIA.
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can see his way to release from service without delay Sergeant Jesse Bird, No. 205334, A Company, 23rd Rifle Brigade, recently stationed at Bareilly, North-West Provinces, India, in view of the fact that he is over forty-seven years of age, has a large family, and an old father who requires him in the family business, that Sergeant Bird has been several years in India without leave, and that many men very much
    1058
    younger have been recently permitted to come home from his unit and from other units?
    Captain GUEST: From the information given by my hon. Friend, Sergeant Bird would appear to be eligible for demobilisation on account of his age, and if so will, no doubt, be released in due course. Troops in distant theatres of war and overseas commands, who are eligible for demobilisation, are being brought home as rapidly as transportation facilities permit.
    Mr. STEWART: As a great number of young men have been demobilised will the hon. Gentlemen use his influence to get permission for these middle-aged men to return, if possible?
    Captain GUEST: I will make that suggestion.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Secretary of State for War the number of soldiers in India who have been there over two years and the date at which it becomes too hot to bring men home through the Red Sea?
    Captain GUEST: The number of British troops now in India who have been serving continuously in the Far East for over two years is estimated roughly at 50,000. The trooping season in normal times ends in March for journeys to India, and in April for return sailings.

    SLIP MEN.
    Sir P. GRIGGSasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state why Signaller F. E. Foley, No. 134415, Royal Garrison Artillery, 48th Siege Battery, British Expeditionary Force, France, who is a slip man, having received his letter on 7th January duly stamped by the Labour Advisory Board at Ludgate Circus, is still being retained with the Colours, he being a man of thirty-nine years of age with nearly three years' service partly served abroad, and having a wife and five children under twelve years of age; and if he will issue instructions for his immediate demobilisation under the compassionate cases clause?
    Captain GUEST: If the facts are as stated by my hon. Friend, Signaller Foley would appear to be eligible for demobilisation, and will no doubt be released in due course. I would point out that the fact of a release slip being received in respect of a soldier does not

    1059
    entitle him to be released forthwith, but his name is registered, and, if eligible, he receives a certain priority of release.

    GRATUITIES.
    Mr. MURRAY MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that a soldier who has served throughout the War as a commissioned officer, and who, shortly before being demobilised, has been promoted, for example, to the rank of lieutenant-colonel, is entitled to a gratuity for the whole period of his service on the lieutenant-colonel scale, whereas a soldier who has served during the earlier period of the War as a private, and who for his bravery and good conduct has been promoted to commissioned rank, is not entitled to a gratuity for the whole period of his service determined in amount by the rank he held at the time of his demobilisation, he will take steps to remedy this inequality of treatment in the case of two presumably equally meritorious soldiers?
    Captain GUEST: No, Sir. All these points have been very fully considered by the War Cabinet, and I do not propose to reopen the question. A man who has borne the responsibilities of an officer throughout the War is properly given an advantage over one who became an officer Just before its close.
    Captain LOSEBY: Is it not possible for these men to have their gratuity at any rate for the time they have served as officers?
    Captain GUEST: This has been considered fully in all its bearings by the War Cabinet, and a decision has been arrived at.
    Mr. HOGGE: Why do not the different Departments of State do the thing in the same way? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that disability pension is paid according to the rank on discharge, and why should not a gratuity be paid in the same way?
    Captain GUEST: This is a decision arrived at by the War Cabinet on a matter within the control of the War Office, and beyond that I cannot go.

    PERMANENT LINESMEN.
    W. Mr. RENDALLasked the Secretary of State for War if he will say why Pioneer E. H. Lawrence, No. 182207, No. 1 Light Railway Signal Company, British Expeditionary Force, France, has not been
    1060
    demobilised; whether he is aware that he is forty-two and a-half years old; that he has been told by his commanding officer that all permanent linesmen are being detained, irrespective of age, as part of the demobilising machinery, although there are a sufficient number of younger men in the company to do all the work; and that he has three children and a wife seriously ill; and will he see that this man's discharge is not further delayed?
    Captain GUEST: From the information given by my hon. Friend, Private Lawrence would appear to be eligible for demobilisation, and, if so, he will no doubt be released in due course, or, if his services are temporarily required for the military machinery of demobilisation, as soon as he can be relieved or his services dispensed with. Men are liable to be so retained, even though otherwise eligible for demobilisation, but every effort is being made to replace them as soon as possible; this liability to retention applies particularly in the ease of certain special and departmental services which are essentially necessary for demobilisation purposes. Any application on compassionate grounds should be made, in the first instance, to the officer commanding the unit in which Private Lawrence is serving.
    Colonel THORNE: What happens in a case where the War Office says a man must be demobilised and the commanding officer says no?
    Captain GUEST: I think probably in that case the War Office desire would be acceded to.

    ORDER OF RELEASE.
    Captain REGINALD TERRELLasked the Secretary of State for War what steps are being taken for the demobilisation of men forming part of the Army outside the European field of operations; whether orders have been issued that the men of the Royal Army Medical Corps, Royal Army Veterinary Corps, Royal Army Service Corps, and Railway Operating Division, Royal Engineers, are not to be demobilised; whether men over fifty years of age are still kept in hot climates, such as Egypt; and whether he is aware of the great and growing dissatisfaction among all the units?
    Captain GUEST: Troops in distant theatres of war in which demobilisation is proceeding have equal chances of de-

    1061
    mobilisation with troops in other theatres, subject to the limitations imposed by shipping and the length of the journey home. Those eligible for demobilisation are being brought home as fast as transportation facilities permit. Men of the corps referred to who are eligible for demobilisation under the Regulations at present in force are being demobilised as the exigencies of the Service permit, and subject to the liability to retention for the military machinery of demobilisation until they can be relieved or their services dispensed with.
    General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: Would the hon. Gentleman consider with the Navy as to whether it would be possible to allocate some fast cruisers, in order to bring over these troops, who feel keenly being left out there so many years?
    Captain GUEST: I will convey that suggestion to the Secretary of State.

    APPRENTICES.
    Colonel BURNasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state his decision in the cases of young men in the Army who desire to be released in order that they may finish their apprenticeship, complete their course as students, or prepare for the Army or Civil Service examination?
    Captain GUEST: Students and apprentices are being treated on the same footing as regards demobilisation as other soldiers. Their demobilisation is dependent on their being eligible under existing Regulations.
    Colonel BURN: Does the hon. Gentleman not think it a very great hardship, in cases where premiums have been paid, that they are not allowed to finish the apprenticeship?
    Captain GUEST: It is fully appreciated that there is hardship in some cases, but, when one starts on questions of the kind, one does not know where they would end.
    Colonel BURN: Will young men who wanted to go up for examination at Sandhurst be allowed to do so?
    Captain GUEST: I think the present system is the fairest all round.

    DOCTORS AND NURSES.
    Mr. LEONARD LYLEasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that there are still 9,593
    1062
    doctors and 20,141 nurses in the Army, he will arrange for at least 500 of the former and 2,000 of the latter to be granted immediately indefinite leave pending formal demobilisation, so that their services may be utilised in coping with the serious amount of illness amongst the civil population?
    Captain GUEST: As my right hon. Friend explained to the hon. Member a week ago, every endeavour is being made to release as many doctors and nurses as can be spared. It is considered that if the proposal to give leave to doctors and nurses pending demobilisation were concurred in, it would seriously interfere with the steps that have been taken to release all those whose services can be spared. The latest returns available give the total number of trained and untrained nurses demobilised as 7,441 since the Armistice, and steps have been taken to demobilise large numbers of medical officers. This has now become possible owing to the removal of certain restrictions which delayed demobilisation.
    Mr. LYLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that approximately 270,000 nurses would be required for the civil population if they had the same proportion of nurses as in the Army, and that the total number of trained nurses is only approximately 40,000 or 50,000 altogether?
    Captain GUEST: I was not aware of those figures.

    EGYPT.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for War whether instructions have yet been issued for demobilisation of troops in Egypt, including the signal service of the Royal Engineers; whether he is aware that the Royal Engineers, signallers are still being retained; if so, will he state on whose authority such instructions were given and for what purpose; whether it is a fact that the civilian telegraph system in Egypt is now being maintained over military lines and is being worked by men who enlisted for service to meet the emergencies that occurred during the War; whether these men are still being withheld from demobilisation in order to deal with this work, and whether he will undertake that steps shall be taken without delay to ensure that all men over thirty-seven years of age shall be released from service at once, considering that many of them have done from three to four years' foreign service, in the majority of cases without any leave whatever?
    Captain GUEST: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for Aberdeen South yesterday. Every effort is being made to replace at the earliest possible moment any officers and men otherwise eligible for demobilisation who may be at present retained owing to the exigencies of the Service. As regards the fourth and fifth parts of my hon. and gallant Friend's question, I regret that I have no information at present. Inquiries are being made.

    COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS.
    Lieutenant-Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in in view of the fact that soldiers who are qualified for demobilisation and also men whose release has been sanctioned on compassionate grounds are often unreasonably detained, he will personally intervene to secure their speedy release if their cases are brought to his notice?
    Captain GUEST: If my Noble and gallant Friend can furnish me with particulars of any cases where men entitled to release are unreasonably detained, I will certainly have them investigated. There are undoubtedly a large number of soldiers who are at present qualified for demobilisation, but the rate at which they can be demobilised is, as my Noble and gallant Friend will realise, necessarily governed by transport and other considerations. I am having the case of which he has furnished me with particulars inquired into.
    Mr. BETTERTONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will state or lay upon the Table of the House instructions at present in force which govern the consideration of claims for the release of soldiers on compassionate grounds who otherwise are eligible for retention in the Armies of Occupation?
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will state to whom an application for the release of a soldier on extreme compassionate grounds should be made in the case when the soldier himself applies, and in the case when a Member on behalf of the soldier applies; and whether he can state in general terms, so far as possible, the grounds on which such applications can properly be made or give for the guidance
    1064
    of those interested some illustrations of the cases in which release on extreme compassionate grounds will be granted?
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether any definition or indication of the nature of compassionate grounds for release from service can be given in order that those interested and their friends may know how to act in making and supporting applications in this behalf?
    Captain GUEST: An application by a soldier should be made in the first instance to the officer commanding his unit Applications by Members of this House should be addressed to the Secretary, War Office (Mobilisation). The extreme compassionate grounds should be those for family reasons, and not business reasons. Family reasons may include dangerous illness of wife, motherless children, loss of more than one son on active service where the parents are dependent on son's earnings. These are some illustrations of the grounds on which compassionate releases are being granted. In order to save time it is necessary in such case that the facts should be verified by a clergyman, doctor, or justice of the peace.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Why should not the fact that a man's business is going to rack and ruin be considered equally with the other reasons?
    Captain GUEST: Because business would cover applications of one kind or another from almost everybody in the Army.
    Sir F. HALL: One-man businesses.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Could the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether, when a man writes to the War Office to be released on compassionate grounds, it is necessary that he should accompany his letter by a verification from a justice of the peace, clergyman or doctor?
    Captain GUEST: Yes, Sir.
    Captain O'GRADY: Is it absolutely necessary that a man should apply to his commanding officer in the first instance? May not the parent of the lad apply to a Member of this House so that he can apply to the War Office in accordance with instructions?
    Captain GUEST: Yes, of course.
    Mr. WATERSON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider that case I brought to his notice on compassionate

    1065
    grounds, which was turned down because the grounds were not considered good enough, seeing that the man's wife was dangerously ill? Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider that case in that category?
    Captain GUEST: Most certainly.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give consideration to the extreme cases of one-man businesses?
    Captain GUEST: The Secretary of State has decided that this is the best method of describing "compassionate grounds."
    Sir F. HALL: Is the House to have nothing to say in this matter?

    SOMERSET REGIMENT.
    Mr. HURDasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the intimation conveyed in letters from men of the ¼th Somersets, Mesopotamia, that a large number of men of the battalion are now being demobilised and returned home, many of them after long service and no home leave, he will endeavour to arrange that they shall be demobilised in drafts of 50 or 100 men at their headquarters, Bath, where the War hospital has been made the dispersal centre for the counties of Somerset and Gloucester, so as to permit of a public welcome by representatives of the county of Somerset as a whole?
    Captain GUEST: The hospital referred to is not a dispersal centre, but is a dispersal hospital, and deals solely with sick and wounded. It is regretted that it is not possible to make special arrangements for men of individual units.

    APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Secretary of State for War if he will say why Private J. W. Gay, No. 92271, 154th Labour Infantry Company, British Expeditionary Force, France, forty-two years of age, is not demobilised; whether he is performing no duties other than taking part in concerts for the entertainment of the troops occasionally; and whether, as his wife is the only person to cultivate the land he occupies, his discharge can be at once given?
    Captain GUEST: From the information given by my hon. Friend, Private Gay would appear to be eligible for demobilisation on account of his age; and, if so, he will no doubt be released in due course.
    Mr. SITCHasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that application has been made in the proper way by the employers of Private G. H. Hannington, No. 181999, 689th Company, Royal Army Service Corps, Mechanical Transport, attached to the Serbian Army, Balkans, for his demobilisation; that the soldier has not received his papers, and although his employers sent a cablegram on the 16th January the commanding officer would not act upon it; and whether, in view of the fact that the soldier is of low medical category and his health has become greatly impaired through his service in the Army, he will have inquiries made with a view to the man's early demobilisation?
    Captain GUEST: Private Hannington is not registered by the War Office either as pivotal or for special release, and I am also informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour that there is no trace in his Department of this man having been registered on either of these two grounds. It is not clear from the information given by my hon. Friend what was the precise nature of the application made by the employers, but it would not appear to have been such as to warrant his being certified as pivotal or recommended for special release. His demobilisation is dependent on his being eligible under the Regulations at present in force.

    NON-COMBATANT CORPS.
    Mr. W. R. SMITHasked the Secretary of State for War whether men in the Non-Combatant Corps are to be included within the scheme of demobilisation?
    Captain GUEST: The Regulations at present in force qualifying men as eligible for demobilisation now apply to the Non-Combatant Corps.

    TRANSPORT ARRANGEMENTS, DUNKIRK.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that complaints are being made of the inadequacy of the breakfast given at Dunkirk to demobilised men on their way home, and that some soldiers have had to embark without food at all as it was not ready for them; and whether, as methods of this nature cause a bad impression, he will arrange for an immediate inquiry and reform?
    Captain GUEST: No such complaints have reached the War Office, but in-

    1067
    quiries are being made, and I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as I am in a position to do so.
    Captain AINSWORTHasked the Secretary of State for War if he will issue special instructions against overcrowding on the boats bringing demobilised men home; and, whether special precautions will be taken to avoid, in future, bringing men from India, Egypt, and Mesopotamia in an unacclimatised condition and bringing them through the extreme cold of the Alps and Southern France and to avoid bringing these men in trucks in railway carriages?
    Captain GUEST: The question of reducing the numbers accommodated on vessels is receiving consideration, but my hon. and gallant Friend will realise that such a reduction must affect the rapidity of demobilisation, and result in men being exposed to the heat later on in the season. As regards the latter part of the question, with the exception of certain cases where transshipment in, Egypt is necessary for shipping reasons, and of troops from Egypt, arrangements have now been made for all troops now en route to come direct to the United Kingdom by sea.

    UNDER-AGE SOLDIERS.
    Mr. JESSONasked the Secretary of State for War if he has received an application for the demobilisation of Private J. W. Westmuckett, No. 93394, Royal Army Medical Corps, 19th General Hospital, Alexandria, Egypt; if he is aware that Private Westmuckett left school just before his sixteenth birthday, in September, 1914, to join the Army, giving his age as about eighteen; that he was at Gallipoli and other centres of war; whether he is aware that his parents are now anxious to get him home to learn a trade; and whether, under the special circumstances, he will secure his immediate demobilisation?
    Captain GUEST: From the information given by my hon. Friend, Private Westmuckett would appear to be eligible for demobilisation, and, if so, will no doubt be released in due course. There is no trace of any application having been received in respect of this man; neither is he registered as pivotal nor for special release.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Are any steps being taken to get the men back from Alexandria who have permission to come back?
    Captain GUEST: Yes, Sir; Alexandria is being treated as fairly as any other outlying station.

  1914–1915 STAR.
  Mr. STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for War whether the 1915 Star will be given to officers of the Indian Army who have the following services to their credit since August, 1914: two North-West Frontier expeditions in the early days of the War, two years in Aden against the Turks, followed by another frontier expedition, and finally by service in Persia since 1917?
  Captain GUEST: The operations in the Asiatic theatre of war for which the 1914–15 Star will be awarded are contained in paragraph 5 of Appendix A of Army Order 20 of 1919, of which I will send my hon. Friend a copy. As the final date of the 1914–15 Star is the 31st December, 1915, service in Persia does not apply.
  Captain REGINALD TERRELLasked the Secretary of State for War whether his Department has yet reached any decision with regard to differentiation between the ribbon pertaining to the 1914 Star and that pertaining to the 1914–15 Star; and whether the design of the latter Star has been settled?
  Captain GUEST: The question of differentiation of ribbon is still under consideration. The design of the 1914–15 Star has been settled.
  Captain TERRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great dissatisfaction amongst officers on this question?
  Captain GUEST: Yes, and that is why the matter is being carefully considered at the present time.
  Captain TERRELL: When can we have a definite answer?
  Captain GUEST: As soon as possible.
  Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the decoration of the 1915 Star awarded for active service in 1914–15 on the various fronts has been given to the Royal Army Medical Corps serving in Egypt and has been withheld from those similarly serving at Malta;

  1069
  whether Malta was one of the principal hospital bases for Gallipoli; whether Egypt was also a hospital base for wounded evacuated from Gallipoli; if the personnel serving at the base hospitals in France receive this decoration; and if he will state what are the grounds that led to this difference?
  Captain GUEST: All ranks who served in Egypt on the establishment of a unit in operations against the Turco-German or Senussite Forces are eligible for the award of the 1914–15 Star, and the same is true as regards all who served on the establishment of a unit in France, that country being included in the European theatre of war. It has been decided after full consideration that Malta cannot be considered a theatre of war for the purpose of the award of this Star, which is therefore not available for issue in respect of service there.
  Sir F. HALL: Can my hon. Friend tell me why that decision has been arrived at, considering that Egypt was accepted as a hospital base on the same lines?
  Captain GUEST: Yes. The Army Council have gone very carefully into this, and are of opinion that the 1914–15 Star cannot be given for service in Malta, because it would also have to apply to all defended ports, including the East Coast of England.

  DIRECTORATE OF LANDS (OFFICERS' PAY).
  Major BARNESasked the total annual amount of regimental pay and allowances due to the officers, unfit for general service, who are temporarily attached to the directorate of lands?
  Captain GUEST: Omitting children's allowances, the amount paid to-day is at the rate of £4,385 per annum. Some of those officers will be released at an early date.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    FUNERAL EXPENSES.
    Major NEWTONasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state on what principle grants are paid to the relatives in aid of the cost of the funeral of a soldier who dies whilst at home on leave, and who is buried by his relatives; and
    1070
    whether, in view of the fact that the relatives are frequently unaware that application may be made for a military funeral, or to whom such application should be made, he will issue instructions to command paymasters to sanction the payment of any reasonable expenses incurred with a maximum limit of not less than, say, £10?
    Captain GUEST: If a soldier dies while on leave at a place where a military funeral would be available, and is buried by his relatives, the cost of the military funeral is allowed. If no military funeral would be available, the General Officer Commanding has power to pay the reasonable expenses of a private funeral, without any hard and fast limit. If my hon. and gallant Friend has under his notice any case in which these rules have produced hardship, I shall be happy to consider it if he will give me particulars.
    Major NEWTONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the rule under which only a sum based on what the cost of the funeral of a deceased soldier would have been if carried out by the military authorities at the station where death took place may be allowed to relatives who request that the body may be sent home for burial causes hardship in many cases and operates unevenly, inasmuch as in some cases the contract rate for a military funeral is as low as £1 4s. whilst in other cases the cost approximates to £10; and whether, in the circumstances, he will consider the advisability of making a fixed grant of up to, say, £5 in any case in which under the present system of calculation a smaller amount only would be admissible as a charge against the public?
    Captain GUEST: Under the present rule the public bears the cost of conveyance of the body by rail, in addition to what a military funeral at the place of death would have cost, the choice between a military funeral and a private funeral on these terms lying entirely with the relatives. These arrangements do not seem to me to involve hardship and it is not proposed to alter them.
    Major NEWTON: Does not the hon. Gentleman see that one of the factors in calculating the amount to be paid is the contract cost of the funeral at the station where the soldier died, and if the contract cost at one station is £1 4s. and at another station is £40 there is a difference of nearly £9 which the family bears?
    Captain GUEST: The difference is noted of course, but the general rule governing the whole case has been very carefully considered by the War Office, and they do not think it advisable to reopen it.
    Major NEWTON: In a case of this sort which affects so many familities can we not have a reconsideration of a system which results in such inequality, so that a rule may be introduced which would bring about a state of equality for each family?

    PRE-WAR NAVAL WIDOWS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that there are widows of men who lost their lives in the Naval Service before the War, and who are only in receipt of very small pensions, in many cases not more than 9s. a week; and whether, in view of the higher pensions now being granted to widows whose husbands have lost their lives in the War and the great increase in the cost of living, he can see his way to place both classes of widows on the same scale?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The pensions of the widows of the men who lost their lives in the performance of military or naval duties in former wars have been raised to the level of widows' pensions for private's rank in the present War.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my question does not refer to men who have lost their lives in this War, but to men who lost their lives before the War—not necessarily in war time?
    Mr. BONARLAW: I thought it referred to loss of life during war. If my hon. Friend means the loss of life in peace time, I am afraid I cannot promise any action in the matter.

    OFFICERS' GRATUITY.
    Captain HACKINGasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been drawn to the delay in paying to officers holding temporary commissions in the Army the gratuities or emergency pay under Article 497 of the Pay Warrant; whether he is aware of the inconvenience in consequence of this; and, in view of the fact that this money is usually required to purchase civilian clothes and tide over the change from military to civil life, he will endeavour to prevent any delay in his Department?
    Captain GUEST: I am not aware of any delay, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will give me particulars of any specific cases I will have them investigated.

    MINE-SWEEPER (TUBERCULOSIS).
    Sir K. WOODasked the Pensions Minister whether a mine-sweeper who had suffered exposure from his ship being torpedoed and was suffering from tuberculosis has recently been refused treatment in advanced accommodation at the cost of the Ministry of Pensions on the ground that he is not a regular naval rating; and whether he proposes to take any action in this and similar cases?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir James Craig): Without particulars I am unable to identify the case to which my hon. Friend refers. The position generally is that a member of the Mercantile Marine can be given treatment at the expense of the Ministry on the same conditions as a naval rating if he signed on for the period of the War and was under naval discipline.

    REPRESENTATION OF DISABLED SOLDIERS.
    Major BARKERasked the Pensions Minister whether he will consider the advisability of increasing the representation of disabled soldiers on local war pensions committees and on local war pensions sub-committees?
    Sir J. CRAIG: The inclusion of at least two disabled men on every committee and sub-committee is already provided for by Statute, and by Section 15 of the War Pensions (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1918, the Minister of Pensions may order the number to be increased for the purpose of securing adequate representation on a particular committee. If the hon. and gallant Member knows of committees whose circumstances appear to him to render the existing representation inadequate, my right hon. Friend will gladly give the matter consideration.

  AZIZ AHMED.
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Aziz Ahmed, an Indian, of Bruntingthorpe near Lutterworth, Leicestershire, who for twenty years conducted a Christian mission in Glasgow which

  1073
  aimed at fostering friendliness between Indian lascars and Britons was, in April 1916, required by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Scottish Command, to remove from and not to enter any prohibited areas in Scotland; and whether, in view of the fact that Mr. Ahmed's work and interests were entirely non-political and that he has received recommendations and testimonials from many ministers and private citizens in Glasgow, Mr. Ahmed is now at liberty to return to Glasgow, and, if not, will he state the reason?
  Captain GUEST: I am aware that an Order was made by the General Officer Commanding-in-chief, Scottish Command, under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, Section 14, forbidding Aziz Ahmed to enter any prohibited area in Scotland. There appear to have been ample grounds for the making of this Order, and it is not considered desirable that he should be permitted to return to Glasgow at present.

  ARMY BOOTS.
  Mr. CLOUGHasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Army boots which were issued to Volunteer battalions for mobilisation purposes only and which were returned to store, bearing each man's name and number after having been worn for a fortnight, can now be offered at a reasonable price to the Volunteers whom the boots fit, as by so doing the Government would save carriage and labour and be sure to get a better price for the boots in this way than by selling them in bulk to a dealer?
  Captain GUEST: My hon. Friend's suggestion is now under consideration.

  QUARTERMASTERS.
  Lieutenant-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITEasked the Secretary of State for War whether temporary quartermasters, however efficient, cannot be appointed as quartermasters in the post-war Army; and, if so, whether he can modify this order so that officers who have rendered especially meritorious service during the present War may have an opportunity of selection for such a post?
  Captain GUEST: The valuable services rendered by many temporary quartermasters are fully appreciated. The
  1074
  number of appointments as permanent quartermaster is, however, regulated by establishments, and is strictly limited. During the War there has been stagnation in the matter of promotion, and there is very keen competition for the posts among fully-qualified warrant officers still serving on normal engagements, many of whom have been registered for many years. To appoint temporary quartermasters to fill establishment vacancies would in these circumstances be an injustice to a most deserving class, and I regret, therefore, that I cannot entertain my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion. I would point out that the majority of temporary quartermasters do not fulfil the qualifications as to age necessary for appointment under Article 33 of the Royal Warrant.

  PENSION COMMUTATION.
  Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the answer given on 13th November last on the question of reopening commutation of pensions, whether he is aware that the only Army officers now allowed to commute are captains and lieutenants over fifty and higher ranks over fifty-five years of age, or officers of any age who hold wounds pensions or are incapable of further military service; and, inasmuch as capital sums are now urgently required by officers with which to start in business, whether he can see his way, as the controlling authority under Section 7 of the Pensions Commutation Act, 1871, to reopen the system, under pre-war conditions, of commutation of pensions to all officers in the Army and Navy over the age of forty who hold commutable pensions without waiting until peace is officially signed?
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: May I ask, Sir, if it is in order for an hon. Member to refer in a question to a specific answer given to another question?
  Mr. SPEAKER: We generally strike out references to former answers, but this refers to a question of last Session.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I think it has very often happened.
  Captain GUEST: It has been decided to reopen the commutation of pensions for officers of the Army under conditions which will be published shortly.

  GENERAL TOWNSHEND.
  Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for War if General Townshend is still on the active list and in receipt of full pay; if it is proposed to utilise the services of this distinguished officer in some capacity; and, if not, if he will state the reason?
  Captain GUEST: General Townshend is on the active list on half-pay. There is at present, I understand, no suitable appointment available in which his services could be employed.
  Sir F. HALL: May I ask whether it is to be understood that General Townshend's valuable services are to be shelved, and was this decision arrived at in consequence of the advice given by General Townshend to his superior officers previous to the first abortive march on Bagdad, when he stated that 40,000 men were required—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better give notice of some of that.
  Sir F. HALL: It is very important.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The more important it is the more necessary is it to give notice.
  Sir F. HALL: On that point, may I say I put the facts down on the question, but it is on the Paper in an emasculated form?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It was not put in proper form.

  ARMY PAY.
  Major NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for War whether badly wounded men detained for treatment in hospital are eligible for the new rates of pay?
  Captain GUEST: If these men belong to the class compulsorily retained for the Armies of Occupation they will receive the bonus from the 1st February. If not, they will not receive it unless they are detained in hospital beyond the 1st May, or unless, on leaving hospital, they volunteer and are accepted for further service. In the former case they will receive the bonus from the 1st May; in the latter case, from the date of being accepted.

  IMPERIAL WAR GRAVES COMMISSION.
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the
  1076
  requests made by a section of the public to be allowed to erect individual memorials, an assurance may be given that the Imperial War Graves Commission will adhere to its decision to preserve the ideas of equality of sacrifice and national unity as embodied in their proposals for uniform regimental headstones bearing the appropriate religious symbol and the regimental or national emblem?
  Captain GUEST: My hon. Friend may rest assured that the Imperial War Graves Commission have no intention of abandoning the two principles of equality of sacrifice and national unity upon which all their proposals have been based, and which have inspired their work throughout.

  WAR HOSPITAL, GROSVENOR ROAD, BELFAST.
  Mr. MOLESasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that a sewing maid at the War Hospital, Grosvenor Road, Belfast, is only paid at the rate of 18s. per week, out of which sum she has to maintain herself and her son, a lad of school age; and whether, as charwomen are paid at a rate of 23s. to 25s. weekly, steps will at once be taken to see that this woman is paid a living wage, as suggested by the local Children Act Committee which has investigated the circumstances of this case?
  Captain GUEST: I am having inquiry, made, and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as I am in a position to do so.

  ARMY RATION STRENGTH.
  Mr. WALLACEasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the pro posed total ration strength of the Army of Occupation; the ration strength contributed, respectively, by Great Britain, France, and America; and whether any terminable period has been arranged for the American portion of these forces?
  Captain GUEST: The total strength, effective and non-effective, of the British troops for the Armies of Occupation in all theatres of war amounts to 902,000 (including officers). The rest of the information asked for by my hon. Friend cannot be given at present, as the matter is still under consideration.
  Mr. WALLACEasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the total ration strength on 1st March, 1919, of he British, French, and American Armies, respectively, in France, Belgium, and Germany?
  Captain GUEST: The strength of the British Army, all ranks, in France, Belgium, and Germany on the 15th February, 1919, including Dominion troops, was 1,324,106. In addition 197,000 German prisoners of war were borne on the British ration strength. I regret that I am unable to give the information as regards the French and American armies.

  SS. "CALEDONIA" (ALLEGED ILLNESS).
  Captain AINSWORTHasked the Secretary of State for War how many men out of the 1,600 who embarked on the "Caledonia" from Port Said on the 18th January last reached England; how many of these men died on the voyage home; and how many were reported as suffering from pneumonia on arrival in England?
  Captain GUEST: One hundred and seventy one officers and 1,992 other ranks embarked on the date mentioned, and the whole of them disembarked at Taranto on the 21st. The voyage report states that there was no sickness on board. I have no information at present as to the journey from Taranto to England, but inquiries are being made.

  SUGAR INDUSTRY (IMPERIAL DEVELOPMENT).
  Mr. DOYLEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the acceptance of Imperial preference as a definite principle in the national economic policy, a statement can now be made of the measures which are contemplated for the development of the sugar industry throughout If is Majesty's Oversea Dominions and Dependencies, so that in future the United Kingdom shall not be dependent for its sugar requirements upon foreign sources of supply?
  Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I cannot add anything to the answer given to my hon. Friend by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies yesterday.

  BRITISH TRADE IN BALKANS.
  Mr. DOYLEasked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a statement of the measures adopted by His Majesty's Ministers for the adequate protection of the future of British trade in the Balkans; whether, seeing that Italy claims the ports of Trieste, Pola, Zara, Sebenico, and Valona, that in addition Italy has now considerable armed forces at Fiume, that Valona is the only important outlet of Albania, and that Fiume is essential as an outlet for Hungary and Croatia-Slavonica, in the interests of British trade inter course through the ports of Valona and Fiume to the hinterland, will not be obstructed; whether Greece desires to secure the whole coast from Salonika to the Dardanelles; and whether those claims tend to establish a two-fold customs barrier between Western sea-borne commerce and the interior?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I regret that, until a decision shall have been reached by the Peace Conference with regard to the final status of the various places referred to by the hon. Member, I can make no statement on the subject. The hon. Member may, however, rest assured that the British Delegates will give careful and constant consideration to British commercial interests in this connection.
  Mr. DOYLE: Can the hon. Gentleman give a definite assurance to the House that when the final adjustment of these territories takes place British trade interests will not be lost sight of?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I must ask my hon. Friend for notice of that.

  ECONOMIC SITUATION (EDUCATIONAL PROPAGANDA).
  Colonel BURNasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the want of knowledge on the part of the public of the economic consequences of the War and the general economic situation, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to develop a comprehensive scheme of educational propaganda during the forthcoming months, so that the industrial position in its relation to increased production and to its competitive power in oversea markets may be more fully under stood?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to previous answers on this subject.

  CLUBS AND PUBLIC-HOUSES.
  Major LANE-FOXasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have yet come to any decision as to the removal of all the restrictions on clubs?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government, after the most careful consideration have come to the conclusion that it is impossible, without great unfairness, to discriminate in favour of clubs as against public-houses.

  BLOCKADE.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the state of starvation now existing in Central Europe, he will exercise his influence with the Allied Powers to secure the removal of the blockade?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to what I have said in reply to similar questions on this subject.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Czecho-Slovaks, the Jugo-Slavs, and the Serbians are being reduced to a state of starvation by the action of one of our Allies in imposing the blockade on the Adriatic ports?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am aware that there is so great a scarcity of food as to amount almost to a famine in many quarters of Europe and that not only our delegates but the delegates of our Allies are doing everything in their power to remedy it.

  SECRET FUNDS.
  Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Prime Minister whether facilities will be granted for the introduction of a Bill during the present Session dealing with secret funds?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government are not prepared to take the course suggested in the question.
  Brigadier-General CROFT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the fact that all the great parties have nothing to hide, and that the Bill would be an agreed one, it could not be introduced on a Friday afternoon?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no indication that the facts are as stated by my hon. and gallant Friend.

  GENERAL OFFICERS RELIEVED OF COMMANDS.
  Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Prime Minister whether the Government will now grant inquiries into the cases of general officers who were relieved of their commands during the War without any reasons being given and without any opportunity of defence?
  Captain GUEST: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my reply to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for South Down on 26th February, to the effect that it would be impossible to proceed otherwise than under the existing law.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Is he aware that there are a great number of cases of officers who are suffering from the circumstances suggested in the question which renders it desirable that inquiries should be held?
  Captain GUEST: The answer was very full on the last occasion, but I can partly repeat it. It was to the effect that nearly all these cases would involve an inquiry into the question of efficiency, in regard to which opinions naturally differ, and that it would involve an enormous number of witnesses.
  Mr. TERRELL: It is not possible, now that the actual fighting is over, to go into these cases; is it not better to go into these cases than that officers should be retired, and perhaps lose the results of a hard life's work?
  Brigadier-General CROFT: Is it not a fact that the conditions are now entirely changed, and may I ask whether, in the case of general officers on whom there have been no reports, there cannot be inquiries held at the earliest possible date?
  Captain GUEST: I will report to my right hon. Friend.

  HOUSING.

    PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government to consider in connection with their housing scheme the situation created by the Lumsden decision, with the object of reviving building operations by private enterprise throughout the country?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): The position in this matter is still as stated by the Prime Minister in reply to a question on the 21st March, 1916. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

    RECONSTRUCTION.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether the Government will give assistance in the alteration or reconstruction of existing property to make it suitable for working class occupation in districts where it can be shown that a demand exists and that it would be more economical than erecting new houses?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Major Astor): I am afraid I must ask my hon. Friend to await the introduction of the Housing Bill.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH BILL.
  Mr. LYLEasked the Prime Minister whether, under the provisions of the Ministry of Health Bill, the Minister would have power to institute, in any form, State hospital treatment other than that already sanctioned by Parliament; and whether he would require new legislation to enable him, if he wished, to convert any of the existing Poor Law infirmaries into State-conducted hospitals freed from all stigma of association with poor relief?
  Major ASTOR: No such powers as are sanctioned in the first part of the question are conferred by the Ministry of Health Bill; and specific legislation would be required for the purpose mentioned in the second part.

  GRAND JURIES.
  Sir FRANCIS BLAKEasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to allow The Grand Juries (Suspension) Act, 1917, to expire as therein provided, or whether it is proposed to take evidence as to the desirability of permanently discontinuing this institution?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Grand Juries Suspension Act, 1917, remains in operation until the expiration of six months after the termination of the War. The question
  1082
  whether, and, if so, to what extent the provisions of the Act should be made permanent is receiving careful consideration in the light of the experience gained during the period for which it has been in operation.

  PROPERTY DAMAGED BY MINING, COWDENBEATH.
  Mr. WALLACEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the working of coal 100 ft. below the surface in the town of Cowdenbeath is causing, through the disturbance of the ground, serious damage to working-class property, and that the houses occupied by Mr. A. Welsh and Mr. John Kirk, Church Street, Cowdenbeath, have been rendered practically uninhabitable, he will introduce legislation to provide compensation to owners of property so damaged?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I have been asked to reply to this question.The Home Office has no power to interfere, but I will have inquiry made, and considered whether anything can be done in the matter.

  CIVIL SERVICE (JOINT COUNCIL).
  Lieutenant-Colonel Sir J. NORTON GRIFFITHSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Interdepartmental Committee appointed to consider the possible application of the recommendations of the Committee on Relations between Employers and Employed (Whitley Report) to the Civil Service has concluded its sittings; if so, whether its decisions will be published, and when; whether the points of view and opinions of representatives of the different branches of the Civil Service were heard; whether the establishment of a joint industrial council for the Civil Service is contemplated; and, if so, whether the views of Civil servants will be ascertained and considered before such industrial council is brought into existence?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I beg to refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 27th February last to the hon. and gallant Member for Tottenham North, of which I am sending him a copy. I can assure my hon. Friend that the views of Civil servants will be fully ascertained and considered

  1083
  before effect is given to any of the recommendations of the Sub-committee of the Interdepartmental Whitley Committee.
  Sir F. HALL: Will the Prime Minister agree to accept a deputation of the members of the Civil Service before any decision is arrived at?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I would suggest that that question be put to the Leader of the House.
  Sir F. HALL: May I ask the Leader of the House?

  VALUATION BRANCH, INLAND REVENUE (SALARIES).
  Major BARNESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount payable annually in salaries to the staff of the Valuation Branch of the Board of Inland Revenue in August, 1914, November, 1916, and September, 1917?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The total amounts expended in the financial years in which the months specified occurred were as under:

  Year.

  £

  1914–15

  565,000

  1916–17

  272,000

  1917–18

  270,000

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. NEALasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the following case: William Henry Peal, of 21, Mill Lane, Sheffield, was born in October, 1845; in 1864 he joined the Militia and in 1865 was transferred to the 14th Foot Regiment and remained in that regiment until 1872, when he was discharged from the Army; he received no pension at that time and remained in civil life until the 7th August, 1916, when he joined the Royal Defence Corps, giving his age as fifty-eight instead of seventy; he was discharged as unfit for further service on the 26th September, 1917, and was granted an Army pension of 8s. 3d. a week; he then applied for an old age pension and, on account of his Service pension, was only allowed 4s. per week; on the 1st October, 1918, his Army pension was increased to 11s. per week and, in conse-
  1084
  quence of such increase, the pensions officer applied to the old age pensions committee to reduce the pension to 2s. per week on the ground that technically the man was not within the terms of the administrative concessions made to old age pensioners (O. 8,320); that the committee were of opinion that the man was unable to obtain proper nourishment and was failing in health, but were advised they had no option but to reduce the pension to 2s. per week; and will he give instructions for the issue of the full pension of 7s. 6d. a week or afford some other assistance to this old veteran?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I have made inquiry into the case referred to, and find that the facts in regard to the old age pension are as stated in the question, except that Mr. Peat has received the additional allowance of 2s. 6d. a week in addition to his old age pension of 4s. a week originally, and 2s. a week as subsequently reduced. The action taken was necessitated by the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Acts, and I have no authority to give instructions for the issue of the full old age pension.

  GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTS (DELAYS IN SETTLEMENT).
  Colonel BURNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the inconvenience and loss caused to manufacturers by the delays in settling Government accounts; whether he is aware that in some cases firms have been ordered to pay Excess Profits Duty on orders before the purchasing Departments of the Government responsible for those orders has settled the accounts; and whether steps will be taken to settle all Government accounts with manufacturers at an early date?
  Mr. BALDWIN: Representations have been made to me on this subject, and the contracting Departments have been urged to expedite the settlement of accounts with manufacturers.

  ROAD BOARD (BRIGADIER-GENERAL MAYBURY).
  Mr. ATKEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when Brigadier-General Maybury, the Director of Roads in France under the War Office, will be able to

  1085
  resume his duties as manager, of the Road Board; and whether he will have full authority to assist; local authorities to carry out the £40,000,000 programme of road and bridge work which has been approved by the War Cabinet?
  Mr. BALDWIN: Brigadier-General Maybury resumed his duties as Engineer and Secretary to the Road Board on the 27th ultimo. Subject to the approval of the Board and of the Treasury, where necessary, General Maybury has full authority to assist local authorities to carry out the programme of road and bridge work approved by the War Cabinet, the nature of which is stated in the reply which was given to the hon. Member for South Down on the 19th ultimo.

  INCOME TAX (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether there will be a time limit fixed for the Report of the Royal Commission on Income Tax?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the hon. Gentleman, anyhow, arrange for a time limit to be put upon the question of married women's income?

  CAPITAL ISSUES.
  Mr. GOULDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now considered the desirability of allowing small or private limited companies to increase their capital by issues not exceeding £20,000 without securing Treasury con sent; whether he will issue an order to this effect; and if the Order will prohibit repeated increases by any company that has already increased its capital tinder these provisions?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for South Down and my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn division of Glasgow.

  WAR OFFICE EMPLOYMENT (PAYMENT TO DISCHARGED SOLDIERS).
  Sir JOHN BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the wording of paragraph 7 of
  1086
  the Regulations for Civil Subordinates, 1914; and whether he is now prepared to alter this regulation so that a soldier who has joined up before the age of twenty-one and has fought and been wounded and has been discharged before attaining twenty-one may, on obtaining employment in the Army Ordnance Department or other civilian Department of the War Office, be employed and paid as a man and not as a boy?
  Captain GUEST: This question affects not only the War Office but other Departments, with which I am in communication. It is hoped to issue instructions shortly.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider that when a man is good enough to light as a man he should be good enough to be paid as a man when he gets home?
  Captain GUEST: My hon. and learned Friend will appreciate the fact that "other Departments" includes the Treasury.

  MENTAL DEFICIENCY.
  Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Homo Secretary whether in the case of the prisoner tried recently at the Kent Assizes and found guilty, but insane, of the murder of a boy aged six years, a report, on 3rd September, 1912, was made to the Prison Commissioners by the medical officer certifying he was mentally deficient; and what action was taken on such report?
  Mr. SHORTT: Such a, report was made in September, 1912, and before the man was discharged from prison on the expiration of the sentence which he was then serving, the report was communicated to the police of the district in which he resided—so that, if he should again be charged, the Court might be informed of his mental condition. Before the passing of the Mental Deficiency Act this was the only action possible that could be taken in such a case.
  Sir K. WOODasked the Home Secretary how many institutions have been established under Section 35 of the Mental Deficiency Act for defectives of dangerous and violent propensities, and the number that are available to-day for such cases?
  Mr. SHORTT: Three such institutions have been provided by the Board of Control. The first, at Farmfield, is intended for females only, and is fully available. The second, at Warwick, is available for females only, but males will also be received there as soon as staff and houses can be provided. The third, at Moss Side, is at present in the occupation of the War Office, but the Board of Control hope that it will be available in a few months for the reception both of male and female patients.
  Sir K. WOOD: Is it therefore the fact that at the present time there is no home available for men of this dangerous character?
  Mr. SHORTT: That appears to be so.

  ENEMY ALIENS.
  Mr. RAMSDENasked the Home Secretary if he will inform the House how many formerly-interned Germans have been repatriated, how many liberated in this country, and how many remain in internment; and whether any enemy aliens have been admitted to this country since the Armistice?
  Mr. SHORTT: Last week's figures showed that since the Armistice about 10,000 Germans had been repatriated from the internment camps, and 10,517 Germans were left in the camps. During the same period 40 Germans had been liberated in this country, of whom 38 were released towards the end of last year at the instance of the Advisory Committee, on whose advice they had been provisionally interned pending the detailed examination of their cases. The other two were released this year on medical grounds.
  The rule has been throughout the War, and still is, to refuse admission to this country to alien enemies. Exceptions have been made in the case of British-born widows of alien enemies who desire to return here and resume their British nationality, and in the case of two or three persons technically of enemy nationality but of friendly race or sympathies, who at the request of the Foreign Office were authorised to pay short visits to this country.
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Home Secretary the number of camps which now exist with interned alien enemies; if
  1088
  he will also state the present number of alien enemies that are interned in these camps, with their nationalities; and if he will state what action the Government propose in order that these camps may be closed at an early date and the country saved further expense in the matter?
  Mr. SHORTT: There are still six internment camps for enemy civilians, one of which is now being closed. On 8th March the number of alien enemies interned was 12,685, divided as follows:

  Germans

  10,517

  Austrians

  2,081

  Turks

  72

  Bulgarians

  15

  The interned men are being repatriated as quickly as shipping can be made available, and camps will be closed as soon as they can be vacated.

  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  Mr. W. R. SMITHasked the Home Secretary how many conscientious objectors are now serving sentences of hard labour; how many are undergoing ordinary hard labour and how many under the modified form of hard labour; and how many served in the aggregate over twelve months' hard labour?
  Mr. SHORTT: Nine hundred and forty-seven conscientious objectors are now serving sentences of imprisonment with hard labour, and of these 663 are receiving the special privileges under Rule 243 A. Seven hundred and thirty-two have served in the aggregate more than twelve months' imprisonment with hard labour, including time served under the present and any previous sentence either in a detention barrack or a civil or military prison. I may explain that the term "hard labor's a survival from old times. There is only a slight difference between simple imprisonment and imprisonment with hard labour, and then only during the first twenty-eight days of the sentence.
  Colonel THORNE: Has the Department of the right hon. Gentleman been considering the advisability of giving complete freedom to those men when peace is signed?
  HON. MEMBERS: Why?
  Colonel THORNE: Because they are no good in prison.
  An HON. MEMBER: They are no good outside either!
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not a fact that if they undertake work of national importance that they can get their release?
  Mr. SHORTT: That point is certainly being considered.
  Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAMasked the Home Secretary whether Ernest Faulkner, a conscientious objector, who was only nineteen when arrested, and has been in prison ever since May, 1916, is now very ill in Leeds Prison, and has lost four pounds in weight during the last month; and whether he will make inquiries with a view to this man's release on health grounds?
  Mr. SHORTT: This prisoner has suffered occasionally from indigestion, but says he is better now than for some time past. He gives no indication of disease, and has gained three pounds in weight since the end of January.
  Mr. GRAHAM: May I draw attention to the fact that the man has been in prison since May, 1916; is it intended to keep him there till he dies?
  Mr. D. GRAHAMasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Alexander Bain, a conscientious objector, who was arrested in July, 1916, and is now in Durham Prison, has been suffering terribly from eye trouble for a consider able time; whether he is aware that unless this man is given skilled treatment and suitable conditions his eyesight will be permanently ruined; and will he call for a special report?
  Mr. SHORTT: This man has frequently complained of his eyesight; he has some astigmatism and has been examined by an optician in Durham and a specialist at the Durham and Sunderland Eye Infirmary who have prescribed for him, as well as by the prison medical staff. There is no reason to think his sight is worse than it was before he went to prison or that it will be injured by imprisonment, but arrangements are being made to have him examined at the eye infirmary.

  TAXI-CABS (SHORTAGE).
  Sir PARK GOFFasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the shortage
  1090
  of taxi-cabs, he can see his way to grant licences to any open or other motor vehicles which reasonably comply with the public requirements for conveyances?
  Mr. SHORTT: The present shortage of vehicles is due to scarcity of material and labour. As material becomes available, more and more cabs will be overhauled and put in service. The question of licensing of other types, if approximately suitable, is under consideration.
  Sir P. GOFF: May I respectfully ask my right hon. Friend if he is aware that several French firms are ready and willing to supply vehicles at once, as soon as the Government prohibition is lifted, and the duty taken off?
  Mr. SHORTT: The question is whether they are fit for the traffic of the London streets.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Can my right hon. and learned Friend see his way to grant them at any rate a temporary licence, to get over the period of the present shortage?
  Mr. SHORTT: That point will be considered.
  Mr. TERRELL: Will it be done?
  Mr. SHORTT: That I cannot say.
  Sir P. GOFFasked the Home Secretary whether a driver of a taxi-cab has any right before accepting a hiring to question the fare as to the destination or duration of the hiring; whether the driver can discriminate in favour of the easier or better paid offer; and, if so, what remedy, if any, the public have?
  Mr. SHORTT: As I explained to the hon. Member in the answer which I gave to his question on the 4th March, the driver of a taxi-cab cannot be compelled to drive for more than six miles, and he is, therefore, entitled to inquire the destination before accepting a hiring. If the hiring is to be within the six-mile limit the, driver must accept the first person who offers to hire him, and should he refuse he can be proceeded against by summons. The only exception to this rule is where a cab is standing on railway premises, and in that case I am advised that the driver cannot be compelled to accept a hiring.
  Sir P. GOFF: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if shortage of petrol at the present time is any excuse?
  Mr. SHORTT: Of course, if the taxi-cab will not go the distance it would seem useless to take it!
  Sir C. KINLOCH COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of changing the law with regard to taxi-cabs in railway stations?

  MR. JOSEPH JONAS.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Home Secretary whether he is prepared to recommend the denaturalisation of Mr. (late Sir) Joseph Jonas?
  Mr. SHORTT: The case of Mr. Jonas has been submitted to the Certificates of Naturalisation (Revocation) Committee constituted under the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1918. The Committee have reported that they are not satisfied that Mr. Jonas has shown himself by act or speech to be disaffected or disloyal to His Majesty. His certificate of naturalisation cannot, therefore, be revoked.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I will ask a further question through another channel.

  AGRICULTURE (SCOTLAND).
  Lieutenant-Colonel MURRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland (1) whether it is proposed to establish a Council of Agriculture in Scotland to cooperate with the Board of Agriculture; if so, whether the council is to be a statutory or a voluntary body; whether he can state the system under which the members of the council will be nominated; (2) whether, in the event of the establishment of a Council of Agriculture in Scotland, he will take steps to ensure that the small-holders of Scotland are adequately represented on the council?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I have been in consultation with the Scottish Board of Agriculture and with the various agricultural societies with a view to the establishment of a Council of Agriculture for Scotland. I hope to be in a position shortly to make a general statement on the subject. In constituting the council I shall keep in view the interests of small-holders as well as those of other agricultural occupiers.
  Lieutenant-Colonel MURRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us a guarantee that the small-holders will be represented on this council?
  Mr. MUNRO: Their interests will be borne in mind, but I am not prepared to commit myself to-day to the constitution of the council.
  Mr. CLYNES: May I ask whether in the term "agricultural organisation" the agricultural workers of Scotland are included?
  Mr. MUNRO: Oh. yes, Sir; a meeting which I have held included representatives of the workers' union.
  Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL: In view of the proposed reorganisation of the Board of Agriculture in this country, will the whole matter be reviewed before the right hon. Gentleman sets up a Council for Scotland?
  Mr. MUNRO: I shall make it my duty to confer with the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.

  AGRICULTURAL LAND.
  Sir SAMUEL SCOTTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture the number of acres of agricultural land or grass owned by the Government in Great Britain and Ireland, and in occupation of tenants; and what is the average rent charged per acre?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): The total acreage of agricultural land in Great Britain and Ireland under the management of the Commissioners of Woods and in occupation of tenants is 130,795 acres. This includes between 30,000 and 40,000 acres of moorland in Scotland let for sheep grazing at 3s. per acre, and several thousand acres of down land in Sussex and Wiltshire let for very little more. The average rent of ordinary farm land is about 25s. per acre. The agricultural land, other than Crown land, owned by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, is 136 acres let at 31s. 7d. per acre, and 63 acres let at 41s. 3d. per acre.
  The total area of land owned by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland and in the occupation of tenants is 63,405 acres, of which 5,637 acres are arable land, 4,151

  1093
  acres grazing in individual occupation, and 53,617 acres common grazings. The average rent of the whole area is 1s. 3½d. per acre, but this cannot be taken as an indication of the value of the arable and grass land since a very large proportion of the area consists of mountain and heath.
  For particulars as to land in Ireland acquired by the Estates Commissioners under the Land Purchase Acts, or owned by other Departments, I would refer my hon. Friend to the Irish Office, as the information I have so far been able to obtain is not complete.
  Sir S. SCOTT: Will any of this land be settled on returned soldiers?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, undoubtedly; that which is suitable.
  Sir M. DOCKRELL: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is a large amount of land in the Congested District Board's possession in Ireland, and will any of that be given to returned soldiers?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Ireland does not come under this Department.

  ALLOTMENT-HOLDERS (LONDON PARKS).
  Lieutenant-Colonel RAYMOND GREENEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the London County Council has passed a resolution which, if put into operation, will evict the holders of allotments in London County Council parks and open spaces in January, 1920; whether, under the Cultivation of Lands Orders, 1916, the holders of allotments on other lands are entitled to retain their allotments for a period of at least two years after peace is declared; and whether, in view of the desire amongst allotment-holders to continue to cultivate their allotments and of the prices still charged for vegetables, he can take any steps to ensure that the two years' grace should be granted to all allotment-holders in the county of London?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am aware of the resolution referred to, but the allotments in the parks and open spaces stand on a different footing from, the land of which possession has been taken under the Cultivation of Lands Order by the Board or
  1094
  the local authorities acting as their agents. The parks and open spaces were already in the possession of the council, and the provision of allotments in them has been undertaken by the council on their own behalf and at their own expense. The Board think that, in view of the improved food situation and the need of land for recreation and games, the council are justified, in the interest of the public health, in their decision that the allotment-holders in the parks and open spaces cannot retain their plots after the end of this year.
  Lieutenant-Colonel GREENE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the London County Council has received a large number of communications from different societies and individuals protesting against the parks and open spaces being used for allotment purposes, because they are depriving the children of London of the necessary recreation, and will he see that steps are taken to restore the land for the children as soon as possible?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, that is what we are doing. We have supported the London County Council in their decision that allotments cannot be permitted in the-parks and open spaces held for the benefit of the public.
  An HON. MEMBER: Will any compensation be paid?

  LAND SETTLEMENT (EX-SERVICEMEN).
  Captain R. TERRELLasked how many applications for allotments and small holdings have been made in Oxford shire by demobilised soldiers, by partly disabled soldiers, and by civilians; what stops have been taken to give effect to them; and what publicity has been made of the proper steps to be taken by these classes wishing to settle on the land?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Eighty-three applications have been received from soldiers, but they do not distinguish partly disabled soldiers from others; sixty-five applications have been received from civilians. The county council have received an offer of over 200 acres, and have inspected the land, but none has as yet been acquired. A pamphlet entitled "Land Settlement in the Mother Country" has been distributed by the Board, the War Office and the

  1095
  Admiralty to any officer or man who desired information with regard to land settlement.
  Captain TERRELL: How does the hon. Member propose to expedite the procedure to carry out the promises of the Government with regard to this form of land settlement?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I hope shortly to introduce the Land Settlement Facilities Bill which will expedite the procedure.
  Sir F. HALLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that demobilised soldiers desirous of taking small allotments of land are asked whether they have at least £10 an acre for the purpose of providing the necessary stock and implements for the same; and whether there are any public funds available to render financial assistance to individual prospective settlers; and, if not, what steps the Government intend to take to assist these persons to cultivate land?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The answer to my hon. Friend's question was circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the 4th instant.
  Sir F. HALL: May I ask whether in regard to questions put down, and not reached before 3.45, the Government are right in circulating and printing the replies until the hon. Member concerned has had an opportunity of putting the question?
  Mr. SPEAKER: No; the rule is that a member of the Government before handing in the replies to any questions which have not been reached, should ask at the Table whether any instructions have been given to postpone the questions. If instructions have been so given, the answers should not be handed in.
  Sir F. HALL: Are the promises of the Government being fulfilled by saying soldiers shall have land if, for instance, the Government are not finding the necessary capital to enable them to stock and work the land?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have already told the hon. and gallant Member, if he will only wait until the introduction of the Land Settlement Bill he will see that we are taking power to do that very thing, and we have not the power at the present time.
  Sir F. HALL: When will that Bill be introduced?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: We hope very soon.
  Sir M. DOCKRELL: Will that Bill apply to Ireland?

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    HOME-GROWN WHEAT.
    Captain TERRELLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether preference can be given to British farmers, as against imported commitments, to dispose of their corn resulting from last year's harvest?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Board are continually bringing to the notice of the Wheat Commission the importance of using home-grown wheat to the utmost extent which is practicable, and the Commission are desirous of doing so.
    The Board have been informed by the Wheat Commission that flour millers have been instructed to use as much home-grown wheat as possible in the production of flour, and at present they are using about 30 per cent. of home-grown wheat on the average, as compared with about 20 per cent. before the War.

  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  Lieutenant-Colonel MURRAYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he can state the present position in regard to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in England; and whether he can indicate when the embargo on the export of pedigree stock from Scotland to the United States is likely to be removed?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The last outbreak was confirmed on the 24th ultimo. The restrictions on cattle movement imposed on account of that outbreak have been considerably modified, and it is hoped that still greater facilities for movement may be possible within a few days. The embargo referred to is one imposed by the United States, and is not likely to be removed for some months.

  LONDON-MADRID (PROPOSED FLIGHT).
  Mr. LYON (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for War why, if it was considered that the postponement of the

  1097
  announced flight of military aeroplanes from London to Madrid was advisable, in view of possible transport difficulties in connection with the preparations required for any flight of this kind the official reason for the postponement given to the Press was "the disturbed conditions existing in Spain"; and whether the official announcement published in the Press the following day (namely, 7th March), that "as the reports of the disturbed conditions of Spain had been proved to have been greatly exaggerated it is hoped to proceed with the proposed flight in due course," was made after representations by the Spanish Government that the initial statement was incorrect, inasmuch as there were never any disturbances in Spain which would interfere with such a flight.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major-General Seely): The Ministry of Shipping represented to the Air Ministry that considerable delay was probable in the delivery of the special petrol, oil and spares necessary for this flight owing to disturbed conditions in Spain. It was accordingly decided to postpone this important flight pending the receipt of further information. The Spanish Government having informed us that there are no disturbances calculated to prevent the arrival of the necessary materials, arrangements for the flight are now being proceeded with.
  Mr. LYON: I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the Adjournment to-night.

  STANDING COMMITTEES.
  Ordered, That all Standing Committees have leave to print and circulate with the Votes the Minutes of their Proceedings and any amended Clauses of Bills committed to them.—[Mr. Macmaster.]
  STANDING COMMITTEES.

    CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1918–19.—CLASS 6.
    Mr. MACMASTER reported from Standing Committee C that they had agreed to the following Resolution:
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for the Ireland Development Grant (Grant-in-Aid) and for other purposes of development and reconstruction in Ireland."
    Report to lie upon the Table.

    CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
    Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. William Nicholson to act as Chairman of Standing Committee D (in respect of the Naval, Military, and Air Force Service Bill).
    Report to lie upon the Table.

  SELECTION.

    DOCKS AND HARBOURS BILLS.
    Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had nominated the following Four Members to serve on the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons on the Blyth Harbour, Belfast Harbour, Bristol Corporation, Cork Harbour, Dover Harbour, Dublin Port and Docks, Manchester Ship Canal, Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, Newport Harbour Commissioners, Swansea Harbour, Tees Conservancy, Tyne Improvement, and Wear Navigation and Sunder-land Dock Bills: Colonel Bowles, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, Sir William Cowan, and Mr. Wignall.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

    STANDING COMMITTEE D.
    Sir SAMUEl ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added to Standing Committee D the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Naval, Military, and Air Force Service Bill): Mr. Adamson, Mr. Arnold, Lieutenant-Colonel Moore-Brabazon, Colonel Buckley, Mr. Gould, Captain Guest, Mr. T. A. Lewis, Sir Donald Maclean, Mr. Rowlands, Mr. MacCallum Scott, Mr. Alexander Shaw, Mr. Spoor, Brigadier-General Surtees. Mr. Townley, and Mr. Tyson Wilson.
    Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D: Mr. Glanville; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Hogge.

    STANDING COMMITTEE A.
    Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Major Christopher Lowther and Mr. Wilson-Fox; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Simm and Mr. Leonard Lyle.

    CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
    Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That, in pursuance of Section 1, sub-section (3), of the Parliament Act, 1911, they had appointed Mr. Turton from the Chairmen's Panel, with whom Mr. speaker shall consult, if practicable, before giving his certificate to a, Money Bill, in the room of Sir Frederick Banbury.
    Reports to lie upon the Table.

  BILL PRESENTED.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Ireland) Bill,—"to amend further the Law relating to Local Government in Ireland; and for other purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. MACPHERSON; supported by the Attorney-General for Ireland; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 16.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Ordered, "That the Navy Estimates, 1919–20 (Vote on Account) [presented 5th March], and the Air Estimates, 1919–20 (vote on Account) [presented 10th March], be considered in Committee of Supply."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

  INCREASE OF RENT BILL.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Bill considered in Committee.

  INCREASE OF RENT BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Prolongation of Duration of Principal Act)
    The Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as the "principal Act"), and the enactments amending that Act, shall continue in force until the expiration of one year from the termination of the present War, but during the period (hereinafter referred to as "the extended period") between the time when but for this Act the principal Act would have expired and the expiration of the said period of one year the principal Act shall have effect subject to the modifications contained in the two next succeeding Sections.
    Major NEWMAN: I beg to move, to leave out the words "one year" ["until the expiration of one year"], and to insert instead thereof the words "two years."
    This is an Amendment to which I and those who are acting with me attach a good deal of importance. It is to be regretted that the Government have been compelled to bring in this amending Bill in something of a, hurry and that they have not therefore been able to consult all the interests involved. The principal Act dealt only with the houses of the working classes below £35 per year, and the Government are bringing in this Bill because of the pressure brought to bear by the middle classes. I wish by an Order in Council or some other means they could have proclaimed something in the nature of a moratorium, at any rate for a couple of months, to enable them to consult all the interests involved. The interests of the mortgagee, of the landlord, and of the tenant. As a matter of fact, a comparatively few days ago the Report of what is known as the Hunter Committee,
    1134
    one of the various Committees appointed by the Ministry of Reconstruction, was published. It is most unfortunate that the Committee did not take any evidence at all from the owners or tenants of middle-class houses. The Committee say that the evidence that they took was from representatives of organised labour. Therefore, an enormous mass of valuable information which they could have obtained if they had approached the middle classes, the middle-class man and the owner of middle-class houses, does not appear in the Report, and as this Bill has been introduced and is being rushed through, the Committee will see that those who like myself are concerned with the hardships of the middle-class man have not really had time to present our case. We feel that if we had time the Government would see that the limit of one year is far too short.
    Of course, I am not in the Government secrets, and I certainly cannot tell what the Housing Bill is going to be. Is it going to be a Bill for the better housing of the working classes, or for the better housing of the people? If it is merely going to be a Bill for the better housing of the working classes, a Bill to provide standard cottages for standard wage earners, then the conditions of housing so far as the middle classes are concerned will be worse at the end of the year than they are to-day. I do not suppose that there would be many houses built for the working classes, standardised or otherwise, and it is perfectly certain that there will be no houses built for the middle classes. All the available material will be taken over by the Government and will be utilised for the building of working-class houses, presuming, of course, that the Bill is going to be one for the housing of the working classes. The private builder who is prepared to lay out a certain amount of capital and to build houses renting at £55, £65, or £100 per year will not be able to get any material at all and, therefore, will not be able to start work. Consequently, so far as the working classes are concerned, their position a year from now will be worse than it is to-day. They will have no houses to which to go, they will be under notice to quit their present houses, and their position will be almost desperate. Probably the Government will say that they will then be prepared to reconsider the whole position and, perhaps, to introduce fresh legislation. It is perfectly certain that the

    1135
    trouble will be more acute than it is at present. Is it worth while for this Government or the then Government to waste further time bringing in another Bill dealing with this subject? Is it not better to save time and to extend the one year to two years? The recommendation of the Hunter Committee on this subject is valuable. The Committee consisted of men like Mr. Edwin Evans and Mr. Gibbs, who are admitted experts on the question of housing, and it had the advantage of having amongst its members no less than two judges. It was, in fact, a very strong Committee. It took evidence from April last and reported at the end of last year. The Committee recommended that the present Act should be continued with modifications for three years from the termination of the War. In other words, it recommended that the Act should be extended for a period of two and a half years. The Committee, I admit, dealt with working-class houses. It did not bring within its purview at all the middle-class house. If it is necessary, however, that the principal Act should be extended not for one year but for two and a-half years, so far as working-class houses are concerned, how much more necessary is it now that this amending Bill is brought in to protect the middle-class man that it should be extended from one to two years?
    Mr. KENNEDY JONES: I support the Amendment, because until the Government scheme of housing is in operation and private enterprise is released the deficiency in houses will continue, and as long as the shortage of houses continues this emergency legislation, however undesirable it may be, will be necessary. Is there anybody who imagines that the position in regard to houses will be appreciably different in a year's time from what it is to-day?
    4.0 P.M.
    The Government, as my hon. and gallant Friend has pointed out, may, and I have no doubt will, say, "If that be so in a year, we can easily extend the operation of this measure. It can be renewed if the economic condition of the country requires it," and they may also ask us to remember that the landlords are justified in asking that control should not be prolonged a day more than is necessary and that they have rights which ought to be respected as well as the tenants. I agree that the aim should be to return to
    1136
    economic conditions as soon as possible, and this cannot take place until restrictions on rent are finally removed. But there is no possibility of the conditions which have produced this Bill being altered materially for two or three years. In fact, the Hunter Committee, which most carefully considered this matter, thought that the restrictions should last until the shortage had been met and more or less normal conditions had been reached, and this they thought, after an exhaustive examination of all the evidence, could not be achieved in anything under three years from the termination of the War. That view the Government may think too cautious, but it seems to me a little reckless to rush to the other extreme and to say that one year will suffice to see us through all our housing trouble. Any suggestion of that kind is surely against all the knowledge we have, all the proofs we have, of the condition of the building trade all over the country. It is not, in my view, sufficient to say, as the Government may say, "Well, if it is so, in a year's time we can then extend the Bill." It seems to me in the national interests that we should now stabilise the conditions as between landlord and the tenant. Let them know exactly how they stand towards each other until the circumstances which have brought about these abnormal conditions have passed away. We do not want this present disturbance which has produced this Bill renewed in nine or twelve months. We do not want more agitation and new grievances and the time of the House to be wasted in nine or ten months' time with fresh legislation extending the provisions of this Act. Let us do what is desirable and needed at this moment and likely to carry us through to the period when the need for legislation of this character is likely to be unnecessary.
    Mr. A. C. EDWARDS: I rise to a point of Order. If the Motion of one year is taken the voting will be that one year stand part of the Clause. If that is decided will it then be in order to move three years in substitution for one year?
    The CHAIRMAN: The procedure is this: The Question I am putting now to the Committee is whether or not one year shall stand part of the Clause. If the Committee decide that one year shall stand part, that is an end of the question. If the Committee, on the other hand, de-

    1137
    cide that one year shall not stand part, then I put the Question to insert two years; to that an Amendment can be moved to leave out the words, "two years," in order to insert "three years," and then that becomes the substantive Question before the Committee.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I rise because I desire at the earliest possible moment to make an appeal to hon. Members on both sides. There is a good deal of great importance in what has been said by hon. Members on one side and the other, and I am sure the House appreciates the point which is at present under consideration. The question is not how long in the last resort this Act may be required to operate. The question is, what is the period to which it shall be decided now that in any event the Act shall operate? What is being amended now is the last Clause of the principal Act, which provides that the Act shall continue in force during the continuance of the present War and for a period of six months thereafter; and what hon. Members are now considering is what is the period which we are prepared to say is the period for which in any event this principal Act, subject to the Amendments of the Amending Bill, shall continue to operate. The particular Amendment which is proposed is a substitution, as I understand, of a period of two years for the period of one year. It is impossible to-day to say that the period of two years would be the right period. It may well be that it would be too long. If the view of my hon. Friend who spoke last is correct, it might be too short, but whether it is too long or too short it is quite clear that if we adopt a period like two years it might give rise to great inconvenience. Members will observe how the Act would read. It would provide that the principal Act should continue in force during the continuance of the present War and for a period of two years afterwards. Who can say at what period of the year these two years would end? They might end at a most inconvenient date.
    Mr. K. JONES: Does not that apply the same to one year?
    Sir G. HEWART: It does. My hon. Friend has anticipated what I was about to say. I was going to make an appeal and an offer, to the House. There are two suggestions I desire to make. In the first place I do not think that at the present time one should venture to predict
    1138
    the date at which this Act will cease to be necessary. Much may be done in a year. We have had the opportunity of conferring this very day with builders who are concerned in the housing question. Depend upon it, much may be done in a year. But I do not propose to adhere to the expression "one year" which is in this Bill. I am prepared to go a little further. We cannot do two things at once, but let us have a more convenient date. Let us not have a date which might occur in the middle of a quarter, and might occur some months after Parliament has risen. I make this suggestion, and I hope not in vain, to hon. Members whose object is the object of the Government, which is to secure the best practical results with the minimum of inconvenience. The suggestion I would make is this, that if this Amendment were withdrawn we would propose to insert, instead of the period named in the Clause, the fixed date of Michaelmas, 1920, that is, Michaelmas of next year. The House will observe that this is not done without deliberation, and that it has two advantages. In the first place it is a fixed date, as distinguished from an uncertain date. In the second place it gives us the whole of the next Parliamentary Session to consider the matter, and as we are now engaged in discussing not how long this Act shall last, but what is the minimum period for which it, shall in any event last, I seriously suggest that if we put in Michaelmas, 1920, it will meet the difficulty. Upon these representations I would ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment. If that be done I will move the necessary consequential Amendment.
    Major NEWMAN: Speaking for those for whom I act, as far as we are concerned we are willing to agree to what the right hon. Gentleman suggested, and I will withdraw my Amendment in favour of the one he proposes.
    Mr. McLEAN: On what date will Michaelmas fall? [Several Hon. Members: "29th September!"] I would strongly suggest Martinmas being substituted in the case of Scotland.
    An HON. MEMBER: Martinmas is in November, but the flitting term in Scotland is May.
    Captain WEIGALL: Is it intended to be old Michaelmas or new Michaelmas? New Michaelmas means 29th September, and old Michaelmas 11th October.
    Sir G. HEWART: What was in our minds was what is usually called the September Quarter day. If it is a serious difficulty we shall have to define it more clearly.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir G. HEWART: In these circumstances I beg to move, in redemption of my promise—
    Mr. McLEAN: On a point of Order. I wish to ask whether this rules out my Amendment to extend the Bill to five years?
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not know what the Government Amendment is. Presumably the other words to be inserted will be capable of further amendment when they become the substantive Amendment. The hon. Member can then move an Amendment extending it for a longer period.
    Sir A. YEO: On a point of Order. Do we understand that, if the Government Amendment be accepted, our Amendment for three years then automatically slips out?
    The CHAIRMAN: When the Government insertion becomes the substantive Amendment before the Committee it will be capable of amendment.
    Sir G. HEWART: May I say at once that nothing is further from our wish than to exclude discussion, but may I add this observation, that I do very much desire to get through the Committee stage of this Bill to-day, and I am quite sure it would be in accordance with the wish of my hon. Friends that the speeches on this matter shall be short.
    In redemption of my promise, I desire to move to leave out the words
    "until the expiration of one year, for the termination of the present war,"
    and to insert instead thereof the words,
    "Michaelmas, 1920."
    With regard to the question raised as to Scotland, I confess that I am ignorant of the methods of Scotland in this matter; but I am sure that my hon. Friends are aware of the remaining provisions of the Bill, and when we come to the provision of the principal Act, which has reference to Scotland, when we come to the appropriate Clause, we will put in what is thought would be the suitable expression to provide that Scotland and England and Wales are dealt with on the same plan in this matter.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That 'Michaelmas, 1920,' be there inserted."—[Sir G. Hewart.]
    Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out "1920," and to insert instead thereof "1924."
    I do so because I feel very strongly that the extenson of time that has been agreed to by the Attorney-General does not meet the necessities of the case. I believe that very little building will be done between now and Michaelmas, 1920, that the housing difficulty will be almost as bad then as it is now, and that unless we have inserted in this Bill a fairly substantial increase in the time proposed we are not going to get rid of our difficulties. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be prepared to give further consideration to this very important matter. At the moment those who profess to have firsthand knowledge of the number of houses of which we are short in this country assert that we are at least 600,000 or 700,000 short. If that is the problem which faces us, an extension of the life of this Act to Michaelmas, 1920, will not get us out of our difficulties. Now we are discussing and examining this matter we should give it close and careful attention, and I make an appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to further consider it, with a view to agreeing to a more substantial increase in the lifetime of this Act.
    Mr. N. McLEAN: In the speech which was made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in which he agreed to extend the Government proposal from twelve to eighteen months, two years was spoken of as being too long a period over which to prolong the operation of this Act. I know, speaking for certain of the Scottish Members, we are receiving almost every day communications from constituents in Scotland, particularly from those who live in the higher rented houses, who are being faced with a very drastic problem. The problem which is submitted to them by house proprietors and house factors takes the form of an ultimatum that they must cither buy their houses or quit. No matter how many builders the Government may have interviewed within recent days, I am convinced that it will be totally impossible to erect in the time mentioned a sufficiently large number of houses throughout

    1141
    the country to ease the clamant necessity there is for accommodating people. As a matter of fact, the very first houses, I am certain, the Government will require the builders to put their workers upon will be houses which will meet the needs of the working classes, who are at present so inadequately provided for that, in working-class districts and in every large city, they are overcrowded to an extraordinary extent. Consequently, that other section of the community which we on these benches are supposed not to represent or even to speak for—I refer to the middle-class section of the community—will not be provided for at all within the period the Government propose this Act shall operate. We on these benches are surely sufficiently fair-minded to see that an Act which docs not give other sections of the community the same scope, the same facility, and the same treatment as it gives to one section is an Act which is going to create injustice to a particular section, and consequently, in order that that particular section may not be compelled to purchase houses, as they are being asked to do, at very much inflated values, some of them £300, £400, and £500 above pre-war value—in order that that class shall not be practically held by the throat by house landlords, we propose that the Government shall give to the operation of this Bill a much more extended period than the right hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested. We intend, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out by moving this Amendment, to press it to a Division unless the Government are prepared to accept a very much longer period than has been indicated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: Broadly speaking, I sympathise with the grounds on which this Amendment is moved. Personally, I do not think we are going to overtake the housing difficulty in a period of eighteen months or two years sufficiently to remove the need for the protection of this Act. At the same time, I feel considerable difficulty through not knowing quite the framework of the Government's new housing scheme. If the Government, in that scheme, contemplate overwhelming subsidies to municipal and private enterprise for the purpose of dealing with the dearth of houses, then I think something substantial may be done by the end of eighteen months or two years to get over it. If, on the other hand, that is not
    1142
    contemplated, then what I fear is this—that, with the very best intentions possible by extending the period of the Act and restricting the action of the landlords or builders, we may be discouraging this mass of individual enterprise to which we are very largely looking for overtaking the difficulty. It is because of that difficulty that, while sympathising with the grounds upon which this Amendment is proposed; I am going to make a dual appeal. I am going to appeal to the Attorney-General on the one side and to the Leader of the Labour party on the other. If the Attorney General will give a definite undertaking that he will, on behalf of the Government, in the event that by Michaelmas, 1920, the difficulties with regard to housing have not been overcome, introduce an amending Bill prolonging the period of operation of this measure—if, I say, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give an undertaking to that effect, then I hope the Leader of the Labour party will withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: With the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, that by Michaelmas next year the housing difficulty will not have been removed, I am in absolute agreement. I am sure it will not have been removed, but still I am bound to oppose this Amendment, and for this reason. Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that this Bill is going to solve the housing question? It does nothing of the kind; it docs not provide a single extra house in the country, and those people who cannot now get, housing accommodation will not be able to get it under this Bill, whether it comes to an end either in one year or in five years. All that this Bill does is to make a selection. It makes a selection among a certain number of people who are competing for houses. For reasons which I am not in the least disposed to dispute—I dare say there are good reasons for the present emergencies—it says that people who happen to be at the; present moment, through the chance of circumstances, in possession as tenants of houses shall be selected for privileged treatment and shall be given security in their tenure of those houses. That is all that the Bill does.
    The right hon. Gentleman opposite also said that there will be very little building in the next eighteen months. This Bill, so far as it operates at all in that direction, will discourage building. It will not tend to increase building. If the right hon.

    1143
    Gentleman's Amendment were carried, the only effect would be that you would have very much less building for the next five years than you might possibly get otherwise. [Hon. Members: "No!"] We are always paying for the mistakes which we have made in the past with the best of intentions. The present shortage of houses in this country, although it is intensified, no doubt, by war conditions, is very largely due to the financial legislation of 1911. Speaking on the Second Heading of this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Spen Valley Division (Sir T. Whittaker)—who is quite disinterested in this matter—attributed the shortage of houses, not, as I have done, to the financial legislation of that time, but to the language which was used at that time. With all respect to my right hon. friend, I do not think that a great movement like a stoppage in the building trade is so likely to be produced by language, by however eminent a person it may be spoken, as by the actual effect of the legislation itself. There is not very much doubt that it is largely due to that legislation, and that it would have that effect was, of course, predicted at the time. The right hon. Gentleman opposite—I am quite certain with the best of intentions—is just going to do the same thing again. He wants to prolong this measure, the result of which will be that there will be absolutely no encouragement to building in this country. Everybody concerned in the building trade will say, "How can we possibly build houses, with the present Act in force, and with the probability that at the end of two or five years, as the case may be, Parliament will be induced again to prolong it?" Of course you cannot absolutely remove at one time the whole of the housing difficulty. So long as there is any remnant of it remaining, the right hon. Gentleman opposite will come down here and, with his usual persuasive eloquence, persuade the Government and the House of Commons of the day that it is very necessary to give the protection of this Bill to the tenants of that time and to prolong it. So you go from one thing to another. Instead of solving the housing difficulty and encouraging building you pass legislation which has exactly the opposite effect. How can it fail to have that effect?
    After all, this is all one great economic process. It begins with the cost of building materials, and the cost of building the
    1144
    houses. The cost of building materials is immensely high. The whole cost of putting up houses, both from the cost of materials and the standard of wages, is enormously high, yet Parliament is now stepping in, not to attempt to make labour cheaper, not to make materials cheaper, not in any way to control the cost of the production of the houses, but to say, when you have with very costly materials and costly labour produced a house, that the person who has produced it shall not get a reasonable remuneration for his output. That is what it comes to. You are restricting the rent, you are restricting the rate of interest on mortgages, therefore you are making it extremely difficult to finance building operations. You are doing that for the sake of overcoming an emergency, which I admit exists at the present time for a very select, limited, and privileged class of tenants, yet you are proposing this legislation which will have very widespread effects in increasing the very evils you are trying to overcome. While I quite recognise that for the moment we have no choice but to pass a Bill of this sort, I certainly hope that the Government will not accede to the request of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. In view of the far-reaching economic results, which none of us can fully foresee, I hope that they will certainly limit the operation of this Bill to as short a period as possible, recognising, as we all do, that it may be necessary at the end of that, period to prolong it, although I hope it will not be necessary. I hope that the Attorney-General will refuse to accept this Amendment, and that the Committee will be content to accept the Bill in the terms which the Attorney-General has suggested.
    Sir HERBERT NIELD: Although I am not going to support the Amendment to extend the Bill for five years, yet I differ absolutely from the last speaker as to its perpetuating the mischief. In the interval, whatever time is given for the operation of the Bill, it is in that time that building operations might be expected and ought to go on. I cannot see that the mere non-provision of houses is going to make any difference to the provisions of this Bill, which deal with the conditions of letting. A great many persons will want houses at the expiration of five years; probably it will be a much greater number than now. My Constituents warn me that this evil will be just as bad at the expiration of one year as it is at the present moment. Although I understand

    1145
    that the Government are prepared to substitute Michaelmas, 1920, for the period named in the Bill, I submit that a period of three years is necessary for the purpose. This is a matter in which I have taken the greatest personal interest. I helped to mould the first Bill and also the amending Bill, which was framed to meet the artful manæuvres of that class which tried to avoid the first Bill. Anxious as I am to preserve the greatest freedom possible, yet events have justified this measure, and if it is to be of any real use it must certainly be extended to Michaelmas, 1920. I hope the Government will see that to postpone a measure of this sort will create a position of uncertainty and is tantamount to encouraging the trouble which exists now to continue. I hope they will give sufficient time—I do not think their proposal is a sufficient time—and then let it be clearly understood that at the end of that time the restrictions will be removed and that in the meantime they will do everything they can to facilitate the building of houses.
    Mr. REMER: I feel quite convinced that the Amendment proposed from the Labour Benches is entirely against the interests of the working classes. I say that from the point of view that there are a great many working men at the present time who have to travel sixteen, even twenty, and sometimes twenty-five miles to their work. They cannot get houses near their work because there are other tenants in those houses, which are not particularly convenient to them. It is distinctly against the interests of the working classes that the operation of this Bill should be continued one month longer than is necessary. I speak from my own experience of houses in my own possession, which I bought specially for my own workmen to go into, but which they cannot go into because there are other tenants in them who do not want to occupy those houses. These workmen travel sixteen to twenty miles at great expense and inconvenience. Obviously if there are houses available for the working classes by Michaelmas, 1920, we can at that time settle the question, but I am perfectly certain that in their interests alone we should do everything possible not to extend the operation of this Bill longer than is necessary.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: While the Attorney-General has tried to meet the demand,
    1146
    which is very strong in all parts of the committee, with regard to the duration of this Bill, I feel that he has hardly gone far enough to meet the legitimate requirements. He has suggested that the Bill should continue until September, 1920. The Act of 1915 is to exist for six months after the War. The offer the right hon. Gentleman makes is really less than an extension of twelve months beyond the duration of the Act of 1915. While I quite realise that we do not want to push this temporary legislation too far ahead, and while I think that five years is too much, yet a three years' extension would have met the case much more thoroughly. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot extend the period a little longer than he has proposed. I would suggest to him that he might possibly meet the case by offering the Committee, instead of Michaelmas, 1920, Lady Day, 1921. We are now nearly at the end of a quarter. Taking the six months' period, supposing the War ended on the 25th of this month, that would take us up to September. We are thus only asking for fifteen months beyond the duration of the Act of 1915. It is important that we should have a time when people will know exactly where they are under the existing measure. A strong argument can be urged for a slightly extended period, because we should know then what is being clone with regard to the building of houses. However rapidly the building of houses may go on, we cannot expect to see a very large supply in less than twelve months from the present time. One of the cases for this measure is not the houses of the working classes but the houses of a larger character, but we have not had from the Government up to the present any intimation that they are going to facilitate in any way the building of those larger houses. That concerns a mass of tenants whom we wish to meet by this measure. It has been said that they are only a limited number, but I have been astounded by the correspondence I have received from all parts of the country, including Scotland and Wales, which shows that the number of the smaller and larger middle class affected by this measure is very great indeed. I would, therefore, earnestly ask the Attorney-General whether he could not see his way to agree to some slight extension of the offer he has made in order to meet the argument of the Leader of the Labour party.
    Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: I hope the Attorney-General will accept the Amendment proposed by the Leader of the Labour party. If we ask the Attorney-General or any other representative of the Government whether they would build houses within the period named by him, or provide facilities for the building of houses in that period, they would at once say they could not do it. The conditions in certain parts of the country are simply awful, and you cannot build houses, and you will not attempt to build houses to satisfy the needs of the people within twelve months. I do not believe you will make an attempt to start the work of building houses within twelve months, and what we are anxious to secure is not only that the Government shall be induced to assist local authorities in endeavouring to get houses provided for the people, but that they will prevent the owners of the present houses from increasing rents until the houses are provided. It would be in the interest of the well-being of the country as a whole that they should agree to the Amendment of the Labour party.
    I am afraid the hon. Member who suggested that he was speaking more in the interest of the working classes than we do was speaking rather as the owner of a house than as the representative of any working-class section in the community. I represent a mining constituency and you have any number of Blue Books published as to the conditions of housing so far as the mining population is concerned. Private owners have had the opportunity for many years of solving the housing conditions of the mining and working classes generally and they have failed to do it. We have now got the Government to take action in the matter and we want the Government to be prepared to carry its action to its logical conclusion. We want them to build houses, or to provide facilities for the local authorities to build houses, and if they are not willing to do that we want them to prevent house owners from increasing rents. I am going to advise tenants in my Constituency not to pay any increased rent and not to go out of the houses they are occupying. There is no hon. Member representing an industrial constituency in England, Scotland or Ireland who would be prepared to advocate the proposals which are contained in the Government Bill. You did not promise that you would either in-
    1148
    crease rents or talk about putting an early period to the operation of the Rent Restriction Act when you were before the electors in December last. Contentment and satisfaction amongst the working classes is one of the best means of securing good will and good conditions generally in the government of the country, and the overcrowding that exists has a very material effect in creating ill feeling between workmen and employers, between tenants and landlords, and generally throughout the whole community. It does not work to the advantage of the community, and the Government cannot build houses in sufficient numbers to meet the points that they are anxious to secure and that hon. Members want to make the outside public believe that they are also anxious to secure. You cannot deal with the question within two or three years, and I hope the Attorney-General will be prepared to meet us in a somewhat more reasonable way. Otherwise I hope the Labour party will press their Amendment to a Division, and we shall then discover whether the individuals who are representing the industrial constituencies are representing the workers in those constituencies or the owners of houses.
    Sir A. YEO: I want to see the Bill got rid of, and the next Order of the Day taken. [Interruption.] That is a matter of opinion. Whatever you do in this House, you will never please everyone. If we try to bring in a Bill that is likely to please all sections in the House, we are bound to make mistakes. I believe this Bill is necessary. Correspondence is pouring in upon Members from all parts of the country, from as far North as Aberdeen, from the South and West of England, and even Ireland. They cannot manage to keep pace with it. I know the right hon. Gentleman has a difficult task to steer the Bill through the House. I desire to help him as far as I can. I cannot go the length of a five years Bill, but I think if he would concede three years—September, 1922—we should be able to come to a quick decision, and remove a lot of these difficulties out of the way and the Bill would make progress in Committee. It is all very well to say that certain Members only represent certain classes. I think that is the great curse of the House of Commons. We come here merely to represent a class. We are here to represent the people. The people are composed of all classes, and we represent.

    1149
    all interests of the community for the common good. When hon. Members assume to themselves all the rights and virtues of a particular class, I am going to say I represent that class as much as they do and I have as much right to speak for it as they have, and I intend to use my voice for the common good of the community and the nation. Until we recognise that we are here to represent the people as a whole, we shall not make much progress.
    The CHAIRMAN: I suggest to hon. Members that we completed the Second Reading of the Bill last Friday. We have a great number of Amendments in front of us. Let us keep strictly to the point of each Amendment. The question now is the date 1920 or 1924.
    Sir A. YEO: I apologise to you, Sir, and to the Committee, but in these days one cannot help taking up a, challenge when it is thrown down. I do not intend to sit down under anything hon. Members say to me. It might save the time of the House and the country if the right hon. Gentleman will accept the suggestion of September, 1922, as a middle course. It will meet the case as far as the Committee generally is concerned, and I believe we shall be able to come to a decision without a Division.
    Lieutenant-Colonel WHITE: I am fully in favour of the extension of the Rents Restriction Act, but I think the Attorney-General is quite wise in fixing a definite period with the opportunity of renewing it. I think it will have to be renewed and I shall probably support its renewal, but I wish to point out to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adamson) that there is something to be said on the other side. I will quote the case of a house, a shop, and a yard which are all combined. They belong to a widow of very small means. At the time of the Finance Act it was only necessary to mention the word "widow" and the supporters of the Government used to go into roars of laughter. During the War this widow wished to let her property, but she could not let it as a whole; she could not let the shop and she could not let the yard, but rather than have it unlet she let it not so many months ago to a tenant under the limit for the house alone. Since then she has received an offer from a would-be tenant who wants to start a small brush-making establishment which would employ six people, font he will not take the premises unless he is entitled to
    1150
    take the house as well. There is a case of undoubted hardship, and the Government would be well advised to extend the term to Michaelmas, 1920, so that cases like that would be reviewed and hardship mitigated when it comes to renewal of the Act. I hope the Committee will accept the very sensible via media proposed by the Attorney-General.
    Major WOOD: I only intervene to correct what might be an unfortunate discretion which may have been given by some remarks of an hon. Member opposite who suggested that there is a difference of opinion on the main issue before the Committee between that side of the House and this. One thing above all others that has emerged in this discussion is that this Bill affects and is affected by the whole housing policy the State is to adopt. A perfectly sound point was made by the hon. Member opposite, and from another point of view by my hon. Friend (Mr. R. McNeill). The only difference between us who support the Government and hon. Members opposite who want five years is a question of time. There is no difference of opinion. We are all agreed to approach, this question with open minds. If we agree upon the compromise the Government suggest we do so with the full knowledge that when the time comes we may very well be driven to go further. I would therefore appeal to hon. Members opposite not to invent differences of opinion where such do not exist, and to believe us when we say we are prepared to review this question from time to time with open minds. It is because we believe that this whole question trenches so closely upon housing policy that we are not prepared to take the risk of a step that might prejudice that policy, while we shall be prepared to review it if necessity is shown.
    5.0. P.M.
    Sir G. HEWART: I cannot go the whole way with my right hon. Friend opposite. He proposes to insert in this Bill the date 1924. The House is now being invited to prophesy. It is being invited to predict that this amending Act will certainly, at all events, be required for the period for which the extension is to be made. Somebody anticipated me in saying that prophesy is the most gratuitous form of error. I hope my right hon. Friend was wrong in his guess—it is no more than a guess, it does not profess to be founded upon fact—that this Act will be necessary until the year 1924. So far it is impossi-

    1151
    ble for us to go. With a great deal of what has been said I need not say that we are entirely in agreement. There is nothing which we more desire than to promote contentment. There is nothing which we more desire to resist than the view that Members of this House do not represent the whole community, but represent some particular class. We hear of representatives of the working classes. The country consists of all classes of individuals and we represent, everyone of us represents, as far as we can, the whole community. Let us get rid, therefore, of immaterial difficulties. The practical question is, to what date are we now in March, 1919, going to say that this Act must for certain continue? Much has been said upon one date and upon the other, and I may say in reply to my hon. Friend below the Gangway that I gladly give the kind of undertaking which he desires—an undertaking that whatever date is inserted in this Bill the Government will, if circumstances require it, consider a further extension of the Act after it is passed. That we will certainly do.
    I am impressed by two classes of observation, the observation of the hon. Member for the Dartford Division (Mr. Rowlands) and the observations of two of my hon. Friends from Scotland, and I would venture to make a further suggestion, beyond which I fear I cannot go. I hope I am not going too far. It was said on the one hand that there was a difficulty in reconciling the date of Michaelmas with the date which is usual in Scotland, the usual date there being some time in May. It was said further that the extension of the date in the Bill to Michaelmas, 1920, was really no extension at all, inasmuch as it is not to be supposed that the formalities on the ratification of peace will take place much before Michaelmas, 1919. It seems to me that there is force in both of these observations, and I am prepared to make a suggestion which I think will have the advantage of meeting my hon. Friend's point, and of making it more easy to reconcile the Scottish difficulty with the difficulty in England and Wales. It would also have the advantage of carrying tenants over the winter. I propose if the Amendment now before the House is withdrawn to substitute for the fixed date of Michaelmas, 1920, Lady Day, 1921. I hope the Committee will agree to take it in
    1152
    that form. I am sure the Committee will observe that this is not the final decision, but that we decide now the date until which this Act shall in any event run. If circumstances require it, the matter can hereafter be considered. In the circumstances I would invite my right hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment, and if that is done, I will, by leave of the House, take the proper steps to substitute the date of Lady Day, 1921.
    Mr. ADAMSON: Again the Attorney-General is running counter to the Scottish position. I understand that 28th May is our date in Scotland.
    Sir G. HEWART: I am not suggesting that Lady Day, 1921, will exactly meet the Scottish difficulty, but what I do say is that that date will come much nearer to the Scottish date, which is some date in May.
    Mr. ADAMSON: The extension that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to agree to carries us to within two months of the spring term in Scotland. If there is going to be any likelihood of agreement, I would suggest to him that he should extend the date for two months further than he is already prepared to do. By doing that he will not only meet the position in England, but he will at the same time meet the position in Scotland.
    Sir G. HEWART: The right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. I am not withdrawing the remark I made some time ago that we would endeavour to introduce words into the Bill to meet the special case of Scotland. That still remains. The effect of this suggestion, if it were adopted, would be to make the normal date Lady Day, 1921, with a subsequent Amendment in relation to Scotland, bringing it up to some date, I understand, in May.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman cannot go further than he has done. There will be very few houses built during the next twelve months, and I should like him to extend the term further. I should be prepared to agree to the withdrawal of the Amendment if he will make the date May, 1921. In some of the northern counties of England, where the tenants hold their houses on yearly tenancy, they want it to expire on the 12th May, as they move from one house to another then. There would be nothing lost in conceding that point. If we have contentment among these small

    1153
    houses, that will be some compensation to the Government and to the landlords as well as to the tenants. If the right hon. Gentleman could meet this point by extending the time for a couple of months, we could get on with the Committee.
    Mr. ADAMSON: May I again appeal to the Attorney-General? Evidently it is not only the position of Scotland which is affected so far as May is concerned, but in the northern parts of England they are affected. There the yearly term seems to be the 12th of May; with us it is the 28th May. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he has come very near to the point where we could accept and withdraw our Amendment. I am certain, by the spirit in which he has met us up to this point, the Attorney-General is anxious to have some point of common agreement, and I suggest that he should meet the point now raised, and I will withdraw the Amendment.
    Sir G. HEWART: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in saying that I am most anxious to come to a common agreement in this matter. He says the difference between us is very slight. If it is very slight, and I believe it is, what is the purpose in pressing that slight difference after the concessions that have been made? Let us see how the matter stands. We are prepared, so far as the Bill in its general terms is concerned, to substitute the term Lady Day, 1921. That, we believe, meets practically all the cases except Scotland. With regard to Scotland, it may be that the right date is the 15th May or the 28th May. Whatever be the right date, I will undertake that we will provide in the Bill before it goes to another place that that position shall be met. Are we really going to say in our united desire for common agreement that my proposal cannot be accepted because the difference in regard to persons outside Scotland is between Lady Day and the 12th of May?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I was hopeful that the right hon. Gentleman would give the further extension suggested by my hon. Friend (Mr. Tyson Wilson) in the interests of that section of people in England who are affected. However, if he gives the undertaking that he will consider the point I have raised before this Bill goes to another place, I will withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, to leave out the words "the expiration of one year from the termination of the present War," and to insert instead thereof the words "Lady Day, 1921."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. ARNOLD: I beg to move, to leave out the words,
    "but during the period (hereinafter referred to as 'the extended period') between the time when but for this Act the principal Act would have expired and the expiration of the said period of one year the principal Act shall have effect subject to the modifications contained in the two next succeeding Sections"
    The effect of this Amendment is to prevent the increase of rents. This Amendment ought in view of what happened at the General Election, to be accepted by the Government. During the election one of the Prime Minister's numerous messages to catch votes was circulated, particularly in Glasgow. This was called "Lloyd George's Message to the Official Coalition Candidates." Paragraph I was as follows:
    "Rent Restrictions Act.—The subject is being dealt with by a Committee which has not yet reported, but it is certain—and the word 'certain' was in big block type—that the Government will not allow the Act to lapse."
    What was the impression which that statement made on the mind of the ordinary voter, the plain man who does not understand or go in for verbal refinement? It was that the Rent Restriction Act would be continued and that the standard rents would not be increased. Clause 2 allows standard rents to be increased by 10 per cent., and this Amendment really seeks to ensure that the Prime Minister's promise made during the election shall be carried out. In effect, I submit that the principal Act is being allowed to lapse because it is being modified, and that under this new Bill the poorer classes are placed in a considerably worse condition. The principal Act was passed at a time of rising wages and full employment, and when food prices were very much lower than at the present time. It was held at that time, and in my opinion rightly held, that standard rents should not be increased. Unless the Government accept this Amendment standard rents will be increased.
    Then the general conditions are much harder for the poorer classes now than they were when the principal Act was passed. At the present time there is not full employment. There is a great deal of unemployment, so much so that un-

    1155
    employment—and I think quite rightly—is subsidised by the Government. There is a great deal of short time in the country, particularly in Lancashire. Food prices generally are now very much higher than when the principal Act was passed. Many of the poorer classes already are having a hard struggle to make both ends meet. No one who knows the conditions under which they live will deny that labour will have an additional burden if this Bill is passed with Clause 2 in it. The simple truth is that because of the high food prices many of the poorer classes are now below the level of subsistence, particularly old age pensioners, and also I am sorry to say widows and orphans of soldiers who have lost their lives in the War. The 10 per cent. increase of rent will hit all these people very hard indeed. It will diminish the small and quite inadequate sum which they have for buying food and the necessaries of life. All this is going far from what ought to be the post-war policy of the Government—that is the building up of the strength and physique of the people which have been so much impaired owing to the strain and restrictions of the last four years. It is most important that nothing should be done to reduce the small pickings which the poorer classes have for buying nutritious food. Particularly is that true in view of the health conditions of the country, with these repeated epidemics of influenza. But this 10 per cent. increase in Clause 2 of the Bill takes away money from those who already in many cases have not got sufficient. I hope very much therefore that this Amendment will be accepted by the Government, and I press it on the Government as strongly as I can.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: From what we have just heard the hon. Member (Mr. Arnold) seems to think that there is no second side to this question. I am an enthusiastic supporter of this Bill. I was a supporter of this policy in the past, and am delighted to see the Government extending the principle by this new measure. But what we are out against, as I understand, is profiteering at the expense of those who dwell in small houses in this country. Every member of this Committee is anxious to see everything done to prevent such profiteering, but we should defeat our own ends if we imagined for one moment that the same conditions do not apply to owners of property as have been explained so emphatically by the hon.
    1156
    Gentleman who has just sat down. House property is owned in a very large number of cases by people of very moderate means. In many cases it is their sole livelihood, and you cannot logically or fairly say that those people are not suffering from increased taxation and increased cost of living, and all these other things. Therefore I do hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his point. What we want to get at is the property profiteer, but let us not mar our action by preventing just and fair treatment to those owners who come under the new proposals in this Bill, so that we may extend this principle, and while widening the Bill have all classes in the community treated fairly.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I hope the hon. Member who moved the Amendment will respond to the invitation which, has just been given, and will, on further consideration, withdraw the Amendment. It is one which the Government feel it impossible to accept. This is a Bill which seeks to do justice not only to the tenant, with whose grievance every member of the Committee sympathises, but also to owners of property and mortgagees on the other side. Is it seriously contended while the cost of living has been raised, while taxes and food prices have gone up and the cost of repairs has been doubled, that rents are to be stereotyped, and that owners of property who, as the hon. Member has observed, are also persons of very humble means, should be placed in an artificial position of embarrassment by reason of legislation by the House of Commons? I cannot believe that such a solution as that will commend itself to our sense of justice. The increase of rent which is proposed in the Bill is a very moderate one, and only takes place during the extended period, and I have had representations from many quarters that it is insufficient to meet the necessary charges which fall on the owner. Nobody seeks to minimise the grievances of tenants who have been in correspondence with hon. Members, but I have also had letters from the other side, and if time allowed I could give hon. Members opposite many cases of very great hardship which occur in the case of small owners who find their source of income seriously abridged by the operation of this Act. I trust therefore, in view of these considerations, that the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.
    Mr. RENDALL: I have not been in for the first portion of the speech of my hon.

    1157
    Friend (Mr. Arnold), but this Amendment was put down by myself and my object was that we should get rid of the extended period altogether. The right hon. Gentleman's speech, while no doubt an excellent argument in reply to a large part of the speech which I have not heard, was no answer to the case which I desired to put forward. My Amendment is one trying to help the landlord. What I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman is this. There is really no more reason for allowing this 10 per cent. increase to be granted to the landlord when the extended period begins than there is for granting it now. The reason for granting it now exists. In many cases the rent is below the real need for spending money on the property. The cost of repairs has gone up from one-sixth to one-third of the rent. Therefore it is not just to the landlord to leave him at the old rent, while subject to the expense of keeping the property repaired. That is why I want to get rid of the extended period and want all those new terms to apply now forthwith. The right hon. Gentleman having refused the Amendment on the interpretation of my hon. Friend, I want to ask him to make another speech now accepting it on the interpretation which I have given.
    Mr. T. DONALD: Rising to speak for the first time in this House, I ask for the usual courtesy. Some of the hon. Gentlemen who spoke on Friday described this Bill as an emergency Bill based on sound economics, but I agree with the hon. Member who has described it as a landlords' Bill. The right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) the Member for the City of London stated that the working classes have got great increases in their wages and yet objected to pay higher rents. I have some experience of what the working classes are earning. I am a working man myself, and I say to this Committee that previous to the War I was in a much better position than I am in to-day. I could have saved a little money then, but I have saved nothing during the War. I know the high cost of living, and I know what it is for a working man like myself, with a family, to keep that family up in boots, clothing, etc. But these boots and clothing are not even of the quality that they were previous to the War. They are of an inferior quality.
    Then with regard to Clause 2, Subsection (a), that the standard rent of the house is substantially less than the standard rent of similar houses in the same
    1158
    locality, that means really that in the city to which I belong, the city of Belfast, there is scarcely a street in which, when a tenant went out during the War from any house, the new tenant had not to pay an increase of from 10 to 15 per cent. This Clause will be interpreted in this way, that immediately this Bill is passed all the other houses in those streets will be levelled up to the new rents. It occurred in my own case. I went into a house last May, and my rent was increased by exactly 10 per cent. Under this Bill am I going to suffer another increase of 10 per cent.? Certainly not. I may say that in the city of Belfast about 80 per cent. of the houses which are occupied by the working classes will come under this Bill, and this increase will mean £2 per year in the yearly rent of those houses. I am fully aware that something must be done to meet the case. We were told by the right hon. Gentleman on Friday that, faulty as the Bill might be in normal circumstances, it might be commended to the House as embodying as large a share of social justice as we are likely in this connection to be able to secure, and he also said that the tenant was protected against eviction and profiteering rents. I am not quite so sure about that. The people of Belfast do not object to pay higher rents provided that they have decent houses to live in, but that is not the case Are you aware that in 50 per cent. of the houses in Belfast the working classes have no bathrooms, and are you going to increase the rent of those houses by 10 per cent.? I think a reduction would be a more likely thing. Even if this Bill had suggested an increase of 5 per cent. it would not be so bad, because that would have meant an average increase on the working classes of £1on the yearly rent. My experience, and I have watched the building of houses for the past twenty-five years in Belfast, is that those houses are put up one against the other by jerry-builders to keep them from falling down. Are you going to increase the rent of houses like that by 10 per cent.? We have been told that the increase will enable the landlords to repair the houses. My experience is that during the War we had no repairs done, and we were compelled to keep the houses in repair ourselves. I may state in this matter the landlords are not so bad, but when you go to the agent, say, to get a house papered, he will tell you that they are prepared to meet you, but will give you pre-war rates, so that in the

    1159
    end it appears that you might as well do the job yourself. In Belfast and the vicinity there is a great outcry about the scarcity of houses. In the vicinity of watering places there are a great many people who occupy houses in a watering place and also in the city of Belfast, and I think something should be done whereby those people could not keep the two houses. They occupy the house at the watering place for two or three months in the summer time, and then they let it for a few months, so that they are profiteering. I think there should be some provision to make them give up one of the houses, since there is such a scarcity.
    Mr. FISHER: I am sure that the House will wish to join with me in congratulating the hon. Member for the Victoria Division of Belfast (Mr. Donald) upon his successful maiden speech. The House is always very glad to hear the speech of a new Member who expresses, as the hon. Member has done, first-hand experience which is germane to the subject under discussion. An hon. Member complained that the Bill precludes the landlord from raising the rent to the extent of 10 per cent. until after the conclusion of the period specified by the expiry of the original Act. The reason why the Government came to the conclusion that the rent could only be raised during the extended period was that any other course would be in opposition to the expectations which had been built upon the Act of 1915, and would be to some extent a breach of faith, because the Act of 1915 solemnly stated that the rents of the protected dwellings could not be raised during the time specified, and we could not now ask the House to come to the conclusion that rents should be raised during that time.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Limited Power of Increasing Rents During the Extended Period.)
    (1) An increase in the rent of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies payable in respect of the extended period of any part thereof which, by virtue of the principal Act, would be irrecoverable shall be recoverable if the amount of the increase does not exceed ten per cent. of the standard rent:
    Provided that no such increase shall be due and recoverable until the expiry of four clear weeks after the landlord has served upon the tenant a notice in writing of his intention to increase the rent.
    1160
    (2) The increase of rent permitted by this Section shall be in addition to any increase permitted by Section one of the principal Act.
    Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "by virtue of the principal Act would be irrecoverable," and to insert instead thereof the words "would but for the principal Act be recoverable."
    Sir F. BANBURY: I think we should have some explanation of this Amendment, as the words seem to be the same.
    Sir G. HEWART: This is really a drafting Amendment, and there is a difference only in terms, but not in substance.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "if" ["recoverable if"], to insert the words "or so far as."
    Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: There is an Amendment which has been handed in by an hon. Friend of mine, and which comes in after the word "dwelling-house."
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN(Sir E. Cornwall): I am afraid it is now too late.
    Mr. EDWARDS: My hon. Friend followed the ordinary procedure, and the Amendment was handed in while the Chairman of Ways and Means was occupying the Chair. I do not know how the matter can be dealt with now. Perhaps under the amended procedure with regard to the Report stage it would be permissible to move it at that time?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That would be a question to be decided at that stage. The hon. Member should have been in his place to move his Amendment and call my attention to it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Colonel W. THORNE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "ten," and to insert instead thereof the word "five."
    I think that the speeches delivered on a previous Amendment would apply with regard to this. I think that with 5 per cent. the landlords would have got as much as they were entitled to, because according to the principal Act, they are allowed to put on the extra rates, with the result that in many districts the rent have already been advanced to a very considerable extent. In West Ham in the Division I represent, in consequence of

    1161
    the rates being advanced by 2s. 9d. in the pound, the landlords have been enabled to put those extra rates upon the rent, which has been the means of advancing the rent by 9d. per week. If you take the adjacent borough of East Ham the same thing applies, that in consequence of the rates jumping up the landlords have been in a position to advance the rents something like 11½d. a week. Therefore, to agree to give the landlords this power which the Bill proposes, to advance the rent another 10 per cent., seems to me to inflict many hardships upon the wage-earners of this country. It means, in a word, that when this power is given to the landlords a person paying a rent of 10s. a week will have to pay another 1s. a week, and in my humble judgment that is a good deal more than the landlords are entitled to. I do not think the small property owners have very much to complain about, and I should say that in hundreds of cases the landlords are getting at least 10 per cent. on their turnover. If you take into consideration the amount of money they give for a house and the rent they receive at the present time, there is no doubt that in many cases they receive at least 10 per cent. on the capital they have invested. I am firmly convinced that if you were to canvass the majority of the people in every division throughout the length and breadth of the country you would find them up against you in proposing to give the landlords the power which this Bill gives them.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: The difficulty that one has in dealing with an Amendment of this sort is that there is really no sort of principle to guide one. There is no reason why there should be any particular limit as to time in this Bill or as to the amount of rent which may or may not be put on, and I do not know whether to support the Amendment or not. It is all a question of what is reasonable under the circumstances, and I doubt very much whether anybody in this House has a sufficiently general knowledge of the conditions of the property all over the country to say that 10 per cent. or 5 per cent. is the more reasonable figure. I think we are in a real and genuine difficulty. I have not the slightest desire to support any proposal which enables profiteering to go on by landlords or any other class at the expense of the sort of people who are concerned in these houses, but I do not know whether profiteering of that sort is involved or not. So far as my knowledge of
    1162
    this kind of property goes, which I grant is not very extensive, the people who own it are, I should say, on the whole less wealthy than their tenants. There are high wages being earned at the present time, and a great number of these tenants are really in receipt of a larger income than the owner of the houses. I know a number of cases where that is so. How far that is at all general I am not in a position to say, but I know enough to know that we are not dealing here with a large and wealthy class of people. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker) told us on the Second Heading of the Bill that in general the owners of this kind of property were people of very small means, and if that is so I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Colonel Thorne) is in a position to say that a possible increase of 10 per cent. is more than would enable that class of property owners to do their duty by the property in the way of repairs. I am convinced that, so far as building by private enterprise is concerned, there will be no building as long as this Bill is in operation. You may expect building to begin as soon as this Act expires and no sooner. But meanwhile, of course, there may be some repairing done. Will an increase of 10 per cent., having regard to the increased cost of labour and materials, be more than will enable the owners to keep these houses in repair? I do not know, but so far as I am concerned I think it is only right that the houses should be kept in proper repair, and if my hon. and gallant Friend opposite were inclined to allow the 10 per cent. to remain as a possible increase of rent, I should be tempted to support him in the next Amendment, in which he proposes that that increase shall only be allowed when some competent authority is satisfied that the house is kept in proper repair.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: I am in some difficulty in regard to this matter, because I have put a manuscript Amendment on the Paper in which I really expected the support of the President of the Board of Education after the speech to which he has treated the House this afternoon. I am glad to see that he has returned to the House, and I hope that on this Amendment he will give the House some of that correspondence which he refrained from giving when speaking on the last Amendment. My Amendment, unlike that

    1163
    of the hon. and gallant Member opposite, was that the figure of 10 per cent. should be erased and the figure 20 inserted in its place. So far, the whole of the Amendments that have been moved have been moved in the interests, or as I think in the supposed and mistaken interests, of the tenants of small houses, and I think far too little has been said of the poor owners of small house property. My contention is that as a matter of fact the interests of owners and tenants on this question, so far from being, as most people have been representing, antagonistic, are very much more often identical. I strongly oppose the Amendment before the Committee, and I hope the Govern will at least adhere to the figure they put in the Bill if they are not prepared to increase it. It is notorious that no class in the whole community has suffered greater financial disadvantage during the last four and a half years than the good landlords of small house property, landlords, that is to say, who have tried under very difficult circumstances to keep their property in good repair. On this question I speak from very long and close practical experience as trustee of an estate which contains a large amount of property of this kind. I know that on that estate and on many others with which I am acquainted every effort has been made to keep abreast of necessary repairs during the last four and a half years, but it is of course the case that repairs not immediately necessary have been postponed. These houses are for the most part occupied by very well paid wage-earners, who have done far better than the small owners of these properties during the last few years, and they have not only done well in wages but they have done exceedingly well by the sub-letting of the rooms in the houses for which the rents were fixed. There is no Member of this House who is not aware that in a very large number of cases—I think this is particularly true of some of the towns in or just outside the Metropolitan area—single rooms have been let at rents far in excess of the total rent received by the landlord. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite wants the 10 per cent. increase reduced to5. But I say that the original offer of a 10 per cent. increase is inadequate for the purpose. I do not deny the difficulties in which the Government find themselves, and I do not deny the existence of bad
    1164
    landlords any more than of bad people in any other class. But I do say that the profiteering landlords are, in relation to the whole, relatively very few indeed. I say that this small class have had less chance of gratifying their profiteering greed than any other greedy class in the community during the last four or five years, and finally I say that by general admission the Rent Restriction Act has very unjustly penalised the class of small owners of small property which has on the whole deserved extremely well of the community. That class is mostly very thrifty. Up to ten years ago small house property was a very favourite investment with the working classes and with the lower middle-class investor, but in the last nine or ten years it has been just as unpopular as it was previously popular. In many districts the houses have been quite unsaleable, and the unpopularity of this class of property is the real source of the difficulty in which we find ourselves involved to-day; and it ought to be part of the Government's policy to try and restore confidence. I do not like the Bill in its original form, but I like it much less in the form in which the Amendment proposes to put it.
    6.0 P.M.
    Sir G. HEWART: I hope this Amendment will not be persisted in. My hon. and gallant Friend seeks to substitute for10 per cent. as the maximum of increase 5 per cent. The only reason that he adduced for the change was that under the existing Act where there is an increase of rates payable by the landlord that is not to be treated as extra rent payable by the tenant. But that is already provided by the existing Act, and if this Bill were to effect no more than that it would not be making any additional provision for the landlord at all. The question is, is there an additional provision to be made, and, if so, to what extent? I listened with care to my hon. and gallant Friend to see what reasons he would adduce in favour of 5 per cent., but there was none. So far as his argument went, it would have been just as much open to him to say 2½ per cent. if the Bill had proposed 5 per cent., as to say 5 per cent. when the Bill proposes 10 per cent. The figure 10 per cent. was not arrived at at random. There were those who suggested that, in view of the rise in prices, the maximum increase ought to be much more than 10 percent. The figure of 10 per cent. was a compromise. It was a figure arrived at

    1165
    after the most careful consideration and is no random figure, and if it is to be displaced one would expect it to be displaced by careful argument and the presentation of facts. I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend appreciates this fact. It is very easy for those who look at this matter from the point of view of the tenant alone to insist upon a small increase, or upon none. It is very easy, too, for those who look at this matter from the point of view of the landlord, to insist upon his hardship, and ask for a larger increase. This Bill holds an even balance between the two, and makes in the circumstances a reasonable and not too large a concession. My submission is that the figure 10 per cent. hits that medium, and hits it, not by a guess, but as a result of the careful deliberation of persons competent in this matter. I hope, in these circumstances, my hon. and gallant Friend will not persist in this Amendment.
    Mr. JOHN JONES: In addressing the House for the first time, I am doing so as one who lives in one of the poorest districts of East London where the housing problem is of a very intense character. As regards 70 per cent. of the houses in the district, the landlords ought to be sent to penal servitude for daring to call for the rent. Yet in the last four and a half years we have been regularly called upon on Monday mornings for the usual weekly rent. When we have asked for repairs to be done, we have been told it is impossible, because of the shortage of labour to do the necessary repair work, but we have never yet been told of the shortage of rent collectors. They came round regularly every Monday morning, come rain, snow or shine. In addition, in most working class districts, as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen know, in consequence of circumstances arising out of the War, houses have been let better than ever before. I happen to be a member of a local authority, in addition to being a newly-elected Member of this House, and in our district the landlords admit that, practically speaking, arrears of rent have been unknown during the War period. Has not that fact to be taken into consideration when you are talking about the risks which the landlords run? In most industrial centres there has been, through unemployment and bad conditions of trade, a fair proportion of working-class tenants who have not been paying their rents regularly, but when employment has been good and wages coming in regularly, the landlords have not had
    1166
    that difficulty. Is not that percentage of risk to be taken into consideration when you talk of the disadvantages which the landlords suffer in consequence of the existing arrangement? What is the value of repairs under ordinary circumstances? Could we put it at 10 per cent? The hon. Gentleman opposite said that 10 per cent. would not cover repairs. If that is true, then for four and a-half years landlords have been drawing from their tenants more than 10 per cent. because they have been doing no repairs.
    I venture to suggest that if you are going to talk about the disadvantages which landlords suffer, you must take into consideration how much increased death rate has been brought about from the fact that we could not get repairs done in our houses. We have lost in a great many cases a lot more than has been gained through rent being stabilised. I live in a house where, in order to get your trousers on, you have to open the window of a morning—one of those brick boxes with slate lids that have been recognised all the way through as the bugbear of every housing reform. They are built in rows, because they cannot be trusted to stand separately. Yet the only people we are to consider are those making fortunes out of the houses 'of the common people! I am not going to suggest any motives, but certain hon. Members have spoken of the woes of the property owner, and talked of the poor property owner, and trotted out in support of their case the widow and the orphan who have invested in house property. But they do not mention the big insurance companies or the other big landlords who own hundreds and hundreds of houses in areas, and use them to the fullest possible extent in order to exploit the fullest profit out off the people. I say, with all due respect to hon. and right hon. Members in this House, that in the majority of working-class districts, particularly in East London, it is absolutely unfair to impose on the people any increase of rent at all. The houses are not in a condition to justify any increase of rent, and the majority of landlords would be hard driven to prove the necessity for taking the rent they now take. Consequently, we have compromised, so far as the Labour party is concerned, with the proposals of the Government and the proposition now before the House. We venture to suggest that 5 per cent. meets the situation well when you take into con-

    1167
    sideration all the facts, including the regular payment of rent during the past four and a half years, and we hope that if work can be stabilised and employment made more plentiful that condition will continue. But, on the other hand, we want you to take into consideration the fact also that in nearly every district, particularly in the district from which I come, the landlords are allowed to compound for the rates, which means that they are paid a commission by the local authority for acting as rate collectors as well as rent collectors. That means that they are getting a premium from the local authority, and during four and a half years they have averaged 7½per cent. in our district as commission for collecting rates. I protest against any increase, but I am prepared to accept the compromise, and we say that, so far as we are concerned, 5 per cent. is full compensation for all the risks, these people run.
    Mr. RENDALL: I think the Committee ought to consider this Amendment purely on a financial basis. Ten per cent. is either enough, or not enough, or too much. What is the ground for saying it is too much? Before the War the recognised cost of keeping property in repair was one-sixth of the annual rental value. Take a house worth £26 a year. Now one-sixth of £26 is £4 6s. 8d. That was the amount which was considered by valuers, builders, owners of property, and all Income Tax surveyors, as the proper average amount spent in keeping property in repair.
    Colonel THORNE: What would be the assessment of the house?
    Mr. RENDALL: I am not able to tell the hon. and gallant Member that. It differs in different places. I am now saying that on a £26 house it would cost the landlord £4 6s. 8d. to keep it in proper repair, according to the best opinion available. It is admitted by everyone throughout the country that the cost of repairs has more than doubled. That being so, in order that this £26 house shall be repaired as it ought to be, it will cost not £4 6s. 8d., but £8 13s. Now, the proposal to allow the landlord to increase the rent by 10 per cent means that the landlord will be able to get £2 12s. more in rent, whilst admittedly he has got to spend at least an extra £4 6s. 8d. in repairs. Those are facts which I am quite certain no person
    1168
    in the building trade, apart altogether from landlord or tenant, would dispute; and, that being so, is it not reasonable that landlords should at least have paid back to them the amount to be spent in repairs? It is quite true, as the last hon. Member said, that a great many repairs have not been done. That means that the landlord will probably have to spend a great deal more in the future, and at double the price it would have cost him a few years ago. The learned Attorney-General calls this a compromise. I do not see anything of a compromise about it. It is the amount fixed upon as an amount which will secure most favour from hon. Members opposite, and, with all the facts and figures before us, to ask for that 10 per cent. to be reduced is unreasonable, and something which no facts and no figures can be brought forward to support.
    Mr. LORDEN: I should not have intervened in this Debate had it not been for the learned Attorney-General suggesting that 10 per cent. was a compromise. The Hunter Report found as follows:
    "Owners should be entitled to increase their rent, at the end of six months after the termination of the War, by an amount not exceeding 10 per cent. of the rents, exclusive of rates. At the expiration of another twelve months they should be entitled to increase their rents further by an amount not exceeding 15per cent. of the present rents, exclusive of rates."
    It is not a compromise, but it is the lowest amount which they suggested should be increased six months after the War. The owner will be in a much worse position than is recommended by that Committee which specially sat upon this question. I at once say that 10 per cent. is a reasonable amount. It is a compromise, and the very lowest figure you could possibly offer. If you do not allow a reasonable increase it will hit poor people. I have a most pathetic letter here from Stockport, in which we know the Labour Members are particularly interested. There are small persons there with a few cottages in which they have put the money they have saved. They have had a mortgage upon the property for forty years, and are not able to pay it all off. Now they say they cannot get anything out of the property at all, and living has gone up for them in the same way as for others. Therefore, I think that in adopting the 10 per cent. you are going to the lowest possible point that you can offer. I hope the Government will maintain that position.
    Sir F.BANBURY: If we are going to have Bills of this sort it seems desirable to consider as to whether the 10 per cent. is or is not a fair increase. I was very much struck by the speech of my hon. Friend who sits for the Thornbury Division who, for the first time in this Debate, explained the thing, and, similarly to my hon. Friend beside me, put the actual facts before the Committee. What he said seemed to me to be absolutely conclusive. Ten per cent. is not enough. What we really ought to do is to increase the rent by at least 20 per cent. I happened to look at the Report of the Committee on the Increase of Rent, etc., while the hon. Member was speaking. The Report says:
    "All the property-owners emphasised the great increase in cost of repairs (which was put at from 100 per cent. to 200 per cent. according to the district) and in management generally.…"
    Then the Report says:
    "Though repairs in many cases had not been done, this was often due to the scarcity of labour and materials, and these repairs would have to be done eventually, and would then cost more."
    The hon. Gentleman opposite did not seem to realise that if you have repairs to do and allow them to go on without being done that you will have to do them some day or another, and in all probability you would have to do more than you would have done at the first. Anybody who has had any experience in the management of property will admit that fact. The Committee
    "admitted that the percentage of bad debts and 'empties' was very small, but they urged that nevertheless their net return was much less than in 1914."
    The Committee then go on to give illustrations, and they continue:—
    "There was considerable variation as to exact figures, but the general effect of the evidence was that on the average repairs amounted, before the War, to approximately 20 per cent. of the rental (exclusive of rates) and that the cost of repairs at present might be taken to be considerably more than double the pre-war cost, and was likely to be approximately double for the next one or two years. Other costs of management were also higher. A rise of some 20 per cent. of net rental would be required to cover these additional outgoings."
    The Committee also suggested that if there was an increase of mortgage interest there should be a further rise in the net rental of at least 15 per cent. to cover the increase. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, in saying that this was a compromise, I think, put his finger upon the spot, for in the Report of the Committee it was shown that what they recommended was 15 per cent., 10 per cent. to come into
    1170
    operation at once and another 5 per cent. to come into operation at the end of six months—15 per cent. altogether. It is quite clear that 10 per cent. will not meet the cost of repairs or anything like it. I do not think that the majority of Members of this House want to make it so impossible for people to invest in houses as to favour legislation which will not only not put them in the position in which they were in 1914, but will put them in a very much worse position. Hon. Members opposite talk about the people in the districts not being willing to pay an increase of rent. What we have to consider is whether or not, if we are going to put restrictions of this sort into the Act, we are putting fair or unfair restrictions, and whether we are putting in restrictions which will prevent the very thing which hon. Members require, namely, an increase in the building of houses, and not to inquire whether or not you have an open window or whether repairs have or have not been done. No repairs have been done, because it was impossible to do them. Really, I was astonished, and cannot help saying it, that the people who have had such enormous increases in wages owing to the increased cost of living—and it will not be denied that the average working man has had an enormous increase—should begrudge paying a small portion of that increase to those who have had no increase at all in the income which they receive, and on which they have to live. It seems to me to be a most selfish proposal. I cannot understand it. I sincerely trust the Government will consider whether it would not be best to leave out the word "ten" and insert either "fifteen," according to the recommendation of the. Committee, or "twenty," which I think would be best, and according to the proposal of my hon. Friend.
    Sir K. WOOD: I desire to say one word in support of the recommendation of the Government. I feel some difficulty in the matter, because I have a good deal of sympathy with what has been said by hon. Members opposite. I know houses in respect of which I can well understand the feeling of the people who say that they will pay no rent. On the other hand, I feel in some measure that there are many houses where this 10 per cent. extra is not sufficient. I myself think it is a reasonable compromise. But I want to say this: that in voting for the Government I only vote, bearing in mind the Amendment which is following afterwards in the name

    1171
    of the hon. Member for Wood Green, namely, that in respect of these houses a certificate should be furnished saying that they are in a proper and habitable condition. I want the Attorney-General to be able to help some of us who are disposed towards him in this way by indicating that he may see his way to accept that Amendment.
    Mr. REMER: We have heard from the opposite benches that landlords have nothing of which to complain. I can only tell the House that I have in my letter bag every morning shoals of letters from my Constituents—and I may say for the information of the House letters bordering on Stockport, of which we heard a little while ago—complaining bitterly that the writers are not able to increase their rents even by 20 per cent. Instead of calling it a compromise, as has been suggested, some of my Constituents say that the suggested arrangement is an insult. I will say for the information of the House that one letter which I have received gives particulars of the bill which has been paid by the landlord in question for repairing a house. I do not know that this is what hon. Gentlemen call making a fortune out of house property. The house is let at 6s. 6d. weekly, and the bill for repairs paid within the last three weeks was £20.
    An HON. MEMBER: Is that a new house?
    Mr. REMER: I believe the house is five years old. The rental includes rates, and the bill represents nearly two years' rent.
    Sir A. YEO: I only desire to ask the Attorney-General to clear up one point before we go to a Division. This is a question which is giving a good deal of concern to people who write to Members, because the landlord at the present moment can compel the tenant to pay, in addition to his rent, a portion of the local rate. What I and others would like to know is if the House decides upon this percentage, does it also give the landlord the right to put on the 10 per cent., and, in addition, the increase in the rates of the district? It may seem a simple matter, but it is not quite so simple as it seems. Hon. Members have raised the question of repairs to house property. I have a letter in my hand which says:
    1172
    "For seventeen years I have lived in this house, and have paid 14s. per week. My landlord has never put a paintbrush or whitewash brush inside or outside the place for eleven years."
    I only mention that because we have been told that the cost of repairs is so large that landlords cannot do up their houses. It would have been much wiser and better for them to have raised the cry if they had done the repairs than to have said they could not do them during the War.
    Major E. WOOD: I desire to support the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich. I do not think that any Member or party in this House would have any objection to sanction an increase of rent if they felt that that increase of rent bore some proportion to the real, actual reparirs executed. I am entirely with my hon. Friend (Sir A. Yeo) in regard to the case he has just mentioned, where no repairs have been done. But I have risen to endeavour to see if we cannot effect an agreement now between those who are pressing this Amendment and my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green, who will press his Amendment in a short while. I suggest to the Committee that what we are all anxious to secure is that any increased rent should be in return for value received. I would suggest we retain the 10 per cent., if, when the time comes, we support the Member for Wood Green in the Amendment that no increase of rent is permitted unless repairs are carried out. If we do this we shall be effecting a reasonable compromise which my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham might quite well see his way to agree to.
    Mr. SWAN: I desire to support the Amendment. In the county from which I come, Durham, and the mining area from which I come, if 5 per cent. is allowed it will be quite adequate, and more than many of the houses, considering all things, are worth. Many of the houses in existence in the mining areas in Durham have only been tolerated during the War owing to the great scarcity of labour and the impossibility of getting on with building. What we want there is no allowance for the householder to get on with repairs. What these houses require to-day is demolition. We know, however, that these houses cannot be demolished, because we cannot turn people out until other houses are built, and that will be some considerable time. In respect to some of the houses to which I refer, there should be no repairs, and those concerned

    1173
    should not have 5 per cent. They should be allowed nothing. Still, if they do get 5 per cent., it will be quite sufficient. I hope the Amendment will be carried. If it is not, and if the proposal is allowed to the property owners in the mining areas, it will cause no end of discontent and unrest amongst the miners, for they will not be prepared to pay the increased rent.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman replies, I should like to ask him to clear up a point which seems to have been overlooked. Under the Increase of Rates Act, 1892, if you put a, sum on a smaller house you increase the assessable value of the house, which immediately increases the amount of rate, and this has to be paid by the tenant. How does the present position stand in relation to that?
    The CHAIRMAN: I have a manuscript Amendment dealing with that point.
    Major LANE-FOX: It would very much assist us in dealing with this question if the Government could tell us whether they have any intention of accepting the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Wood Green, which lays down that no increase should be allowed unless the house is put in a proper state of repair.
    Sir G. HEWART: I will reply to the specific question asked me by my hon. Friend as to whether the proposal in this part of the Clause gives power to the landlord to pass on to the tenant any increase in the rates. This part of the Clause has nothing to do with the question of rates. If my hon. Friend will look at the principal Act, he will see that it is provided by Section 1, Sub-section (1), paragraph (iv.), as follows:
    "Where the landlord pays the rates chargeable on, or which but for the enactments relating to compounding would be chargeable on, the occupier of any dwelling-house, an increase of the rent of the dwelling-house shall not be deemed to be an increase for the purposes of this Act if the amount of the increase does not exceed any increase in the amount for the time being payable by the landlord in respect of such rates."
    In other words, rates and rent are not to be mixed up, and if my hon. Friend will look at Sub-clause (2) of Clause 1 of the present Bill he will see that it is provided that the increase of rent permitted by this Section shall be in addition to any increase permitted by Section 1 of the principal Act. In other words, we are dealing
    1174
    in this Clause with rent, and rent alone, and we are not dealing with rates, and that question stands precisely where it was left by the Act of 1915.
    With regard to the second question, whether the Government propose to accept a particular Amendment providing some guarantee that in the case where the increased rent is permitted the dwelling house should be put in a proper state of repair, I do not think we can accept that Amendment, but I am prepared to consider, on Clause 6, whether or not we can usefully insert some provision to enable the County Courts to deal with the matter if it is alleged that the house is not in a proper state of repair. I do not, however, contemplate with equanimity the providing of some 6,000,000 certificates as to whether houses are in a proper state of repair or not; but this matter can be dealt with under Clause 6.
    Sir K. WOOD: Is it not better to have 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 certificates from the local authorities saying that the houses are in a proper condition than to have 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 applications for the County Court?
    Sir G. HEWART: I do not know whether that is a conundrum or a serious question.
    Major HILLS: I strongly support the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Wood Green, and I hope it will be accepted. I myself have great difficulty in voting unless I know that the 10 per cent. increase which is to be allowed is going to be spent in repairs for the houses. Surely this is a perfectly clear case. Like the hon. Member for Barnard Castle, I know the housing conditions in the county of Durham, and he knows them as well, and they are not good, to put it mildly. How can I justify going back to my Constituents having supported a 10 per cent. increase in the rent, when the repairs may not be done to the houses? I do not follow the suggestion made by the Attorney-General. I have read over Clause 6 again, and it does not seem to me to apply to the case at all. Surely the fair thing to do is to provide that unless the owner of a house can produce a certificate from the local authority that he has kept that house in proper repair he should not have the increase. This question of the increase of rent goes a long way, because the increase would be allowed to a landlord who let his house on a repairing lease and that would

    1175
    charge all the repairs to the tenant. It is a far-reaching power, and it can only be justified when we know that the houses have been put in a proper state of repair.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Like other hon. Members under similar circumstances, I ask the House to grant me some indulgence. I have been interested in this question of housing for many years, and I know the county of Durham well. We on these benches are quite sure that up to the present date the tenants in Durham County are being exploited quite enough. I know the case of some houses which were leased to a colliery company, that company being compelled to find houses. The rent paid was originally something like 1s. 10d. a week, and they had been given up as being unfit for the workmen to live in. Now instead of 1s. 10d. being charged a rental of 5s. is being paid. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite if they are inclined to give landlords of this character any further increase in rent. As far as repairs are concerned nothing has boon done to these houses, and paint is unknown to them, and whatever has been done has been done by the tenants. I wish to say to my hon. Friend who called attention to the position of the middle-class man who requires a larger house, that the action of the landlords in my county has had the effect of preventing these people getting a house at all. Houses that were originally built for one tenant and let at 10s. per week have now been let out in tenements at a rent of 100 per cent increase.
    It is on this account we on these benches have no sympathy with the landlord as we know him at the present time. We desire that at the very earliest opportunity the Government should take over the housing of the people, because in this respect private enterprise has miserably failed to house the people. I want to urge that this system should not be perpetuated by any increase in rents in the future. Enough rent is being paid now try these poor people. We know the type of houses referred to, consisting of one room which is not only the living room but also the washhouse and the scullery, and you have babies born where the clothes are being washed. For these houses of two rooms 5s. per week are being extracted from the poor people. I ask the Committee to consider well before rejecting the compromise which my hon and gallant Friend has suggested.
    Sir HERBERT NIELD: I only rise to say that if this question is one of putting more money into the landlord's pocket irrespective of his having spent more money on the houses, I am against it. I am not here to enable landlords to profiteer, and make up the extra cost of his living at the expense of the tenant. After the landlord has done the repairs and paid excessive charges, let that be the measure in some respect as to the increased rent he is entitled to receive. I think it would be monstrous for us at this moment to sanction any increase of rent except those that arise of necessity on account of the increased cost of commodities.
    Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: I heard with very great regret the answer of the Attorney-General to the effect that he could not accept the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Wood Green. Surely he must recognise that no one in this. House wants to penalise a good landlord. The whole of the criticisms which have been directed against the proposed increased of rent have been directed against those landlords who have not recognised their moral responsibility, and who have not done their duty by their tenants. This is an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to conciliate everybody if he will ensure that only those landlords who have done their duty shall receive this privilege of an increase in rent.
    What was the answer the right hon. Gentleman gave? He said he could not contemplate with equanimity the issue of some millions of certificates. I want to suggest to him that he is exaggerating the difficulty. I have some knowledge of this matter and I may tell him that the thing is not so difficult as he imagines. In the first place, he is assuming that there will have to be a separate certificate for every house, but that is not the case. As a rule, landlords own a great many more than one house and sometimes they own a whole street of houses, and, probably, one certificate would be sufficient for the whole of those houses. The local authorities, or at any rate those of which I know anything about, have already a very intimate knowledge of the conditions of housing in their districts. It does not mean that you will have to send an inspector round to look at every house. They have records of the condition of the houses, and many of them are being inspected continually, and I do not think it would take very long in the great majority of cases to say whether or not a certificate should be granted.

    1177
    Finally, I want to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it is six months from the passing of the Act when this increase of rent will come into operation, and whatever certificates are to be given by the local authorities, they can be spread over the whole of that time and will not in any way penalise the good landlord. I do urge him to reconsider this matter once again, because the suggestion which he has made will not at all meet the case of those who desire that every tenant should have the opportunity of having his house certified as being fit for his habitation if the tenant is obliged to go to the County Court.
    Major LLOYD-GREAME: I should like to reinforce the appeal of the last speaker. Both the Attorney-General and the President of the Board of Education, in dealing with previous questions whether a suggestion is practicable or not, have based themselves almost entirely upon the Report of the Hunter Committee. I will take that test as to whether the proposal of the Amendment can be accepted. The Amendment is taken practically in terms from the Hunter Committee's Report itself. It is quite true that the Hunter Committee proposed to allow the first 10 per cent. to be taken by the landlord without any certificate, but they recommended that before the additional 5 per cent. should be taken there should be supplied just such a certificate as now is suggested. I do, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept this proposal as a thoroughly practicable thing, supported by both the majority and minority Reports of the Hunter Committee.
    Sir G. HEWART: I cannot help thinking that there is some misapprehension as to the view of the Government in this matter. I am sure the Committee will see that it is at present engaged in discussing one matter with reference to another. The question at present before the Committee is whether the limit of the proposed increase shall be 10per cent. or 5 per cent., and before the Committee votes hon. Members desire some assurance as to the attitude of the Government upon a topic that must arise later. I do not think that there is any real difference of substance between us. The difference is one simply of method. It will be conceded that there is no desire to penalise the good landlord, and I am sure it will be also conceded that there is no desire
    1178
    to protect the bad landlord. Nor is there any desire that the landlord under the false pretext of making repairs should be permitted to put upon his tenant an increase of rent in respect of repairs which in fact are not made. The question is one purely of method. The challenge that was offered to the Government was that it should accept a particular Amendment which makes it a condition precedent of every increase, whether the landlord be good or bad, that, in the words of the Amendment, a certificate should have been procured from the local authority
    "to the effect that the house in respect of which the increase in rent is made is at the time of the certificate in a condition in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation."
    In other words, that certificate is to be obtained in every case, whether it is needed or not. It is to be a condition precedent, and apparently a certificate will have to be obtained before the increase can be made, whether the repairs fall upon the landlord or upon the tenant. If an increase in the rental of the houses under the Act is going to be made on anything like the scale suggested by some hon. Members, then the Act will certainly apply to some houses where the cost of the repairs does not fall upon the landlord. Let us see what is the difference between us. The difference is as to the best mode in which it may be secured that a landlord shall not increase the rent of a house which ought not to be certified as fit for human habitation. That is our desire. Our desire is to prevent any such result as that, but I am advised that the particular method which is proposed is cumbrous and impracticable. We have had an interesting speech as to what the local authorities would do. I am told that it is not to be thought that local authorities would willingly embrace the burden of giving a certificate of the kind which is asked in every case. However that may be, I am perfectly willing to consider the particular method. We are agreed upon the end which is in view, namely, that an increase in rent is not to be made on the pretext of paying for repairs if in fact they are not carried out by the landlord. I think, with that assurance which I will endeavour to fulfil if not during the Committee stage, at any rate on the Report stage, enough has been said upon the question whether this should be 10 per cent. or 5 per cent.
    Question put, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 302; Noes, 63.

    Division No. 13.]

    AYES.

    [6.53 p.m.

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ. Wales)

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Du Pre, Colonel W. B.

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Ainsworth, Captain C.

    Edwards, A. Clement (East Ham, S.)

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Archdale, Edward M.

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Atkey, A. R.

    Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)

    Locker-Lampson G. (Wood Green)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Eyres-Monsell, Com.

    Lorden, John William

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Falcon, Captain M.

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Banner, Sir J. S. Harmood-

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

    Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, S.)

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Lowther, Col. C. (Lonsdale, Lancs.)

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Lyle, C. E. Leonard (Stratford)

    Barnett, Captain Richard W.

    FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.

    Lyle-Samuel, A. (Eye, E. Suffolk)

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Lyon, L.

    Barrie, C. C.

    Foreman, H.

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

    Foxcroft, Captain C.

    M'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)

    Bellalrs, Com. Carlyon W.

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)

    Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (G'nwich)

    Gange, E. S.

    M'Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W. (Brigg)

    Betterton, H. B.

    Gardiner, J. (Perth)

    Macleod, John Mzckintosh

    Birchall, Major J. D.

    Gardner, E. (Berks., Windsor)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Bird, Alfred

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Blades, Sir George R.

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John

    McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury)

    Blair, Major Reginald

    Glyn, Major R.

    Maddocks, Henry

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Gould, J. C.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. D. F.

    Gray, Major E.

    Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Grayson, Lieut.-Col.H. M.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

    Greame, Major P. Lloyd

    Marriott, John Arthur R.

    Bowles, Col. H. F.

    Green, A. (Derby)

    Mason, Robert

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Green, J. F. (Leicester)

    Meysey-Thompson, Lt.-Col. E. C.

    Brackenbury, Col. H. L.

    Gregory, Holman

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Breese, Major C. E.

    Greig, Col. James William

    Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.

    Briggs, Harold

    Gretton, Col. John

    Mitchell, William Lane-

    Britton, G. B.

    Griggs, Sir Peter

    Moles, Thomas

    Brotherton, Col. Sir E. A.

    Guinness, Capt. Hon. R. (Southend)

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)

    Hacking, Captain D. H.

    Moore, Maj.-Gen. Sir Newton J.

    Bruton, Sir J.

    Hallwood, A.

    Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. C. T.

    Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.

    Hallas, E.

    Morrison, H. (Salisbury)

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Mount, William Arthur

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Butcher, Sir J. G.

    Hanson, Charles Augustin

    Murchison, C. K.

    Campbell, J. G. D.

    Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)

    Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

    Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

    Henderson, Major V. L.

    Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Carr, W. T.

    Henry, Sir Charles S. (Salop)

    Murray, William (Dumfries)

    Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford)

    Neal, Arthur

    Cayzer, Major H. R.

    Hewart, Right Hon. Sir Gorden

    Nelson, R. F. W. R.

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)

    Newman, Major J. (Finchley, Mddx.)

    Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Newton, Major Harry Kottingham

    Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

    Hood, Joseph

    Nicholson, W. (Petorsfield)

    Clyde, James Avon

    Hope, Harry (Stirling)

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Hope, John Deans (Berwick)

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Ormsby-Gere, Hon, William

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)

    Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury)

    Cockerill, Brig.-Gen. G. K.

    Horne, Edgar (Guildford)

    Parker, James

    Colfox, Major W. P.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

    Colvin, Brig.-Gen. R. B.

    Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Pearce, Sir William

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hurd, P. A.

    Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge).

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Hurst, Major G. S.

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)

    Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Coote, W. (Tyrone, S.)

    Jameson, Major J. G.

    Perring, William George

    Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Pickering, Col. Emil W.

    Cory, J. H. (Cardiff)

    Jesson, C.

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Courthope, Major George Loyd

    Jodrell, N. P.

    Pinkham, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Univ.)

    Johnson, L. S.

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H.

    Johnstone, J.

    Pownall, Lt.-Col. Assheton

    Craik, Rt Hon. Sir Henry

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pratt, John William

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Henry Page

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Preston, W. R.

    Curzon, Commander Viscount

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

    Pulley, Charles Thornton

    Davidson, Major-General J. H.

    Jones, Wm. Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Purchase, H. G.

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Kerr-Smiley, Major P.

    Ramsden, G. T.

    Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)

    Kidd, James

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Davies, T. (Cirencester)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Raw, Lt.-Col. Dr. N.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Knight, Capt. E. A.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Denison-Pender, John C.

    Knights, Capt. H.

    Reid, D. D.

    Dennis, J. W.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Remer, J. B.

    Denniss, E. R Bartley (Oldham)

    Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

    Remnant, Col. Sir J. Farquharson

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.

    Law, A. J. (Rochdale)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Dockrell, Sir M.

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    1180

    1181

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Sugden, Lieut. W. H.

    Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)

    Rodger, A. K.

    Surtees, Brig.-Gen. H. C.

    Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

    Rogers, Sir Hallewell

    Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

    Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

    Roundell, Lt.-Col. R. F.

    Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)

    Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)

    Terrell, G. (Chippenham, Wilts.)

    Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

    Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)

    Terrell, Capt. R. (Henley, Oxford)

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, W.)

    Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

    Wilson, J. H. (South Shields)

    Samuels, Rt. Hon. A. W. (Dublin Univ.)

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

    Tickler, Thomas George

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Townley, Maximillian G.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)

    Seager, Sir William

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)

    Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Fortar)

    Waddington, R.

    Woolcock, W. J. U.

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E.

    Walton, J. (York, Don Valley)

    Worsfold, T. Cato

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

    Yate, Col. Charles Edward

    Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander

    Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

    Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Young, William (Perth and Kinross)

    Starkey, Capt. John Ralph

    Weston, Col. John W.

    Younger, Sir George

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

    Stephenson, Col. H. K.

    White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

    Stevens, Marshall

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

    Sturrock, J. Leng-

    Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Hancock, John George

    Sitch, C. H.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Hinds, John

    Smith, W. (Wellingborough)

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Hirst, G. H.

    Smithers, Alfred W.

    Bramsdon, Sir T.

    Irving, Dan

    Spencer, George A.

    Briant, F.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Spoor, B. G.

    Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)

    Jones, J. (Silvertown)

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    Burn, T. H. (Belfast)

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Swan, J. E. C.

    Cairns, John

    Lunn, William

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

    Carter, W. (Mansfield)

    Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Stirling)

    Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)

    Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)

    M'Guffin, Samuel

    Thorne, Col. W. (Plaistow)

    Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

    M'Lean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Toctill, Robert

    Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Waterson, A. E.

    Donald, T.

    Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)

    Waterson, A. E.

    Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)

    Onlons, Alfred

    Wedgwood, Col. Josiah C.

    Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Neath)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Richardson, R. (Houghton)

    Wignall, James

    Glanville, Harold James

    Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Rose, Frank H.

    Young, Robert (Newton, Lancs.)

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh)

    Rowlands, James

    Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)

    Royce, William Stapleton

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. T. Wilson and Mr. T Griffiths.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Shaw, Tom (Preston)

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Short, A. (Wednesbury)

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Mr. T. WILSON: I bog to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words,
    "exclusive of any amount paid by the tenant in increased rates."
    7.0 P.M.
    I am moving this with the object of getting it made quite clear by the Government what their intentions are with regard to the increase of 10 per cent. The learned Attorney-General was not quite clear in his explanation of what the original Act said. He suggested that the 10 per cent. increase allowed would be an increase on the rates as well as on the net rent. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
    Sir G. HEWARTsignified dissent.
    Mr. WILSON: I want to make it quite clear, if this Bill becomes an Act, that this increase of 10 per cent. can only be levied on net rent. In a very large number of
    1182
    Lancashire towns the rates are compounded. Six shillings a week is paid in rent, and that includes the rates as well as the rent. The rates would amount to 1s. a week, and that sum would be included in the 6s. Unless it is made quite clear in this Act that the increase of 10 per cent. can only be levied on the 5s., and not on the 6s., it will lead to trouble and litigation. I would appeal to the Government to insert an Amendment to make it clear to the tenants of small houses that the 10 percent. increase can only be levied on the net rent, and that the old rates must be paid by the landlord before the increase of 10 per cent. can be levied on the tenant.
    Sir G. HEWART: I thought, I was evidently wrong, that I had explained this matter with reference to a previous Amendment. Might I attempt to explain it again. If my hon. Friend will carry his

    1183
    mind back to the Act of 1915, he will remember that in the Section which prohibited the raising of rent in certain cases there were provisos added. One was where the landlord was called upon to pay an increase of rates,
    "Where the landlord pays the rates chargeable on, or which, but for the enactments relating to compounding would be chargeable on the occupier."
    By a later part of the Section it was provided that in such a case, where an increase of rent was due to an increase of rates, there should be notice given by the landlord to the tenant, with a statement, showing particulars of the increased rent charged in respect of rates on the dwelling-house. So far as this Bill is concerned, it leaves the question of rates exactly where it was left by the the principal Act, and makes no alteration one way or the other. It merely provides for an increase of rent to the extent of 10 per cent.
    Sir H. NIELD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not also dependent on the statutory meaning of the words "standard rent" in the Act of 1915, which also forbids any possible interpretation that it should include any more than the net amount of rent.
    Sir G. HEWART: That is so. The words "standard rent" are expressly defined in Section 2 of the principal Act. If the Committee will allow me, I will read that definition. It is
    "The rent at which the dwelling-house was let on the third day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen."
    Then there is a provision, where the house was not let on that date, that it should be the rent on which it was last let before that date or, in the case where a house was first let after that date, that it should be the rent at which it was first let.
    Mr. WILSON: The explanation of the Attorney-General is quite satisfactory to me. Unfortunately, the house owners do not seem to understand it in that way. After the definition given by the right hon. Gentleman, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Colonel THORNEThe following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Colonel THORNE:
    At the end of Sub-section (1) to add the words,
    "and the dwelling-house is kept in good repair."
    The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for West Ham, I do not think this is the correct form or place. I think the hon. and gallant Member will agree that the point he has got in mind is much better met by the Amendment next but one, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), who I propose to call on in a moment or two.
    Colonel THORNE: So far as we are concerned we prefer our own Amendment rather than that of the hon. Member for Wood Green. But I am bound to accept your ruling; and in any case I shall have to accept it, whether I like it or not.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member's Amendment is not sufficiently denned. That is why I said that.
    Major NEWMAN: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words,
    "of such dwelling-house up to and including the twenty-fourth day of December, nineteen hundred and nineteen, or does not exceed fifteen per centum of the standard rent up to and including the twenty-fifth day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-one."
    This Debate has shown us two or three things. It has shown that all landlords are not millionaires. It has shown us that repairs are going to cost at least twice what they cost before the War, and that it is evident that the Committee are going to insist that some sort of certificate must be given by the local authority to a landlord before he is allowed to get his 10 per cent. Also, we have done something more important, than that. We have extended this Bill for another year, and we have made it effective for two years instead of one year. That being the case, it will be perfectly evident to the Committee that the Government have brought in this Bill somewhat hastily, and that they are in somewhat of a tangle over it. Surely the best thing they can do is to stand by the Hunter Committee. We have the Committee, with its careful evidence of experts, and their recommendations, and it would surely be better for the Government to stand by those recommendations. The Attorney-General rather sheltered himself just now behind the Committee. He said he fixed on the 10 per cent. increase because it was recommended in the Hunter Report, But he forgot to say that that was only for the first year, and that the Hunter Committee recommended for the second year a further increase of 5 per

    1185
    cent., making a total increase of 15 per cent. I think it would be much better to stand by what the Hunter Committee did recommend. We have beard a good deal from the Labour Benches of what Labour thinks about the increase of the rental. May I just quote the evidence which their own trade union officials gave before the Committee. It is on page 6 of the Report, as follows:
    "Some of the trade union officials examined realised the great increase in cost of repairs and the fairness of giving an increased rate of interest to mortgagees, and agreed that all such reasonable increase in outgoings should be borne by the rent, which should be increased accordingly. They were prepared to agree that probably a 1 per cent. increase in mortgage interest, and a 33 per cent. increase in rent, would be required if this were to be done. They thought, however, that a sudden and substantial increase in rent would mean serious discontent and industrial unrest, and that this increase might have to be made in two or more stages, but they considered that if the matter were properly put before them tenants would realise that with an all-round increase in the cost of everything else rent must also rise. They were emphatic, however, that while this increase in rent should be allowed to good landlords, no in crease whatever should be allowed to owners of houses which did not come up to a proper minimum standard of habitability, and in particular to owners of some houses which were only permitted to be inhabited because of the present famine of accommodation. The witnesses considered that the Act should be extended for a period which permitted increases in rent and mortgage interest."
    That is the evidence given by certain trade unionists, and I do suggest that a case is made out for my proposal. My Amendment reads rather badly in view of the alteration made in the Bill earlier in the day, and I would suggest that it be allowed to read, instead of "the twenty-fourth day of December, 1920," "the twenty-fifth day of March, 1921." The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education told us he had had many letters from owners of property and builders. I also have had scores. Of course, 10 per cent. is practically nothing as compared with the amount which will be required for carrying out the needed repairs. If 10 per cent. is allowed for the first year and 15per cent. for the second it will give an average of 12½ per cent., and that perhaps may encourage the landlord to do some of the repairs which are necessary.
    Mr. K. JONES: I desire to support the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend solely on the ground that the Government have increased the scope of the operation of this Act by an Amend-
    1186
    ment which was accepted to the first Clause. I think if that had been the original intention of the Government in preparing this measure they would have adopted the recommendations of the Hunter Committee, which were to the effect that the allowance of 10 per cent. for the first year should in the second year be increased 5 per cent. I have no doubt in my own mind that if the Government had intended at the outset to extend the operation of this Act they would have adopted this recommendation made by the Committee after a most exhaustive inquiry, and on that ground alone I support the Amendment.
    Mr. RENDALL: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept the Amendment. It seems to be only reasonable that if you extend the period for the operation of this Act you should also make an alteration in the amount granted to the landlord for repairs. It has been admitted that the fixture fixed upon for repairs is far below what the landlord would have to pay, and the evidence which has been given clearly shows that 10 per cent. of the rent is very much less than the normal cost of peace-time repairs, which is one-sixth of the rent. During the War period the cost of repairs has admittedly increased. It certainly has gone up 100 per cent. and more, which represents one-third instead of one-sixth of the rent. It therefore seems reasonable that if the right hon. Gentleman is going practically to take the income of the property out of the control of the landlord so far as the restriction of rent is concerned, he should give a little addition to the amount allowed for repairs. I am sure the amount we suggest is very much less than would be allowed if the case went before an arbitrator who was a qualified person to deal with such questions.
    Sir G. HEWART: I cannot help thinking that this is really a dispute rather about words than about matters of substance. I do not think my hon. Friend was in the House at the time when the suggestion was made on which we consented to extend the date to May Day, 1921. My hon. Friend may remember the representations which were made to the Government on the matter were, in substance, that unless we made some such extension we were really not making any extension at all. Under the Act of 1915 it is provided that the measure shall con-

    1187
    tinue in operation during the continuance of the present War and for a period of six months thereafter. As my hon. Friend must be aware, the term "continuance of the present War" has been the subject of statutory enactment, and it means the date when certain formalities following upon the peace agreement have been concluded. When does my hon. Friend suppose that six months after the conclusion of these formalities will have arrived? It will certainly not be this year. The present Act is in operation at any rate until the end of this year. The recommendation of the Hunter Committee did, indeed, draw a distinction between the first year of the extended period and the second year of that period. The first year of the extended period will cover on that view of the matter at least the whole of the year 1920, and if there be any part of what would form a portion of the second year of the extended period it would-be that between Lady Day, 1920, and Lady Day, 1921. We are really contemplating now a period it may be of little more than a year—in substance a year. And when I say that the figure of 10 per cent. was a compromise, I have in mind, of course, what occurred in the Hunter Committee. The House has seen the difficulty which has arisen on this question of 10 per cent. I hope we shall have no further controversy about extending the 10 per cent. to 15 per cent for the slight and entirely problematical period between the termination of one year from the date of the termination of the War and Lady Day, 1921.
    Amendment negatived.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Poplar has handed in a manuscript Amendment which I do not quite understand. Perhaps he will explain it.
    Sir A. YEO: I desire to get from the Attorney-General some help in the direction of knowing whether a landlord is legally bound to give four weeks' notice before he can claim an increase of rent. I raised this question when the Bill was introduced last Friday, and the hon. Member who was then in charge of it promised to consider the matter. It is a point which has given rise to a good deal of misgiving and misunderstanding. I have in my hand the report of a case decided in a Court a day or two ago—
    The CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member read his Amendment? That will enable the Attorney-General to understand it.
    Sir A. YEO: The Amendment which I will move is in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "due and recoverable," and to insert instead thereof the word "made."
    What I want is, if I can make the Attorney-General understand what I am driving at—and most of us are not lawyers and find difficulty in understanding legal definitions—what I want to get at is this. The county council in their wisdom took a case to the Courts to recover 1s. 3d. as a test case. The magistrate decided that landlords were not compelled to give four weeks' notice to the tenant. But if the Act of Parliament says they are, is it in the power of judges and magistrates to say they are not, and that two weeks is sufficient, or even less? I want the Attorney-General to give this House some explanation of what four weeks really means. Does it mean that when a landlord desires to put on an increase of rent, he must give the tenant four weeks' notice, and that then it will be open to any Court to alter that and to say that two weeks, or any other period may be sufficient, or that there is no need to give the tenant any notice at all?
    Sir G. HEWART: I hesitate to take the sanguine view that I understand the question. But if I have rightly apprehended the statement of my hon. Friend, what he really asks is this: Whether the words in the Bill make it clear that the landlord must give four weeks' notice of his intention to increase the rent before the increase can actually take place. I do not know anything about the ease to which he has referred, but at any rate it did not arise under this Bill. The words of the proviso are sufficiently clear. May I read them?
    "Provided that no such increase shall be due and recoverable until the expiry of four clear weeks after the landlord has served upon the tenant a notice in writing of his intention to increase the rent."
    I should think those words are quite enough.
    Sir A. YEO: After that explanation I am quite satisfied.
    Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: There have been cases in the county of Durham where householders have had information that their rent is going to be increased, and I should like to get an assurance from the

    1189
    Government that they will insist that notice shall be given before any increase of rent is insisted upon. Now increases are being made without notice.
    Sir G. HEWART: It is the object of this proviso to insist that notice shall be given.
    Sir A. YEO: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "recoverable" ["increase shall be due and recoverable"], to insert the words
    "if the sanitary authority of the district in which the house is situated, on the application of the tenant, certifies that the house is not kept in a reasonable state of repair, nor in any case—"
    I said a little time ago, in response to suggestions from more than one quarter, that I would endeavour, either to-night or upon the Report stage, to propose an addition to the Bill which would meet the contention of many hon. Members that steps ought to be taken to secure that landlords should not be able to increase the rent of a house not fit for habitation or a house not in a reasonable state of repair. I take this, the earliest opportunity, of redeeming that promise, and I therefore propose this Amendment. The effect of it would be to make the proviso read,
    "Provided that no such increase shall be due and recoverable if the sanitary authority of the district in which the house is situated, on the application of the tenant, certifies that the house is not kept in a reasonable state of repair, nor in any case until the expiry of four clear weeks after the landlord has served—"
    and so forth. The Committee will observe the difference—I desire to state it with the greatest clearness—between that proposal and a proposal which more than one hon. Member urged upon the Government. According to this proposal, what is given is a remedy. What is done is to provide for the case in which it is alleged that the house is not kept in a reasonable state of repair. In that case the tenant who so alleges has his remedy. In the other case, what was contemplated was that there should be a universal certification, that every house in regard to which an increase was contemplated should be the subject of a certificate of this kind—as I am advised a wholly unnecessary, cumbrous, and, it, may be, impracticable burden. My suggestion to the Committee is that this proposal would meet every reasonable requirement to the end which hon. Members have in view.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: May I say that I did not in the least want to cut out my hon. Friend for West Ham (Colonel W. Thorne). I put down my Amendment before his was on the Paper, and I did not know his Amendment was going to be put down. The suggestion of the Attorney-General does not really meet the point. I listened very carefully to the words he used, and he only used the words
    "in a reasonable state of repair."
    That does not cover the case of slum property, which may be in a perfectly good state of repair, but may not be property in which anybody ought to live. The Attorney-General stated just now that he had been advised on this subject. He said he was advised that this proposition, which is down in my name and the names of other hon. Members, was impracticable and unworkable. I should very much like to know from where he got that advice, because I have the Hunter Committee Report in my hand, and I find that the only official bodies who gave evidence before that Committee were the Local Government Board for England, the Local Government Board for Scotland, the Local Government Board for Ireland, and the Agricultural Wages Board. I gather that my right hon. and learned Friend has been advised by the Local Government Board. When you turn to this Report you find that the recommendations made by the majority of the Committee are that
    "In the case of an increase in these rents, there should be a certificate from the local authority before the increase is allowed."
    The Committee thought so highly of this recommendation that they actually put in a footnote at the bottom of the page repeating their recommendation—
    "Even the 10 per tent. increase should be disallowed in the case of houses unfit for human habitation."
    They also put in a footnote with regard to the suggestion of a County Court. They regarded that as one of the alternative propositions, and discarded it in favour of the proposition which I, with other hon. Members, have ventured to suggest. The point I want to make is that it is not simply a question of repairs; it is a question of cubic space. These houses in poor streets may be in a perfectly good state of repair but they may be utterly unfit for human habitation. In 1914 the present Prime Minister appointed a Land Inquiry Committee, and in their Report the Committee said:

    1191
    "From information received from our investigators, and after consultation with a number of those having special knowledge, we are inclined to estimate the proportion of dwellers in slums as between 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. of the whole country."
    Sir G. HEWART: May I say that in employing the words
    "kept in a reasonable state of repair"
    I was certainly under the impression that I was doing not less but more than is contained in the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. I should have thought myself that if a house was not fit for human habitation, a fortiori, it cannot be said that it is in a reasonable state of repair.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That is not so.
    Sir G. HEWART: I shall be perfectly willing therefore to put in the alternative, that is to say, to make it read
    "where the sanitary authority…certifies that the house is not reasonably fit for human habitation or is not kept in a reasonable state of repair."
    Colonel THORNE: I am not sure whether even the words moved by the Attorney-General meet the case. What will really happen? The tenant will be called upon to make a complaint to the medical officer of the particular local authority. The medical officer will be compelled to bring that before the public health committee. The public health committee is chock full of landlords, who own slum property in many cases. I suggest that the landlords themselves are not going to give instructions to the medical officer to carry out the necessary repairs in accordance with the words moved by the Attorney-General. I quite agree that it is very difficult for the Attorney-General or any member of this Committee to find words that will meet the situation if the landlords themselves do not feel inclined to keep their property in repair. That has been my experience during twenty-five years on a local authority. What will happen? If the house is not in proper repair, the local authority have the power to issue a closing order, and to shut down the property altogether. In present circumstances there is a great shortage of houses, and there is nowhere else where the people can go to reside. Thus the local authorities cannot have power to rip down that slum property. There are many houses now in all parts of the country which are
    1192
    a standing disgrace, because closing orders have been obtained, but the local authorities have no power to compel the landlords to rip them down. I quite admit that the Attorney-General is doing his level best to meet the situation, yet, on the other hand, I agree that it will all depend upon the composition of the local council. If the local council is not full of landlords, there is a possibility of making the landlords keep their houses in proper repair. That is the only way it will be done. I do not believe that these remedies are going to be effective in any shape or form. The Amendment that has been suggested by the Attorney-General is preferable to that which was about to be moved by my hon. Friend (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson). If the local authority is called upon to issue these certificates from time to time, the same thing will happen. The medical officer will not attempt to issue these certificates without consulting the public health committee, and it will all depend upon the composition of the public health committee. Therefore what wage earners and other people in all parts of the country will have to do is to alter the composition of the local councils.
    Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: I should like to thank the Attorney-General for the way in which he has met those who objected to his first reply upon this subject. The Amendment as proposed by him is in many respects preferable and does, as he said, go further than the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson). But there is this point: Many of these tenants are very slow to move, and they do not get themselves acquainted with what is going on in the world. A good many of them will not realise for a very long time that they have this power of applying to the sanitary authority. I would therefore ask the Attorney-General whether it would be possible for them to go at any time after the rent has been increased and make application to the sanitary authority to obtain the certificate in question?
    Mr. R. McNEILL: I was about to raise a point which has been partly covered by the last speaker, although I do not think he appreciated quite the point which is in my mind. I must say that I like the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) for some reasons better than that of the Government, because, as

    1193
    the last speaker pointed out, the tenants may not be aware of their rights in this matter, and the Amendment which is on the Paper in the names of several hon. Members secures that notice should be brought to the mind of the tenant before an increase of rent can take place. They would have to be served with a notice which would give them knowledge of their rights with regard to the house being in proper repair. According to the Amendment of the Attorney-General there will be nothing of the sort. It is true that the tenant will have the right of making a complaint, but there will be nothing in the ordinary procedure to inform the tenant that he has that right. If the Attorney-General is going to adhere to the form in which he has proposed his Amendment, I wonder whether he would go a little further and provide in some shape or form that in the notice which is necessary of the intention to raise the rent there should be included a notice of the tenant's right to appeal on the ground of the house not being fit for human habitation or not being in proper repair. If that were done it would meet the point I have in my mind, but it seems to me unsatisfactory that this right should be conferred without some steps being taken to secure that the tenant should be made aware of it in each case.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: The tenants of these small houses do not read Acts of Parliament any more than many Members of the House do, but it is exceedingly important that the tenant who is going to have his rent raised by 10 per cent. should know the conditions under which it is to be raised and should know what rights he has in case the house is not fit for human habitation and is not in proper repair. Therefore I certainly would support my hon. Friend's suggestion that the notice of the landlord's intention to increase his rent should also contain a, notice of the right of the tenant to go to the local authority and ask if the house is fit for human habitation and is in reasonable repair, and possibly the best way of doing it would be a notice in writing to increase the rent in the terms set out in the Schedule of the Bill.
    Sir G. HEWART: I think that is a reasonable suggestion, and we shall be prepared to adopt it, though I do not say exactly in the form of a notice in the Schedule—I should like to consider that points—but, at any rate, the landlord shall
    1194
    be required not only to give notice in writing to the tenant of his intention to increase the rent, but also shall be required to inform the tenant of his rights in the matter. With regard to the other question raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) as to whether the tenant must exercise his right at once and before an increase takes place, I should have thought not. If he will look again at the words of the proviso as they would read if they were amended, the provision would be that the increase should not be due and recoverable if the sanitary authority certifies that the house is not reasonably fit for human habitation or kept in a reasonable state of repair. I do not regard that as being a remedy which the tenant must exercise at once and for all.
    Mr. HOPKINS: There are two small points on which I should like to hear the Attorney-General's opinion. I am glad the Committee has arrived at a solution of the main point. I should like to know what there is in this Bill or in the law generally to compel a sanitary authority to grant this certificate, because this is going to be a considerable burden upon the sanitary authority. It will probably necessitate an increased inspectorate. The inspectorate, certainly in London, is not altogether suitable for the survey which is proposed to be made, and it is a practical point which if it is not dealt with to-day will have to be dealt with at some time as to whether the sanitary authorities can be compelled to do this or not. The second point is this. Who is going to pay for the certificate? Is it to be supplied by sanitary authorities without payment, or to be paid for by the person who makes application for it? That is a point which will want consideration in settling the exact form of the suggestion.
    Colonel THORNE: I am very much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir J. Butcher) for the suggestion he has made to the Attorney-General. When a tenant makes a complaint to the local authority and the landlord gets to find it out, the tenant is invariably victimised. Even if the Attorney-General accepts the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and the landlord has to convey to the tenant that he is to do so-and-so, apparently he can be victimised in the future the same as he has been in days gone by.
    Mr. BARTLEY DENNISS: It is the duty now, and has been for a very long period, of the local authority to see that every

    1195
    house within its area is fit for human habitation. This Bill does not carry it much further. What is meant by "fit for human habitation" is simply that the house shall be wind and water tight, dry and not damp, with a proper water supply, and the drains in good order. Apart from that, it does not mean repairs at all; and I do not see that the Bill is going to help the tenant. Under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, the duty is cast upon the Metropolitan authority to See that every house within their area is fit for human habitation, and there are the most elaborate provisions by which a local authority can be compelled to do its duty; so it is quite clear that the local authority can be compelled to give this certificate. Outside London, by the Public Health Act, there is a similar set of provisions, though not so perfect by any means; and, with regard to reducing the £10 to £5, it was thought to be a sort of concession to give the tenant that the house should be fit for human habitation. That does not mean repairs in the ordinary sense. Repairs mean that the place shall be whitewashed, papered and painted. At all events, the local authorities have perfect power to do it now. If the Act is passed it will easily be able to be carried out by the local authorities.
    Mr. T. THOMSON: I think the Amendment now proposed by the Government will be a very great help to local authorities. They have had power to close houses which were not reasonably fit for human habitation, but they were very lax in doing this in pre-war times, and during the War period it has been practically impossible to close any houses on that ground because of the shortage of houses, and this Amendment will be a great incentive to landlords to make houses which otherwise they would leave in their present state, reasonably fit for human habitation, if they can, in order to get the extra 5 per cent.
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "not" ["certifies that the house is not"] to insert the words "reasonably fit for human habitation or is."
    Mr. R. McNEILL: I understand the Government is going to accept my suggestion that notice should be given of the
    1196
    tenant's right. Are they doing that by a subsequent Amendment to the Clause in Committee?
    Mr. FISHER: Yes.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Proposed words, as amended, there inserted.
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, at the end of the Sub-section, to add the words
    "and informing the tenant of his right to apply to the sanitary authority for such a certificate as aforesaid."
    These words are intended to meet the point raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. McNeill).
    Mr. R. McNEILL: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered the suggestion made by my hon. and learned Friend (Sir J. Butcher) that the form in which this notice should be given should be put in the Schedule of the Bill. It is rather important that the form should be known, because if the notice were given simply in the terms of the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman has moved, it would not be very satisfactory. I do not know whether there is any objection to having a set form of words which should form the notice and having it in the Bill.
    Mr. FISHER: I shall be glad to consider that.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. That was in my mind when I spoke of having it in the Schedule to the Bill, so that the matter should not be left to the landlord to put some vague suggestion in his notice which might or might not be good.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Sir J. BUTCHER: May I suggest that a verbal Amendment will be desirable? The Clause says,
    "Provided no such increase shall be due and recoverable."
    Would it not make it clearer to say,
    "No such increase shall commence to be due and recoverable."
    The object is this. A landlord gives notice to raise the rent, and the intention is that it does not begin to be raised until after the expiration of four weeks. As it stands I do not think it is very clear.
    Mr. FISHER: I shall be glad to take that into consideration.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Limited Power of Increasing Rate of Mortgage Interest.)
    Nothing in the principal Act shall prevent an increase in the rate of interest payable in respect of the extended period on a mortgage to which the principal Act applies, if the increase does not exceed one-half per centum per annum, and the rate when so increased does not exceed five per centum per annum, and Sub-section (4) of Section one of the principal Act shall apply as if the reference therein to the standard rate included a reference to such increased rate.
    Major LLOYD-GREAME: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words
    "Provided that this provision shall not authorise the raising of the rate of interest under existing mortgages where the principal is repayable by fixed instalments at yearly intervals, or less, so long as the principal and interest are regularly paid in accordance with the terms of the instrument."
    I am not sure whether this Amendment is necessary or whether it is already provided for by the Bill. The point of it is this. There are a number of cases in which tenants have purchased their houses through building societies, the vendors taking a mortgage, which is repayable by equal instalments until the whole of it is paid off. I think obviously, just as in the case of a lease for a long term of years, it would not be competent for a landlord to vary the term of that firm agreement where a mortgage of this kind is repayable over a term of years, so long as the conditions which have been agreed upon are fulfilled there is no intention that the mortgage should be able to raise the interest.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. FISHER: I am afraid I do not see my way to accept the Amendment. Under the principal Act a special exception was inserted, enabling the mortgages of building societies to be called in, and any such Amendment as this would be very strongly resisted by the building societies. I do not know whether that consideration has been present to the mind of the hon. Member who moved this Amendment, but if he takes that into account I think he will see that on the whole the Government cannot accept this Amendment.
    Major LLOYD-GREAME: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that in these cases the security is increasing in value proportionately to the amount of debt which is being steadily reduced? I can-
    1198
    not altogether accept the point which the right hon. Gentleman has put, but if he tells me that it is really contrary to general convenience, and that the whole matter was fully thrashed out on the principal Act I do not think I can press the Amendment
    Mr. DENNISS: I want to make this point quite clear. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that when a man buys a house out and out, and it is to be paid for by instalments and a mortgage is executed to secure these instalments at a certain rate of interest, say, 4 or 5 per cent., that the mortgagee is to be in a position to raise that rate of interest? This is not like money lent as security upon a house. It is quite a different transaction. It is a question of the out and out sale of a house, the purchase price payable by instalments secured by mortgage, say, at 4 or 5 per cent. Why should the mortgagee have more than that? I do not remember the question being discussed on the previous Bill, though I was present at the time the Bill was under discussion. I deny the right of building societies to dictate in this matter.
    Sir COURTENAY WARNER: I do not think these mortgages would come under this new Act. Surely the only way of bringing that mortgage to an end is by demanding its being paid off, and there is no possibility of that. These are not ordinary mortgages but contracts for a certain definite term of years, and for a certain consideration so much is to be paid every year. I do not think that in the ordinary sense the rate of interest can be raised in these cases.
    Sir K.WOOD: I am afraid that the answer to that is that all mortgages are covered by this Bill, and therefore the in crease which is given in the rate of mortgage interest equally covers these mortgages unless an exception is made. As I understand the position, from what the President of the Board of Education has said, naturally the building societies of the country will say, "Why should mortgages in respect of which we have entered into arrangements be treated in any different manner than the mortgages of any other person?" That is simply the position. It is not a question of dictation by the building societies, but it is a question of a new rate of interest having been laid down by the law of the country, and naturally it would be very disturbing for

    1199
    the building societies it they were treated in a different way from other people who have lent money on mortgage.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Speaking from memory I think the whole question was gone into from the building society point of view when the principal Act was passed in 1915, but I would suggest that between now and the Report stage the right hon. Gentleman should look up the matter and any point which arises might be dealt with. So far as my memory serves me I believe the whole thing was gone into and the difference between these periodic payments as part of capital was taken into consideration.
    Mr. FISHER: That was my impression. I think the whole thing was gone into. At the same time if the Committee desires me to do so I will give the matter further consideration, and if the Government thinks that it is necessary to meet the hon. Member in any other way on the Report stage we will do so.
    Major LLOYD-GREAME: I am much obliged, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Sir J. BUTCHERrose—
    The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member object to the Amendment being withdrawn?
    Sir J. BUTCHER: I do object. Before the right hon. Gentleman makes a decision, I hope he will remember that this class of mortgage is totally different from the ordinary class of mortgage. In the ordinary class of mortgage you can call in your mortgage, but in the class of mortgage to which this Amendment refers you cannot call in the mortgage. Therefore, it seems to me to be unreasonable to increase the rate of interest.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Extension of Principal Act to Higher-rented Houses.)
    As from the passing of this Act the principal Act and the enactments amending that Act shall extend to houses or parts of houses let as separate dwellings where such letting does not include any land other than the site of the dwelling-house and a garden or other premises within the curtilage of the dwelling-house, and where—

    (a) in the case of a house situated in the Metropolitan Police district, including the City of London, both the annual amount of the standard rent and the rateable value of the house or part of the house exceed thirty-five pounds, and neither exceeds fifty-five pounds;

    1200

    (b) in the case of a house situated in Scotland, both the annual amount of the standard rent and the rateable value of the house or part of the house exceed thirty pounds, and neither exceeds forty-eight pounds;

    (c) in the case of a house situated elsewhere, both the annual amount of the standard rent and the rateable value of the house or part of the house exceed twenty-six pounds, and neither exceeds forty-two pounds;

    and shall also extend to mortgages (not being mortgages to which the principal Act as originally enacted applies) where the mortgaged property consists of or comprises one or more of such dwelling-houses as aforesaid or any interest therein, subject, however, to the exceptions mentioned in Sub-section (4) of Section two of the principal Act, but in the application to those houses and mortgages the principal Act and the enactments amending that Act shall have effect, subject to the following modifications—

    (i) for Sub-section (1) of Section one of the principal Act, exclusive of the provisoes to that Sub-section, the following provisions shall be substituted:

    Where the rent of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies or the rate of interest on a mortgage to which this Act applies has been since the fourth day of March, nineteen hundred and nineteen, or is hereafter increased, then, if the increased rent exceeds by more than ten per centum the standard rent, or the increased rate of interest exceeds by more than one-half per centum per annum the standard rate, the amount of such excess shall, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, be irrecoverable from the tenant and if paid may be recovered by the tenant in the manner and subject to the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section five of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1917;

    (ii) in Sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section one of the principal Act the fourth day of March, nineteen hundred and nineteen, shall be substituted for the twenty-fifth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifteen;

    (iii) in Sub-section (3) of Section one of the principal Act references to the date of the passing of the principal Act shall be construed as references to the date of passing of this Act;

    (iv) in Sub-section (4) of Section one of the principal Act for the reference to the standard rate there shall be substituted a reference to the rate permitted by this Section;

    (v) in Section one of the Increase of Rent, etc. (Amendment) Act, 1918, for the reference to the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and seventeen, there shall be substituted references to the fourth day of March, nineteen hundred and nineteen.

    Mr. ROWLANDS: I beg to move, after the word Act ["the passing of this Act"], to insert the words,
    "and notwithstanding any notice that may have been given by the landlord to the tenant or any agreement entered into between the landlord and the tenant."
    I am particularly anxious to know whether these words are necessary in order to protect a large number of persons

    1201
    who at the present time are under notice to quit or to buy between now and the 25th of this month. It is a widespread, far-reaching question. It affects not only large numbers of the working classes, but the middle classes and the well-off middle classes. There are hundreds and thousands of these notices at the present time. People are trying to get houses and find it totally impossible to get them, and if something is not done to protect these people between now and the next quarter-day there will be a most serious state of things. I do not at the present time see clearly that these people are safeguarded in the principal Act. We have to recollect that the whole of this period, the whole of the proceedings to-night, and the whole of the proceedings of last Friday, have arisen out of this particular question, and unless these people are protected we shall not have gained the object for which we have been striving. While the Bill might have come up in due course as a result of the Hunter Report, I do not think we should have had it at this part of the Session had it not been for the great grievance under which thousands of people are suffering in regard to these notices to quit. From the South of England, Scotland, or Wales, one has by every post enormous correspondence on this subject. The grievance is far reaching, and the position will be of a most serious character unless these people are protected.
    Mr. FISHER: I need hardly say that the Government are in entire sympathy with the object the hon. Member has in view, but I am advised that the Amendment is unnecessary. His object is already secured under the principal Act. In Section 1, Sub-section (3), of the Act of 1915, tenants are prevented from being evicted. Not only so, but the Sub-section is made to apply in cases where an eviction order has been made but not executed before the passing of the Bill, and enables the Court to revoke or vary the order.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave out the words
    "both the annual amount of the standard rent and."
    Those of us who have had some connection, with the Act of 1915 are particularly interested in this Amendment. In that Act, as in this Bill, we have had the alternative question of rateable value
    1202
    or rental value. Everybody who has had anything to do with the working of the Act of 1915 are of opinion that it would be very much better to adopt the rateable value rather than the rental value.
    Amendment negatived.
    Major LLOYD-GREAME: The Amendment which stands in ray name practically raises the same point as the last Amendment, whether it is to be rental or rateable value. As my hon. Friend's Amendment in favour of rateable value has been accepted, am I in order in moving this Amendment?
    Mr. RAWLINSON: As the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Rowlands) was negatived, is this Amendment in order? Is there any difference between this Amendment and the other Amendment?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member had better move it and make his point.
    Major LLOYD-GREAME: I beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave out the words
    "neither exceeds"
    and to insert instead thereof
    "the rateable value does not exceed."
    The question whether it is to be rateable value or rental value will make a very considerable difference in the attitude which Members will adopt on the Amendments which follow. We should naturally be prepared to accept a rather lower maximum figure if the test is to be rateable value, but if the standard is to be rental value we shall be compelled to press for a higher figure.
    Mr. FISHER: I hope the Committee will be indulgent to me when I confess that I am very unfamiliar with the legal minutiæ of this measure, and feel at some disadvantage in the absence of my right hon. Friend (Sir G. Hewart). But I remember hearing this matter discussed by those who are familiar with the legal technicalities of this Bill, and it seemed that rental value and rateable value ought to be stated in the Bill. I quite appreciate the fact mentioned by the hon. Member that if we go by rateable value we have a higher test than if we go by rental, and that consequently it will make a difference in the figure. I also appreciate the fact that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in his announcement only mentioned rateable value, and consequently created an expectation that that would be

    1203
    the sole test or standard. I must ask leave of the Committee for the moment to assume that in this Clause the £55 rental limit is lower than a rateable limit of £55, and consequently the Committee in discussing what the limit should be will proceed upon the assumption for the present that the Government are proposing £55 rental value.
    Sir A. YEO: The right hon. Gentleman has not committed the Government in any way, and we shall not be satisfied by a long way unless this is raised to a very much higher figure.
    Major LLOYD-GREAME: On the understanding that my right hon. Friend is going to be generous to me on my next Amendment I ask leave to withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I beg to move to leave out the word "fifty-five," and to insert instead thereof the word "seventy-five."
    This Amendment is of very great interest to a very large number of persons. Anyone, who has been following this question, and has read the correspondence that has been alluded to over and over again, which has reached us from all parts, is aware that the figure of £55 shuts out many thousands of persons who ought to come under this Bill. Many of my correspondents suggest having no figure at all; others go up to £100. I have letters from places for instance like Leigh-on-Sea, and other watering places round the coast, where large numbers of houses do not come within the scope of the £55. We have fixed £75 as a compromise between £55 and the higher figure which so many persons would desire. There are very large numbers of people who are in what may be called the "buy or quit" position, because it is supposed that they could in an emergency, not being able to get another house or flat, raise the money or part of the money to purchase the houses in which they live, and who would be excluded under the present Bill. This Amendment covers a very large number of flats throughout London and the suburbs. I am not speaking of residential flats which are furnished or in which there is attendance, but flats taken by people to furnish with their own furniture which would not come within the £55 limit. There is a great number of them in existence at present, and there is a great tendency to increase them by the conversion of large
    1204
    houses into maisonettes, and these would be also outside the scope of the present Bill. I hope the Government will accede to this very modest request.
    Colonel THORNE: Does this Amendment simply mean a rental of £75? If so, the Government ought to accept it. The Leader of the House, a few days ago, gave us to understand that it would mean a rateable value of £55, and not the rental, which makes all the difference in the world. Therefore, if the Government accept the £75, it will be only meeting the argument put forward by the Leader of the House when he led us to believe that it meant a rateable value of £55.
    Sir K. WOOD: I hope the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment. Some of the most deserving cases that have come before Members who have taken an interest in this Bill have been in reference to what I might call the middle or professional classes. I was very sorry to hear the statement on the Second Reading of the Bill that this was not a middle-class measure. The sooner that it is made a measure for the relief of a certain number of the middle-classes the better. There are large numbers of cases, especially in London in connection with flats as indicated by my hon. Friend, in which professional people have perhaps suffered almost more than any other class during the War, and yet my right hon. Friend the other day indicated that this Bill was going to give no relief whatever to them. I cannot understand the Government coming forward with such a proposal. At this time we ought to be able to give relief to the people who have suffered so much and certainly deserve that relief. I should myself prefer to vote for the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend (Major Lloyd-Greame), but I will take whatever I can get in this direction. I want the Government fully to realise that this deals with a case quite as deserving as that of the industrial wage earner. Some of the most severe cases affected by this Bill are amongst these people who have been struggling for the last three or four years under the most adverse circumstances, and who deserve the greatest amount of sympathy and some relief from the Government in this matter.
    Major LLOYD-GREAME: Perhaps it will be convenient to the Committee if I were to move as an Amendment to this Amendment to insert the words "one hundred" instead of "seventy-five."
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot do so at this stage, but if this Amendment is defeated he would then be in order.
    Major LLOYD-GREAME: I may not have the chance later on of urging the point and therefore I would like to take this opportunity of appealing to the right hon. Gentleman in the same sense as I would have done if I were advancing my own Amendment. My right hon. Friend on the Second Reading said that he wished to extend as large a measure as possible of social justice under this Bill. I think I could give him the opportunity of satisfying his desire of extending a complete measure of social justice if he will accept the figure of one hundred. In this matter I hope to have the support of hon. Members opposite, who will now have the opportunity of giving practical expression to their desire to support workers with brains as well as with hands. There are, of course, brains on both sides. Frankly, I think, as I stated on the Second Reading, the strongest possible case can be made out for the middle class in this matter. They have given up an enormous amount during the War and have lost a large proportion of their numbers. They have made less out of the War than any other class of the community. I, therefore, think at this intermediate period, when the whole object of this Bill is to enable the people who are coming back to start again, that they are entitled to consideration. Moreover, it is between these limits of £50 and £100 that you have the hardest cases of all, and the biggest proportion of increases being made both by way of raising rent and enforcing premiums as a consideration for granting new leases, and also by people being compelled to purchase at absolutely outrageous prices in many cases. What I am asking is, I submit, not unfair to any party to this transaction. It is not unfair to the Government, because I am not asking the Government to give any money for this purpose. It is not unfair to the landlord, for two reasons. In the first place, these were not uneconomic-rented houses before the War. These houses were let at rents which satisfied the landlord as an economic investment in 1914. I should be perfectly willing, if my right hon. Friend will meet me in this, to agree to a further provision being inserted which would put upon these tenants a reasonable extra cost for repairs. But I have a strong objection to them being compelled to pay far more than the
    1206
    economic rents. The argument was also raised that it is unfair to do this because it will affect private enterprise and throw the burden on to the State. The President of the Board of Education particularly guarded himself in that respect because he has excluded from the operation of the present Bill any houses which are now being constructed or may hereafter be constructed. Therefore private enterprise is left absolutely free. I should like to draw attention to one other consideration, and that is that the lower you place your rental limit in this respect, the greater will be the competition for the houses within the limit. That was very clearly put in the Minority Report of Lord Hunter's Committee by Mr. Neville and Mr. Rider, in which they said:
    "In our opinion the absence of any restriction of rents on houses not falling within the restrictions imposed by these Acts is bound to accentuate the demand for houses which are restricted and thus lender the problem of housing the working classes still more acute, which will remain until schemes of house-building mature. There is an abundance of information that the tenants of houses outside the scope of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915, are being made to pay much higher rentals presumably to meet the landlords increased Income Tax."
    I submit that the figure of £100 is not unreasonable, and if it is accepted you will not be doing any injustice to any landlord, since the interests of landlords have been reasonably safeguarded under this Bill, while at the same time you will be doing as far as you can that complete measure of social justice which you say it was your desire to achieve.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if on this Amendment we took the discussion on three subsequent Amendments which deal with the same point as to the amount. I shall put the Question, "That the word 'fifty-five' stand part," so as to enable that discussion to take place.
    Mr. N. M'LEAN: I have an Amendment further down on the Paper; how would that be affected?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is another matter.
    Mr. M'LEAN: I desire to know if it would be ruled out?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think so.
    Mr. CLYNES: I desire to support the views which have been urged upon

    1207
    my right hon. Friend who is in charge of the Bill by the three hon. Members who have preceded me in the Debate. There is nothing that I can recall with which I do not fully agree. Though usually those of us who rise from these benches speak specially in the interests of those who are termed the working classes, we recognise that in regard to a measure of this kind there ought not to be any very precise class distinction as between those who are termed manual workers and those who are employed in other useful spheres of service. I especially endorse what has been said as to the very material sacrifices of the middle classes of this country during the course of the War, and I submit that that is a very good reason why the Government should broaden as far as possible the purpose and objects of this Bill, so as to extend very material and urgent relief to a class which has not been able during the period of the War to secure relief for itself in quite the same degree as very large numbers of industrial workers have been able to do. It is well known to us that a very large proportion of the brain workers and the middle-class employés of this country engaged in numerous businesses have not been able to secure the same advances in their salaries as the working classes have been in respect of their wages. That was particularly true in the first two and a half years of the War, when very serious suffering indeed was endured by very large sections of the middle classes. I am certain that those of us on these benches lose nothing in respect to the weight with which we may urge our own claims by admitting the justice of the claims of other sections of the community, and this is a case distinctly in which we can very well join hands and ask that the provisions of this Bill should be extended to this class. A further reason which I would urge upon my right hon. Friend is this, that during the period of the law which we are now proposing to amend there was a class of house not under that law occupied by persons of the middle class, and it is well known that the rents of those houses were materially increased and that they are constantly now being increased in different parts of the country. Some of my hon. Friends who have had to come almost for the first time for a long stay in London in connection with their Parliamentary duties have
    1208
    had some experience of this very lively enterprise of house hunting, and they have found not only how difficult it is to secure a habitation and a home, but how very costly it is to meet the charges which they are required to pay when any likely place does meet their eye. I think we shall not be completing this task and that the Government will not be making a good job on what is really a very good opportunity unless they do meet the views which have been urged by my hon. Friends who have pressed this Amendment, and accordingly those for whom I can speak on this side of the House are whole-heartedly in favour of the Amendment.
    Sir A. YEO: I think the right hon. Gentleman must be seized of the fact, that the House has made up its mind, so far as its constitution at this moment is concerned, to expect that the Government shall increase the value very considerably. Though I have an Amendment down on the Paper that £85 should be the value, I have the greatest possible pleasure in supporting my hon. Friend who has asked that the figure should be raised to £100. I am sure that after the expression of opinion from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Clynes) this House will speedily come to a decision and get this matter cleared off the Paper. There is no question about it that in all parts of the country people are not only being threatened with eviction, and having notices held over their heads with a view to getting out of their houses if they do not buy, but there is a very serious increase, in the letters in to-day's post, of cases of landlords who are insisting on raising their rents over the heads of the people to the extent of 25 per cent., 30 per cent., or even 50 per cent. If we do not increase the rateable value very soon and get this matter put right, there is no doubt about it that we shall bring upon our own heads and upon the heads of the Government more serious trouble than we care to appreciate. There is no question about it, whether it be for the middle class or the working class, that the Government are doing the right thing in bringing in this Bill, and I am quite sure that the time of the House will be saved if the right hon. Gentleman will say from that Bench now that he is prepared to give us the increase to £100.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I differ very much from the hon. Member who has just sat down in some of his remarks. The right

    1209
    hon. Gentleman below me (Mr. Clynes) drew a very eloquent picture, with which I entirely agree, of the sufferings of the middle-class. He said, quite rightly, that manual labour has received very much larger remuneration during the War than brain labour in comparison with what it received before. He pointed out the difficulties and the sufferings of the middle-class, and I am the last person to differ from him in what he said, but what is the logical outcome and what is the effect of the Amendment? We are to make the landlord suffer in some form or another. If this Amendment is carried, a very different class of property will be brought within the scope of the Act. I am not interested in any way in house property, and I do not therefore speak from my own point of view, but those who know about this matter know that house property in a very large number of cases, such as flats and so forth, is kept in proper repair by the landlord and could not be let otherwise. Repairs that cost £20 at the beginning of the War will cost more than £50 to-day. You have to get plumbers and people of that kind in, and all of them ask, of course, for more wages. Why should there not be a rise in the price of a flat which is let under those circumstances? How can you possibly make both ends meet if you do not? Again, I would point out that in a large number of cases this property, valued at £60 or £70, as the case may be, is owned by people of the middle-class. I am almost sorry to say that I spoke on the Second Heading of this Bill, because my intervention then has brought me so much correspondence since, and it has come from small people. The last letter I got was from a widow, and it is always fashionable in this House to introduce a widow whenever there is doubt about a question. I think even a bachelor is entitled to a certain amount of justice. In this case, a widow owns a certain amount of property of comparatively small houses—about £60 or £70—in the suburbs of London. She writes:
    "I see the suggestion is made for an extension of the measure. I do hope you will oppose that in every way."
    Then the figures were given me as to the position. Certainly the rents are not excessive at the present time. The houses could be let at a very much larger sum. I simply say that if you are extending in this way an absolutely uneconomic Act, you may be doing an injury to the landlord. All the questions about repairs,
    1210
    which were raised in previous Amendments, do not apply here. This class of property must be kept in repair or it could not be let. The cost of repairs has gone up very largely, and in this class of property you will find sub-letting more common than in other forms of small-class property. I do submit that, though it may have been justifiable in 1915 to pass what was admittedly an uneconomic Bill to protect people who had to go to some places to earn wages, it is very unfair to extend it to a particular type of property running from £55 to £100. I know a certain class of flat property, the tenants of which went to the War, and in the interval the flats have been let to the general public. The understanding has always been that the people would come back to the property. It would even affect such property as that.
    It has been suggested that some hon. Members find great difficulty in getting houses when they come to London. It is very desirable that they should get houses, when they come to London, but the effect of this Bill will be that they will not be able to get houses, because sitting tenants will be allowed to remain at the present vent, which will make it far harder for others to get houses. Those who try to get rooms find they have to pay very highly indeed for them, and if you extend the scope of this Bill it only hits the head landlord, and not the tenant who sublets. I asked on Friday whether this Bill did extend to furnished houses which were sub-let? and the Lord Advocate—I think it was—answered that certainly it did apply to furnished houses. I do not think that can be correct, and I do not think the subletting of furnished houses to tenants would be affected by this Bill at all. Therefore, if hon. Members have found difficulty in getting houses or rooms in London, this Bill, instead of helping them, will rather hurt them, because the present tenant will be able to keep his holding and sub-let it at any price he likes. Although possibly I am in a small minority, there is another side to the question of justice in this case. Though it may be justifiable in the case of small holdings, when people cannot protect themselves, you must certainly leave the question of contract open in the case of large holdings, including Hats of £80, £90, and £100 a year. A Bill of this kind, which is admittedly uneconomic, and is only justified in order to meet an emergency for a certain class of property, should not be extended in the

    1211
    way indicated, because there is no justice in it, and appeals on behalf of the middle class are absolutely beside the mark. The landlord has had to suffer with the rest of the community.
    Mr. RENDALL: This Amendment is very popular, just as the Bill is popular. Hon. Members supporting the Bill, and moving Amendments to enlarge the number of houses that are to come under it, of course realise that they are speaking for the large majority in their constituencies, and therefore are eager to support a Bill which has got a large number of persons behind it.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: It does not affect us.
    Mr. RENDALL: I am not speaking of every Member, but of many Members, and, therefore, the actual right or wrong of an Amendment is apt to be put on one side, whilst hon. Members think of the amount of popularity they expect to gain by expressing opinions and moving Amendments which will extend the scope of this Bill. I do not know why they stop at £100.
    Sir K. WOOD: Why does my hon. Friend stop at £55?
    Mr. RENDALL: I suggest that when, the original Bill was brought in that would have been a very good time for hon. Members to move Amendments of this kind. I was present at those discussions, but I do not remember any Labour Member proposing to extend this Bill to people who pay rents of the kind which we are now talking about. It Was rather curious that we should have spent the whole of yesterday in criticising the Government for not taking restrictions off trade, but to-day a particular kind of trade—and a very valuable kind of trade—is to be penalised, for, after all, the building of houses by those persons who built them was of enormous advantage to us when the War came, and building became impossible. I do not for a moment suggest that they were philanthropists, but in providing these houses where they were badly wanted in particular places was of great advantage to the State, and why you should select this particular class, whose labour and whose property were of such advantage to the nation, for a special penalty, I cannot understand. Personally, I am quite open to say now that I am fully in favour of the
    1212
    nation buying and controlling a great many of the industries of this country. I am not at all ashamed of the fact that I am a Socialist, but my Socialism has always meant that, if the State takes anything, it pays full market value for it. The hon. Member opposite smiles, but that has been the doctrine of Socialists for a great many years.
    Colonel THORNE: Who is going to decide the full market value?
    Mr. RENDALL: It is perfectly well known to be what a thing will fetch at the time you sell it in the open market, and that market value is the value that would be paid by the State if it were going to buy out the railways. I, therefore, cannot understand why, when the State wants to interfere with control or to commandeer property, the property of certain persons, that it should not be willing to bear the burden which it is desirous of casting upon the owners of that particular property. It seems to me to be justice, and what the owner of the property ought to have. After all, when you consider that the owners of other kinds of investments in this country are practically unfettered—or will be in a very few weeks—as to the income they derive from their investments, when you remember that the Labour party—I will not say all, but many of them, and certainly the rest of the House—have got one desire, and that is to free the individual so that he may carry on his trade apart from all State restrictions, it is the more extraordinary that we should now be placing restrictions upon one trade unless—and this "unless" is very important—the community is prepared to pay the owner of that particular kind of property for anything that it takes from him. This, I say, seems to me to be justice.
    In regard to this particular Amendment, I would suggest that the persons whom it is proposed to benefit by it have not made any claim to be benefited by it. There has been no demand in the country, so far as I have been able to see, from the newspapers, or by resolutions from public meetings; there has been no vocal demand of any kind from those whom this Amendment seeks to benefit, to try to get under the cover of this Bill. Why they should be introduced into the Bill at all I cannot understand. We all regret we all think it is a pity that these restrictions are required. The only justification of these restrictions is that the community

    1213
    really needs that they should be imposed for the benefit of the community. But there has been no argument placed before the Committee that I have heard this afternoon or evening which says that the particular persons covered by this Amendment, and proposed to be benefited by it, have been injured, or wished this remedy given to them. It seems to me to be a mistake to increase the scope of the Bill in the way suggested.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Would the hon. Gentleman like to spend a day going through the correspondence we have received?
    9.0. P.M.
    Mr. RENDALL: I am quite prepared to admit that once you put a Bill on the floor of the House that everybody who thinks, or hopes that he may get some benefit from it, will write letters to hon. Members. That is quite apart from the general management. After all, we have to remember that this Bill is not going to cover the case of new property that will be built after it has passed. That is to say, if a man builds houses after this Bill has become an Act, that man will be able to charge a rent which is above the standard rent. So far, it may be said, that the Act will, therefore, not discourage building. It however remains the fact that the builder and the person who has got land for building will feel that they have had three Acts passed in the last three or four years which do restrict the profit the landlord may get from his property, and they will feel that it is extremely likely that another Bill may be passed that will bring into the scope of these various Acts the property they will build. Consequently, a man looking at it in that way will not build. A builder will feel that the whole position of house property is in jeopardy. He will not put his money into it. So far as private speculation and private building is concerned, men will be at a loss to know what is likely to happen—certainly for the duration of these Acts. They will interfere with the absolute possibility of building small, and even big, houses inside the radius which this Bill will deal with until it comes to an end. That is an extremely serious matter. There is another thing. There can be no selling of any property covered by this Act. There may be a forced sale under exceptional circumstances. The holder will not know what his property is worth, and the would-be purchaser will not know, and will, therefore, be unwilling to take the risk of buying something which
    1214
    the State has decided he will not get more than a certain income from for a certain period of time, while at the end of that period the State may again intervene, whether for or against the property it is difficult to prophesy. Can hon. Members of the Labour party, or indeed in any other quarter of the House, realise what would happen if you were to say concerning a certain article in this country, "You shall not buy or sell that article for two years"? That, most people would urge, is a most extraordinary thing to say, and to say it by legislation. If may be necessary to say so in this case. I quite agree that it was necessary to pass the original Act, though there is something to be said against that form of legislation; but to say that the State should interfere in respect of property letting at £70, £80, or £100 per annum, seems to me to be doing something quite unnecessary, something which has not been asked for, and which will be a great block upon capital and a great block upon property as an investment, and place the latter in a category where no man will touch it. It will make house property stink in the nostrils of the British public. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite may smile.
    Colonel THORNE: Hand it over to the State!
    Mr. RENDALL: Exactly, if the State will buy it at the market price, I am in favour of it. But I am speaking of something now of which I really know. If tomorrow someone comes into my office and inquires about house property, what answer can I give him?
    An HON. MEMBER: Say it stinks in the nostrils!
    Mr. RENDALL: That really is the only answer I could give. In saying that you are saying something which so far as I can see is, I think, going to be the effect of this restraint on property in this country. I cannot think the extension of this Bill beyond what is actually necessary is desirable. I submit that the proposal in the Bill goes as far as we ought to go. I hope, therefore, that the Government will feel that the Amendment which has been proposed should be refused; that they will see that to pass the Bill in the form introduced is right. I honestly believe that that is so far as the need has been proved to exist. To go beyond that need would be disastrous.
    Captain Sir H. NORRIS: I happen to be one of those abominations known as landlords. I should like to state at once that as far as I am concerned I have never given a tenant notice to quit, nor have I ever raised my rent. In regard to the Bill itself, I must confess I do not like it. I think it seeks to impose upon one particular class of the community restrictions which have never been imposed upon another. It is supported by hon. Members who in their own occupations have not hesitated to charge for their pianos and mangles 100 to 150 per cent. above the charges of pre-war days. In regard to the standard rent I am bound to confess that if you are to impose restrictions upon houses of which the rental value is £55 per annum, the Bill ought to be extended to those of £100, because I can see no reason why the one class of landlord should be taxed over and above any other class. If landlords are to be protected in that way, the same measure of justice ought to be measured out to all alike. So far as I am personally concerned, I hope the Government will extend the limit to £100, or even wipe away the limit altogether.
    Major NEWMAN: This Bill is only a temporary one, for two years at outside, and at the end of two years we are told the landlord is to reap his reward. He is now able to turn out his tenants and raise his rent and recoup himself, but if in two years' time he is to have a chance of raising his rent 10 per cent. he is not doing so very badly. I am very sorry the two classes of houses have been mixed up in the discussion—that is, the house of the working man and the house of the middle class. It is evident that what the working man dreads is having his weekly rent raised, but what the middle-class man dreads is being turned out of his house. He does not mind paying 10 per cent., 15 per cent., or 20 per cent. more rent if he can only stay in his house, and it is being turned out when he has nowhere else to go that is upsetting him.
    Some hon. Members have stated that they have received no letters of complaint from the middle class, but I have had many such letters every day, and I do not think there are many hon. Members who can say truthfully that they have not had letters to a similar effect. The hon. Member opposite said that people who sold pianos were able to get more money for them, and the same applied to mangles,
    1216
    and therefore he asked why should the landlord not be able to get more rent? People do not live by pianos or mangles alone. Suppose a tenant is turned out. He has to go somewhere, and at present there is nowhere he can go. Therefore, it is not a case of pianos or mangles, but the man has to go somewhere. For two years we have given him the chance of staying in his house, and at the end of that time something may happen. For two years the middle-class man has a chance of staying in his house. I rather hesitate to put before the Committee the remarks of a German made a good many years ago. Bismarck once told the public "that a citizen in Germany should eat below his means, should dress above his means, and pay rent according to his means." You may take as a general standard that a man should pay rent to the extent of one-eighth of his income. No man feels this hardship more than the man who has got £500 or £600 a year. Before the War that man could have taken a house rented at £65 or £75 a year. If that man is now turned out he will find it impossible to get any house at all. I think the limit ought not to be lower than £75. I think these men with fixed incomes which have half the purchasing power they had before the War should, at any rate, when paying a pre-war rent between £65 and £75 a year, have the protection which this Bill gives. I support the Amendment before the House, but I do not bind myself to the figure of £100.
    Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: I support the Amendment to make the limit £100, because it is the highest that has been named, and I do so because I believe every class of the community should have protection and justice, and people who live in those houses are entitled to the same fair play as other people. I think the landlords of this particular class have been very fortunate during the time the principal Act has been running. The Bill before us and the principal Bill that we have been living under as far as small property is concerned for some considerably time was necessitated because of the War, and because building had been stopped, and it has been stopped for nearly five years. I do not think there will be many houses ready for habitation much under another two years, so that there will practically have been seven years without any new houses. I think people are entitled to protection because of that position. Looking forward, I do not think there will be houses in any

    1217
    sense of sufficiency for the next ten years. For a long time in the history of this country there has been a scarcity of houses. Landlords had more than one applicant for every house before the War commenced, and there will now be twenty or100 applying for every house, and if there is not some restriction landlords can got what price they like and exploit to what extent they like. I think these people are entitled to the protection of the Government, and that is why I am pleading that this amount should be raised from £55 up to £100, which is the highest figure we have. It is not a matter that will affect my Constituency, which is concerned chiefly with small workmen's houses, but I have risen because I feel that every class in the community is entitled to the same measure of justice.
    Captain R. GUINNESS: I appeal to the Government to accept this Amendment. In my Constituency there are a large number of people living in moderately large houses, and they will find themselves turned out into the street at an early date unless the limit is raised, because many of their houses have been bought over their heads, and I can see no other remedy than that of bringing the value of their houses within the scope of this Bill. For these reasons I hope the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment.
    Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: May I add my few words of appeal to the Government? This Bill has been brought about because of certain well-advertised mischiefs. Those mischiefs exist as much in the case of houses between the rents of £50 and £90 as they do in the case of houses between the present limit of £35 and £55. I was glad to hear from the Labour Benches the declaration that regardless of the wealth or poverty of tenants they are entitled to the protection of the State where there is an attempt to exploit them through abnormal circumstances which are entirely due to the War. Judging from the speech of the Minister for Education last Friday, the attitude of the Government rather seems to be that they are dealing with the case of the wage-earning class. Even supposing that to be the case, the wage-earning class are, if anything, more affected in the case of houses rated between £55 and £90 than they are in the case of houses rated between £35 and £55, because when you come to the more highly rated houses you have a state of things
    1218
    which is peculiar to what I may call war conditions Houses of from £50 to £80 or £90 are comparatively large houses, and you have cases of two or three tenants of the wage-earning class combining to go in with a common tenancy. That is so in the case of my own Constituency of East Ham South, and it is much more the case in other places, and particularly in munition areas. The hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Major Newman) speaks of having received certain letters. I do not suppose that I should be exaggerating if I said that since this matter was raised, ten days ago, I have had something like 5,000 letters from different parts of the country, apart altogether from the letters which have been received by the organisation.
    Mr. JOHN JONES: That is more than the Prime Minister's bag.
    Mr. EDWARDS: I am sorry I did not hear the interruption of the hon. Member. The vast majority of those letters are from people living in houses which are rated above the limit provided for in the Bill, and they tear that they are going to be turned out bag and baggage on 25th March or at the June quarter without any remedy at all. If the Government are really sincere, as I believe them to be, in trying to prevent the mischief of these people being turned out into the street unless they are prepared to subscribe to an unconscionable contract that some landlords are attempting to put upon them because of the abnormal War conditions, then I beg of them to manifest that sincerity by raising the present limit to such an amount as will enbrace the whole of the mischief.
    Mr. N. M'LEAN: This Amendment only affects England, but I am interested in it because later on I have a similar Amendment with regard to Scotland. I wish to suggest to those Members of the House who have been finding fault with us for wishing to have the rent increased that we are taking the matter up from a purely business point of view. One Member wanted to know why yesterday we were opposing restrictions and why to-day we are in favour of them. The restrictions that we were opposing yesterday were upon things that in the main are plentiful, but the restriction which we are supporting to-day is upon a thing which has a scarcity value. We have to look at the matter from this point of view. Everything that is produced by labour and that is consumable, whether clothing

    1219
    or furniture or anything that is manufactured, becomes of less value the more that we use it, but during this War the landlord has upset the economic theory and has shown that the more you use a house that is produced by labour the more valuable it becomes. The more that has been received by some of them has not been because houses have increased in value but because houses have become more scarce, and because they have been able to put a monopoly value upon them. [An Hon. Member: "No!"] I say yes. [An Hon. Member: "And I say No!"] I have letter beside me proving it. My hon. Friend on the other side (Mr. Clement Edwards) said that he had received 5,000 letters, and if the rest of us are getting letters at the same rate I am afraid that the Post Office authorities are being severely taxed. Housing accommodation has become scarce because of the action of the Government during the War in withdrawing all licences to build houses. Consequently, it is only just and right that the Government to-day should increase the limit to cover the people whom we are asking to be covered. Unless that is done; there will be a greater outcry from a larger section of the community. It is no use saying that this matter only affects a few. It affects a great number. It affects people all over the country, in Scotland as well as in England, although according to the bill one would imagine that we pay lower rents in Scotland than you do in England. I can tell you that so far as convenience and accommodation go houses are more expensive in Scotland than in England. Yet you are giving us a lower rental. I have letters, though not 5,000—I do not intend to read them all—some of which I will read, showing that this Bill is not going to touch people who have moved into a better district in order to give their children a better environment, and who have received notice to quit. I have a notice to quit in my hand. It was sent on by a tenant who has received notice to quit at the May term. Because he refused to purchase his house at an increased price of £300 over its pre-war value, he has been asked to leave the house at the May term coming along in Scotland. This man must be protected, and I hope the Government, as they have been pleaded with by hon. Members in
    1220
    various parts of the Committee, will agree to extend the limit up to £75 a year, even if they cannot extend it as high as £100.
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I have listened with very great care to the Debate on this matter. We have reached the kernel of the Bill, and one therefore thought it right to let the Debate develop before the answer of the Government was given. I have been impressed by the speeches that have been made. The Committee will agree that the questions which have been raised are not only important but also difficult. The difficulty is this, that with a Bill of this kind you can try to be logical, but it is very difficult. You have, in the last resort, to be arbitrary in fixing your figures, and there are bound to be hard cases on both sides whichever figure you happen to fix on. Therefore, it becomes necessary that one should proceed with considerable caution in extending the ambit of the Bill as it has been presented to the House of Commons after very full care and deliberation. You may hit very hard people whom you do not intend to hit hard in the course of extending the ambit of the Bill now before the Committee. One has to remember that not only are all owners of small houses not rich people, but that neither are all tenants of small houses at all times poor people. It may be the case that they are in many instances, but you must remember the case which has been referred to, that of the widow. It is very often cited in this House, and it is sometimes received with derision. But, in this particular case, it ought not to be, as many members of the Committee must have received letters, as I have done, from persons extremely hard hit by the operations of the Act which it is proposed to amend. I have known of cases in my own Constituency where there, have been old ladies of straitened means who possess a certain amount of small house property, and who, in consequence of the increased cost of living and of repairs, have been by its operation reduced almost to penury. One has to remember the cases on both sides of the line, the case of the impecunious owner as well as of the impecunious tenant. In these circumstances it behaves one to proceed with considerable caution in extending the operation of this Act. But, after listening to the Debate and to the speeches, I would suggest to the Committee that the

    1221
    most reasonable compromise which might be arrived at would be that the Government should substitute for the figures now in the Bill the following figures: £70 for London, £60 for Scotland, and £52 for the provinces. If that is done, the Committee will observe that the figures in the existing Act of Parliament, which were very carefully considered—I remember very well being concerned with the consideration of these figures when the Act was passed—would be exactly doubled in London, in the provinces, and in Scotland. Accordingly, if the Committee take that course they will follow a certain principle which was embodied in the original Act, which has been put into operation since that Act was passed, and which on the whole, although there may have been hard cases on both sides, has worked with success. I therefore recommend this concession by the Government as fine of considerable value, and while it does not meet the higher Amendments which have been moved, it is, I think a reasonable proposal, and it follows the principle in the original Act.
    An HON. MEMBER: When the right hon. Gentleman refers to London, does he mean the Metropolitan Police district, as referred to in the Act?
    Mr. MUNRO: Yes.
    Major NEWMAN: Docs the £70 mean the rateable value or the standard rent, or both?
    Mr. MUNRO: What I propose is to substitute these figures for the figures in the Bill. The Bill will then read
    "In the care of a house situated in the Metropolitan Police district, including the City of London, both the annual amount of the standard rent and the rateable value of the house, or part of the house, exceed thirty-five pounds, and neither exceeds seventy pounds."
    It is a perfectly simple proposal to substitute these three figures for the figures now in the Bill.
    Mr. JOSEPH JOHNSTONE: I think the Secretary for Scotland has met us fairly well in regard to these figures. I had down an Amendment to apply to Scotland the figure "sixty" in lieu of "forty-eight," and so far as I am concerned I am perfectly satisfied with what the right hon. Gentleman has offered us. I quite agree with all he said about the effect of this Bill, that it is to meet abnormal conditions, and that the most clamant
    1222
    conditions just now is not the amount of the rental but the scarcity of houses, with the threat that people are going to be turned out into the street with nowhere to go. Now, by the raising of the limit, the Secretary for Scotland has met us fairly well, and a large measure of protection will be given to a class of people with no protection at the present time, and who have been pretty helpless throughout the War. This concession should be taken as the right hon. Gentleman has offered it, and it will then allow us to go on and pass the Bill. So far as I am concerned I heartily welcome the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman has made.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I am pleased to think that the Secretary for Scotland has broadened out the measure somewhat, and I wish he could have seen his way to have gone at least as far as my Amendment asks, and to have made £75 the limit. Then I think it would have met the great difficulty of the position of a large number of firms. But I suppose, if the Government will not go any further, the best thing I can do is to accept this offer, and withdraw my Amendment. I do not see any other course open to me. I am very pleased that we have got so far as we have, although, while we were about it, I think the Government might have gone a little further and have come to a compromise between the amount mentioned in my Amendment, and that asked for by other people. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In paragraph (a), at end, leave out the word "fifty-five" ["fifty-fire pounds"], and insert instead thereof the word "seventy."—[Mr. Munro.]
    Mr. J. JOHNSTONE: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (b), to leave out the word "forty-eight" ["forty-eight pounds"], and to insert instead thereof the word "sixty."
    This is in accordance with the proposal of the Secretary for Scotland.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: I beg to move, in paragraph (c), after word "the" ["the rateable value"], to insert the word "net."
    As a matter of fact there have been cases in the Courts quite recently—there was one in the County Court in Yorkshire

    1223
    where there was a lot of discussion, which cost something to decide—as to whether the word "rateable," in the old Act, meant gross rateable or.net rateable, and the decision was that it meant net rateable value. That, I understand, is the intention of the authors of the present Bill, because in the Debate on the 7th March, when the Second Reading of the Bill was under discussion, the hon. Member for Cambridge asked the Lord Advocate whether net rateable or gross rateable value was intended. The answer of the Lord Advocate was that in England it was meant to be net rateable value, and we, therefore, propose to make it quite clear by inserting the word "net" in this case.
    Mr. MUNRO: I accept that Amendment on behalf of the Government.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: My right hon. Friend will not forget that that will involve on Report a consequential alteration in an earlier part of the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In paragraph (c), leave out the word "forty-two," and insert instead thereof the word "fifty-two."—[Sir G. Hewart.]
    Major NEWMAN: I beg to move, in paragraph (i), to leave out the words
    "fourth day of March, nineteen hundred and nineteen,"
    and to insert instead thereof the words
    "twenty-fifth day of December, nineteen hundred and eighteen."
    Mr. FISHER: I shall be happy to accept that Amendment.
    Major NEWMAN: There is only one point I would like to raise. Is the 25th December a convenient day or should it be the 24th?
    Mr. FISHER: I am advised that the 25th is the more suitable date, but I will inquire, and, if necessary, amend on Report
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Surely the Government has submitted this Bill as one carefully thought out! It is somewhat extraordinary when an hon. Member gets up to move an Amendment, the purport of which he is not allowed to describe, the Government accept it. Before the question is put, and before this most drastic change is agreed to—and I am not saying that it is good or bad—I submit the
    1224
    Government should give some sort of reason why they are going to make the Bill retrospective in this way to the extent of three months.
    Mr. RENDALL: I hope I shall not be accused of wasting the time of the Committee, but I think we are justified in asking for an explanation of this Amendment As far as I understand it, the standard rent is going to be dated back to 25th December. For the main body of houses covered by this Bill that may be all right, but suppose, after the 25th December, the rent of a house has been put up by £10, from £50 to £60, and in the course of January the owner decides to sell and meets a purchaser who is willing to give so much for the property on the basis that the rent is £60 per year. At that moment there is no law which interferes at all with the landlord asking that amount of rent from the tenant, and consequently the purchaser is perfectly justified in saying, "the house is worth so much, inasmuch as the tenant is paying £60 per year, and I will therefore purchase it at that price." At that time there will have been no interdiction or restriction in regard to the rent. There is a willing vendor and a willing purchaser at the higher rent. Now it is proposed by putting the date back to December to lay it down that £60 is not the standard rent, and that the actual rent which can be recovered from the tenant will be not what he has agreed to pay but what he was paying in December. It will be, in fact, £50 instead of £60. That seems to be very unfair to the purchaser who has bought, believing he can recover the rent of £60. Now we are going retrospectively to pass a law which will say to him he shall not get £60, although the tenant has already agreed to pay that amount, and he is to lose the £10 simply because the tenant agreed to pay it after 25th December. I say that is robbing the purchaser to the extent of £10 per year, and I cannot conceive that anybody in this Committee will think that that is a just proposal. I cannot see any answer at all to the argument which I have ventured to put, and therefore I think you are bound, unless you are going to compensate all the purchasers who have bought under such circumstances, to stick to the date in your Bill, and to say that the rent being paid at that date shall be the rent of the house. It would be outrageous to take any other course, and I suggest that this Amendment ought not to be accepted. If it is

    1225
    accepted we should have some explanation of the reasons which have induced the Government to take that course.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: There is another point which has to be borne in mind. There have been a great many contracts entered into, and it will need a saving clause inserted to deal with non-fulfilment of those contracts if you make this legislation retrospective. There may be cases where people who lived in more highly-rented houses—rents above these figures—decided to economise and sell and go into smaller houses, and this new provision may render their position worse than before. Whichever way you turn there is going to be some heavy injustice done, and I want the Committee to consider the amount of trouble, friction, and litigation which will most certainly arise if you make this legislation retrospective. I do not think that this Amendment has been adequately considered by the Government. Surely they do not realise that if it is inserted in the Bill there will simply be no end to the trouble that will result.
    Mr. INSKIP: I agree that some explanation of this position is necessary. Why should 25th December, 1918, be taken as the date? This Clause provides that any excess shall be recoverable if it has been paid by the tenant. We are making retrospective a provision which will have the effect of confiscating the property which a man has come by in pursuance of his right at a time when he received the money. This Amendment is accepted by the Government without explanation and without justification of any sort or description, either on the ground of expediency or of principle. We are entitled to some explanation showing what is the principle upon which the Amendment is based.
    Major NEWMAN: May I point out to the Committee that the principle contained in the principal Act is retrospective? That Act was passed into law on the 25th December, 1915, and it was made retrospective to the 25th November, 1915. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. When hon. Members speak about retrospective legislation, why do they not observe that the principal Act is retrospective?
    Mr. RENDALL: That was for one month; this is for three months.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: May I point out the I difference between the Bill as it stands
    1226
    and the Bill as it will be amended? The Bill as it stands is going to operate from the 4th March, which is not the date of the passing of the Bill but the date when the matter was brought forward by the Government in this House. That is a very common and a proper thing to do, but it is very different from passing retrospective measures. I should very much like to know from the Minister of Education any defence he has for retrospective legislation. I am not saying that it is right or wrong in this case, but there should be some explanation. The hon. Member for the Springburn Division of Glasgow (Mr. Macquisten) and the hon. Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Inskip) are both eminent lawyers and know the tremendous importance of passing retrospective legislation, i protest against the Government legislating in this way at a quarter to ten at night without adequate explanation. There may be a good explanation The Amendment may be justified, but it requires a full explanation and justification, because legislation of a retrospective character is likely to do a large amount of evil.
    Mr. FISHER: The discussion to which we have listened has brought into very clear relief the difficulties and dangers which surround this kind of legislation. It interferes with the normal operation of contracts; it interferes with private property. It is an undesirable type of legislation. It is emergency legislation. It is legislation introduced in order to meet a particular grievance, very acute, and pressing with great severity upon a class of the community which is very little able to protect itself. It is for this reason, and this reason only, that it is proposed to continue this emergency legislation for a further term. Now the question arises as to whether it is desirable that any power given under the Bill should be retrospective. I can enter entirely into the feelings of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson), who, with his usual lucidity and force, explained the dangers of retrospective legislation. But we have to take into consideration two things. In the first place, the principal Act, as has been already pointed out, was retrospective—
    Mr. RENDALL: For one month.
    Mr. FISHER: It was from December to August.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: It was retrospective from the date the Bill was

    1227
    brought in, not from the time of its passing. Following that, this Bill should date from the 4th March.
    Mr. FISHER: The Bill passed in December and went back to the 4th August. In fact, it was retrospective to a very much greater extent than the present proposal. That is one consideration which the Committee ought to bear in mind. The second consideration is that as soon as you have this kind of legislation—temporary, exceptional—you have almost, inevitably an expectation that this legislation will be continued. Human nature being what it is—I blame no one—is it not only reasonable to suppose that owners of property would, on the assumption that this legislation is to be continued, take the opportunity of raising their rents before the principal Act was, in fact, continued? That opportunity has, in fact, been very freely taken. It has come to the notice of the Government that between the 1st January and the present date there has been a very large number of cases in which the tenant has been informed that he must either buy or quit. The reason which has prompted the Government to accept this Amendment is that we feel, in accordance with the precedent that was set when the principal Act was passed, that we ought to afford this measure of protection to such tenants who are suffering. Those are the reasons which prompted me to accept this Amendment. I must apologise to the Committee for having accepted it without explanation. I need hardly say I did not desire to be discourteous to the Committee, but I was under the impression that the Amendment would be received with feelings of acceptance, and I accepted it in order to save time.
    Mr. S. JOHNSTONE: In Scotland for this class of house taken by the twelvemonth the notice required to be given by the tenant must be before 28th February.
    Major NEWMAN: Which class of house?
    Mr. JOHNSTONE: The class covered by this Bill. The class that is raised to £60 per annum. The lower rated houses are taken by the month, but this class of house is rented by the year, and in order for the tenant to have his house for twelve months he must take it prior to 20th February, and the landlord, if seeking to put the tenant out of the house or to let to
    1228
    another tenant, must give him notice prior to 28th February. So in Scotland we have had a large number of people who have been warned out of their houses, and if this alteration had not been made to make the Bill retrospective, it would have afforded no redress if the date 4th March had been retained. Therefore I welcome most heartily the proposal, and its acceptance by the Government to make it retrospective.
    Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I understand the Government has accepted an Amendment to make the date 25th December. I suggest that very serious confusion will probably arise through that date being put in. The 25th is quarter-day. To fully carry out the Government's intention, for which I would desire to thank and congratulate them, the date ought to be 24th December.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    After the word "increased" ["or is hereafter increased"], insert the words
    "and such increase would apart from this Act have been recoverable."
    After the word "tenant" ["irrecoverable from the tenant"], insert the words
    "or the mortgagor as the case may be."—[Mr. Fisher.]
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, after the word "tenant" ["recovered by the tenant"], to insert the words "or mortgagor."
    Mr. RENDALL: I should like to understand what we are putting in.
    Mr. MUNRO: This is a purely drafting Amendment. The earlier part of the Clause deals with rent and mortgage interest, and in the latter part of the Clause there was an omission to refer to mortgage interest.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I beg to move to leave out the words
    "(ii) in Sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section one of the principal Act the fourth day of March, nineteen hundred and nineteen, shall be substituted for the twenty-fifth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifteen."
    10.0 P.M.
    I do not know how far this is covered by the alterations which have been made. It varies the dates in the principal Act, and it will want to be altered. If it remains as it is it will not carry back as we have just carried back the date with regard to

    1229
    the previous portion of the Clause, and I think this date ought to be set back the same as the date has been set back above. There has been much discussion about retrospective legislation. I was astounded to hear some of the remarks from legal gentlemen, especially those who were here when the original Act was passed in 1915. If ever you want a piece of retrospective legislation, it was that measure. We passed it in November and December of 1915, and the date fixed for the standard rent was 4th August, 1914. That was very drastic retrospective legislation. What we are doing to-day is nothing compared with it, if you want an example as to how far retrospective legislation can go. If the Clause remains as it is it will be impossible for any person who, during the last quarter, has had his rent raised to get anything back from the landlord, and there are many cases where before the legislation was announced the tenant, under the fear of giving up the house, and no other house being obtainable, submitted to very great extortions indeed I can give you cases where they have submitted to an extortionate increase of rent, three times as large as that within this Act of the 10 per cent. and even more than that. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give this his serious consideration, and give me his opinion whether he cannot allow this paragraph to go entirely out or else alter the dates to agree with the other dates.
    Mr. FISHER: I am afraid the Government is unable to accept the Amendment because the effect of it would be that we should have to go back to 25th November, 1915, obviously carrying the doctrine of retrospection a little far. On the other hand, it is quite clear, after the concession which the Government has just made, that the words "fourth day of March" have to be amended to "twenty-fifth day of December," and that Amendment I shall proceed immediately to move.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The CHAIRMAN: May I Have the Government Amendment?
    Mr. FISHER: I am advised that I am in error. This 4th of March stands. It is the question of notice.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I beg to move, to leave out paragraph (v).
    This raises a very important point. As the Clause stands with this paragraph in it neutralizes, if not entirely abolishes,
    1230
    the amending Act of 1918. In 1918 an amending Act of the principal Act was passed in order to meet a difficulty which had arisen and had become very acute. Anyone who likes to wade through the Debate that took place in 1918 on the passing of the amending Act will realise the importance of the case. Clause 1 of the amending Act of 1918 says:
    "For the purposes of this Subsection the expression 'landlord' shall not include any person who since the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and seventeen, has become landlord by the acquisition of the dwelling-house, or any interest therein, otherwise than by the devolution thereof to him under a settlement made before the said date, or under a testamentary disposition or an intestacy."
    I do not say it may not be necessary to amend the date in the Bill now before the House, but I do think that to pass the Clause as it stands and to abolish the 1918 Act is far too drastic an action. Paragraph (c), which I move to leave out provides:
    "In Section one of the Increase of Kent, etc. (Amendment) Act, 1918, for the reference to the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and seventeen, there shall be substituted references to the fourth day of March, nineteen hundred and nineteen."
    Therefore, you virtually get rid of the whole value of the 1918 Act if this Clause becomes law with the insertion of paragraph (v). We who have had to deal with the case and who are acquainted with many instances of bogus sales of houses for the purpose of getting the tenant out remember the cases that have had to go before the County Court where in many instances we were pleased to find that the County Court judge, saw through the bogus sale that had put up and declined to call upon the tenant to give up possession. I seriously ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he might not in some way meet this difficulty if he thinks the date of the principal Act which I am asking for goes too far, at least let us have a date coming somewhat between the date in the Bill, the 4th March, and the date of the principal Act.
    Mr. RENDALL: Here we are again trying to decide what is to fee done with a perfectly innocent purchaser of property, say, in January or February last or on any other date before 4th March. A man buys property then, and there is no legislation in existence which interferes with his right to get possession of that property by giving the ordinary legal notice prescribed by the agreement

    1231
    between the old landlord and the tenant. Believing that he can give three months' notice, or it may be six months or a year's notice, to the tenant, he very likely gives notice to his old landlord that he will leave the house he is living in. That notice may be expiring now and he may have bought the house for the purpose of occupying it, and have lost any legal right to go on occupying the house he is now living in. My hon. Friend proposes that the expectation, perfectly legal and even moral, which the man has of being able to occupy the house he has bought is to be taken away from him upon the ground that we think it right to make this legislation retrospective. I cannot see that that is necessary and I do not think it is right. I think we ought not to make it retrospective at all before the date on which it was first announced to the public by the Government that they intended to deal with this matter. That announcement was made on 4th March. On that date and not before that date the country had notice of the intention of the Government, and any man who bought property after that date bought it at his own risk, knowing he would not be able to get occupation. The man who bought before that date did so feeling certain that he would be able to get occupation. He had no idea that any legislation would be passed to interfere with his getting occupation. I do not think, therefore, you have the right to make this legislation retrospective and to affect an innocent party who has bought and may have paid a considerable sum for a house, in order to assist a tenant upon whom a perfect legal notice has been served in accordance with the agreement between landlord and tenant. I trust, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this Amendment.
    Mr. MUNRO: The object of the Sub-section is very easily explained. The Committee will remember that under the original Act passed in 1915 the landlord was entitled to resume possession of his house if he was able to show that he required it for his own use. It was found that people got round the provisions of that Act by purchasing houses and turning out their tenants. Accordingly the Act of 1918 was passed, rendering that process illegal. We proposed that this Section should be omitted, but, after conference with those who advise the Govern-
    1232
    ment on this entirely technical question, I am assured that the acceptance of the Amendment which has been moved would not in any way affect the vitality and the useful operation of the Bill which is now before the Committee. Therefore, I see no objection to accepting the Amendment, and I propose to do so.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. RENDALL: I beg to move, at the end, to insert the words,
    "(vi) notwithstanding Section one of the Increase of Rent, etc. (Amendment) Act, 1918, or anything contained in this Act, a person who has entered into a valid contract before the fourth day of March, nineteen hundred and nineteen, to acquire a dwelling-house shall be deemed the landlord under Sub-section (3) of Section one of the principal Act on or after the completion of his purchase."
    Having regard to the alteration of the date in the Bill to the 25th December, my Amendment will have to read, "a person who has entered into a valid contract before the 25th day of December, 1918."The only object of my Amendment is that there should be no legal quibble as to who is the owner of the property. I suggest that in this matter the man who has entered into a bonâ fide contract for the purchase of a house prior to the appointed day should be allowed to have the rights of a landlord, though the actual conveyance may not have been signed, sealed and delivered. I am not certain that, having regard to the fact that we have put the date back three months, that my Amendment has the value which it would have had if the date had been left 4th March, because it is not at all likely that there will be contracts which have been entered into as long ago as December, 1918, which have not been already completed. Therefore, I shall not press the Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman says he does not see the necessity for it.
    Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this Amendment. I can conceive an extraordinary state of things arising out of these cases—I believe there are thousands of them—of what has been called the bogus sale. What would happen if the Amendment were accepted would be that the man of straw who has been made nominal purchaser would be treated as the landlord, whereas the real landlord would still have his power but would be outside the purview of this Act and would, therefore, be able to do things in a way which this Act is intended to prevent.
    Mr. FISHER: As the hon. Member has not pressed his Amendment, and for the reasons which have been indicated, I trust that it will be withdrawn.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I would like to know from the Secretary for Scotland what the effect of the Amendments which we have accepted will be in the concrete cases to which reference has been made? For instance, where the tenant under a notice to quit had his tenancy determined on the 26th or 28th of December last, and some other tenant has been put into possession, does he save his rights under this Bill as against the landlord? Or suppose that the tenancy has been for some amount, say, £60, larger than that which is allowed by this Bill, is the landlord entitled to recover more than 10 per cent. of this amount, assuming that the rent has been raised since 24th December? If the tenant has paid his rent voluntarily, can he sue the landlord to recover? I understand that he can. Considering the great difficulty of ascertaining people's rights and the advantage of learning before the Report stage the exact position, I should be glad if we could have some rough indication of what is the intention of the Government in reference to the tenants who are paying a larger rent from 24th December.
    Mr. RENDALL: Having regard to the fact that there are now a great many contracts between vendors and purchasers, all prepared, which stand to be completed on 25th March, which is a. very usual date In this country, and that many of these contracts contain a clause in which the vendor undertakes to give possession on 25th March, because he has given what is under the existing legislation legal notice, it would be very interesting to the Committee to be told whether a contract of that kind is valid, and if not, how far is it valid, and if a vendor will be able to compel a purchaser to buy his house according to the agreement under the contract, or whether purchaser will be able to say to the vendor, "No; you thought you gave legal notice but the law has been altered, and you cannot compel the tenant to give occupation." The purchaser may then say, "I am not willing to pay the money I promised for this house."
    1234
    I think, when the Government are putting forward legislation which will alter the law and which will interfere with many thousands of contracts, that it is desirable that the general community should know exactly what the legal position will be under the law as proposed.
    Sir F. YOUNG: I should like to put a case which arises amongst the houses coming under the Bill for the first time and that is the possibility of a tenant going to a landlord and exploiting his very natural desire to get the highest rent possible, offers him, say, a 50 or 100per cent. increase on the rent paid at the end of last year. The tenant in occupation, not being able to pay the increased rent has to go out and the new-comer becomes the occupier at the increased rent. Under this Bill that man who made the offer, having got rid of the other tenant, reverts back to that man's position as regards rent.
    Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: On a point of Order. There is no particular Amendment before the Committee, and there are many Amendments to be disposed of. I suggest time ought not to be taken up asking what I submit respectfully are questions out of order and irrelevant.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Question before the Committee is, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," and I think the questions are quite in order.
    Sir F. YOUNG: I beg the hon. Member's pardon for having intervened in the Debate for once, and the only time. I am putting a concrete case of an injustice which seemed to creep in. I am not opposed to the desire to meet the undoubted difficulties that exist, but at the same time I agree with other hon. Members in saying that the effect of this Clause wants to be most carefully scrutinised to see that whilst we are achieving the good we want to achieve, we are not creating actual cases of injustice.
    Mr. R. M'LAREN: Like many hon. Members I have received quite a number of letters from middle-class people who have been very hard hit in this matter. There is, for instance, the case of a man who was asked to buy his house, and was unable to do so because he had not the money, and he is to be thrown on to the street on 28th May next. Will it be possible for that gentleman to retain his house under the concession that has been

    1235
    made which makes the Clause restrospective in certain respects? Many of the tenants in my district are feeling the strain very bad, and would like to know how far they are protected by this Clause.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I hope the Government will give some answer to the series of questions which have been put on matters which require elucidation as to the effect of the retrospective provision as to which difficulties must arise. As this Debate may be read by a large number of people before the Report stage it is certainly, I think, necessary that the questions should be answered so that they may understand where they are.
    Mr. MUNRO: The only reason why I did not rise to reply to the questions of my hon. and learned Friend was because they were questions purely of English law, and I did not feel myself competent to advise the Committee upon them without full consideration. If he will put his questions to the Attorney-General, I am sure he will get an answer.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I am willing to put my questions to anybody on the Front Bench who will answer them.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: The question that was put by an hon. Friend behind me is really one that we ought to get an answer to, because we ought to know what we are doing. I do not in the least object to the retrospective character of the Bill, but I think we ought to realise where we are going. Under this Clause, as amended, it seems to me that, this might very well happen. The poor tenant, whom we are all desirous of protecting, gets turned out since the 24th December of last year because he cannot pay an increase of rent. The wealthy tenant, who says he will pay 50 per cent. more rent, goes in upon those terms. Then this Clause comes along and says to the wealthy tenant: "You have agreed only a few months ago to pay 50 per cent. more rent, but you can now, under this Bill, go to your landlord, repudiate that contract, and get back the whole of the increase of rent which you have paid." What is the result? The poor tenant, whom we are all desirous of protecting, is out in the cold. The wealthy tenant, whom none of us is particularly desirous of protecting, is in the house and is entitled to repudiate his bargain and get back the money that he has voluntarily paid. If that
    1236
    is really the effect of this Clause, I hope my right hon. Friend will consider it before the Report stage, and bring in something which will prevent this House from passing legislation which has a grotesque character of that sort.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Supposing the tenant has paid the money to a body of trustees, and the money has been spent, and the tenant then comes to the trustees and wants the money back, and they say, "No, we have spent it for the upkeep of our beneficiaries," who is to pay it?
    Mr. J. JONES: I am not able to enter into all the legal technicalities now before the Committee, but so far as the ordinary workers are concerned there cannot be any question as to the retrospective nature of the Bill. We want to know where we stand. There is profiteering in working-class houses the same as in middle-class houses. If, when the Bill becomes law, the workers have got to pay a retrospective rent as from a certain date, then there is going to be trouble for somebody.
    Sir G. HEWART: I am sorry I did not have the advantage of hearing this, question when it was first put, but, if I under stand the matter, it is this: The Bill, by the Amendment which has been accepted, has been made retrospective to the 24th day of December, and it is asked, What will be the effect where rent has been actually paid in the meantime? As I understand the matter, the Bill provides that where the rent has been paid it will be recoverable, but where it has not been paid it will not be recoverable. But as I understand, there is a real difficulty, and, if I may, I should like to have an opportunity of considering the matter before Report.
    Mr. RENDALL: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reply to my question, which is a really important one? There are a large number of contracts between vendors and purchasers for the 25th March on these conditions. The vendor has given to the tenant notices which expires on25th March next. The vendor, in giving that notice, believed he could give it, and that he would be able to obtain possession, and, as the law stood when he made the contract, he was perfectly right in so doing. The purchaser bought upon the understanding that the notice was good, and that on 25th March he would have the legal right to obtain possession. This regulation

    1237
    is going to say to the purchaser, "No, you will not be able to get possession." My question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman is this: As this sort of contract covers the whole country, it is most important that the business community should know exactly what their position is, and I think the Government in pressing forward legislation of this kind should say plainly what the effect of the legislation will be on such contracts. Unless they do say so, the only result can be litigation in every County Court in the country, and, therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us, if he can, a reply to that question?
    Sir G. HEWART: I will give the best reply I can on the spur of the moment. My hon. Friend is a lawyer, and knows perfectly well that where a contract is rendered impossible to perform by legislation, there is an end to the matter. It may be that will put an end to some of the contracts to which he refers, but I cannot say that it will put an end to all. That is also a matter I should like to consider between now and Report.
    Major H. BARNES: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider the case I mentioned before, when he was not present, of a tenant who came in on the 25th December, having ousted the previous tenant by an offer of superior rent to the landlord, and has been in occupation since. I would like to know whether it is proper that he, having got in by an offer of a superior rent, and ousted an innocent man who could not afford to pay a higher rent, should now, under this Bill, be able to revert to the rent on the 24th December which his predecessor was paying?
    Mr. MADDOCKS: May I be permitted to answer this question, because a case came before the Divisional Court a fortnight ago, and I happened to be counsel in the case. There a lady had, as a matter of charity, been let into possession of a house at a lower rent than usual. She left voluntarily, and another person took the house and let it in flats. She agreed to pay a higher rent, and did so for a certain time. Then she refused and said she would go back to the rent paid by her predecessor. Application was made to the County Court for an ejectment order, and it was granted. When it came before the High Court judges they said as there had been a standard rent fixed in the
    1238
    first instance the landlord could not recover the amount against the second tenant though she had agreed to pay it.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Power to Modify Ten per Cent. Increase in Certain Cases.)
    (1) Where, in the case of any dwelling-house to which the principal Act as originally enacted applies, or to which as extended by this Act it applies, an increase of rent is permitted by this Act, then if the landlord of any such house in accordance with Rules of Court shows to the satisfaction of the County Court—

    (a) that the standard rent of the house is substantially less than the standard rent of similar houses in the same locality; or

    (b) that by reason of the letting of the house to lodgers or the taking in boarders the wear and tear on the house has been substantially increased; or

    (c) that by reason of the sub-letting of the house or for any other exceptional reason an increase of rent exceeding such ten per centum as aforesaid should be allowed,

    the Court may authorise an increase in the rent exceeding ten per centum of the standard rent.

    (2) Where in any such case the tenant of any such house in accordance with Rules of Court shows to the satisfaction of the County Court that, as respect a house first let since the third day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen, the standard rent is substantially higher than the standard rent of similar houses in the same locality, the County Court may order that no increase in the standard or an increase of less than ten per centum shall be allowed in the case of that house.

    Amendment made: In Sub-section (1, a), leave out the words
    "in accordance with Rules of Court."—[Sir G. Hewart.]
    Mr. W. R. SMITH: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out paragraph (a).
    The House has not been given any reason why this variation was inserted. It presumes a substantial difference between the rents at present paid for houses of several classes. The only instance quoted by the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading was that some houses were let at a nominal rent much below their value. It is undesirable that we should legislate for what are exceptions, having regard to the statements that have been made here—that the housing difficulty is not one that has arisen merely since the War, but since 1909. I think it is assumed that between 1909 and 1914 the position would be that, generally speaking, each house would be let at a fair rent. If that be so, if all the houses are on the same basis, the difficulty is to understand why there should be a proposal of this descrip-

    1239
    tion. It can only lead to endless litigation, and cause a great deal of irritation. The standard is purely speculative. It is to be discovered by an action in the Court. No one case can determine the whole principle upon which this rests. I mentioned on Friday that one of the reasons why we welcomed this Bill was because it did help very substantially in regard to what is known as industrial unrest. Absence of legislation of this sort, we urged, would very seriously disturb the agreements that had been made in regard to wages in the manner that would recreate unrest in the minds of the working classes. If we have the 10 per cent. increase, as already determined in the Bill, and then the tenants are to be sued in the County Court in order to answer as to whether their house is substantially equal to another house in the same neighbourhood where other circumstances may be different, such a course is going to create a good deal of irritation in the minds of people with no advantage to come out of it. There are houses which appear to be similar in character and yet which vary in some form or other so far as their internal arrangements are concerned The difficulty of finding a comparison between houses that appear to be similar will be very difficult indeed, and there will undoubtedly be a class of landlord who will seek to get some increased rent by this method. I suggest that that will be the means of creating an element of disturbance, which I suggest is not warranted. I submit to the Government that the scarcity of houses up to 1914 had substantially been the means of establishing the rents in accordance with the value of the houses themselves, and there is not sufficient difference between the different kinds of property to warrant a provision of this sort in the Bill.
    Sir G. HEWART: I find myself very much in agreement with what has been said with reference to this particular part of Clause 5. We have now had the opportunity of reconsidering the Clause as a whole, and we quite see it must give rise to a great deal of controversy, and we are anxious to get through the Committee stage to-night. In these circumstances I propose to make an offer to the Committee which I trust will be accepted. I see that there is at a later stage on the Paper an Amendment in the name of three hon. Members to leave out Clause 5 as a whole.
    1240
    If and when that Amendment is proposed, the Government will be prepared to accept it.
    The CHAIRMAN: If that should meet the view of the Committee, the best way will be to withdraw this Amendment.
    Mr. SMITH: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, negatived.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Minor Amendments of the Principal Act.)
    (1) A landlord of a house to which the principal Act, either as originally enacted or as ex tended by this Act, applies shall, on being so requested by the tenant of the house, furnish to him a statement as to what is the standard rent of the house, and if he fails within fourteen days to do so, or furnishes a statement which is false in any material particular, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.

    (2) Where a person who has, since the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and seven teen, purchased a house to which the principal Act, either as originally enacted or as extended by this Act, applies, requires the house for his own occupation or that of some person in his employ, or in the employ of some tenant from him, nothing in the Increase of Rent, etc. (Amendment) Act, 1918, shall be construed as preventing the Court from making an order for the recovery of possession of the house if, after considering all the circumstances of the case, including the alternative accommodation available for the tenant, the Court considers it reasonable to make such an order.

    Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "shall" ["shall, on being so requested"], to insert the words
    "provide the tenant of the house with particulars showing respectively the amounts paid for rent, rates, and any other charges, and."
    I think the necessity for this Amendment is so obvious that I do not require to give any reasons, and I hope the Attorney-General will see his way to accept it.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the purpose of this Amendment?
    Mr. ADAMSON: The object that I have in view is to secure that the tenant shall be supplied with the particulars as to the amount of his rent, apart from the rates, the amount of his rates, and any other charges.
    Mr. INSKIP: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend that these particulars shall be supplied whether or not they are re-

    1241
    quested by the tenant. I understand that the words are to come in before the words "on being so requested." I do suggest that they should tome in after those words, because it would be a hardship upon landlords to have to supply these particulars in all cases whether the tenant requires them or not.
    Sir G. HEWART: I had not seen this Amendment until it was handed to me a few minutes ago by the right hon. Gentleman. It is a proposal to make it imperative upon the landlord in any event to supply these particulars. The Act goes on to provide that certain particulars shall be provided upon request. Let us see what are the particulars which my right hon. Friend says ought to be provided in any event. They are particulars showing the respective amounts paid for rent, rates, and any other charges. If that Amendment were adopted, the Clause would proceed to say that on being so requested by the tenant the landlord should furnish him with a statement as to the standard rent of the house. I really do not quite follow what is meant by the respective amounts paid for rent, rates, and any other charges. The amount paid for rent is that which, I presume, is paid by the tenant. The amount paid for rates is the amount paid either by the tenant, or in cases where the rates are compounded by the landlord on his behalf. Those matters are easily ascertainable, and, having regard to what is afterwards provided by the Clause, I should have thought that this Amendment is superfluous.
    Mr. ADAMSON: If the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that what I ask is already provided—
    Sir G. HEWART: I think so.
    Mr. ADAMSON: And that it would be incumbent upon the landlord to provide the tenant with these particulars, I am quite willing to withdraw the Amendment.
    Sir G. HEWART: I did not go so far as that. I said that this Amendment was either a mere repetition of what is provided afterwards and is therefore superfluous or that the information is easily within reach of the tenant as the Clause now stands.
    Mr. T. WILSON: Assuming the landlord builds a bathroom and says that it has cost him £100, surely the tenant has a right to know whether it has actually cost £100 or only £60?
    Sir H. NIELD: Surely the object of the Clause is to enable the tenant to know a fact which he does not necessarily know, namely, what was the standard rent on the day that the Act came into force? Therefore that is the one fact that the existing tenant might not be expected to know. Surely, in respect of everybody else he has the materials at his hand?
    Mr. DANIEL WILSON: I would draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that this is the first Clause of the Bill which makes a default a criminal offence. Failure on the part of the landlord to give these particulars will subject him to liability to a fine of £10. In the other Clause of this Bill a great deal is being done on behalf of the tenant to secure his rights, but in this case the Amendment makes it a criminal offence unless the landlord, in every case, supplies the tenant with particulars as to rents, rates, and other charges. No person on this Committee can possibly tell what the "other charges" are, and it would be very unfair. The landlord would not be doing any wrong to anyone, and to create a criminal offence in such a vague form as is suggested by the Amendment of the Leader of the Opposition would be a thing which surely has not being done before.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I am quite willing to withdraw the Amendment if the learned Attorney-General is willing to consider, before now and Report, whether this is needed.
    Sir G. HEWART: I am quite willing to consider it, but I adhere to the observations I have made.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. N. M'LEAN: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "ten" ["not exceeding ten pounds"] and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty."
    At this late period of the sitting I will, content myself with merely moving the Amendment.
    Sir G. HEWART: I should have thought that it was a sufficiently grave thing to make a failure to furnish these particulars a criminal offence. I really do not think that the difference between £10 and £20 is a matter which we need, seriously consider.
    Amendment negatived.
    Colonel THORNE: I beg to move, at the end of Subsection (1), to insert as a new Sub-section,
    "(2) Notwithstanding anything in Sub-section (3) of Section one of the principal Act no order for the recovery of possession of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies, or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom, shall be made so long as the tenant continues to pay rent at the agreed rate as modified by the principal Act or by this Act, and performs the other conditions of the tenancy, except on the ground that the tenant has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or an annoyance to adjoining or neighbouring occupiers, and where such order has been made, but not executed before the passing of this Act, the Court by which the order was made may, if it is of opinion that the order would not have been made if this Act bad been in operation at the date of the making of the order, rescind or vary the order in such manner as the Court may think fit for the purpose of giving effect to this Act."
    This Amendment, I think, explains itself. It is for the purpose of protecting, the tenants. We have hoard a great deal to-night and in days gone by about these tenants being victimised and put out of their houses for various reasons. This Clause will prevent the tenants being treated in that way from time to time.
    Mr. RENDALL: I do not think this Amendment is required. The tenant is fully protected under the Bill as it stands. The hon. and gallant Member has not given any reasons for the Amendment.
    Mr. FISHER: The effect of the Amendment would be to exclude a man, to whom an eviction order might now be made, from obtaining possession of a house of which he wished to use for his own occupation or for the occupation of a person in his employ. The landlord ought to have a right to get rid of a tenant who is destroying his property, and the acceptance of this Amendment would render that impossible. As to the second part, the Amendment was carefully considered in 1918 and certain definite restrictions were inserted. As to the third point, the Mover of the Amendment ought to produce evidence that the proviso has worked unfairly. I think no sufficient grounds have been submitted to justify the acceptance of the Amendment.
    Mr. ADAMSON: In view of the speech we have just heard, I feel we are bound to press this further on the attention of the Government and of the Committee. The fact that the employer of labour who has house property is in a more favourable position than the private owner is causing
    1244
    a considerable amount of dissatisfaction in industrial areas, in most of which in this country there is a serious shortage of housing. Yet employers of labour are asking liberty to eject tenants and are securing it. I am very sorry if we are interfering with the completion of the Committee stage, but this is such an important matter that we cannot allow it to pass without a few minutes' discussion, unless there is agreement to allow it to be more fully discussed on the Report stage.
    Sir G. HEWART: May I be allowed to make, a suggestion? We are approaching very nearly to eleven o'clock. Everybody, I think, is of opinion that this Bill should speedily be passed into law. Can we not, by the leave of the House, resume consideration after eleven o'clock?
    The CHAIRMAN: It is not yet eleven o'clock.
    Mr. ADAMSON: The Act is working in such a way in industrial districts as to cause great dissatisfaction, and we want this Bill amended somewhat on the lines of our Amendment.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has done the Amendment justice.
    It being eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress.
    Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move,
    "That this House will immediately again resolve itself into Committee on the Bill."
    I have made a suggestion in your absence, Mr. Speaker, that, in view of the urgency of this Bill, by leave of the House we might continue its consideration in Committee after 11 o'clock. I quite understand the restrictions under which that consideration will proceed, but I hope those restrictions may not prevent the further useful consideration of the Amendments on the Paper.
    Bill accordingly again considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Mr. T. WILSON: May we have some further statement from the Government on this Amendment?
    Sir G. HEWART: May I be allowed to add that I thought that the statement of the President of the Board of Education was very clear and very conclusive. But I have listened since then to the speech of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Adamson) and I shall be perfectly willing to consider this matter before Report.
    Mr. WILSON: May I point out that one of the terms of the Amendment is that the tenant performs the conditions of the tenancy and takes every care of the property. The right hon. Gentleman has not given any reason why the Amendment should not be accepted. The words
    "tenant continues to pay the rent at the agreed late…and performs the other conditions of the tenancy"
    protect the landlord. This Amendment does justice to the tenant and to the landlord, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter now.
    Mr. MADDOCKS: If one looks at Section 1, Sub-section (3) of the Increase of Rents Act, 1915, one will see what it is that my hon. Friends propose to cut out of the present Act. That Sub-section provides:
    "No order for the recovery of possession of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies or for the ejectment of a tenant there from shall be made so long as the tenant continues to pay rent at the agreed rate as modified by this Act and performs the; other conditions of the tenancy, except on the ground that the tenant has committed waste or has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or an annoyance to adjoining or neighboring occupiers, or that the premises are reasonably requited by the landlord for the occupation of himself or some other person in his employ of some tenant from him or some other ground which may be deemed satisfactory by the Court making such order."
    The object of the hon. Member who moved this is to cut out all that the landlord may desire to do, and to cut out the provision as to waste, and there can be only one object in that, and that is by cutting it out, so that the tenant may commit waste if he chooses. He may refuse to let the landlord have possession, even although the landlord may show to the satisfaction of the Court that he desires possession, and ought to have it, for some good purpose. Under these circumstances, it would be just as well to say to those who are pressing for this Amendment, "We really give the whole charge and control to the tenant at once, and leave the landlord out of all consideration whatever."
    Mr. INSKIP: May I suggest one other reason why the Amendment should not be pressed? At present, so far as I understand, the landlord may only turn out a tenant who is a nuisance or an annoyance when there are retrospective covenants requiring him to go out if he commits acts of that sort. This Clause is drafted in such a way that it presumably enables a landlord to turn out a tenant who is not under any covenant with regard to other tenants of the same landlord, but it is an annoyance to tenants belonging to another estate altogether. In fact, it gives a fresh cause of action which I rather think my right hon. Friend docs not contemplate, and gives the landlord a power of annoying the tenant which he has not at present, namely, to say you are an annoyance not to my tenant but to someone else's tenant, and I shall bring an action against you to turn you out of the house.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words,
    "Any person who offers to let a house on payment of a premium by the prospective tenant or accepts such a premium or any person who pays a premium in order to obtain possession of a house shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20."
    To such an extent has this evil gone that we have offers openly made in the advertisement columns of newspapers of sums of £5 and £10.
    An HON. MEMBER: For houses empty or occupied?
    Mr. ADAMSON: People who are looking for a house in some cases are offering £5 or £10 to anyone who can find them one, and with a view to removing the evil that has arisen in this connection I move.
    Sir G. HEWART: My experience of this House is comparatively short, but I am bound to say that I have never before known a manuscript Amendment handed in which proposes to make a new criminal offence. It is a manuscript Amendment which not only proposes to make a new criminal offence, but proposes to make that an offence which is already prohibited by the Statute. I do seriously suggest to my right hon. Friend that this Amendment is not necessary. The Act as it stands is going to be enforced in spite of it, and it would be a very strong thing, upon such

    1247
    short notice, to make it a criminal offence for making an offer or doing something which the Statute already forbids.
    Mr. N. M'LEAN: The right hon. Gentleman says that this is making a criminal offence of something which is already provided for in the Act, but why should you not put some penalty on it, as has been done on the landlord? At the present time you have only to take up any of your London papers—the thing is more pronounced in the provinces—and you will find in the columns devoted to housing accommodation advertisements offering £5 or £10—in fact offering premiums—for those who can give information or give them entry to houses, or by means of key motley or otherwise, to enable them to get possession of a house. We want something to deal with that, we want to prevent the richer tenant or an individual who can afford to pay the premium and is prepared so to do, to be prevented, because in the first place that becomes an added charge upon the house. It is either a reward or an extra rent, according to who gets the premium. Either the outgoing tenant or the factor may get it. Smaller sums may be paid for key money. All these things are added charges upon the house; they make an increased rent which the tenant is prepared to pay. It penalises the poor tenant who is unable to offer a premium of any sort, and we want that particular thing to be stopped, and this manuscript Amendment seeks to do that. If the Government is prepared to accept it in some other form, well and good. The Attorney-General has told us that in the Act already there is a Clause which prevents this sort of thing. If so we would press upon him to make it a little more stringent, so as to prevent these people from penalising the poorer class of tenants.
    Sir G. HEWART: I am quite sure my hon. Friend (Mr. N. M'Lean) has, for the moment, forgotten the provisions of the original Act. May I refer to it: Section 1, Sub-section 2, says:
    "A person shall, not, in consideration of the grant, renewal, or continuance of a tenancy of any dwelling-house to which this Act applies require the payment of any fine, premium, or other like sum in addition to the rent, and where any such payment has been made in respect of any such dwelling-house after the twenty-fifth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifteen, then the amount shall be recoverable by the
    1248
    tenant by whom it was made from the landlord, and may, without prejudice to any other method of recovery, be deducted from any rent payable by him to the landlord, but this provision shall not apply to any payment under an agreement entered into before the fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen."
    My observation was that this which is now sought to be made a penal offence is already prohibited. If an offer is made it is an idle offer. If it is accepted it is something which the Act already provides can be remedied, and it is unnecessary to make it a penal offence.
    Captain SMITH: Who is responsible for finding out the people who are using these newspapers and offering premiums to landlords, tenants, or anybody else? What steps will be taken to put the Act in operation in this respect?
    Mr. ADAMSON: May I further draw attention to the fact that my Amendment seeks to make it a penal offence for anyone to offer, through newspapers or otherwise, premiums of £5 or £10, or any other sum, and that that part of the Amendment is not dealt with under the existing law.
    Question put, "That those words be there added."
    HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
    Other HON. MEMBERS: No.
    The CHAIRMAN: This being opposed business, I must leave the Chair.
    And, it being after Eleven of the clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committe report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
    The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  INCREASE OF RENT BILL.
  INCREASE OF RENT BILL.
  DIRECTORATE OF LANDS.
  DIRECTORATE OF LANDS.
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
CIVIL SERVICE.
  RECRUITMENT REGULATIONS.
  RECRUITMENT REGULATIONS.
  SALARIES AND WORKING HOURS.
  SALARIES AND WORKING HOURS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  POTATOES.
  POTATOES.
  FARINA.
  FARINA.
  CONDEMNED MEAT.
  CONDEMNED MEAT.
  CORN OFFAL.
  CORN OFFAL.
  FOODSTUFFS (EXPORT).
  FOODSTUFFS (EXPORT).
  JAPANESE PEAS.
  JAPANESE PEAS.
  SUGAR.
  SUGAR.
IRELAND.
  POLICE COMMITTEE (SCOPE).
  POLICE COMMITTEE (SCOPE).
  SCOTTISH DRIFTERS IN MEDITERRANEAN.
  SCOTTISH DRIFTERS IN MEDITERRANEAN.
  BRITISH SHIPS (ALIEN CAPTAINS).
  BRITISH SHIPS (ALIEN CAPTAINS).
DEMOBILISATION.
  MORAY FIRTH FISHERMEN.
  MORAY FIRTH FISHERMEN.
  APPRENTICES.
  APPRENTICES.
  "UNSKILLED" MEN.
  "UNSKILLED" MEN.
  CIVIL SERVANTS (WAR GRATUITY).
  CIVIL SERVANTS (WAR GRATUITY).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  TEMPORARY NAVAL OFFICERS (GRATUITY).
  TEMPORARY NAVAL OFFICERS (GRATUITY).
  LOCAL SUB-COMMITTEES.
  LOCAL SUB-COMMITTEES.
  BEAUMETZ DRESSING STATION (MEDICAL OFFICER).
  BEAUMETZ DRESSING STATION (MEDICAL OFFICER).
  ARMY SERVICE (DURATION).
  ARMY SERVICE (DURATION).
  ROYAL ARMY ORDNANCE CORPS.
  ROYAL ARMY ORDNANCE CORPS.
  LABOUR CORPS.
  LABOUR CORPS.
  TEMPERANCE INSTITUTE, GREENOCK.
  TEMPERANCE INSTITUTE, GREENOCK.
  ARMY TRUSTEE (FUNDS).
  ARMY TRUSTEE (FUNDS).
  MINISTRY OF NATIONAL SERVICE (STAFF).
  MINISTRY OF NATIONAL SERVICE (STAFF).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  ROYAL AIR FORCE.
MUNITIONS.
  PROPERTY VALUATION.
  PROPERTY VALUATION.
  ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES.
  ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES.
  MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (STAFF AND EXPENSES.)
  MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (STAFF AND EXPENSES.)
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (MILITARY OCCUPATION).
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (MILITARY OCCUPATION).
  CHILDREN OF ALIEN PARENTAGE (EDUCATION).
  CHILDREN OF ALIEN PARENTAGE (EDUCATION).
  EDUCATION ACT, 1918 ("APPOINTED DAY").
  EDUCATION ACT, 1918 ("APPOINTED DAY").
  SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION).
  SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION).
INDIA.
  TEXTILE FACTORIES (WOMEN'S LABOUR).
  TEXTILE FACTORIES (WOMEN'S LABOUR).
  SUGAR INDUSTRY, DEMERARA.
  SUGAR INDUSTRY, DEMERARA.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
HOUSING.
  BUILDING MATERIALS.
  BUILDING MATERIALS.
  HOUSES CONDEMNED.
  HOUSES CONDEMNED.
  INSPECTIONS, MANCHESTER.
  INSPECTIONS, MANCHESTER.
  REGISTRATION CLAIMS (INCORRECT FORM).
  REGISTRATION CLAIMS (INCORRECT FORM).
  REGISTRAR, CARLTON.
  REGISTRAR, CARLTON.
  ASSISTANCE OF THE BLIND (COMMITTEE'S SCHEME).
  ASSISTANCE OF THE BLIND (COMMITTEE'S SCHEME).
  RAILWAY FACILITIES.
  RAILWAY FACILITIES.
  INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE (COMMITTEE).
  INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE (COMMITTEE).
  ALTON AND BASINGSTOKE LIGHT RAILWAY.
  ALTON AND BASINGSTOKE LIGHT RAILWAY.
  IMPORTS (RESTRICTIONS).
  IMPORTS (RESTRICTIONS).
  SELECT COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT (EVIDENCE).
  SELECT COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT (EVIDENCE).
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR (STAFF).
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR (STAFF).
  EASTLEIGH RUNNING SHEDS (ARBITRATION EXPENSES).
  EASTLEIGH RUNNING SHEDS (ARBITRATION EXPENSES).
  LABOUR EXCHANGES (TEMPORARY CLERKS).
  LABOUR EXCHANGES (TEMPORARY CLERKS).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (EMPLOYMENT OVERSEAS).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (EMPLOYMENT OVERSEAS).
  RE-EMPLOYED CIVIL SERVANT (PENSION).
  RE-EMPLOYED CIVIL SERVANT (PENSION).
  CABLEGRAMS (DELAYED REPLIES).
  CABLEGRAMS (DELAYED REPLIES).
  POSTAL SERVICES (HAMPSHIRE).
  POSTAL SERVICES (HAMPSHIRE).
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, MANCHESTER.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, MANCHESTER.
  SAVINGS BANK DEPARTMENT (WOMEN CLERKS).
  SAVINGS BANK DEPARTMENT (WOMEN CLERKS).
  HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (MEDICAL SERVICE) GRANT.
  HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (MEDICAL SERVICE) GRANT.
  PEACE CONFERENCE (MONTENEGRO.)
  PEACE CONFERENCE (MONTENEGRO.)
  WRIT SERVICE.
  WRIT SERVICE.
  NON-JURY CASES (AMOUNT PAID INTO COURT).
  NON-JURY CASES (AMOUNT PAID INTO COURT).
  LONDON COUNTY HALL.
  LONDON COUNTY HALL.

Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
The Marquess of Northampton—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Lord Ebury—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

BLYTH HARBOUR BILL.
BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL.
DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BILL.
MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL.
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BILL.
NEWPORT HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS BILL.
SWANSEA HARBOUR BILL.
TEES CONSERVANCY BILL.
TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL.
WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK BILL.
BELFAST HARBOUR BILL.
CORK HARBOUR BILL.
DOVER HARBOUR BILL.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords with reference to the Private Bills a list of which is printed on the Paper, I beg to make the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Message of the House of Commons of the 6th instant be taken into consideration; that a Committee of Four Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider the Bills as mentioned in the said Message; and that the said Committee be named by the Committee of Selection.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, on two former occasions I have been so fortunate as to secure the approval of your Lordships to the passage of a measure designed to remove from women the disqualifications
590
that leave hitherto hindered them in entering the profession of solicitors. On one of those occasions the measure passed without a division; on the other it passed by a considerable majority; and on each there was a debate in which Lord Halsbury, Lord Finlay, Lord Loreburn, Lord Sumner, and Lord Selborne took part, so that I think your Lordships will agree with me when I say that the subject was well and adequately debated. If, therefore, this Bill did no more that once more to ask you to consider and approve the measure that has been twice before your consideration I should say few of the very briefest sentences in its support.
But, for reasons that I will explain directly, I have thought it desirable to extend the measure, and the Bill for which I now ask a Second Reading attempts to remove both the disqualifications that prevent a woman from practising as a solicitor, and any disqualifications, if such there be, that prevent her from practising as a barrister. In other words, it throws open the doors of the legal profession to women without distinction. On the former occasions there was but little opposition to the merits of the measure. I think those of you who remember what then took place will bear me out when I say that the real objection that was taken was rather on the ground of its being inexpedient, at a moment when the war was on, to pass a measure of this kind than upon the ground that the measure ought not to be passed at all. I did my best to remove that feeling of uneasiness by pointing out that, even if the measure were passed at once, a period which in special cases would be a minimum of three years, and in the ordinary case of live, must elapse before any woman could be admitted to practice as a solicitor. But the duration of the war was then indefinite, and people were unaware how long it might last, or how profoundly it might affect the fortunes of those who were engaged in the legal profession, and one or two—notably, I think, Lord Finlay and Lord Halsbury—were anxious for that reason that the measure should be postponed. In substance that objection has passed away, and with it all real considered objection to the measure, so far as it relates to solicitors, has, I submit, been removed.
So far as this measure affects barristers, the matter stands on a different footing.

591
As to solicitors, as I have pointed out more than once, women were prevented from entering by reason of the construction that had been given to Acts of Parliament which regulate the profession of solicitor; but with regard to a barrister no such Statutes exist. Admission to the Bar has all through our legal history been obtained by admission to one of the Inns of Court, a qualification of a recent date imposed by passing examinations and calling to the Bar by the Benchers of the Inn. It was my belief that if the measure passed so far as solicitors were concerned no further difficulty would be raised by the Inns in the way of women entering the Inns as students. It would be quite plain that no distinction could in justice be made as between one branch of the profession and the other; and I thought it possible that the Inns might take what I regarded as the courageous course of saying that in the exercise of their unlimited and undoubted discretion they would admit women to the Inns without further delay. But the Inn of which I have the honour to be a Bencher, Lincoln's Inn, took another view. They said that the admission of women to be barristers was part of a wider national question, and that they did not think it was right for the Inns to act in a matter of that kind without receiving direction from Parliament. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate the feeling that prompted them in that course. It did not involve any acceptance of the view that they had not the power, if they wished to exercise it, but that they thought they ought not to exercise such a power until Parliament had given them some indication that Parliament regarded it as in the national interest that women should be admitted. I have therefore included in a second clause a provision enabling women to be admitted to the Inns as well as to be admitted as solicitors.
Nobody thinks that the passage of this Bill is going to flood the legal profession with women. It will enable a few women, who are peculiarly qualified, to earn an honourable living in the practice of the law. So far as it affects barristers, it may enable a few women to help some of their less fortunate sisters in some of the hazards and perils that peculiarly encompass a woman's path. And if it succeeded in doing this, I am sure it would meet with your Lordships' approval. For the more certain you can be that all views of a
592
matter are placed before any tribunal which is to administer the law the more safe you may feel that justice will be done. The simple purpose of this Bill is to remove a disqualification on the ground of sex which, I submit, should no longer hinder women from using their energies and talents for the best interests of themselves, and, as I believe, of the nation. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
LORD SHANDON: My Lords, as this Bill does not in form apply to the Sister Isle, I have some diffidence in addressing your Lordships on the principle of the Bill. Anyone, whether an Irishman or an Englishman, who has had experience in the practice of the law or who has occupied a judicial position, must of necessity take a considerable interest in this proposal. It comes home to me all the more strongly because, not very long before I had tile honour of being a member of your Lordships' House, this matter and all the cases and decisions with regard to it came before the Irish Courts in a case which has since got into the books; and naturally one could not help forming a very definite opinion in a general sense upon this question, because time decision of the English Courts with regard to the admission of women to the profession of solicitors was naturally one of the subjects of debate.
The fact that this Bill has substantially, so far as the principle is concerned, been discussed so frequently before your Lordships' House and has met with your Lordships' approval makes it quite unnecessary at any length, as the noble and learned Lord who introduced the Bill pointed out, to enlarge upon the reasonableness of this measure. But I think it is not amiss that any one who has been brought into close contact with the question of legal practice should at any rate express his view; and my view I will say at once is one of wholehearted approval of the proposal of the noble and learned Lord.
The only reason why I trouble your Lordships is that. I suggest that. possibly in one respect the Bill has not gone quite far enough. Once women receive an education which undoubtedly fits them to take up a position requiring erudition, learning, tact, and skill, it is perfectly idle to exclude them from the practice of a

593
profession which demands those requirements; and I altogether endorse what the noble and learned Lord has said that the admission of a few women to the profession in question will not create a great revolution, or do anything except to remove a very real grievance. But I suggest with diffidence to the noble and learned Lord that this Bill as framed does not cover one of the grievances which I think is most keenly felt.
In a case which is now almost ancient history—the case of Beresford-Hope versus Sandhurst—which arose in connection with the qualification of women to exercise a certain franchise, according to my recollection, Lord Esher laid down as being the law two very strong propositions. These propositions were, first, that neither by the Common Law nor by the Constitution of this country can a woman be entitled to exercise any public function; and, second, where you have a Statute which deals with the exercise of public functions, unless that Statute expressly gives power to women to exercise that function it is to be taken that the power is confined to men. The manner in which in concrete form this question arose was this. A very humble post indeed, that of petty sessions clerk to an Irish petty sessions court, was given to a woman by the justices who had power to confer it. It is not a very elevated position; it is one which could be discharged very readily by a boy not very long out of an intermediate school, except possibly in a few of the larger cities and towns. But the majority of the Court, of which I had the honour to be a member, held that, on the construction of the Statute, as there was no power given to a woman to exercise the functions of petty sessions clerk, there was inherent evidence from the Statutes themselves that she could not possibly be appointed; and the members of the Court deplored that result.
I would point out that the mere removal of the disqualifications of a woman to be admitted as a barrister or solicitor would not necessarily entitle her as such to compete for those public offices—some of them possibly small public offices—to which otherwise as barrister or solicitor she would be entitled; and it may be necessary to go a little further if real effect is to be given to a very commonsense principle, at any rate so far as it affects the position of a woman who might wish such a post as that of petty sessions clerk.
594
I do not, suggest positively that this is absolutely so, because personally, with all respect to the great Judge who gave the decision, I think it may well be that he went a little too far. At the same time I suggest that if this Bill passes into Committee, in order to give real effect to the principle of it may be necessary to go a little further.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, it may be convenient for me to make a few observations on this subject on behalf of the Government, having regard to what was said by Lord Finlay when he sat on the Woolsack on the last occasion on which this Bill was under discussion. At that time, as Lord Buckmaster has said, the war was still in progress, and no human being could tell how long it was likely to last or in what ultimate condition it was likely to leave the legal profession. In those circumstances my noble and learned friend Lord Finlay, in an argument with most of which at that time I confess I agreed, took the view that the moment was not opportune for a change of such considerable magnitude.
I confess that, as Attorney-General, when the proposal was brought forward at the general meeting of the Bar, I took the view that it would have had the effect without the interposition of Parliament of passing a recommendation by the members of the Bar that women should be admitted. As Attorney-General I opposed that on the ground that it was not a convenient moment for the members of the Bar themselves to take such a step at a time when so many of the members of the profession were serving in His Majesty's Forces. The circumstances today are in many respects wholly changed. Lord Buckmaster has reminded your Lordships that this Bill now rests on a broader basis. I must admit that it seemed to me he was exposed to a good deal of criticism, some of it ill-founded, some of it better founded, as long as his Bill dealt solely with the case of solicitors. The criticism was generally passed by the solicitors' branch of the profession, "Why do you not deal with the Bar, to which you belong; why do you confine these beneficent reforms to the other branch of the profession?" Lord Buckmaster has given an explanation of the course he adopted. He said that in his view the Benchers of each Inn were always

595
at liberty to call women to the Bar without legislation. That may be so. But it seems to me it was not a very satisfactory position in which to leave the Benchers of each Inn, without any guidance at all from Parliament at the very moment when Parliament was not only giving guidance but enforcing compulsion upon the other branch of the profession.
I therefore think that Lord Buckmaster has taken an extremely wise course in making it clear that the scope of the present proposals comprehends both branches of the profession. Lord Buckmaster has told your Lordships something of the attitude of the Benchers of his own Inn. I have made some inquiries on the point, and I am in a position to assure your Lordships, in relation to the Benchers, I think, of all the Inns, that while I cannot pretend that they are avid of this change, or that they would have formed themselves into professional associations to agitate for its introduction, at the same time I am confident of this that if it be the will, as I anticipate it may prove to be, of Parliament that this great and memorable change should take place, the Benchers of the various Inns will loyally co-operate in order to give effect to the wishes of Parliament.
I am not one of those who would seek in any way to ignore the significance of the decision which is being taken to-day, and I say plainly that, as you will have surmised from the speeches made during the Election by leading members of the Government, in the changed circumstances of the day the Government welcome this proposal; and if your Lordships should give a Second Reading to this Bill and pass it through its remaining stages in this session of Parliament, it is the hope of the Government that they may be able to give it such assistance in another place as will render it highly probable that it will pass into law. My Lords, I cannot believe that any among your number, or many among your number, who think for a moment of the lessons of the last few years, can entertain any doubt that this decision is both a wise and necessary one. Much has been said, and your Lordships need no instruction upon that point, of the immense contribution which has been made by women to this war, and your Lordships will not have failed to notice that it has been rendered in circumstances which of all others would at first sight appear to be the least suitable for
596
feminine contribution. It has none the less been ungrudgingly and most efficiently given, and very few, I think, will doubt that it would have been impossible to win the war had it not been for the contribution made by women.
My noble and learned friend Lord Sumner, when this Bill was under discussion on the previous occasion, said it appeared to him that the general contribution which had been made by women had very little to do with the special question whether women should be allowed to practice as solicitors. I do not agree with that view. The argument appears to me to be a fortiori. If a contribution of so much value has been made by women in occupations for which at first sight they would appear to possess no special attribute at all, there seems every ground for thinking that to a purely intellectual profession, in which special aptitude and quickness are required, there can be no reason why they should be denied access. When once it is conceded that the test of entry into an intellectual profession is by the door of examination, surely it is far beyond the day when a distinction or barrier based exclusively upon sex can be maintained or defended. In these circumstances it is the hope of the Government that your Lordships will send this Bill to another place, and it is the desire and intention of the Government to give such assistance to it as is in their power.
THE EARL OF DESART: My Lords, I recognise quite as fully as Lord Buckmaster, or the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that the result of recent events and the trend of public opinion is such that, even if I desired to do so, which I do not, I could not offer any successful opposition to the passage of this Bill or to its obtaining a Second Reading. My only object in addressing a few words to your Lordships this afternoon is to refer to matters of detail which interest the profession. I think it should be known on this occasion that, so far as I have been able to ascertain—and it is rather corroborated by what fell from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—I should not anticipate that among the profession there would be found any desire to obstruct or prevent the alteration of the law which is embodied in the present Bill. Whether it will in effect be of much

597
advantage to women, I confess I feel considerable doubt.
I am, as it happens, serving on a Committee of my own Bench, as to the effect of the admission of women to the profession of the Bar in foreign countries, and the result of our inquiries is to show that so far it has not been a profession in which women have attained any success or indeed in which they have entered much into competition. Whether the same thing will occur in this country when women are admitted to practice I cannot tell; but as far as the signs go, I do not think it can be said that they will affect the conduct of law proceedings to any large extent. I am quite sure, and not only for that reason, that it would be very unjust, if at any time there were opposition to this change, that such opposition should be attributed to a desire on the part of existing members of the profession to protect their material interests, because I do not think they, any more than I, anticipate that those interests are likely to be at all seriously affected thereby.
What I desire to call attention to this afternoon is that the Bill of Lord Buckmaster contemplates admission of women to the Bar by exactly the same steps and procedure as apply to men at the present time—namely, entrance as a student, becoming a member of an Inn of Court, and after keeping terms and passing examinations then being called by the Benchers to the Bar. That may be, and on the whole I think it is, the shortest and best way of dealing with it. But there are people who hold other views, and it might he quite conceivable that the way of doing it would have been to have thrown the profession of the Bar open to women merely on passing to the satisfaction of examiners certain examinations identical with the examinations for men. I am not asking that, because I do not think it is my own view, but I have heard it expressed and I think it is held by many people. Life in an Inn may be compared with college life to a modified extent, and it is not usual, at any rate in any of the big Universities, to have women and men members of the same College. I have heard the opinion expressed that this might have been done in a different way, but it having been done in this way, and I think rightly, it is a matter which very closely concerns the Inns of Court. The Inns of Court are responsible or the discipline and control of the Bar,
598
and I think that before this Bill comes to its final stage—in some way or other, if they can do it, and if they are in agreement—corporate counsel might be obtained by the many representatives of the Inns of this House as to either regulations or slight amendments that would come before the House from those who have a knowledge of the conditions.
I am told there is no possible objection to telling the House what is being done. A lady applied for admission to Lincoln's Inn, but, having regard to the opinion of the Judges in 1903, the Benchers were of opinion that, whether they would otherwise have called her or not, it was not open to there to do so. Another application of the same character has recently been made, and it came before the various inns of Court, including the one of which I have the honour to be a Bencher. It was referred—properly referred, as it seemed to me—to a standing joint committee which deals with the discipline and interests of the Bar. That committee passed a resolution on the subject. Of course, it was only a resolution of the committee, which may or may not be accepted by the Inn, but the House should know it, and I desire to show that there is no apparent tendency at present to do otherwise than co-operate in working the change if Parliament should think it should be decided upon.
I understand that there is no possible objection to reading the resolution of the joint committee, which is a recommendation to the Inns they represent. It is as follows—
"Resolved, That the Committee are of opinion, having regard to the decision of the Judges in the case of a lady on December 2, 1903, that women are not now eligible by law to be members of an Inn of Court or to be called to the Bar; they are further of opinion that, in view of the possibility of legislation being passed making women so eligible, the Inns of Court should consider in common how best the change should be carried into effect, having regard to the ancient discipline and customs of the Inns of Court and their control over all students and barristers; and that it is desirable that a special joint committee be appointed by the four Courts for this purpose."
I entirely concur that, things having got to this point, it is most desirable that the Bill should pass into law during the present session. I apprehend that it may not be long before the Inns of Court, if they agree, may be able to be of assistance and so far from hindering would facilitate the passage of the Bill.

599
I do not know whether I shall be successful, but the only object I had in speaking to-night was to appeal to my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster to leave perhaps rather a prolonged, certainly an unusual, time between the Second Reading and the Committee stage, so that the Inns should have an opportunity to make suggestions to some of us who represent them in this House as to any details that may be necessary for giving effect to the Bill in the best way, having regard to the interests and discipline of the Bar, including as it may a certain number of women. In that way the Bill may be sent to the House of Commons in a form in which it may not be likely to require further amendment. I am not in any way opposing the Bill or its Second Reading. But I make the appeal that a little time should be given so that details may be considered by the Inns who may very well be able to make useful suggestions as to amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend I would make it plain that the Government in no way bound themselves to adopt the precise form, and still less the precise language, of Lord Buckmaster's Bill; and before taking steps, if they are able to take steps, in the House of Commons it would certainly be their intention to consult the various Inns of Court.
LORD FINLAY: My Lords, I did not come down to the House with any intention of taking part in this debate. In fact, I did not know that this Bill was among the Orders of the Day. I rise in consequence of an observation that was made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. He referred to the speech that I made when the Bill with regard to solicitors was before the House, and he spoke as if I had rested my opposition to it solely on the ground that the war was then pending. My objection to that measure was based on other and more general ground as well as on that of the pendency of the war to which it was vary probable I referred though I have no recollection that it formed the main subject of my argument. The argument now put forward in support of the measure is that it will only lead to a very few women—one or two, I think, it was said—coming to the Bar and a few becoming solicitors. That may be so but I think if that be the fact it goes a very long way to show that
600
the Common Law of England was not so absurd after all, and that it may in course of time be recognised that the Common Law was in conformity with the facts of the case. I do not rise to make a speech. I do not rise to move the rejection of the measure. But I think it only right, after what the Lord Chancellor has said, to correct the misapprehension under which I believe he was with regard to my attitude in the previous occasion.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

UNION OF BENEFICES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Bishop of Norwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Power to Lord Chancellor to make rules.
3. The Lord Chancellor, with the advice and assistance of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, may make rules for prescribing anything which under this Act is to be prescribed and in particular for—

(i)regulating the place and time of the sittings of the commissioners, and as to the quorum necessary;

(ii)the taking of evidence, and hearing by the commissioners of objections;

(iii)the notices (if any) to be given of their sittings to the incumbents, patrons, churchwardens or other persons interested, and the service of such notices;

(iv)the filling of vacancies in the number of commissioners, and the time within which the commissioners are to make their report;

(v)the payments (if any) to be made towards the costs and expenses incurred in the matter by any Bishop or by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, or by the commissioners or the persons appearing before them;

(vi)the registration and inspection in the diocesan registries or elsewhere of Orders in Council made under this Act;

601

(vii)the fees to be paid to diocesan or other officials; and

(viii)generally as to all matters and things incidental to or connected with the holding of local inquiries and the publication or registration of draft schemes, schemes, or Orders made under this Act.

THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH moved, in paragraph (viii), after the word "inquiries," to insert "appeals to His Majesty in Council." The right rev. Prelate said: it is quite plain that if there are to be appeals it is necessary that provision should be made, and that the Lord Chancellor should make rules accordingly.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 17, after ("inquiries") insert ("appeals to His Majesty in Council").—(The Lord Bishop of Norwich.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Bishop to transmit report of commissioners to Ecclesiastical Commissioners who are to propose scheme.
4.—(a) The Bishop receiving a report under this Act shall cause the same, or a copy thereof, to be transmitted to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who shall, if the report shall recommend a union, and if the Bishop of the dioceses or the Bishops of the dioceses affected shall signify in writing his or their approval of the report, but not otherwise, cause to be prepared a scheme based upon the terms recommended for effecting the proposed union, which scheme may, with the assent of the Bishop of the diocese or the Bishops of the dioceses affected, embody any modification of the proposals.
Draft scheme to be published locally.
(b) Drafts of such proposed scheme shall be published locally in the prescribed manner, and also be transmitted in the prescribed manner to the patron or patrons affected, together with a notice in each case requiring any objections to such draft scheme to be stated or transmitted in writing to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners within the prescribed time.
Ecclesiastical Commissioners to certify final scheme to the King in Council.
(c) After giving full consideration to such objections (if any), and after making such alterations (if any) in the draft, scheme as, having regard to such objections, they shall deem right, and after submitting such alterations (if any) to the Bishop of the diocese or the Bishops of the dioceses affected, and obtaining his or their consent thereto in writing, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners (unless, after full consideration, they shall think it advisable to withdraw the scheme) shall certify the scheme, and the consent thereto in writing of the Bishop of the diocese or the Bishops of the dioceses affected, to His Majesty in Council.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: I beg to move the next Amendment standing in my name, which is that in paragraph (a) of Clause 4, after the words "who shall, if the," to insert "Commissioners or a majority of the Commissions making the,"
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 22, after "the ") insert ("Commissioners or a majority of the Commissioners making the")—.(The Lord Bishop of Norwich.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I suppose it is the ordinary practice of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to act by the majority?
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: These are not the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but the three Commissioners.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN VISCOUNT CHAPLIN moved, in paragraph (a), after the words "and if the Bishop of the diocese or the Bishops of the dioceses affected," to insert "and the patron or patrons affected." The noble Viscount said: In moving the Amendment which stands in my name I would say three things to begin with. I have not the least desire or intention to stop the passing of this Bill. I do not move my Amendment for that purpose. For what purpose I do move it I will say a little later. In the second place, with regard to certain communications that I have had by letter and personally both with the most rev. Primate and the right rev. Prelates who have taken part in the debates on this Bill, I wish to tender to them my thanks for the courtesy with which they met my appeal. But notwithstanding that, I am not perfectly satisfied with the position which will be held under this Bill by patrons, who may take, as I think justly, objection to some of its provisions.
May I refer for a moment to this point? What is the origin of the great majority of the benefices to which I refer. The greater part of them, beyond all doubt, have either been endowed by the existing patrons or by their predecessors, and I think we are sometimes a little apt to forget that at the present moment at all events they are as much the legal property of the patrons as anything else the patrons possess, or any one of your Lordships possess. Yet it cannot be denied that there are some very drastic provisions in

603
this Bill which might conceivably, in cases which would not be just, deprive them altogether of the property and the rights which it confers upon them.
In the course of the debate the other day the most rev. Primate told me that he could not understand what I meant when I ventured to suggest that a patron, if it came to a dispute before the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, would always be in a minority. I think I find the answer to that in the words of the most rev. Primate himself in the debate which took place on Tuesday last. This is what he said—
"What does he mean by representatives of the Church? The Church is represented as to one part by the patron, as to another by the Bishop, and as to the third part by the Ecclesiastical Commissioner."
Those are the three persons to which I myself referred in the case I submitted last week. Is it not obvious, when we remember that one of the provisions of the Bill is that the Ecclesiastical Commissioner is to be Chairman, that the third part, as pointed out by the most rev. Primate, is directly connected with the Church. I have had dealings in days gone by with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and somehow or other—I do not know why or wherefore, and make no criticism or accusation against them—I fancy that in these matters they lean rather to the Church. It would be surprising indeed if they did not. That is what I meant when I said that where there was a difference of opinion between the Bishop on the one hand and the patron on the other, the third party representing according to the most rev. Primate the Church, the patron would always be in a minority. The most rev. Primate also said that this case was argued last year and the matter then disposed of. I have taken the pains to read the debate of last year, but I cannot see that the objections to the case which I submitted were answered then.
I will not delay the Committee for more than a single moment, but may I just say what my case was? I will quote what I said the other evening—
"There are two parishes now adjoining.… One of them during my time was extra-parochial altogether. The other was a parish with a very good living and a very old church. The time came when I thought it was desirable that the means of religious worship and education should be provided in the parish which originally was extra-parochial altogether, and there I built a small church and a school, and not only that but I endowed a living, and there it is at the present
604
moment.… The adjoining parish contains a church of the old-fashioned description, which was much more common in my younger days than it is now."
That church, at a very considerable expense to the patron, was restored in a modern way, and made into a church which gave great satisfaction to every one. I want to know whether in a case like that it would not be fair and right that the patron should not only have a voice but an effective voice in any questions that arise. It seems to me that if it is not so he would be very hardly and unjustly treated.
I am told that all these matters are to be carefully inquired into and examined by the three Commissioners, before whom the patron may raise any objection he pleases. That is quite true, and if Bishops were invariably like some of those whom it has been my great privilege to know exceedingly well, I do not believe that I should have had anything to say upon this occasion. But there are exceptions to that rule, and I do not think these very drastic powers ought to be given without the possibility of an appeal being afforded to the patron who has adopted the course I have endeavoured to describe, if a case is given against him. It is not for me to say how this Bill should be altered if this Amendment is carried. I do not want to stop the Bill; that is the last thing I desire to do. But it does seem to me that consequential Amendments could be very easily introduced giving the right of appeal, under certain conditions, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council if, in cases such as I have endeavoured to describe, the verdict was given against the interest of the patron. I do not know that it is necessary for me to say anything further in connection with the Amendment which I have ventured to place upon the Paper, and with this brief explanation of my object I beg leave to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 24, after ("affected") insert ("and the patron or patrons affected").—(Viscount Chaplin.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I hope that the right rev. Prelate in charge of the Bill will not accept the Amendment in the form in which the noble Viscount has moved it. I am entirely with the noble Viscount in every part of the argument that he has submitted. I want the patron, as a

605
representative of local interests, to have the fullest possible say that he can legitimately and reasonably be supposed to have in this matter. I want him to have—and I believe the Bill gives him—the full right of appeal if his interests have been in any way impaired or seriously tampered with, and I cannot help thinking that the noble Viscount has, in the first place, omitted to notice what are the powers of the patron under the Bill in having his case put from his point of view, and, secondly, that he fails to realise where the difficulty now arises with regard to patrons and how that would be perpetuated if the Bill were to be amended in the way that he suggests.
As the Bill now stands, in every case any suggestion made will be considered by three Commissioners, one of whom will be appointed by the patron. That Commissioner will have his say with the other two Commissioners as to what is to be done. When the Report of the Commission has been made it will be sent to the patron as well as to the Bishop, and the patron will have the full right to make any objection or remarks that he desires to make upon it. We will suppose that the matter goes forward against what the patron has asked for. There would then still remain, what is set forth more fully in the proposed Amendment of the Bill by its mover, the right of the patron to appeal to the Privy Council against the decision before that decision can take effect. The patron, therefore, will have all these possibilities before him throughout the proceedings; but if the noble Viscount's Amendment were carried he could, by merely declining to answer a letter—I am sorry to say an exceedingly common thing in matters of this kind—stop all proceedings ab initio.
The Bill would say, if the noble Viscount had his will, that "The Bishop receiving such a report shall transmit to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who shall, if the Report shall recommend a union, and if the Bishop of the diocese affected and the patron shall signify in writing their approval of the Report, but not otherwise," it shall go forward. Therefore, unless the patron took the trouble to signify his approval the whole thing would absolutely drop. It seems to me that the patron would only have to sit still and do nothing, and by that means he would absolutely debar the whole proceedings soon after the beginning of them. I can hardly believe
606
that this is what the noble Viscount suggests, and I should think he is really unaware of the kind of difficulties that arise in these matters. We have to deal with small parishes, the patrons of which are living quite away, and who, I am sorry to say, care very little about them. The difficulty is to get them to take an interest in the matter. If the patron were really a representative of local feeling and local life in the way that I am quite sure the noble Viscount is, in regard to the parishes that he speaks of, and where such interest as he has described felt by the patron, it is perfectly obvious there would not be the difficulty that is now encountered.
The Bishop of the diocese and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are bound to consider any representations which the patron makes, and ultimately the patron has an appeal to the Privy Council. Therefore through the whole proceedings the greatest care has been taken that the patron shall have his side of the ease considered by his representative, or himself if he desires it, appearing before the Commission to make further statements. In addition to having a representative there, later by notification in writing to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners he can bring forward the objections he holds, and also by making objections to the Bishop, and if all these are overriden he has a right of appeal to the Privy Council.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: After Clause 4?
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Yes.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: Where does he get that?
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: In Clause 5 of the Bill, to which an Amendment is going to be moved by the Bishop of Norwich. That Amendment sets out in full the manner of the appeal. The right of appeal is given in the Bill, but the Amendment places it beyond all possible doubt because it sets out in full how the appeal to the Privy Council can be given. All this seems to me to safeguard the rights of the patron absolutely to every reasonable extent that the patron could ask.
I feel that the noble Viscount went a little too far when he spoke of the patron's position with regard to the advowson of

607
which he is patron as being absolutely the same legal possession as the legal possession that he has of any other thing he holds. I think that the law even suggests that there are certain limitations to an absolute free right of that kind. But apart from that, it is of course the whole trust principle that we are trying at this moment to assure—that patronage is a trust and not a question of mere property—and I should be sorry if anything that went out from here seemed to show that this House regarded the power of a patron with regard to an advowson as being precisely similar to that with regard to any other property. It would be unfortunate if that phrase were to get out. I think that I have made it clear to the noble Viscount that the patron from first to last has his interest fully considered as regards power for the appointment of a Commissioner, and his power of protesting afterwards against the report of the Commissioners, and ultimately his power of appeal to the Privy Council. If we are to give him power to stop the whole thing by not answering the letter, I feel that we might as well not go forward with the Bill. I earnestly hope, therefore, that the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: If I understand the most rev. Primate correctly, I should go even further than he would in one respect. I would have no patience at all with the patron who did not even take the trouble to answer a letter or raise an objection. In such a case I would allow it to go by default, and I should be willing to move an Amendment to that effect if it were necessary. Perhaps I said a word too much in describing the patron's position with regard to this particular property when I said—if I did say so—that it was just as legally his property as any other property that he might possess. Of course, I quite agree that there may be, and ought to be, limitations with regard to patronage of that kind. But when the Bill was published there was not this right of appeal so far as I remember, and it is to be given by an Amendment. I only came up from the country late this afternoon, and have not had time since arriving at the House to read the Amendments giving a right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. When the Report shall recommend a union, and if the Bishop of the diocese affected shall signify in writing his approval of the Report, but not otherwise,
608
then they may cause to be prepared a scheme. I was not aware that it was contemplated that there should be an appeal after that to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That is the very thing that I asked for and suggested myself just now as being perfectly satisfactory to myself. If I correctly understood the right rev. Prelate, there is very little difference between him and myself.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I explained that it was so in the Bill, as we believed—in Clause 5. But in case there could be any doubt about it we have made it perfectly clear in the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am very glad that the noble Viscount has not persisted in his Amendment, which, as he has explained, he only pressed under a certain degree of misapprehension. I think that the remarks made by the most rev. Primate show that there is a quite sufficient appeal, which would protect the interests of the patron to every reasonable extent without giving him an absolute veto in the case of a proposed union.
There is one point, however, on which the right rev. Prelate in charge of the Bill could give me a little information. I notice in the Schedule that the Union of Benefices Act, 1860, is amended in certain respects; and if the right rev. Prelate would look at the proposed Amendment to Section 11 of that Act, I understand that where the united benefices produce a revenue which is regarded as too large for the single benefice, then, by an extension of the power which formerly applied only to the metropolis, surplus revenues may be allotted to any other parish in the diocese. That, of course, is a power that might seriously affect the interests of a patron, assuming, for instance, that both the united livings were in a single patronage and the surplus of their combined revenue was handed over to a parish, possibly in a different county, with which the patron had no connection at all.
The question I desire to ask is this. I assume that the omission of the words "of the patron or patrons of the benefices proposed to be united and of the vestries of the parishes to be affected thereby" does not prevent the final appeal, even on that point, which the patron might desire to

609
make to the Judicial Committee; and that it does not mean, as it might appear to mean, that that power is absolutely given and is not subject to appeal.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: I think there is a good deal in what the noble Marquess says, and if at a later stage he proposed to move an Amendment in that direction I certainly should not be one to find any fault with the proposal. The union of the two small benefices might produce such an income as might be wholly inappropriate to the purpose, and in that care it seemed wise to take power to deal with it. But I have no reason to imagine that that would be done, or that any other step would be taken, in an outrageous or inconsiderate sort of way, and certainly every scheme, whatever the clauses and provisions, would be subject to the final appeal, which. I hope to move as an Amendment to the existing Clause 5.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: If that is so, it seems hardly necessary in my opinion to alter the terms of the Schedule. I could, of course, consider the point with some of my friends before Report if it is desirable to do so. But personally I should be quite content with the final appeal to the Privy Council.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Orders in Council.
5. It shall be lawful for His Majesty in Council to make and issue any Order or Orders for affirming the scheme, and for uniting the, benefices and parishes proposed to be united to the extent and for the purposes recommended in the scheme: Provided always that if any petition or statement is lodged by way of protest, or any appeal is made against the scheme, or any part thereof, under this Act, no such Order or Orders in Council shall be made or issued until such petition or statement has been duly considered, or the parties to such appeal have been duly heard.
Amendment moved—
Leave out clause 5 and insert the following new clause:—
Appeals to His Majesty in Council.
5.—(1) After the scheme and consent shall have been certified as aforesaid public notice of I such certification shall be given in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time, and any person who has in accordance with this Act made objection to the draft scheme may appeal to His
610
Majesty in Council against the scheme, or any part thereof.
(2) If no appeal is so made within the period of one month after the date of the said public notice it shall be lawful for His Majesty in Council to make and issue any order or orders for affirming the scheme, and for uniting the benefices and parishes proposed to be united to the extent and for the purposes recommended in the scheme.
(3) If any appeal is so made, His Majesty in Council may order and direct that such appeal shall be heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the said Judicial Committee shall make report to His Majesty in Council thereupon and may propose to His Majesty in Council to affirm, vary, or dismiss the scheme certified by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or to return the same to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for alteration or amendment and His Majesty may affirm, vary, or dismiss the scheme accordingly or return the same to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to be reconsidered as to any parts thereof.—(The Lord Bishop of Norwich.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Marquess might be well advised, if he is interested in the point which he indicated a few moments ago, to consider with some of his friends the exact wording of this Amendment in relation to any claim made by the Schedule. I merely throw out that suggestion.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 6, 7, and 8 agreed to.
EARL GREY EARL GREY moved to insert a new clause after Clause 8. The noble Earl said: I have been asked to move this Clause by my friend the Bishop of Ipswich. He gives me as an instance where the Clause would be useful the following. He says—
"We have a scheme in Ipswich to take an old city church, with no population, for diocesan purposes; the nave to be our diocesan hall and the chancel to be a kind of Bishop's chapel for intercession, institutions, private confirmation and the like."
And in a further letter he also refers to the fact that this Amendment was suggested to him by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I believe that the right rev. Prelate in chargeof the Bill is not unfriendly to the objects aimed at in this new clause, which, there is a general feeling, would be in the direction of giving facilities. If the right rev. Prelate does not like the wording of this clause, I would not wish to press it.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause:
"Provision as to church within united parish and not being parish church.
"9. In respect of any church left standing within the united parish and not being the parish church, the scheme may provide that the same, except the chancel, may, with the consent of the bishop of the diocese within which the united parish is situate, be used for any ecclesiastical, educational, or charitable purpose in connection with the Church of England."—(Earl Grey.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: There is not the slightest objection to this clause; in fact, there are one or two churches which are being used in this very way now in the Diocese of London to the benefit of every one.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: I do not oppose the inclusion of this clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule:
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: I move my first Amendment to the Schedule. I do so as the result of the speech made the other day by the noble Viscount, Lord Bryce, when he expressed some hesitation as to the desirability of taking power to pull down churches. Your Lordships will observe that the Amendment limits the power of pulling down churches to those situate in a city or municipal borough. We are all aware that in a good many cases it may be desirable to pull down a church in a large city in order to secure the vacant space for a public garden or some other necessary object. In the country the position is different, and I readily accepted the suggestion made by the noble Viscount in the direction of safeguarding country churches. Under the existing law there is provision made for pulling down country churches, and that law will not be disturbed.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 12, after ("omitted") insert ("and the following words shall be inserted: Provided that no scheme made under this Act shall authorise the pulling down of any church not being situate within a city or municipal borough").—(The Lord Bishop of Norwich.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH moved to omit from the Schedule the
612
following word, from "16" to "sinecures"—

Act.

Section.

Marginal Note.

Modification.

Union of Benefices Act, 1860

16

Appeals and protests against scheme.

For "benefices" there shall be substitutel "benefice or benefices, sinecure or sinecures."

The right rev. Prelate said: This is what I may call a consequential Amendment to Clause 5. Now that the details of the appeal have been explained, and being arranged as they are according to the Bill, it has become unnecessary to leave this clause in the Schedule.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 19, leave out from ("16") to ("sinecures") in line 21.—(The Lord Bishop of Norwich.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE HOURS OF SITTING.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY rose to ask the Lord President of the Council whether he would be prepared to recommend the House to advance the hour of public business so that it shall begin as soon after four o'clock as the necessities of private business will permit.
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, this Question which. I put to my noble friend the Leader of the House, will want very few words from me to recommend it to him. The truth is that the amount of business which is likely to bespeak your Lordships' attention in the coming months will probably very much exceed that to which we have recently been accustomed. I earnestly hope that it may reach us in good time and I am sure after what has passed in the House that the noble Earl will do his utmost to expedite that part of the business. The earlier it comes the more necessity there will be for ample time to be provided soon for the proper discussion of this business. The business is likely to be of an extremely interesting character, and, as I said on a previous occasion, the responsibility of this House in the existing circumstances may be very important indeed.
This being so, some of us have been led to consider whether we could not have a little more time in which to carry out the consideration of important matters. Under the present system, as your Lordships are aware, the House meets for public business at half-past four o'clock, and there is really only a rather briefly limited time before the hour approaches when for certain domestic reasons the House generally thins a good deal. Indeed, it is not really possible for us to keep a house in ordinary circumstances much after seven o'clock—that means about two and a half hours. In former times, of course, the House sat much more frequently after dinner, and I dare say that may be necessary again. But recently the habits of those who take part in our debates have become such as to make it very difficult to sit after dinner as a common occurrence.
But though our hours have therefore been curtailed, I am not sure that our speeches have been curtailed. So that what happens is that the speeches of those of your Lordships who engage the attention of the House are as long as they used to be, but the time at our disposal is considerable shorter. That produces not only an unfortunate effect, but in point of fact it limits the opportunities which the House has of hearing as many of your Lordships as it would desire to hear. In looking at the arrangement of our business one cannot help being struck by the fact that, even after the House has formally assembled, there is considerable delay. When prayers are said in the afternoon, it is at 4 o'clock or a few minutes after. Private business begins at a quarter-past four, and a great many valuable minutes are expended without any particular result.
LORD FINLAY: Prayers are at a quarter-past four.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then I was wrong in regard to a few minutes. There appears to be good reason to think, therefore, that we can save that quarter of an hour and perhaps a little more. I understand that judicial business finishes at a quarter to four. If the House could begin its other business at 4 o'clock, or as soon after as possible, that would appear to be the most economical use of our time that could be made. Speaking generally, prayers are said in the morning when
614
judicial business begins; but on Wednesdays, when there is usually no judicial business, prayers are said in the afternoon.
The form of the Question is not intended to be very precise. If we make some change in our Standing Orders the words, no doubt, would have to be carefully considered; but what I contend is that, unless there is private business, the House should begin effectually to do its work at 4 o'clock. That does not seem to be at all an unreasonable proposition. If prayers have to be in the afternoon, I imagine prayers would be said just before 4 o'clock, and that would only be on Wednesdays, when there is no judicial business. On the other days, prayers being earlier, there would be no question of their interference. Therefore we could then begin our business effectually and effectively at 4 o'clock. That is the very moderate and modest proposal which I venture to make to your Lordships.
We should be most unwilling, of course, to interfere with our other great, functions—namely, our judicial functions. That would be a very strong measure to take, and therefore when it was suggested, as it was by certain noble Lords, that we should sit at 3.30, we felt that it would be asking rather too much of the legal side of our functions. Sitting at 4 o'clock ought not seriously to interfere with the legal side, and it will give us an extra valuable half-hour. Therefore I cannot help thinking that we should be well advised, in view of the heavy burden of work which is likely to come upon us, if we made this moderate alteration in our procedure.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Marquess for giving me an opportunity both of replying to the Question and of adding one or two other observations upon the subject of the procedure of the House a matter to which attention was pointedly called the other day by Lord Burnham, and about which I have since had an opportunity of consulting several members of great experience of the proceedings of your Lordships' House.
In order to understand exactly what, is proposed and what it is possible to do, and in what respects our present procedure is deficient, if it is, let us have a very clear understanding of what are the actual re-

615
gulations and practice of the House. We ordinarily meet here on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday in the week. Some times, but more usually later in the session, we meet also on Mondays and Fridays. On Tuesday and Thursday Bills have precedence of all other Notices upon the Paper. Wednesday is the private members' afternoon, and Bills on that afternoon are only taken after other business. Your Lordships' House meets for the discharge of judicial business on four days of the week—namely, Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, at 10.30 in the morning, and, as a rule, concludes those proceedings at 3.45 in the afternoon, although sometimes for the convenience of an argument, or a speaker, the time of rising is slightly postponed. On Wednesday the House does not meet for judicial business at all. On the days on which the House sits for judicial business prayers are read, not at the afternoon session, but at the morning session before judicial business, and therefore on those days we are dispensed from reading prayers in the afternoon.
Now what is the object of the noble Marquess's Question? It is, as defined by himself, to allow of greater time being found within the limits of our ordinary procedure for the despatch of public business; to permit and indeed encourage more noble Lords to take part in our discussions than do now—although I was rather sorry to note that my noble friend held out no prospect whatever of any reduction in the length of the speeches to which we sometimes listen; and, indeed (what my noble friend has in view and what we all have), to give to the public at large a correct impression of the seriousness which characterises our proceedings in this House. He therefore proposes that we should on every day in the week meet as nearly as possible at 1 o'clock in the afternoon, instead of at 4.30.
Let us see what exactly happens in practice. I have already pointed out that the House separates from its judicial sittings at 3.45, or thereabouts. There is then half-an-hour before the hour of 4.15, when Parliamentary business is taken. In that half-hour the re-arrangement of the House has to be made—it has to be converted from a judicial tribunal into a legislative chamber. At 4.15 the Lord Chancellor takes his seat upon the Woolsack, and then ensues an interval of a quarter-of-an-hour in which, broadly speaking,
616
the following operations either do or can take place: Peers are introduced or take the Oath, Bills are read a first time, private Bills receive their Second or Third Reading, Questions are put by private notice and addressed to the Front Bench, and at 4.30 public business commences. The noble Marquess says, Cannot we contract or put back these proceedings, and commence not at 4.30 but at 4 o'clock? I dare say that the mechanical procedure of re-arranging the House could conceivably be effected in the interval between 3.45 and 4 o'clock, although it might be running it rather fine.
But we have also in the matter to consider with due respect the convenience and interests of the Lord Chancellor. On these days, Tuesdays and Thursdays for instance, the Lord Chancellor has now an interval between 3.45, when the Court rises, or it may be later, and the meeting of this House for other business at 4.15, to make those changes in his costume which render him an object not merely of dignity but of charm to your Lordships' House. He has to transact whatever business comes before him in the interval, and to sign documents which may be submitted to him. Indeed, these are some of the few moments of the day when he can perform any duties outside those of sitting as a Judge or as a legislator in this House. I think we should respect those necessities. I have taken the opportunity of consulting both the present Lord Chancellor and his predecessor upon the Woolsack, and I gather from both of them that it would be an inconvenience amounting to hardship to compel them after a long session, terminating at 3.45, to perform the various duties to which I have referred and again sit at 4 o'clock. Therefore as regards Tuesdays and Thursdays I should not like to hold out to my noble friend any encouragement that I would recommend the course which he has suggested.
I think, however, that on those days we should do well to follow his suggestion in one respect. He has spoken, quite correctly, of the apparent waste of time involved in the spectacle of the House sitting here, with the Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack, from 4.15 to 4.30, when there is no private business to be taken and nothing to prevent public business being proceeded with, and when an air of dignified but impotent leisure pervades the scene. I see no reason why on such occasions public business should not be proceeded with in the absence of

617
private business. That would mean that we should commence our ordinary proceedings as nearly as possible at 4.15 instead of at 4.30. As regards Wednesdays, when there is no judicial business, I think we may go, if your Lordships approve, not only the whole way that the noble Marquess desires, but even a little further. I have had the advantage of speaking on this matter to the Lord Chancellor, and I think I carry his consent with me when I make the suggestion that the House should meet on Wednesdays at 3.45; that, at its meeting at that hour prayers should be read and private business should be taken; and that, this being completed, public business should commence as nearly as possible at 4 p.m. That would mean a definite gain of at least half an hour, and I will show presently that I think it might be a great deal more on Wednesdays, Which are par excellence the days when private members do their work.
A further suggestion I venture to make for economising our time is this. We are all familiar with the picturesque ceremony by which noble Lords are introduced into this House or are advanced from one stage of the Peerage to another. What exactly its symbolism signifies probably none of us understands, but it is one of those survivals of the past which we cherish and from which I believe we would not readily part; but there is no reason whatever why a Peer should not be introduced in these circumstances on any day at any time that he likes to seek to arrange. All I understand that he has to do is to communicate with the Lord Chancellor in advance and fix a day by arrangement with him. Communication is then made to Garter King-at-Arms and the Clerk at the Table and the whole machinery is set in operation. The consequence is this, that this very dignified and, to the individual concerned, very important proceeding takes place without any notice given in advance, in a House that is sometimes wholly empty, frequently in the absence of the Leader of the House, commonly in the absence of the friends, unless they have been warned, of the noble Lord who is principally concerned. Would it not be an advantage to all parties that this procedure should as a rule take place on the Wednesday of the week? In other words, when the Peer who seeks introduction or who has been advanced a stage in the Peerage makes his communication to the Lord Chancellor, the Lord, Chancellor would see fit to advise him to arrange for
618
this procedure to be adopted upon Wednesday. We should then know where we are; a number of people would assemble to welcome the noble Lord; the Leader of the House would, on many occasions, seek to be present himself; and we should be spared the diffusion of the ceremony over this or that day of the week, when, as we have often had experience, it may seriously interfere with public business. I have been present on occasions when there was a large House waiting to proceed to important matter. Very likely there has been some little bit of private business, and, in addition to that, ten, fifteen, even twenty minutes have been taken up with the ceremony to which I alluded. No alteration is required in any Standing Order to produce this change, which is one, I think, that will be to the general advantage.
So much for the question of providing more time at the beginning of our proceedings. I wonder if we can do anything at the other end. The noble Marquess alluded to the difficulties that have attended our sittings after dinner, and he mentioned that in the old days after-dinner sittings were much more frequent. No doubt the diminution of the practice has been largely due to the special circumstances created by the war. When there was great difficulty in providing the requisite refreshments in another part of your Lordships' House, when there was practically no means of obtaining vehicular conveyance through the streets of London, when the streets themselves were ill-lighted or not lighted at all, it can well be understood that it was a matter not only of discomfort, but even of worse, to noble Lords after a long session here to find their way home at eleven or twelve o'clock at night. Therefore, the practice of after-dinner sittings, except in a few rare cases, has fallen into desuetude. I do not know that it is necessary as a universal course, as a uniform procedure, to revive it; but I should like to feel that whenever we are in Committee on an important Bill your Lordships will regard it as part of the natural and inevitable order of things that you will sit after dinner for the purpose.
Then there is another aspect of the same problem. It was alluded to, I think, by the noble Marquess. It is the question of the hour at which we adjourn, supposing there be no after-dinner sitting.

619
I think it is desirable that in such cases we should continue to sit as nearly as possible until eight o'clock. I mention that hour because I have noticed lately that the practice has grown up in the case, let us say, of some important discussion, which is sometimes adjourned from day to day, even from week to week, that a noble Lord who may have been speaking resumes his seat at approximately half-past seven. Thereupon another noble Lord who desires to resume the discussion, and who is somewhat chilled at the prospect of a speech to a rather empty Chamber and has considerable doubt as to the reception his speech will meet with in the Press Gallery, proposes the adjournment of the debate to the next or a later day. With all respect I do not think that is quite fair. I think that we ought to be able to continue our proceedings at least till 8 o'clock, and in so far as I am concerned—occupying the position that I happen to do—I will always make it my duty, as far as possible, to provide speakers, if Government speakers are required, to fill that interval; and I should like your Lordships, if you agree with my argument, to take the general line that on the whole it is reasonable that instead of adjourning at half-past seven we should sit till 8 o'clock. In that way we should gain on many occasions half an hour at the end of our proceedings as well as the half-hour which I have endeavoured to save at the beginning.
Will your Lordships bear with me while I say a few words about the difficult matter of Questions?—because Questions, and the treatment which they receive in your Lordships' House, are the source of a great deal of the irregularity and mischief of which some complain. It is rather a remarkable thing, if you look at the Standing Orders of the House, that the word "Question" except in its connotation of a subject, does not occur there at all, and when the Standing Orders were drawn up it cannot, I think, have been contemplated that Questions should assume anything like the place they now occupy in the attention of your Lordships' House. Questions are, from one point of view, our most cherished privilege, and I am certain your Lordships would not wish to forego their full and legitimate exercise, but it is also true that they are the case in which our regulations are most consistently and flagrantly violated.
620
Let me read to your Lordships Standing Order No. XXVII, which deals with this matter. It runs as follows—
"No Lord is to speak twice to any Bill, at one time of reading it, or to any other proposition, except the Mover in reply, unless it be to explain himself in some material point of his speech (no new matter being introduced), and that not without the leave of the House first obtained."
Thus your Lordships will see that under the Standing Order a noble Lord is subject to four limitations as regards his second speech. In the first place, he cannot make it at all without the leave of the House; in the second place, it must only be in explanation of something that he has said before; in the third place, the explanation must relate to some material point of his former speech or argument; and, lastly, he is not at liberty to introduce any new matter. I am making no revelation when I say that those rules are more honoured in the breach than in the observance. What do we see? Scarcely a day passes in your Lordships' House in which a noble Lord who has put his Question on the Paper and made his speech does not think it necessary to get up and make a second speech later on. Sometimes it is a mere courteous expression of thanks to the Minister who has answered him. Even so, it is out of order. Sometimes it is a deliberate attempt to answer and to criticise the Minister who has given him the reply, and sometimes it is an entirely new speech supplementary to the first, and indeed on occasions wholly distinct from it.
Let me take as an illustration the last occasion on which your Lordships met and of which I have the printed proceedings, March the 6th. On that occasion my noble friend Lord Ribblesdale made a very characteristic and excellent speech about the treatment of horses in the streets of London. He was replied to by the Earl of Jersey on behalf of this Bench, and then my noble friend proceeded to make a second speech. First, he thanked the noble Earl for the reply he had given. That was all right although it was superfluous; and then he proceeded for a column and a half to make an entirely new speech not arising out of anything which had been said in reply, and not in explanation of anything that had been said by himself. Everybody, gratified at the incursions of my noble friend into the debate, witnessed this disorderly proceeding with perfect composure. The next Question was one by Earl Fortescue. He inquired about

621
the search which had been made in Germany for prisoners of war. To this a full reply was given by Lord Newton. My noble friend Earl Fortescue was not satisfied, and he jumped up again and said—
"May I ask the noble Lord one further question, Can be tell us anything about the prisoners in Turkey?"
—a wholly different subject, no hint of which had appeared on the Paper. The next subject dealt with was a discussion on the food situation in Central Europe, raised by Lord Wimborne. He made his speech, and was replied to by my noble friend the Earl of Crawford. Other noble Lords took part in the debate, and in the course of the discussion try noble friend Lord Harris having fallen upon Lord Parmoor who had spoken, up jumped Lord Parmoor and made a second speech in defence of himself. And finally at the close of the proceedings Lord Wimborne diffused a genial atmosphere by getting up and thanking everybody for all that had been said and poured compliments on this Bench. That is merely a casual illustration of our ordinary procedure. I think it cannot be doubted that it is quite out of accord with the Standing Orders.
Next let me take the second class of Question which we constantly have in your Lordships' House. These are the Questions which terminate with a Motion for Papers. I take it—the Clerks at the Table will correct me if I air wrong that when Notions are dealt with in the Standing Order it was never contemplated that Motions for Papers should lie made with no idea of haying Papers, but simply for the opportunity of giving the noble Lord who makes the Motion a chance to reply. But that is the way in which it is now interpreted. Any noble Lord who has not sufficient confidence in the generosity or patience of the House in allowing him to speak a second time, and who wants to be sure of his second speech, simply has to add to his Question a Motion for Papers. That, again, has admitted of an extension, or rather an abuse, which I think will not excite general sympathy. A noble Lord sometimes now puts down his Question on the Paper ending in a Motion for Papers. He rises in his place; he does not state the case at all, but merely says to the Minister on this Bench, "I put the Question that stands in my name." The Minister replies, and then the noble Lord, utilising the power of reply given him by the Motion
622
for Papers, gets up and makes a slashing attack on the Minister who has given the Ministerial defence. That is exactly what happened last week in the case of Lord Ampthill. He put down a Question relating to the treatment of Miss Violet Douglas Pennant. The least that could be expected was that he would make his statement when he put his Question, but he simply put the Question and consequently reserved his right of reply. Later in the evening he made a second speech, which I venture to think that he ought to have delivered as his first. Here I cannot do more than ask noble Lords to be sparing in the use of the privilege which the Motion for Papers places in their hands.
There is another difficulty that applies to both classes of Question. It is one which particularly affects and afflicts the occupants of this Bench. It is this. When we see a Question down on the Paper we have, except by personal communication with the noble Lord who puts it clown, no idea at all whether the Question is intended to be merely one for the eliciting of information, or whether it is intended to be the peg on which is to be hung an extensive debate. Let me give two illustrations, one past, the other prospective. The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, the Leader of the Opposition, had down the other day upon the Paper a Question relating to military operations in Southern Persia. He put that Question, and the remarks he had to make with strict relevancy to the Question on the Paper. But so little was I conscious that the debate would be confined to that matter, so likely did it seen; to me that it would cover I lie whole field not only of Persian politics but much more, that I took the trouble in advance to prepare myself to make a statement, should it be so required, on the whole Persian situation. It was not required, and I was fortunately excused from the duty. On many other occasions out of a narrow Question has arisen a debate in which noble Lords have taken part wit) great authority and have expected fall replies.
I will give another illustration which is prospective. On the Order Paper is a Question down for Thursday of this week in the name of Lord Stuart of Wortley. It relates to the position in Poland. The Question is put in categorical form. If that Question were put in the House of Commons one would know exactly what it meant, and prepare the reply, which would be delivered by the Parliamentary under

623
Secretary. Indeed, in the Foreign Office the officials who are responsible for the preparation of answers, mistaking the Question for a House of Commons Question, submitted to me a reply which, had I read it in this House, would have occupied about one and a-half minutes of time. What guarantee have unless I can trust to the courtesy (if the noble Lord to inform me, that he is not going to speak for half an-hour about, Poland, that he is not going to raise the whole question, and that other noble Lords will not raise questions not merely about Poland but about Russia, about the Baltic States, about Yugo-Slavia, or anything that enters into their heads. Then, it the Minister here is not prepared at once to embrace this wide sphere of public interest, he is supposed not to be paying sufficient respect to your Lordships' House.
One other illustration will bring this home to your Lordships. We had in the last session of Parliament numerous debates about our prisoners of war in Germany, and on more than one occasion I was reproached by noble Lords opposite—Lord Beresford and Lord Devonport—because on those occasions no expression of general interest or sympathy had been received from this Bench on the matter of our prisoners abroad. The charge happened to be untrue, because on two occasions I had taken advantage of the opportunity to speak. But, my Lords, on none of those occasions had we any indication that a general debate was going to be raised. Suppose that the Question was put to Lord Newton. Lord Newton gets up and replies to it. Following upon that a number of noble Lords get up, in the exercise of their rights, in all parts of the House, and a debate, very likely occupying two or three hours, takes place. The Minister has already replied and exhausted his right to speak, and if the Leader of the House is not here to give some general expression of sympathy on the part of the Government—though we had no reason to suppose a debate was going to take place at all—he is liable to censure by some members of your Lordships' House.
How is it possible to escape from this difficulty—because, believe me, it is a genuine one, as anybody who has sat upon the Front Bench in this House knows? I venture with all diffidence to submit to your Lordships a suggestion. In another place there are two classes of Questions.
624
There are Questions which are put but answered upon paper, not put in the House; and there are Questions which are put in the House and answered by Ministers from the Front Bench. I would not propose any such differentiation here, but I would like to suggest to your Lordships that you should be willing to put your Questions in one or other of two categories. If you desire to put a Question for information, and you seek a reply only to the Question upon the Paper, I would suggest to your Lordships that in handing it in you should be willing to put it into a category confined to Questions of that nature, to which an asterisk might be fixed, and which might be taken in the order in which they are handed in, at the commencement of our proceedings. The Minister concerned, whatever Department he represented, would then know the kind of ordeal which faced him. He would know he had to supply information in reply to that Question, and was not expected to prepare himself for a general debate.
There arises upon this the matter of dealing with supplementaries. It may be said, How would you curtail supplementary Questions? Unfortunately we have not in this House the protection that exists in another place by the presence and the experience and authority of Mr. Speaker in the Chair. The Lord Chancellor is not permitted from the Woolsack to be the custodian of the order of our proceedings. The House is the custodian of its own order, and in this, as in all other cases, the only way to prevent disorderly or irregular proceedings is for the House to decide that they shall not be allowed. I think it is quite in the power of your Lordships' House, if a supplementary Question is put that is reasonable, to allow it to be put, and to suffer the Minister to reply to it; if it is unreasonable, to support the Minister in declining to reply. That is what is constantly done in another place. If a supplementary is put which ought not fairly to be put, a Minister asks for notice and declines to reply at the moment. That is a suggestion which I venture to submit as regards Questions put for information only.
But as regards Questions that are intended to be the subject of debate, whether they end in a Motion for Papers or not, how can we secure greater regularity? Only by strict adherence to our own Standing Orders. Here again I must re-

625
spectfully ask noble Lords to assist the Leader of the House, whoever he may be, in the matter. I think that it ought to be a common understanding, when the first; speech has been made, that the noble Lord who makes it is not at liberty to make a second, except within the narrow limitations that are enforced by the Standing Orders. It may be that you would require some slight exception to be made in the case of Ministers, not because a man is a Minister, but because further information may be sought from him which the House would desire to receive, and if it be the desire of the House to receive further information it will naturally be the desire of the Minister to give it. But, apart from that exception, I would earnestly ask noble Lords in the first place to be more scrupulous in their adherence to the Standing Orders, and I would ask the House in the second place to support the Government in making this appeal. It is perfectly in their power to do so, and I will indicate how. When first I attended your Lordships' House I remember speaking from that Bench and rising, in the course of the speech from this Bench which was delivered in reply to me, to interrupt the noble Lord who was replying.
I was greeted with loud cries of "Order, order," from Lord Rosebery. I said afterwards, "Why did you cry 'Order, order'?" He said, "Because you were speaking a second time. You had no right to speak a second time." The old rules of the House were implacably opposed to anything of the sort.
It is difficult for any individual noble Lord to move in the matter. It is true that we have had from time to time one or two noble Lords of great experience and standing who were in a certain sense the watch-dogs of this House. Lord Camperdown was one, and sometimes my noble friend Lord Harris assumes the functions. But it is a very difficult thing for any one man to get up and call attention to a breach of order, and it, is still more difficult—although I have heard it done—for a noble Lord to get up and move that another Peer shall no longer be heard. That has been done, but it requires great authority and sonic courage to do it. Where I think your Lordships can help is, on those occasions when rules are being disobeyed, to indulge generally in the cry of "Order, order" all round; or, if your Lordships would support those of us who
626
sit on this Bench in an incipient cry of "Order, order," I think that even the most ardent of your Lordships, greeted with a fusilade of that sort, would presently desist from the operation which he had in hand. That is a suggestion which I venture to make as regards Questions.
There is another small matter about which I am not quite clear, because it rests upon an interpretation of the Standing Orders. It sometimes happens that there are three or four Questions or Motions down on the Paper as to which, under the methods that I have described, we are absolutely in the dark whether the third or the fourth, let us say, will be reached at 5 o'clock, 6 o'clock, 7 o'clock, or not at all. And yet noble Lords may have come down here, on the one hand to put the Questions, on the other hand to answer them or to listen to the answers. The other day we had the case of my noble friend Lord Bryce, who came down to put an important Question upon Armenia. He was unable to put it until half-past seven, because there were other Questions which had priority, although they might have been of less importance. Under Standing Order XXI I think it would be open to the House to deal with a case of this sort, because that Standing Order provides that the House shall always proceed with Notices in the order in which they stand upon the Paper "unless the Lord who shall have given any such Notice shall withdraw the same, or shall, with the leave of the House, consent to its postponement." I wonder if on some occasion when there is a Question of importance coming on late in the afternoon it might not be possible—only of course with the consent, on the one hand, of the noble Lord who has priority, and, on the other hand, of the House to agree to the postponement of the Questions standing first and second on the Paper in order to admit a Question that stands later being taken in advance of them. You would have, of course, to rest assured that that privilege, if granted, was not abused, and I think that the guarantee would be found in the fact that for it would be required both the consent of the noble Lord chiefly concerned and of the House at large.
I apologise for having addressed you at length on this matter, but this is a matter of importance, not merely to ourselves but in the effect which our debates produce upon the public outside. I have not proposed the alteration of a single Standing Order.

627
The other day I suggested that we might perhaps have a Committee of your Lordships' House to consider alterations in Procedure, but I placed myself in the hands of the House and was willing to receive any suggestion that emanated from it. I have had conversations with noble Lords but no definite suggestions as to Procedure. I have wondered, therefore, whether it might not be possible by these methods of accommodation, adjustment, the reasonable interpretation of our own Procedure, to effect some improvement in these respects. I cannot force any ideas that I have put forward on the acceptance of your Lordships' House, but I submit them to your favourable consideration, asking you to believe that they are designed only to improve the efficiency of our business and the standing in the country of your Lordships' House.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the views of the noble Earl have been expressed with his usual clearness, and he has stated his ease with extreme moderation. I merely desire to make one or two general observations on certain points which he mentioned. In the first place as regards the hours of attendance, I think the house was convinced by the statement which the noble Earl made that it would hardly be possible on every day in the week to carry out the desire of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that public business should begin at 4 o'clock. I quite appreciate that on the days when your Lordships are sitting judicially some interval may be required before we meet for public business. I think, however, that the suggestion which the noble Earl made that on ordinary days where there is no private business of moment public business should begin at a quarter past four will prove to be for the general convenience—that is to say, that the noble Lord who has the first Motion on the Paper will have to be in his place by a quarter past four instead of now probably only thinking it necessary to come down at half past. In ordinary times private business often takes up the intervening quarter of an hour, and sometimes overflows long past the half hour. Of late years we have scarcely known cases of that kind, but it may often happen in ordinary circumstances that public business cannot be begun until some time after half past four.
Then as regards the time of adjournment
628
and the possibility of sitting frequently after dinner, I may remind your Lordships that the adjournment for dinner is an institution of quite modern growth. I do not think that until some ten or twelve years ago the House ever adjourned. It was found on the occasion of carrying through some heavy Bills in Committee that it was very hard upon the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to have to sit continuously; but even after the change was made in respect to those particular Bills it was always understood that a Second Reading, or a debate on foreign policy or on some general subject, was carried straight through without any adjournment, for dinner. And now when newspapers go early to Press—far earlier than they used in those days—I cannot help thinking that it would be a positive advantage for some noble Lords to be able to speak at 8 or half past, instead of having to put off their oratory till half past nine or ten o'clock, when there is no chance whatever of its being reported in the Press. I hope the noble Earl will bear in mind that when evening sittings are required, except when a big Bill is in Committee, it may be found more convenient to sit through the dinner hour instead of adjourning for it.
The noble Earl spoke of the habit of closing debates at a quarter past and half past seven instead of sitting on till 8 o'clock. Of course, if he is prepared to provide a Government speaker to fill up the interval it would often undoubtedly meet the case. But I am afraid it will be found in these days, when so many noble Lords have to depend on their two feet to get them home, that by about half past seven, supposing a noble Lord desires to return home to dinner, the House would begin to empty, and the eloquence of the noble Lord who filled up the breach to the hour of eight is likely to have but few auditors. I quite agree that if it is possible to get the House to sit later oftener, as the days get longer, it will be all to the good. I do not know that I should altogether agree as regards this House with Moore's lines that—
"The best of all ways
To lengthen our days
Is to steal a few hours from the night."
On the contrary, I believe half an hour at the beginning of business is worth an hour or two later in the day. But all these devices, I think, ought to be adopted with a view of saving our time.

629
There is one point, however, to which the noble Earl drew no attention. It is a new thing that we should sit only three days a week; it is certainly only since the war, and I am not quite sure that the practice even began with it. Ever since I have known your Lordships' House, Monday has been one of the regular sitting days and was often given up to important business. Therefore if we find that we are really getting short of time I hope the noble Earl will consider whether we ought not to return to four days a week; and if four days. I sincerely hope the fourth will be Monday and not Friday, which I think will probably suit the convenience of the majority of your Lordships, although some of us may not be affected by it. So much for the hours and days of meeting. Then as regards the possible alterations in debate—
EARL CURZON OF KELDLESTON: I wonder if the noble Marquess approves of the suggestion I ventured to put forward about Wednesday. He has not mentioned that.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am much obliged to the noble Earl. I think that, so far as Wednesday is concerned, so long as the House is not sitting judicially the proposal of the noble Earl will be found very useful. The noble Earl will remember, of course, that although the sittings of your Lordships' House in their judicial capacity do not in any way depend upon the rising of the Courts in the Long Vacation, yet when the judicial business of the House is completed, as often happens, in the course of the Parliamentary session, then the House ceases so to sit, and all days will then be alike. But if and when that happens then no doubt the noble Earl will be prepared, if necessary, either to apply the Wednesday procedure to other days or to make some other modification as circumstances may demand.
Now as regards the procedure in debate, of which the noble Earl spoke. I think, if I may say so, that he adopted the right course in not attempting to amend the Standing Orders in any respect. Some years ago we had a close examination of the Standing Orders relating to business with the same view of seeing if our procedure could be in some way modernised and accelerated, but the results of the examination were rather disappointing, and in the end only some quite minor changes
630
were made. I think the noble Earl is right in depending upon something like a change of attitude in your Lordships' House generally for the occasional curtailment of debate, and also in enforcing adherence to the particular point under discussion. Certainly your Lordships have grown either very much kinder or very much more slack in those directions since the days when I joined the House. In those days it was the commonest things for the speaker. I will not say to be shouted down, because that would not be the proper expression, but to be made to see that the desire of the House that he should not continue his speech was so marked that, unless he was an in usually thick-skinned person he was apt to start his peroration long before it was due; and without going to the extreme length of moving, "that the noble Lord be not heard," which I myself only remember to have heard moved on three occasions, it is possible to make tip indications which I have described.
Whether it is that the assuaging of the Party spirit generally and the absence of questions of acute political interest has somewhat dulled the interest in your Lordships' House from the Party point of view, I cannot say, but the fact undoubtedly remains that speakers are far less interfered with than they used to be many years ago. One result is that the average speeches on important natters are far longer than was the case when I first came to the House. It has always been a subject of regret among the older members of the House that more of those who have recently come to the House do not take part in the discussions. But that has been a matter of regret ever since those of us who have been here the longest can remember the House. It is very difficult, as those who have sat on either Front Bench will agree, for the Front Bench Peers not to take up too large a portion, as they feel, of the time in debate; but circumstances make it very difficult to avoid it on many occasions, and all that any of us can do is to encourage in every possible way other noble Lords who are willing to try their wings in debate.
Then on the point which the noble Lord raised of the uncertainty which a Minister feels, when he sees a Question on the Paper, as to whether it is merely a Question or intended as a peg on which to hang a long speech leading to a long debate, my recollection is that on a great many

631
occasions when I was a Minister and the latter result was intended noble Lords informed me beforehand that it was desired to raise the whole subject, and very often they mentioned the specific points upon which it was intended to dwell. My impression is that the noble Earl himself, when he was on this side of the House and I was on that, has on several occasions favoured me with that courtesy; and I am only sorry that on the particular occasion which he mentioned—that of the quite narrow Question as to operations in Southern Persia which I put down on the Paper the other day—the noble Earl should have supposed that had I intended to raise a debate on Persia generally I should not have informed him that that was the purpose of my Question.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I have no complaint against the noble Marquess. He would have undoubtedly done so. But the weak point in the position which he is taking up is this, that the action of the noble Lord who puts down the Question, and who has the courtesy to give notice to the Government, does not govern anybody else who rises to speak. In my own knowledge there have been frequent occasions when, Questions having been put by a noble Lord with proper explanation, that has not prevented half a dozen other noble Lords from getting up and converting a Question of minor importance into one of major importance.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: In cases of that kind I think a Minister has this defence. When he sees that the subject is spreading like a drop of oil upon water, when he sees that it is beginning to assume a larger aspect, it is within his power to rise and stop the discussion by saying that he is not prepared to proceed with it on those lines, and asking other noble Lords to give notice by putting separate Questions on the Paper. That is a course which I have seen pursued, and which I imagine I have myself pursued. It is a safeguard of which I think the House would certainly approve. The noble Earl, I think, did not tell us how he proposed to meet the difficulty which he mentioned of those noble Lords who finished off a Question with a Motion of some kind, either for Papers, or a Motion, not seriously intended, for reference to a Committee. Those cases are, as I think the noble Earl told us, very
632
difficult to meet. It is hard to curtail the liberty of the house in that matter, and I very much doubt whether the House at large would agree to have its power of making Motions curtailed in any respect. Therefore if noble Lords persist in putting down Questions with Motions tied to their tail, with the object of being able to make a second speech, I confess I do not see what there is to be done, except to return to our primitive methods and express the disapprobation of the House at the time by vocal means.
I think it would be a desirable thing that the rule of limiting speeches altogether, where there is no Motion, should be strictly enforced; that where a noble Lord puts a Question on the Paper it should be understood it is a Question and a Question only, and even though, according to the long-standing liberty of your Lordships' House, he is able to make something of a speech when putting the Question, in no circumstances should he be able to reply. Also in those cases no other noble Lord ought to be allowed to intervene in the debate at all, and in cases where there is no Motion no other noble Lord ought, according to the strict interpretation of the Standing Orders, to be allowed to take part. If that was understood it would not be necessary to star Questions, because a Question would simply be a Question, and a Motion would be a Motion, with all the freedom and even laxity which so far as I can see must attach to the making of Motions, unless the liberties of the House are to be curtailed in a way to which it would probably not consent.
I think those are all the points which the noble Earl mentioned. I am very glad that he raised the matter, and I hope, although the House was not very full, that the speech of the noble Earl will be read by many noble Lords in the OFFICIAL DEBATES, because it is upon a general appreciation of the difficulties, and of the effect upon your Lordships' credit in the eyes of the country, that the importance of this matter depends. I am sorry that the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, is not in his place, because I had hoped be might have been able to give us the benefit of his advice as a former Leader of the House. I think, however, that what has fallen from the noble Earl opposite has obtained the general agreement of your Lordships.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, may I, with the permission of the House, say one word only in reply to, the observation of the noble Marquess towards the close of his speech. I hope he will not too hastily condemn the suggestion of starred Questions. His alternative, I think, was this—that cute is to assume that a Question in future, starred or unstarred, is a Question only, and that if a debate is to arise the Question should always terminate in a Motion, which would indicate that a debate was going to be raised, and this only in the latter case would any speech other than that of the mover be permitted. I am not certain that in practice that would not be a little harsh. I think I have known occasions on which a Question put for the purpose of information has quite legitimately provoked another Question or Questions arising out of it, put by other noble Lords; and when I suggest asterisked Questions I do not mean in all cases that Questions of that sort which are in their essence supplementary should not be put. There is also this point, that we might tempt noble Lords on a larger scale to terminate with Motions. That is a consequence which I think is not desired. Therefore I should like the House to make the experiment of starred Questions, and see how it works. If it is a success, it can be continued; if it is not a success, we can introduce some modification.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Is the proposal then that if a Question is starred all the noble Lords in the House can make a speech on it?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I certainly do not propose that; but I do want to lay down the rule, which I thought the noble Marquess had suggested, that the only occasions on which anybody other than the mover should say anything was when there was a Motion.
LORD SOUTHWARK: With regard to starred Questions, I do not know whether it has occurred to your Lordships that there are a great number of noble Lords who seldom attend this House. If we had starred Questions it might be that those noble Lords would write out Questions, send them down as starred Questions, and then ask other noble Lords, in their absence, to be good enough to put the Questions. I only throw out the suggestion
634
that you might be manufacturing a large amount of work for the different Departments, because we all know—as an old member of the House of Commons I know—that a Question which looks very simple on the Paper may cause a large amount of work in the Department. I suggest that before you adopt the starring system there should be rules and regulations in connection with putting the Question, and that the noble Lord who stars a Question, should himself put it.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, as my Question of Thursday has been referred to, I wish to show the courtesy due to the noble Earl who leads the House by saying that I have taken perhaps the unusual course of putting in the most specific shape all the interrogatories to which I hope an answer will be given. I admit I have done so in the expectation that the usual consequences will follow. I also adroit I have tone so, I will not say in the expectation, but in the hope that the noble Lord who answers the questions will answer them all and will not retire behind a smoke cloud of ambiguity. In respect of any question he does not answer, all I can say is that if the noble Lord will frankly tell your Lordships it is not in the public interest that it should be answered I should be the very last to complain.
LORD ST. LEVAN: My Lords, I wish to call attention to one point raised by the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, in connection with Monday sittings. It would be very difficult to get to London on Sunday from a long distance. I do not know how noble Lords who come from Scotland and Ireland would be affected, but I can say that so far as I am concerned it would be impossible for me to leave home on Monday and get here in time for a debate in this House. I mention the fact as I hope it may receive consideration when a decision is taken.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, as one who sometimes asks Questions I should like to associate myself rather with the noble Earl the Leader of the House in the suggestion to star Questions, and not with what was said by the noble Marquess on the Front. Bench below me, I think the House itself would probably regret that any Questions which did not conclude with a Motion should be limited merely to the observations of the questioners. We have often seen a debate arise, and there may be four

635
speeches, including flee reply, within twenty minutes, and all the speakers may have said things which the House would be glad to hear said. I think it would have the result of leading to more Questions ending with a Motion, which I should deplore.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, after what has been said I hardly dare to speak again, but I may say, arising out of the answer of my noble friend, that I would like to ask him how he proposes to proceed after this discussion. Personally, I have been left with rather a vague impression as to the general effect of some of the details of what has been suggested. I am speaking entirely for myself but I should feel much more satisfied if the outcome of this conversation were the appointment of a Committee of your Lordships' House who would draw up a formal Report embodying such of the proposals of the noble Earl as the Committee may think expedient. I think there is general assent to the spirit of the noble Earl's proposals, but if we are to know exactly how we stand it will be necessary to put them in writing, and I see no means of doing that except by a Report of a Select Committee. Therefore I should rather revert to a suggestion which the noble Earl himself made on a previous occasion that a Select Committee should be appointed.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, as regards the last suggestion I am really in the hands of the House. I myself a fortnight ago made the proposal of a Select Committee to discuss not merely such changes as I have suggested to-day, but any larger changes which might be in the minds of noble Lords. Therefore I cannot consistently, of course, oppose the idea of a Select Committee. I should like, however, a little time to find out whether noble Lords in general feel that such a procedure is desirable. If there were a general consensus in favour of the not very considerable changes I have suggested to-day, I would point out that it would be quite easy to bring them into practice at once. By "at once" I do not mean to-morrow or within twenty-four or forty-eight hours. All that would be required would be that on the last day that we sit this week it should be moved that the House be adjourned to such and such an hour on the first day on which we meet next week—at 4.15 instead of 4.30—
636
and that on Tuesday when the Motion is made to adjourn, it should be proposed that the House be adjourned till 3.45 on Wednesday. That would be a perfectly simple procedure. It would not require the Report of a Committee or any change in the Standing Order. As to starred Questions, there again I would myself be inclined to trust to the initiative of noble Lords, and that they themselves in going to the Clerk at the Table to hand in Questions, should evince their own desire to have an asterisk prefixed to it. For my own part, I am not disposed to think, if the changes are generally acceptable, that there will be need of a Select Committee. But perhaps I may be allowed to wait a day or two to consult other opinions before coming to a final judgment.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I ask one point in explanation as to starred Questions? Starred Questions would, as I understand, serve two objects. They would meet the convenience of Ministers who have to answer them, because they would be taken before all other business. Even on Tuesdays and Thursdays they would be taken, as I understand before public Bills. That is one advantage, an advantage which chiefly concerns noble Lords opposite. I think that would require an alteration in the Standing Orders, as a matter of fact. That, however, is one proposition, and no doubt would meet very often the convenience of the noble Lord who has to put the Question, and also that of Ministers, whom it is an infliction to keep on the Bench possibly through a long debate before answering a Question. The only other difference, so far as I understand it, would be that the noble Lord who puts the Question would not have any right of reply. In all other respects the procedure would be the same as at present when a Question is asked.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: He would have exactly the right of reply which is given by the Standing Orders now, and which is subject to the four limitations I named after reading from the Standing Order. He will be in the same position as he is now.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, the course of the debate shows that it is not easy to keep within the rules of the Standing Orders. We are debating now something which has nothing to do with the

637
words on the Paper, and I venture to remind your Lordships that we have had more than one speech from several noble Lords.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, as everybody is speaking four or five times, perhaps I may be allowed to make a remark. I wish only to take up the statement made by the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, which interested me profoundly—namely, that there is always a fervent desire on the part of both Front Benches to encourage back benchers to speak I have been a member of this House for nearly thirty years—that I suppose is longer than the average member—and (I daresay it is my own stupidity) I have never been aware of that desire before. On the contrary, I have always gone away with the impression that speeches by those not on the Front Benches or others who are close adherents of those on the Front Bench were strongly discouraged. It is true that we are invited most cordially to speak to fill up the dinner hour or to pad out a debate in order that some Ministerial speaker may move the adjournment so that he can speak first next day, but not on other occasions. We hear complaints that; the House is badly attended. I join with those who deplore it. But until you do encourage back benchers, and really encourage them, you will not get a good attendance.

SUMMONS AND PROCESS SERVERS FEES (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

WAR CHARITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to facilitate the administration of war charities in Scotland.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

INTESTATE HUSBAND'S ESTATE (SCOT LAND) BILL [H.L.]
LORD STANMORE: I beg leave also to introduce a Bill to amend and regulate procedure under the Intestate Husband's Estate (Scotland) Act, 1911.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

THE METROPOLITAN POLICE
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I wish to ask His Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given private notice. It is—
Whether it is the fact that the Home Secretary is going to receive a further deputation from the Police Representative Board tomorrow, and, if so, whether the proceedings will be made public.
In asking this Question, let me say with what regret we have all read in the papers this morning the menacing language of the statement; issued by the officials of the Police and Prison Officers Union. If those officials had wished to justify the statement of the Commissioner that the Metropolitan Police had by their recent action gone far to shake the great confidence hitherto reposed in them by the public, they could scarcely have done so more surely than by the use of such language. His Majesty's Government may feel assured that they have the whole of public opinion behind them both in their desire to place the conditions of service of the Force on the best possible footing and in maintaining its discipline.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: May I first, on behalf of the Government, thank the noble Earl for the statement with which lie concluded his Question, the answer to which is as follows: The Police Representative Board, I through the proper channel, have asked the Secretary of State to receive a deputation upon a matter which lie can properly discuss with them. This is the ordinary constitutional course for the Representative Board to pursue. It will rest with the Secretary of State to decide whether an account of the proceedings will afterwards be made public.

PRIVATE BILLS
[From Minutes of March 6.]
BLYTH HARBOUR BILL.
BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL.
DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BILL.
MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL.
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BILL.
NEWPORT HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS BILL.
SWANSEA HARBOUR BILL.
TEES CONSERVANCY BILL.
TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL.
WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK BILL.
Message from the Commons that they have appointed a Committee to consist of Four Members to join with a Committee of this House to consider the said Bills, and request this House to appoint an equal number of Lords to be joined with the Members of their House: The said Message to be considered on Tuesday next (The Chairman of Committees).

BELFAST HARBOUR BILL.
CORK HARBOUR BILL.
DOVER HARBOUR BILL.
Message from the Commons that they have come to the following Resolution, viz., That the said Bills be committed to the Joint Committee on Dock and Harbour Bills.

BRENTFORD GAS BILL.
LEGAL AND GENERAL LIFE ASSURANCE BILL. [H.L.]
STOURPORT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
SUNDERLAND GAS BILL. [H.L.]
HARTLEPOOL GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
MEDWAY CONSERVANCY BILL. [H.L.]
BLACKPOOL IMPROVEMENT BILL. [H.L.]
MANSFIELD RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
LONDONDERRY PORT AND HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, viz.—

M. Bath (Chairman),

M. Linlithgow,

E. Malmesbury,

E. Eldon,

L. Leigh;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Wednesday, the 26th instant, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners, praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired as also Counsel for the Bills.
House adjourned at quarter past seven o'clock.