Sitting of 10 July 1923

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
Lieut.- Colonel J. WARD: I beg to present a petition from the Constitutional Reform Association of the Crown Colony of Hong Kong, signed by over 1,500 inhabitants of the colony, praying for the abolition, as far as the non-Chinese unofficial members of the Legislative Council are concerned, of the principle of Government nomination and the substitution of popular election therefor.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (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, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Bournemouth-Swanage Motor Road and Ferry Bill [Lords].

West Hartlepool Corporation Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.
Broadstairs and St. Peter's Urban District Council Bill [Lords].
Read a Second time, and committed.
North Berwick Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    LOSS OF STEAMSHIP "TREVESSA."
    Colonel PERKINSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the statement of the captain of the "Trevessa" that the contents of two of the boxes of biscuits carried on his boat proved on opening to be nearly all bad; and whether there is any systematic examination or renewal of such stores to ensure that boat stores are always in perfect order?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame): I have seen Press statements about the biscuits of the "Trevessa." The owners inform me that these appear to have been extra supplies put into the boats, and that the ordinary supplies are in sealed tanks, air and water tight. The life-saving appliances of passenger steamers are inspected at least once a year, and those of cargo steamers as opportunity offer, the inspection in each case including the examination of the stores in the boats. It is the statutory duty of the owner and master of every ship to see that the lifesaving appliances are kept so as at all times to be fit and ready for use.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in the case of the steamship "Trevessa" the pay of the crew ceases from the date of the loss of the vessel, and that the allotment notes to the families of the crew are also stopped: and, in view of the very great hardship that is involved, whether he will consider taking steps by an Amendment to the Merchant Shipping Act or by other legislation to remedy this state of affairs?
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the President of the Board of Trade what provision is being made for the families of the crew of the steamship "Trevessa" pending their return; and when legislation will be introduced to deal with the matter of the wages of crews of vessels which are wrecked, in order to prevent suffering to the dependants of shipwrecked men in cases such as that of the "Trevessa"?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: As I have previously stated, full wages, including allotments, are being paid by the company to the crew up to the date of their arrival in this country. As regards the introduction of legislation, I would refer the hon. Members to the replies given on the 5th of July, of which I am sending them copies.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the replies were not definite at all? Is he also aware that in cases where publicity is given and public feeling aroused the men are being paid, but in many other cases, of which nothing is heard, great hardship is caused? Will the Government do something to remedy this state of affairs?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The hon. and gallant Member is quite wrong. The answer given last week was specific, that the Government did intend to introduce legislation, but could not say when it would be possible to do so.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Could not legislation be passed through the House in one sitting by agreement? Cannot that be done in view of its urgency?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No one knows better than my hon. and gallant Friend what it is that obstructs necessary legislation.
    Viscount CURZONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any inquiry is to take place into the loss of the steamship" Trevessa"; whether such an inquiry will be held under the Board of Trade; when and where it will be held; whether special reference will be made as to whether the installation of wireless receiving and transmitting apparatus in the boats, in which the survivors were rescued, would have contributed in any measure to assist in their rescue or materially have lessened their sufferings, and thereby have saved life; and whether any national mark of appreciation will be accorded to the two officers responsible for such a magnificent landfall after a voyage of upwards of 1,500 miles in open boats under such conditions?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: A formal investigation into the circumstances attending the loss of the s.s. "Trevessa" will be ordered by the Board of Trade,
    1142
    the inquiry taking place in this country, and the date and place of the inquiry being announced in due course. All the relevant circumstances will be investigated. I am glad to have this opportunity of expressing the Government's appreciation of the fine seamanship and good discipline displayed in the voyage of the two boats. I have considered carefully the question of granting awards; and in view of the fact that a full inquiry is to be held, I think that I ought to receive the report of the court of inquiry, before deciding finally upon the awards which should be made.
    Mr. EDWARDSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the dependants of those who lost their lives in the "Trevessa" come under the provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act; whether the Hain Steamship Company has any private arrangement for compensating the dependants of those who lose their lives whilst in their service; if not, will he suggest the opening of a fund for the support of those unfortunate people; and will he see that wages shall be paid to the above dependants up to the same date as those who landed safely?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The Workmen's Compensation Act applies to seamen, as to other workmen, but a Government, Department has no power to decide whether particular cases come within its provisions or not. I have no information whether the owners have any private compensation arrangement. I understand that a fund has been started by "Lloyd's List" in connection with the loss of the "Trevessa." There is no power to require wages to be paid to the dependants up to the same date as those who landed safely, but the owners are doing this voluntarily.

    WIRELESS WATCHERS.
    Captain Viscount CURZONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the recent prosecution before the Liverpool stipendiary magistrate of Captain John Owen Evans, master of the steamer "Tredenham," who was fined for not keeping a continuous wireless watch, having temporarily withdrawn from this duty apprentices carried on board the steamer, and who pleaded that these apprentices were so withdrawn for pur-

    1143
    poses of instruction in the general work of the ship; and whether, in view of the undesirability of midshipmen, cadets, or apprentices being compelled on board ship to take regular duty as wireless watchers when the obligation of their employers is to ensure that they are instructed in navigation and seamanship and in the duties and responsibilities appertaining to the positions of officers in the mercantile marine, in view of the indignation aroused amongst navigating officers and apprentices in the mercantile marine at the duties of wireless watchers being imposed upon them, and having regard to the fact that these duties are not part of their recognised duties on board ship, he will take steps with a view to stopping this practice?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am aware of the proceedings referred to. The allocation of duties among the ship's crew is a matter for the owners and master of the ship, and so long as the statutory requirements are complied with, the Board of Trade have no power to Intervene.
    Viscount CURZON: How in the world are these apprentices going to get their proper training if they are kept on constant wireless watches?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: They are not kept on wireless watches the whole time.
    Mr. PETO: Is there any prospect of automatic registration being brought into use for these wireless messages, so as to obviate the necessity for this watching?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That, I think, is the subject of another question.

    SEA LADDERS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the sea ladders provided on board certain merchant vessels for the shipping and landing of pilots are inefficient and dangerous; and whether he will give instructions to the Board of Trade inspectors to examine these ladders at the same time as they examine the life-saving appliances in merchant vessels?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Complaints have been received as to the condition of the sea ladders used on merchant ships,
    1144
    and inquiry shows that in some cases these are not satisfactory. The Board's surveyors are now looking at the sea ladders as part of the inspection of the life-saving appliances of ships, and the matter will be followed up.

  DALMARNOCK POWER WORKS, GLASGOW.
  Mr. HARDIEasked the President of the Board of Trade the consumption of coal per kilowatt generated at the Dalmarnock Power Works, Glasgow; and what is the lowest consumption of coal per kilowatt produced in the British Isles?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to reply. The average consumption of coal per unit (kilowatt hour) generated at the Dalmarnock Power Station during the past year was 1·99 lb. The lowest average consumption at any steam power station in Great Britain during the year was 1·73 lb. per unit generated. The Commissioners have no particulars concerning generating stations in Ireland which are no longer under their jurisdiction.

  ENEMY DEBTS.
  Sir JOHN BUTCHERasked the President of the Board of Trade why a commission of 2½ per cent., on the moneys recovered by British subjects from former enemy debtors, is charged by the Enemy Debt Department against such British subjects; what was the total amount of such commissions received by the Enemy Debt Department in each of the years 1921 and 1922; and how such sums were applied?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The commission referred to is charged, under the Treaty of Peace Order, to defray the expenses of the Clearing Office (Germany) and indemnify His Majesty's Government against loss arising from any failure to collect debts owing by British nationals whose solvency is guaranteed by it under the Treaty. The total commission during the year ending 31st March, 1921, was £432,763 14s. 10d.; during the year ending 31st March, 1922, £402,277 12s. 4d.; and during the year ending 31st March, 1923, £183,228 9s. The matter is

  1145
  fully dealt with in the First Report of the Controller of the Clearing Office, a copy of which I am sending my hon. and learned Friend.
  Mr. HARRIS: How long is this Department likely to go on? Is it not time it should be wound up and the staff released for other work?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No, Sir, it would be most unfortunate to wind up the Department before we have succeeded in getting payment of the money due to British Nationals.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Why do we not thrust on the debtor—who is the German—the cost of collecting the money due to British subjects? Why should British subjects pay the cost of collecting their own debts?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I must refer the hon. and learned Member to the Peace Treaty.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Has this large sum of £300,000 or £400,000 resulted in a profit to someone or some Department? How is it dealt with?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: It has gone to pay the expenses of the Department, which is self-supporting. Whatever balance there is goes into a Suspense Account against any bad debts. The hon. and learned Gentleman will remember the British Government has guaranteed the debts of their own Nationals.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Then does the person who has good debts have to contribute to those who have bad debts and do not get paid?
  Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is it not the fact that the British Crown have recovered between twenty and thirty million pounds in debts, and are the creditors not very pleased to pay this 2½ per cent. in return for getting their money?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I think that is so. One of the most satisfactory things in the Peace Treaty is the way in which we have been able to get payment of these debts. I am sure the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) will appreciate that it would be quite impossible to reopen the whole arrangements of the Peace Treaty. This is one that is working well.

  RUHR OCCUPATION (EXPORT LICENCES).
  Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that British importers of lithopone from Germany who made contracts before the 1st of February find it almost impossible to get delivery of their goods, because the French authorities will not issue export licences, even after the payment of the French 7 per cent. duty, and that although the French authorities, under pressure, agreed to issue export licences, they in fact put every obstacle in the way of British traders receiving these licences; and will he say what he can do in the matter to protect British trade interests?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. If the hon. and gallant Member will furnish me with particulars of the cases which he has in mind, I will make inquiry.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Is that not the case that the trouble referred to in the question is due to the Germans, and not to the French? Is it not the case that the. French, in the action they are taking, are merely doing what the British only two years ago agreed should be done if the Germans did not pay?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: In this case what has happened—as I have told the House several times—is that an arrangement has been come to between the French and the German Government that the pre-occupation contracts should be bought out, and that I have every reason to hope and believe will be done.

  UNION COLD STORAGE COMPANY, LIMITED.
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fusion of nine companies engaged in the wholesale and retail distribution of imported meat with the Union Cold Storage Com pany, Limited, the stated object of the amalgamation being to put the company into an unrivalled position in addition to greatly increasing their revenue; whether he proposes to take any steps with a view to protecting the consumers against any attempt to exploit them by such a com-

  1147
  bination; and whether he will now recommend the Government to carry out the promise he made in March, 1921, to introduce legislation dealing with trusts and combines?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I have at present no reason to suppose that the consolidation now contemplated will be disadvantageous to consumers. The Government do not consider it necessary or desirable to introduce general legislation of the kind referred to at the present time.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: Is there not already sufficient material in the Report of the Sub-committee of the Profiteering Committee showing that combinations do exist to exploit the consumer? Secondly, has the right hon. Gentleman now changed the view he held in March, 1921, and gave expression to on the Vote for the Board of Trade?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The answer to the first question is in the negative. I have read all these Reports as carefully as the hon. Gentleman, and the remarkable thing is how little they disclose. Quite possibly, I have changed my view on this matter. I think it would be unwise, in the present critical state of trade, to introduce general legislation of this kind.
  Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: May I ask whether the fusions which have occurred in this matter have not been the direct consequence of the operation of meat trusts having their headquarters in America; and if these fusions are inevitable, would it not be better to have them under British rather than under foreign control?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: There may be a good deal in that.
  Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: But—
  Mr. SPEAKER: This is becoming a debate.

  ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
  Colonel PERKINSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it has now been settled that all belated claims to the Reparation Claims Depart-
  1148
  ment are to be individually considered and not decided as a whole; and whether, seeing that there are some thousands of men awaiting a definite announcement on the point, he will issue a general notification that this is the case, and at the same time give some idea of the approximate period which will be needed to examine these cases and so obviate the anxiety which exists in the minds of those concerned?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of a notification which is being forwarded to every person who makes, or has made, a belated claim, asking whether there are any exceptional circumstances to excuse the delay in lodging their claim. All the replies are being considered individually, and there seems to be no need for a general notification to this effect. I regret that I cannot say how long the examination will take.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: Could the right hon. Gentleman state what sum of money is still available for the satisfaction of these belated claims?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No, Sir. As my hon. Friend knows, a total sum of £5,000,000 has been allotted to the Royal Commission, and, until I know how the Royal Commission is going to deal with the other set of claims which have already been made, I cannot answer that question.
  Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: Will the Commission still entertain any claims that have not already been made?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I should like notice of that question. In this matter, as the hon. Member knows, I am merely carrying out whatever awards are made by the Commission.

  DYESTUFFS.
  Major ATTLEEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the British Dyestuffs Corporation, Limited, charge 10 per cent. commission on reparation dyestuffs, whereas, when the distribution was undertaken by the Central Importing Agency only 2½ per cent. was charged; and will he state for what reason this high rate of commission is permitted?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am not aware that the British Dyestuffs Corporation charge 10 per cent. commission on reparation dyestuffs, and would refer to an answer which I gave on this matter on 4th December last, to the effect that the Corporation receives a commission of 6½ per cent. on the actual turnover, plus a further 1 per cent. for guaranteeing accounts, and a grant, which is limited in amount, towards the charges which they incur relating to the importation of the dyestuffs. The Central Importing Agency undertook the duty of importing and distributing the dyestuffs for a commission of 31 per cent., the rate to be adjusted if prices fell, but this charge proved to Le inadequate, and was considerably increased, with the approval of the Treasury, by various allowances made to the Central Importing Agency upon the final adjustment of their accounts.
  Major PAGET: Is not this a case of the disadvantage of State ownership?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: There is not any State ownership.
  Major ATTLEEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the high prices charged for reparation dyestuffs by the British Dyestuffs Corporation, Limited; that the price of diamine fast yellow F.F., a dye for which there is no satisfactory British substitute, has been raised from 4s. per lb. to 7s. 6d. per lb. and to 10s. per lb., although this dye could be imported from Germany for 4s. 6d. per lb.; and of the discontent aroused by this action among colour users; and what action he is prepared to take in the matter?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No complaint about the price of this dyestuff has been received by the Board of Trade, but the arrangements as to the pricing of reparation dyes are being reconsidered, and the price of this particular dye will come under review.
  Major ATTLEE: Is it not the fact that these very high prices are put on in order to enable the Corporation to foist inferior substitutes on the colour users?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No, Sir; there is no truth in any of the many allegations contained in that short sentence.
  Mr. COLLISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the growing restrictions, not only as regards the prices that have to be paid by the dye users, but as regards the inferior nature of these dyes, is seriously affecting the quality of manufactured goods in this country?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise now.

  BACON.
  Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOKasked the President of the Board of Trade the total number of boxes of bacon held in stock in this country by, or consigned to, the Food Department of the Board of Trade on the 31st March, 1921; and the purchase cost to the Department of these goods per box?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: 126,811 boxes of bacon were held in stock in this country by, or were consigned to, the Government on 1st April, 1921. Pending the issue of arbitration proceedings, it is not possible to state the purchase cost per box.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Could the right hon. Gentleman state generally whether or not, owing to this State trading, we lost between £20,000,000 and £30,000,000 in bacon?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I certainly could not answer that question without notice, and I could not answer it at all until I know the result of the arbitration.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    CAVALRY (STRENGTH).
    Major DOUGLAS BROWNasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if it is the intention of the War Office to disband three cavalry regiments in the near future; and if he can state briefly the intentions of the War Office as regards the strength of the cavalry branch of the service?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the last part, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the statement made by my Noble Friend in another place on 27th June last. That statement applies

    1151
    to all branches of the service, including the cavalry.

    HIGHLAND REGIMENTS (FULL DRESS).
    Mr. MACPHERSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is now contemplated to equip Highland soldiers with the full dress of their respective regiments?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: No, Sir; as I have already stated, the general re-introduction of full dress is impracticable at present owing to the expense. The Highland regiments are not worse off in the matter than other line regiments.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it not a fact that recruiting in this country is carried on on the voluntary system, and that any concession to traditional sentiment is a great aid to that recruiting; and would not the amount represented by the free grant of ammunition and guns to the Free State fully equip many times over our gallant, loyal Highland regiments?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The considerations advanced by the right hon. Gentleman apply equally to all regiments as an argument for the issue of full dress, and I would point out that the Highland regiments have already the advantage of possessing a more picturesque dress than the rest of the Army.

    EDINBURGH CASTLE (GUARD).
    Mr. MACPHERSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War when it is proposed to station once again Scottish soldiers in Edinburgh Castle?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: There will be a guard at the Castle as at present, and as for many years past. In view, however, of the antiquated and inconvenient character of the Castle barracks, which would require a large sum to put them into proper repair, and in view also of the impossibility of securing adequate training for a separate detachment there, it is proposed to maintain the existing system, under which the guard is found daily by the unit stationed at Redford barracks. The party forming the guard will come one morning and will be relieved the next.
    Sir R. HUTCHISON: Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider putting a company as garrison for Edinburgh
    1152
    Castle? After all, it is only battalion training that is interfered with, and—[HON MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it not the fact that for centuries, as a matter of right, the Castles of Edinburgh and Stirling have had detachments of troops; and, further, is it not the fact that His Majesty the King is there now, and that he is presented with a detachment of men who are badly equipped, and who, consequently, are not in a position to uphold their regimental traditions?

    ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (PROMOTION).
    Mr. BECKERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if all officers in the Royal Army Medical Corps eligible for selection to the higher ranks are personally interviewed by the Selection Board; and can he give his assurance that none will be passed over who have not been so interviewed?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The answer is in the negative. I do not think that a system of inviting officers to attend and make out a case for their own promotion would be at all satisfactory, even if all the officers concerned were always available for such attendance, which they are not. It rarely happens, however, that an officer is not known personally to the majority of the selectors.
    Mr. BECKER: Is it not the fact that officers who are eligible for the higher ranks are asked to go before the Selection Board, and, if so, why should not they all go?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I do not think there is any foundation for that suggestion, and in any case all officers have a right, under Section 42 of the Army Act, to a hearing if they consider themselves wronged.

    ARMY COUNCIL.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Under-Secretary of tate for War what are the numbers and total cost of the Army Council now and in 1914; and whether any reductions in the present cost are under consideration?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The number in 1914 was seven, and the cost £17,500. The corresponding figures now are nine, and £28,864. The main cause

    1153
    of the increase in cost is due to the enhanced rates of pay given to both military and civil services. The whole question of the remuneration of the Services of the Crown is at present under the consideration of Sir Alan Anderson's Committee, and I cannot say whether their recommendations will bear on the point raised in the second part of the question.

    MILITARY ACCOUNTANTS.
    Brigadier-General SPEARSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Lord Weir's Committee on Establishments has made any recommendations as to economies to be effected with regard to the Corps of Military Accountants; and whether the Committee recommends the retention of that body in its present form?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Gwynne): The hon. and gallant Member was informed on the 5th instant, in reply to a question, that it is not proposed to publish the Report referred to. In these circumstances, I am afraid I cannot answer questions as to specific recommendations which may be conjectured to be included in the Report.
    Brigadier-General SPEARS: Can the hon. Gentleman give the reasons why the Government are withholding this Report?
    Mr. GWYNNE: Because the Report was made with a view to its not being published. It is quite usual for a Cabinet to appoint Committees to report to them.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is it suggested that this will reveal important military secrets?
    Mr. GWYNNE: Certainly, I think it would.
    Sir R. HUTCHISON: Are we to understand that this Committee has recommended substantial economies to which the Government are not proposing to give effect?
    Mr. GWYNNE: No. I did not give any information about that.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Shall we have a statement from the Government as to the economies that will be effected?
    Mr. LAWSON: Will the House have an opportunity of discussing any such economies before they are put into operation?
    Mr. GWYNNE: That must depend on what the economies are. If they are important economies, the House will, no doubt, have an opportunity of discussing them on the Estimates.

    WAR OFFICE (CIVILIAN PERSONNEL).
    Sir R. HUTCHISONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether His Majesty's Government have under consideration any general reduction of the civilian personnel of the War Office; and whether or not the Report of Lord Weir's Committee on Establishments contains any recommendations to effect such a reduction?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The personnel of the War Office, both military and civil, is being continually reduced, and a monthly Return of these and similar reductions in other public Departments is forwarded to Parliament. The ratio of the size of the civil staff to the volume of the incoming correspondence with which they have to deal is considerably less than before the War. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer to the reply which my hon. Friend has just given to No. 24.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Will my hon. and gallant Friend represent to the Cabinet that there is a widespread desire in the House that the Report of Lord Weir's Committee should be published?
    Lieut. - Colonel GUINNESS: The Report has not yet been considered. I think it is obvious that these Committees will not be able to report so usefully unless their recommendations are treated as confidential.
    Sir R. HUTCHISON: Will it be possible for the Government to make some statement as to what they propose to do on this Report?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The Report has not yet been considered by the Army Council. No doubt, if it decides to carry out any of the recommendations, the House will have ample opportunity on the Estimates and otherwise of discussion.

    CHAPLAINS.
    Mr. LUMLEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will consider reducing the number of Army chaplains, which shows a decided increase on 1914 figures, although the

    1155
    number of effectives is less; and if he has under consideration any proposals to this effect?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The total number of chaplains holding permanent and temporary commissions to-day is 150, as against a total of about 157 permanent and acting chaplains in 1914. There is, therefore, an actual decrease on 1914 figures. Proposals for the normal establishment of the Royal Army Chaplains Department are now under consideration.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: How many of the 1914 chaplains are paid and how many of the present chaplains are paid?
    Lieut. - Colonel GUINNESS: I should like to have notice of that question. There were included in the figures of 1914 39 acting chaplains, and, as far as I know, they were paid.

    WOOLWICH ARSENAL (WAGES).
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what is the average wage of the workmen at Woolwich Arsenal; and whether he has received representations from the Woolwich Board of Guardians that in many cases the wages of men at work at the Arsenal are lower than the amount received from the guardians by an unemployed man and his family?
    Mr. GWYNNE: The average weekly wage of men at the Ordnance Factories in the middle of last month was about £3 6s. 11d. I cannot trace that any representations, such as my hon. Friend describes, have been received.
    Sir K. WOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman, having regard to the very many cases of hardship which have arisen, use the good offices of the Secretary of State to receive a deputation in respect to this matter?
    Mr. GWYNNE: I will convey the hon. Member's request to my Noble Friend.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Is it a fact that the average wages are £3 6s. 11d. weekly, but a large number of men have less than £3 a week?
    Mr. GWYNNE: I was asked as to the average, and I have given it. If the hon. Member has any further question to put as to the lowest wage, I will give him an answer.

    EDINBURGH CASTLE (ONE O'CLOCK GUN).
    Lieut.-Colonel POWNALLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will consider discontinuing the one o'clock gun at Edinburgh Castle and thus save £365 per annum?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: This question has been put under a misapprehension, for which I regret that an answer given by me on the 21st June is responsible. £1 is the approximate cost of a round of blank 18-pounder ammunition, including the brass case, which, however, can be used again. On further inquiry I am now informed that the correct daily cost is in this way reduced to about 5s. 7d., and I also find that the expenses are borne by the Edinburgh Corporation. I may add that the question of increasing the charge so as to secure a louder report is at present under consideration.
    Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: Will my hon. and gallant Friend communicate with the Edinburgh Corporation with a view to seeing that as we have in London Big Ben, Edinburgh should have Little Benn with chimes?

  FRENCH COLONIAL ARMY (STRENGTH).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the ration and bayonet strengths of the French Colonial Army before the War and at the present time; whether he can give the approximate present numbers of trained native soldiers which can be mobilised by the French Government: and whether he has information of preparations being made to largely increase the number of native troops in the French Colonial Empire?
  Lieut. - Colonel GUINNESS: The approximate ration and bayonet strengths in question before the War were 135,000 and 90,000 respectively, and the present strengths are one or two thousand less in each case. The numbers mobilised during the War were 475,000, and the total now available for mobilisation in similar circumstances is probably about the same. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What does the right hon. Gentleman

  1157
  understand by native troops in this case? Does he base his answer on Moroccan troops, or only on coloured troops from French colonies in Africa?

  IRISH FREE STATE.

    MUNITIONS AND STORES.
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if his Department knows the value of the arms, equipment, and stores of all kinds, and also of buildings and land, handed over to the Irish Free State Government and the Irish Provisional Government by the War Office; and will he state what was the total sum of the value to date?
    Mr. GWYNNE: I am not yet in a position to furnish the figures, but I hope they will be available in time for inclusion in the White Paper upon the Financial Relations between the British and Free State Governments, which the Treasury have undertaken to present this Session.
    Colonel GRETTON: Why is the hon. Gentleman not in a position to give the figures?
    Mr. GWYNNE: Our information is not complete by any means.
    Colonel GRETTON: Are we to understand that the War Office handed over valuable property to the Free State before it was valued?
    Mr. GWYNNE: I understand that is the case as regards a considerable amount of the property referred to.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Was this property not valued at the time?
    Mr. GWYNNE: If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to arms and ammunition sent from this country, I understand it was obtained through the Disposal Board.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: Why was the Disposal Board used as an agency for handing over these stores? Is not the function of the Disposal Board to dispose of these assets for the advantage of the nation and not to hand them over?
    Mr. GWYNNE: The right hon. Gentleman should address that question to the Treasury, who are responsible for the Disposal Board. I may add that as the
    1158
    Public Accounts Committee are now inquiring into the matter, it is not desirable to raise the question in the House at present.

    INCOME TAX.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD - BURYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether a man living in England and owning property in the Free State has to pay on his Irish property Income Tax to the Irish Free State at the rate of 5s. in the £ less 2s. 6d., the rebate allowed under the Dominion Income Tax Agreement; having therefore paid on his Irish income at the rate of 2s. 6d., has he then to pay upon it again in this country at the rate of 4s. 6d., a total of 7s. in the £; in the case of a man living in the Irish Free State and owning property in England, does he deduct 2s. 3d. (half the English rate of tax) for the Dominion allowance and then pay 5s. in the £ to the Irish Free State, a total Income Tax of 7s. 3d. in the 2; and can steps be taken to obviate this?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): My hon. and gallant Friend is under a misapprehension. Arrangements have been made under which relief is allowable both from British Income Tax and from Irish Free State Income Tax on doubly-taxed income; with the broad result that the taxpayer is called upon to bear tax on such income at the higher of the two rates proper to his case, but no more. The arrangements are unavoidably complicated, and I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement dealing with this matter in greater detail. I should add, however, that the British authorities, and, as I understand, the Irish Free State authorities also, will make every endeavour to assist taxpayers in obtaining the relief to which they are entitled, and, in any case where it is possible, to grant the appropriate measure of relief without troubling the taxpayer to formulate a special claim.
    Following is the statement:
    Relief in respect of the double taxation of income between this country and the Irish Free State (just as between this country and other Dominions) proceeds by reduction of the rate of Income Tax to which a particular taxpayer would normally be liable and not by way of a

    1159
    deduction of any lump sum from the actual tax normally assessable.
    It will be recalled that both British Income Tax and Super-tax and Irish Free State Income Tax and Super-tax are graduated taxes and different individuals bear different effective rates according to the circumstances of their cases.
    In order to grant the proper relief from double taxation it is necessary in the case of any individual to determine the rates at which that individual pays British tax and Irish Free State tax respectively. An individual's rate of British Income Tax is determined by dividing the amount of Income Tax payable by him on his taxable income (i.e., his assessable income less personal and family allowances) by that taxable income. An individual's rate of British Super-tax is determined by dividing the amount of Super-tax payable by him by his total income as estimated for Super-tax purposes.
    An individual's rates of Irish Free State Income Tax and Super-tax are determined on similar lines.
    Where the taxpayer is liable to Super-tax his Income Tax and Super-tax rates are added together to arrive at the rate of tax appropriate to his case for the purpose of determining the measure of relief allowable.
    Relief is granted from British Income Tax in respect of doubly taxed income at the lower of the two rates following:

    (1) The rate of Irish Free State tax appropriate to the taxpayer; and

    (2) one-half the rate of British tax appropriate to the taxpayer.

    Taking what is at the present time the normal case, that is the case where the taxpayer's rate of Irish Free State tax exceeds his rate of relief from British Income Tax, relief from Irish Free State Income Tax is allowable at the lower of the two rates following:

    (1)The rate of relief allowable from British Income Tax; and

    (2) the excess of the rate of Irish Free State tax appropriate to the taxpayer over the rate of relief allowable from British Income Tax.

    The relief applies in the case of a person who pays both British Income Tax
    1160
    and Irish Free State Income Tax in respect of the same income, irrespective of that person's place of residence.
    The following instances illustrate the working of the provision. A person whose British rate of tax is, say, 4s. 2d. in the £, and whose Irish Free State rate of tax is, say, 4s. 8d. in the £, would, as respects the part of his income in respect of which he pays both British and Irish Free State Income Tax, be allowed relief from British Income Tax at 2s. 1d. in the £ (one-half his British rate, being less than his Irish Free State rate) and relief from Irish Free State Income Tax at 2s. 1d. in the £ (the rate of relief from British Income Tax, being less than the excess of his Irish Free State rate over the British rate of relief). After allowance of the reliefs, he ultimately bears British tax at the rate of 2s. 1d. in the £ and Irish Free State tax at the rate of 2s. 7d. in the £, i.e., a total rate of 4s. 8d. in the £.
    Again, a person liable to British Super-tax with a British rate (for Income Tax and Super-tax combined) of, say, 5s. 6d. in the £, and an Irish Free State rate of, say, 4s. 10d. in the £, would be allowed relief from British Income Tax at 2s. 9d. in the £ (one-half his British rate) and relief from Irish Free State Income Tax at 2s. 1d. in the £ (the excess of his Irish Free State rate over the British rate of relief), and he would ultimately bear in all tax at the rate of 5s. 6d. in the £ (namely, 2s. 9d. British Tax and 2s. 9d. Irish Free State Tax).

  SCOTLAND.

    SHERIFF CLERKS' SERVICE.
    Sir R. HUTCHISONasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he can see his way to carry out the recommendations of Lord Blackburn's Committee with regard to the remuneration to be given to sheriff clerks and deputy sheriff clerks?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. F. C. Thomson): A scheme for the reorganisation of the sheriff clerk service on lines recommended by Lord Blackburn's Committee has been the subject of negotiation with the associations concerned for some time. The matter is being actively pursued.
    Sir R. HUTCHISON: Will my hon. and learned Friend have special consideration, in dealing with this Report, for very old servants who have served for a lifetime?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it not a fact that these fees were increased in order to add to the remuneration of sheriff clerks and sheriff clerk deputies, and will he consider whether an addition to these fees could be made?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: The amount paid in bonuses since the fees were raised has very largely exceeded the amount which the Treasury has gained as a result of the increase of fees. Possibly my hon. Friend is aware that there was a meeting at Edinburgh last week, at which representatives of the Treasury and the Scottish Office and these officials met together. Proposals were put before them and they are at this moment considering them. I do not think I can do anything further.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether these negotiations are carried on by individuals who have some knowledge of Scotland and not by Treasury clerks who are not well informed as to the position?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: They are being carried on by people who have a very accurate knowledge of Scotland.

    NORWEGIAN HERRINGS.
    Major WARINGasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he is aware that Scottish herring fishermen have found their calling seriously hampered by markets being flooded with herrings from Norway; that a desire is expressed that these fish should be marked when manufactured into kippers and reboxed; and whether he will initiate legislation in the matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY for HEALTH, SCOTLAND (Captain Elliot): The importation of Norwegian herrings takes place mainly during the spring months, when herrings are not being caught on any great scale from British ports. The Norwegian imports are landed in England and are chiefly sold in England. Their competition probably has some effect on the price realised for the Scottish catch during the last few weeks of the Scottish
    1162
    winter fishing, but the quantities imported have been substantially less during recent years than they were before the War. My Noble Friend has no information as to the prevalence of a desire such as is mentioned in the second part of the question. He does not propose to initiate legislation in the matter.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these herrings are brought in as early as February, in the middle of the herring fishing, and that they cause a great deal of difference in the price of herrings obtained by the Scottish fishermen, and that strong feeling is felt by the Scottish fishermen?
    Mr. HARRIS: Are not these cheap herrings much appreciated in large cities?

    LAND SETTLEMENT SCHEMES.
    Mr. W. GRAHAMasked the Under Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether an instruction was issued by the Chairman of the Board of Agriculture, on or about the 16th March, 1922, directing the member of the Board in charge of land settlement schemes to communicate with the Scottish Land and Property Federation as to schemes proposed to be initiated, with a view to their making suggestions or representations on such schemes and to advise the federation of the Board's decisions on such schemes; whether the then Secretary for Scotland authorised the Chairman of the Board of Agriculture to give such instruction; and how many such communications have been made to the federation?
    Captain ELLIOT: In May, 1922, an instruction was given by the Chairman of the Board, with the knowledge and approval of the then Secretary for Scotland, authorising an intimation to be made to the federation of the Board's wish to initiate a scheme in any particular district with an inquiry whether the members of the federation have any suitable land in the district which they would be prepared to make available for a scheme. The instruction provides that any suggestions or representations by the federation are to be considered, but that no delay will be allowed to take place on this account. The federation are to be advised of the Board's decision as to proceedings with a scheme. Communications of this kind have been made to the federation in three cases.
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: Is it not the case that it was denied in this House months ago that such an instruction was issued? Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain the discrepancy between that answer and the reply he has now given?
    Captain ELLIOT: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The question put some months ago was whether schemes were submitted to the federation for their approval or modification. The instruction that was issued was that the Board desiring to buy land should inquire of people who had land to sell—a totally different thing, as the hon. Member will see.

    PARISH COUNCILS.
    Mr. MILLARasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether, in view of the widespread anxiety and apprehension created by the Report of Scottish Board of Health consultative council recommending the abolition of the parish councils in Scotland and of the smaller burghs and public health authorities, he can give an assurance that no steps are at present contemplated to give effect to the views of the consultative council, and that the fullest opportunity will be afforded to the parish councils and burghs and other public health authorities to express their views before any decision is arrived at?
    Captain ELLIOT: I am not aware that the publication of the Report referred to has created anxiety and apprehension, but the hon. and learned Member may rest assured that no decision will be taken on the matters referred to without full opportunity to the local authorities mentioned to express their views.
    Mr. MILLAR: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to give an assurance that his Department is not prepared to take any action on the lines of that Report at the present time?
    Captain ELLIOT: Not without consideration of the local authorities' views.

    CHURCH ENDOWMENTS.
    Sir H. CRAIKasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government, either before the Recess or in an Autumn Session, to propose legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee on the Endowments of the Church in Scotland presided over by Lord Haldane?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): This matter is at the present moment under the consideration of the Government, and if my right hon. Friend will be good enough to put down a question for the middle of next week, I hope to be in a position to give him a definite reply.

  HOUSING.

    EMPTY HOUSES (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. SULLIVANasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health in what counties or burghs are the 51,000 empty houses that he stated we had in Scotland?
    Captain ELLIOT: I would refer the hon. Member to the Reports on the Census of Scotland, 1921. These give the numbers of unoccupied houses in the various districts in Scotland according to the census taken in June of that year.
    Mr. SULLIVAN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman acting fairly to the House when he makes a statement which refers to the 1921 Census? It is now 1923.
    Captain ELLIOT: Yes. If the hon. Member will do me the honour to read my remarks, he will see that I stated, before giving the figures, that they were the figures of the June Census, 1921. The whole discussion was on the June figures of 1921, as originally quoted by the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon).
    Mr. SULLIVAN: Would it be possible to circulate the information to hon. Members? We want to know where the empty houses are.
    Captain ELLIOT: The figures are printed in full, and hon. Members can get them. It would be a needless expense to circulate them.
    Mr. SHINWELL: When making a statement in regard to the amount of housing available in Scotland for the working classes, will the hon. Gentleman state what numbers of houses are available to-day for the working classes?
    Captain ELLIOT: If the hon. Member will do me the honour of reading what I said, he will find that I specifically referred to the figures as for the June Census, 1921.
    Mr. HARDIE: It has gone round in Scotland from the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there are 51,000 houses that could be used by the working classes.

    BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).
    Mr. MILLARasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether his attention has been directed to the high cost of building materials in Scotland and the desire of the local authorities to prevent the prices of such materials rising to a prohibitive figure; and whether he is prepared to assist the local authorities in coming to an arrangement in each area to fix a fair schedule of rates for the materials they require, and to promote conferences among the local authorities for that purpose?
    Captain ELLIOT: As regards the first part of the question, examination of the Interim Report of the Committee on Prices of Building Materials (Cmd. 1908), presented on 27th June last, does not indicate that prices of building materials in Scotland are on the average higher than those ruling in England and Wales. As regards the second part of the question, I am not certain as to what assistance the hon. and learned Member has in mind, but I shall be glad to consider any representations that may be made to me by the local authorities concerned.
    Mr. MILLAR: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman do anything to encourage common action among all the local authorities, so that they can level things down in regard to the prices of building materials by adjusting a smaller ratio for each area?
    Captain ELLIOT: If the hon. and learned member can suggest any way by which we can encourage such action, I should be glad to consider it.

  TRANSPORT.

    GLASGOW AND EDINBUURGH ROAD.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health what progress is being made with the proposed scheme for a new road between Glasgow and Edinburgh; and what action the Government propose to
    1166
    take in view of the promise of the Government to provide relief work for the unemployed in the Clyde area?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I have been asked to answer this question. Officers of my Department have completed a survey and a detailed estimate of the cost of a scheme for improving the communications by road between Glasgow and Edinburgh. Frequent conferences have been held with representatives of the local authorities concerned, but they have not yet reached agreement as to the apportionment of their share of the cost. As regards the second part of the question, two important schemes for the relief of unemployment in the Clyde area are likely to be put in hand at an early date with the assistance of 50 per cent. grants from the Road Fund. These are the constructior of a new road from Glasgow to Duntocher by the Glasgow Corporation, and of a new road from Duntocher to Bowling by the Dumbarton County Council. Tenders for these two projects have been invited and are now under consideration by the two local authorities referred to.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Is it not the case that the answer in regard to the Glasgow-Edinburgh road is precisely similar to the answer which the hon. Gentleman gave me three months ago, and can he not hold out a reasonable hope that the road will be proceeded with?
    Colonel ASHLEY: That may be so. I have not the answer exactly in my mind. The fault is not with the Ministry of Transport. We offered to pay half the cost. The difficulty is to get local authorities to decide how they will make up the balance. An officer of my Department is going up to-night, and is to have a conference with the local authorities to-morrow.

    ROAD RATES (HIGHLAND COUNTIES).
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he is aware that, although the ratepayers in the Highland counties of. Scotland have to pay high rates for the upkeep of roads for the benefit of motorists, they are frequently unable to obtain for themselves the ordinary transport facilities which are necessary for the development of their land; and when the Board of Agriculture will be prepared to give favourable consideration to the plans for the construction of the Badidarroch-

    1167
    Ardroe road which has been strongly recommended by the Sutherland Road Board?
    Captain ELLIOT: I am aware of the position regarding road rates in the Highland Counties. Owing to the demands upon their funds, the Board of Agriculture cannot offer a grant-in-aid of the construction of the Badidarroch-Ardoe road at present. They will again consider this case along with other similar applications during next financial year.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: How soon can these people make fresh applications?
    Captain ELLIOT: They can make fresh applications next year when the funds are again distributed.

    NEW ROADS (TREE PLANTING).
    Viscount CURZONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether steps can be taken in conjunction with the Department of Woods and Forests to plant the most suitable and attractive trees alongside all new roads and by-pass roads, and in cased where roads are widened to secure the replanting of trees destroyed in the process as far as possible?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I fully share the hon. and gallant Member's desire that roadside tree planting should be extended in suitable cases and so far as funds permit. I have been in consultation for some time past with experts on the subject as to the best species to adopt. In the case of the new Great West Road, I have already agreed a tree-planting scheme with the Middlesex County Council.
    Colonel Sir C. YATE: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman taken into consideration the planting of roads with apple trees, as is done in France and Germany?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Will my hon. and gallant Friend ensure that the apples will not be stolen?

    LONDON TRAFFIC.
    Mr. HARRISasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether he has prepared a scheme for dealing with London traffic; what that scheme is; and whether the
    1168
    House of Commons will have an opportunity to discuss it?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Acton on 2nd July, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is the House to have an opportunity of discussing this scheme, or is it going to be done by the action of the Department?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Any scheme to deal with London traffic will have to be embodied in a Bill and will require legislation.

  ELECTRICITY COMMISSION.
  Mr. HARRISasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether the Electricity Commissioners have issued a Report on their work; and will such Report be submitted to Parliament?
  Colonel ASHLEY: The Commissioners have issued two Annual Reports which are on sale as Stationery Office publications. Their third Annual Report is in course of preparation. The Electricity (Supply) Acts do not provide for the submission of a Report by the Commissioners to Parliament. Under Section 30 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, however, the Minister of Transport is required to present to Parliament on or before 1st July in each year a Report of the applications to and proceedings before him under the Acts. Each of the Reports presented by the Minister contains a summary of the work of the Commissioners during the periods covered by the Reports. The last Report of the Minister was presented to the House of Commons on 28th June, 1923.
  Mr. HARRIS: Are these Commissioners responsible to a Government Department or to Parliament, or are they a law to themselves? Should their Report be issued to Parliament?
  Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Is it not a fact that these Commissioners are holding up a lot of work by refusing loans?
  Colonel ASHLEY: The Commissioners are responsible to me and I am responsible to Parliament.
  Mr. HARDIE: Is it not a fact that the effect of the Commissioners' work is to prevent a great deal of the chaos that previously existed?
  Colonel ASHLEY: They are doing very valuable work indeed.

  POST OFFICE.

    TELEPHONE CALLS (REGISTRATION).
    Lieut.-Colonel STOTTasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists among telephone subscribers with the present method of registering the number of telephone calls; that a machine has been invented by Messrs. Anderson and Hunts-worth which registers the effective calls on the subscribers' premises; and whether he proposes to adopt and fit these machines?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The present method of registering calls, which is the same as that adopted in America, is the most satisfactory that has yet been devised. The invention referred to has already received careful consideration. It is not proposed to adopt it, as, apart from other serious drawbacks, it would place a prohibitive drag on the telephonists' work, and the apparatus and method of working it at the subscribers' premises are too complex.

    FOREIGN MAILS DESPATCH (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. ROBERT MURRAYasked the Postmaster-General it he is aware that manufacturers, merchants, and other persons in Scotland are greatly inconvenienced in their business by the lack of any official statement of the days and hours of despatch for mails intended for abroad, and especially for Canada and the United States, and that the Post Office weekly list, for which an annual charge of 30s. is made, gives the sailings from London only; and if he can see his way to have a similar list issued showing the days and hours of despatch in Scotland?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am not aware that inconvenience is caused through the lack of official information concerning the despatch of mails from Scotland for places abroad. Notices giving the local times of closing the mails
    1170
    are exhibited at the post offices of the principal centres, such as Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Dundee, and lists of despatches, based on official information, are published in "The Scotsman," "The Glasgow Herald," and other leading Scottish newspapers. In this respect, Scottish towns are as well off as provincial towns in England. I fear that it would not be practicable to publish a separate Post Office Daily List for Scotland.

    WIRELESS STATIONS (LICENCES).
    Mr. BECKERasked the Postmaster-General how many private companies, other than the Marconi Company, have applied for a licence to erect high-power wireless stations in this country; and in how many cases and under what conditions have such licences been granted?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Apart from the Marconi Company, only one private company has recently applied for a licence to erect a high-power station in this country. This application is under consideration. No such licence has even been issued for commercial purposes to any private company other than the Marconi Company, although licences in respect of high-power stations for experimental purposes were issued some years ago to three other companies.
    Mr. LEACH: Will the right hon Gentleman say whether the Marconi dinner to Members of this House frightened off all other applicants?

    TELEPHONE INSTALLATIONS (EAST LONDON).
    Major ATTLEEasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, although a contract for a telephone installation was signed by Mr. Williams, of 123, Burdett Road, E.3, on 2nd June, and connection promised by 23rd June, this subscriber is still awaiting the completion of the service; that dissatisfaction exists in East London owing to these long delays; and whether, in view of the large number of men unemployed, he will engage additional men in order to expedite the connection of subscribers?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Before the service could be provided for Mr. Williams, a new telephone cable had to be laid and unexpected difficulties in connection with this work prevented effect being given to the promise made to him. His circuit was completed on the 7th

    1171
    instant. The number of men engaged on telephone construction work in East London has been steadily increasing for some time past and will continue to be increased as occasion requires.
    Mr. MUIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is not an uncommon complaint in different parts of the country, and will he make inquiry into the matter and see whether, by speeding up, the connections can be completed more satisfactorily?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I watch the statistics of completion of telephone installations very carefully.

    CASH-ON-DELIVERY SCHEME.
    Sir WILFRID SUGDENasked the Postmaster-General when he hopes to give details of the cash-on-delivery scheme in respect of parcels post; and whether he contemplates increasing the permissible weight of parcels to be carried?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have considered this proposal especially in relation to agriculture, and I regret that while fully sympathising with the object in view I do not see my way to introduce a service at a cost which would render it of any appreciable value to the agricultural interests. It would be necessary to charge a minimum fee of 6d. or 7d. a parcel in addition to the postage, and this, combined with the difficulties inherent in any attempt to discriminate in the nature of the contents of parcels would, I am convinced, make the institution of such a service of no practical value to the agriculturalists.
    I may mention that the chief value of a cash-on-delivery service has been found to be for small parcels the contents of which are of high value. Agricultural produce is relatively bulky and of low value. I shall watch the result of the recent reduction in the parcel post rate with a view to further reduction if the business warrants it. I have no evidence that there is any general demand for a cash-on-delivery system other than for agriculture, but, on the other hand, I have received many representations on behalf of the smaller shopkeepers in the contrary sense. There is no intention of increasing the permissible weight of parcels to be sent by parcel post.

  UNEMPLOYMENT (CABINET COMMITTEE).
  Sir W. de FRECEasked the Prime Minister whether the Cabinet Committee on Unemployment is ready to consider any views on the subject which may be submitted to it by responsible and representative public authorities; and whether, in that case, he will state the procedure to be adopted by them?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. I should be glad if such authorities would send in their observations in writing to the Secretary to the Cabinet Committee on Unemployment at the Ministry of Health.
  Sir W. de FRECE: Are the views of local authorities specifically invited?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly.

  POLICE PENSIONS FUND.
  Mr. EDMUND TURTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a letter was addressed by the County Councils' Association to the Secretary to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue on the 20th February, 1922, applying to the Commissioners to allow such portion of the County Fund as is equivalent to the amount of capital transferred from the Police Pensions Fund to be regarded as a police superannuation fund for the purposes of Section 32 of the Finance Act, 1921; whether he is aware that, despite further letters written on the 29th September, 1922, and the 2nd January, 1923, the association have not received any communication from the Commissioners other than a letter written on the 25th November, 1922, to the effect that the question had been referred to their solicitor; and will he say when the association may expect to receive a definite reply?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: A definite reply has now been sent to the association.

  PUBLIC REVENUE (SCOTTISH CONTRIBUTION).
  Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is yet in a position to state what proportion of the public revenue was derived during the

  1173
  year 1922–23 from Scottish sources; and what proportion of the estimated revenue of the current year he expects to derive from the same sources?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I regret that figures for 1922–23 will not be available for over a month. The proportion of this year's estimated revenue derived from Scotland would probably not vary very materially from last year's figure.

  WHISKY EXPORTS (ALLOWANCES).
  Mr. GARDINERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the bonus or allowances of 3d. per gallon on each gallon of whisky exported from Scotland amounted to in the years 1913, 1914, 1921, and 1922, respectively; and do these totals include whisky sent from Scotland and shipped abroad at English ports?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The information requested is not available, but the amounts paid in Scotland in the calendar years 1913, 1914, 1921 and 1922 in respect of exported British plain spirits (which includes whisky) were as follow:

  £

  1913

  96,724

  1914

  93,969

  1921

  66,041

  1922

  57,148

  These amounts represent allowances actually paid in Scotland irrespective of whether the spirits were exported from a Scottish or an English port.
  Mr. GARDINERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer who arranged the bonus or allowance of 3d. per gallon on each gallon of exported whisky; at what date was it arranged; what is the total sum given to exporters since the bonus was instituted; and what was the exact reason for giving this bonus?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The allowance granted on the exportation of British plain spirits (which expression includes whisky) was first authorised in 1860 by the Act 23 and 24 Vict. c. 129, "in consideration of the loss and hindrance caused by Excise Regulations in the distillation … of spirits in the United Kingdom …" The rate of allowance was fixed at 3d. per gallon by the Finance Act, 1902. Information as to
  1174
  the amount of allowance paid since 1860 is not available.
  Mr. GARDINER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most of the whisky exported is exported, not by the distillers, but by the blenders? Are they entitled to the 3d. if they have done no work therefor?
  Viscountess ASTOR: Are they not now making such a sum from rum-running that they can do without this bonus?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think that the last question arises. Under the old Act the allowance was payable to the exporter, whoever he was.
  Mr. GARDINERIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the large amount of money granted to the exporters is sufficient to pay the costs of their businesses, and that they are making many millions of money? Should not this money go to the Exchequer?

  WAR BOND POLICIES.
  Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the. Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the Prudential Assurance Company has not appealed against the recent decision of the Hull County Court that it should refund the whole of the premiums collected by it on a Five Per Cent. War Bond Policy because these had been obtained by means of fraudulent misrepresentation, he can now say whether the Public Prosecutor intends taking any action, having regard to the state of affairs disclosed by this case?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The matter is still under consideration.
  Mr. THOMSON: How much longer is this important matter to be considered?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think until a satisfactory conclusion is reached

  RICHBOROUGH PORT.
  Mr. BRIANTasked the Financia. Secretary to the Treasury if Richborough Port has been again taken over by the Government; if any and, if so, what portion of the original price has been actually paid?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet on the 13th December last.

  PENSIONED WIDOWS (SICKNESS GRANTS).
  Sir W. de FRECEasked the Minister of Pensions the amount which has been saved by the withdrawal of the sickness grants to pensioned widows and children in special cases; and how much money was actually awarded under this head during the time the concession was in existence?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Captain Craig): It is estimated that the amount which will be saved during the current financial year is, approximately, £2,500. The Regulation in its recent form became operative in June, 1920, and the total expenditure thereunder, up to the close of the last financial year, was £33,000.
  Sir W. de FRECE: Who assists these pensioned widows when the grant has been withdrawn?
  HON. MEMBERS: The Guardians!
  Sir W. de FRECEasked the Minister of Pensions how many sickness grants, falling due for renewal after the date of 14th June, 1923, when no further applications were received, have actually been renewed since that date; and, if so, whether he will state the aggregate amount of the renewed grants thus made as compared with the amount of the actual original grants?
  Captain CRAIG: During the period in question, 41 application for renewal were received, of which two were rejected and 39 accepted. The aggregate amount of the 39 renewed grants is £9 7s. 10d. per week, as against £10 7s. 4d. per week, the aggregate amount of the 41 original grants.

  AGRICULTURE.

    DOMINION CATTLE (IMPORTS).
    Mr. LEACHasked the Minister of Agriculture if it is his intention to in-
    1176
    troduce legislation to place all the other Dominions in the same position as Canada now is in regard to the importation of cattle?
    The MINISTER of AGRICURTURE (Sir Robert Sanders): The Government have informed the Dominions other than Canada that, if the question of removing the restrictions regarding the import of cattle from their territories is raised at the forthcoming Imperial Conference and a mutually satisfactory arrangement reached, legislation will be introduced to give effect to such arrangement. The general question of the restrictions on the import of livestock into the various parts of the Empire, including the United Kingdom, is being placed on the agenda of the forthcoming Imperial Economic Conference as a subject for discussion.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the policy of the Government on this important question, and who is to decide as to what is a mutually satisfactory arrangement?
    Mr. RILEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a good deal of feeling in Australia against the distinction drawn between Australia and Canada in this matter?
    Sir R. SANDERS: I am quite aware of that, and that is the reason why we are anxious to discuss the matter with the Dominions.
    Mr. LAMBERT: May I have an answer to my question? Who is to determine the mutually satisfactory arrangement?
    Sir R. SANDERS: I think the last answer I gave answers that question.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will the agricultural interests be consulted in contra-distinction to what happened last year when Sir A. Boscawen made the arrangement?
    Sir R. SANDERS: That has already been done.

    CROPS (DAMAGE BY VERMIN).
    Mr. GARDINERasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the urgent need of protection for farmers from the damage done by rabbits from adjoining woods and covers; and will he consider restoring powers to occupiers to kill rabbits and similar vermin granted during the War?
    Sir R. SANDERS: A private Member's Bill dealing with the destruction of rabbits and rooks has been read a Second time in this House. In view of the pressure of other business, I am afraid that it is not possible to give special facilities for its passage into law.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider it would be better to give facilities for a Bill of this sort, rather than the Merchandise Marks Bill?
    Sir R. SANDERS: No, Sir.
    Mr. HARDIE: Could not some of the restrictions at present imposed on poaching be removed and poachers given a free hand?

  WAR SHIPBUILDING PLANT (GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE).
  Mr. SHORTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether during the War and Admiralty control of shipbuilding, in order to accelerate the building of ships, it was decided to defray 40 per cent. of the cost of introducing and extending pneumatic riveting and caulking plant in the shipyards; and, if so, will he state the total expenditure involved and the firms to whom payment was made?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have been asked to reply. In order to increase the facilities for the output of tonnage of all kinds for war purposes, shipbuilding and engineering firms and other firms concerned in the equipment of ships were urged during the War to extend their premises and increase their plant, and an arrangement was made that up to a maximum of 40 per cent. of this special cost would be paid by the Government. Of the total amount so paid, it is estimated that between £150,000 and £200,000 was in respect of pneumatic riveting and caulking plant, which was distributed among a large number of firms.
  Mr. SHORT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House a list of the firms who benefited?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I could. It would be a very long one; but if the hon. Member is interested, I can give it.
  Mr. SHINWELL: Have the Government control over the material for which they paid?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The arrangement was made a great many years ago.
  Mr. SHINWELL: Have they any control over the material?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: If the hon. Gentleman wants to know what is the condition of the plant, he should put down a question.
  Mr. HARDIE: Who owns the plant?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The firms.

  WELSH CHURCH COMMISSION.
  Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the fact that the total revenue of the Welsh Church Commissioners is insufficient to meet their expenditure and that the commission now paid for the collection of tithes is excessive, he will consider the advisability of instructing the Commissioners to invite tenders for such collection with a view to reducing the cost?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridge-man): I am informed by the Commissioners of Church Temporalities in Wales that it is not correct to say that their present total revenue is insufficient to meet their present expenditure. They also inform me that in the present stage of their management and investigation, they do not see how they can usefully adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member, nor can they admit that in the circumstances the commission paid by them to their agents for tithe collection is excessive.
  Mr. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have a number of applications from firms offering to do this work at one half of the present cost?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Gentleman asked a question on this subject some days ago, when he said he would give me the names of those firms, but he has not done so.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Will it be all right now that Sir Arthur Boscawen has got an appointment?

  HOME OFFICE VOTE (FACTORY INSPECTOR'S REPORT).
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Home Secretary whether the Factory Inspector's Report will be presented and circulated before the Home Office Vote is taken?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: This Report, which is now being printed, will be expedited as much as practicable, but I regret it is not possible to issue it before Thursday next, when the Home Office Vote is to be taken.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is it not highly unusual to take the Home Office Vote before printing and circulating the Factory Inspectors' Report?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think it has been done before. I do not mind the Home Office Vote being postponed.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Has it not been the case for the last few years that the Report has been printed before the Home Office Vote has been taken? Surely hon. Members should have this Report in their hands before discussing the Vote?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is not the Home Office Office but the Factory Inspector's report about which my noble Friend is asking.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I wish to know about the relation between the two.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is not what was put in the Noble Lord's question.

  EX-SERVICE CIVIL SERVANTS (WAR BONUS).
  Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN(by Private Notice) asked whether the Postmaster-General can yet say what steps the Government intend to take to carry out the Sutton judgment, and what steps they intend to take regarding other ex-service civil servants who claim that they also should receive the Civil Service war bonus?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Government have carefully considered the position created by the judgment of the House of Lords in the Sutton case. They are advised that the judgment is clearly applicable to men who enlisted in the special sections of the Royal Engi-
  1180
  neers after the announcement that full civil pay would be allowed and on or before the 7th September, 1915, that is to say, the date when the notification was published that men serving in these sections would not be entitled to war bonus. The Government propose to treat on the same footing all men who enlisted or were called up for service as reservists or territorials in the special sections prior to the latter date, other than men who were transferred from other units of the Army. Instructions have accordingly been given to pay the amounts due to the men in these categories. A Supplementary Estimate will be presented to the House immediately. As regards men who enlisted in the special sections subsequent to 7th September, 1915, and single men who enlisted in other units of the Army, irrespective of the date of enlistment, the Government are advised that the legal position is extremely doubtful. Having regard to the large sums of money involved, the Government have come to the conclusion that in the interests of the taxpayer it is necessary that an authoritative legal decision should be obtained as to the rights of the several categories of men who may be affected. They propose, therefore, to give facilities for obtaining as speedy a decision as possible from the House of Lords upon test cases representative of the several categories, and they are prepared to authorise the payment, whatever be the result, of the taxed costs of the claimants, as between party and party, entailed in obtaining the decisions required. I am advised that the decisions may be expected before the end of the year if the cases are expedited as the Government proposes.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if any estimate has been made as to the cost of the legal proceedings?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The payments which are now to be authorised will amount to about £1,250,000 or rather more and the legal proceedings cannot cost more than £2,000 or £3,000—or £5,000 at the outside. Having regard to the very large amounts in question, it is thought right that these proceedings should be taken and facilitated.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how it is that the legal proceedings are so unusually cheap?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It depends, of course, upon what is done. If these are taken as test cases and expedited, I am told it may well be that £5,000 will cover all the expense.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (SAVINGS AND HOUSING BANKS).
Mr. LEACH: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable local authorities to establish and maintain savings and housing banks, and for other purposes in connection therewith."
I have received some considerable encouragement for introducing this Bill from some answers which were given last Friday by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when this very subject was under discussion for a short while. The Financial Secretary informed the House himself that if any private Member would be enterprising enough to put down a Bill for the purposes indicated in my own Measure, he would see to it that the Treasury would give it careful consideration. This Bill empowers county boroughs and any combination of local authorities representing a population of not less than 150,000 to establish and maintain local savings banks. In every case it also provides that the Treasury shall be responsible for the Regulations in regard to the conduct of those banks. In addition, it provides powers for the setting up of housing departments enabling the municipalities to make advances on mortgage to depositors in order to help them to acquire their own houses.
In 1916 the Government of that day passed an Act called the Municipal Savings Banks Act, but unfortunately they hedged it round with so many restrictions as to make it impossible for any local authority to conduct a savings bank at a profit. For instance, they placed a limit of £200 on the deposits, and they restricted the depositors to wage workers, who had to make their deposits through the agency of their employers, who deducted the sums weekly, by agreement, from their wages. The banks had also to hand over to the Government the whole of the sums collected in this way, and they were grievously restricted in the amount of interest which the Government paid to them for the money. Finally, as a last restriction, probably
1182
the worst, the banks had to commit suicide three months after the War. In view of those restrictions, it was not at all surprising to find that only one corporation in the country had the courage to adopt this Act. Birmingham did it as an act of patriotism. They were prepared to lose money, and, of course, did lose money, and in course of time they ended their bank as ordered by the law.
In 1919 they came again, this time for the purpose of obtaining, through a private Bill, real powers to conduct a real municipal savings bank. Fortunately indeed for their case, there exists in Birmingham a very famous clan with the surname Chamberlain. That famous clan for generations have had to do with the municipal activities of that great city, and I do not think it is going too far to say that they have enabled the shield of municipalism to remain clean and magnificent wherever they have had anything to do with it. The present Minister of Health is a member of that famous clan, a distinguished member, and it was through his help that the real powers to conduct a savings bank were obtained by the City of Birmingham. Virtually, the powers so obtained are the powers for which I am asking in my Bill to-day. What is good for Birmingham is surely good for the rest of the country, and, indeed, it has been very good for Birmingham. Four years' experience of the working of these powers has made Birmingham very proud of its municipal bank. Their open accounts have grown from 7,000 to 104,000: they are every month in the habit of receiving £200,000 in deposits and, indeed, their whole deposits come to some £3,000,000 they pay their depositors 3½ per cent.; and their profit last year was £9,690. A few days ago—on 18th June, in fact—they were opening a new branch, and the Minister of Health himself went down to participate in the thanksgiving ceremony. He made a proud and very significant speech on that occasion, and I shall take this opportunity of reading a sentence or two, because of the power of his arguments in favour of the Bill that I am seeking to get adopted by this House. On that occasion the Minister of Health said:
"Well, it was a very well-managed bank; it had certain obvious advantages compared with the Post Office in the facilities which it afforded, especially in the nature of withdrawals. … The conclusion we had

1183
come to was that the secret of the success lay in the fact that it was associated with our municipal system. 'I believe the depositors feel special confidence in the bank,' he added. They know that there is the security of the rates behind the bank, that there is a vigilant and watchful committee of the council looking after it, and it seems to me that this connection with the municipal system gives it a unique character and makes a special appeal to the working classes. You may call it Socialism if you like; I have never been frightened by a name. … It will be a good thing for this country if it should be further extended.'"
That is exactly what I seek to do. I would like to quote that speech in full, because it is so admirable for my purposes. Many corporations have been either promoting private Bills in order to get these powers or adopting Clauses for their next Bills for the same purpose, but I find that the Local Legislation Committees upstairs are distinctly timid about giving these powers, because, as I believe, they want to see the national Legislature tackle this matter and introduce a general Bill upon it. A day or two ago the Institute of Municipal Treasurers, at their annual conference, similarly endorsed the wisdom of this proposal, and I have incorporated in my Bill the recommended minimum population to the area which they have laid down
as being a sound financial proposition. I trust that the House will assent to this Bill.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Leach, Mr. Charles Buxton, Sir Ernest Hiley, Mr. Morel, Mr. Lees-Smith, and Mr. Snowden.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (SAVINGS AND HOUSING BANKS).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (SAVINGS AND HOUSING BANKS) BILL,
  "to enable local authorities to establish and maintain savings and housing banks, and for other purposes in connection therewith," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 192.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]
The House divided: Ayes, 246; Noes, 148.

Division No. 280.]

AYES.

[4.2 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Dixon, Capt. H. (Belfast, E.)

Ainsworth, Captain Charles

Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew

Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)

Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)

Doyle, N. Grattan

Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)

Butcher, Sir John George

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)

Ednam, Viscount

Apsley, Lord

Butt, Sir Alfred

Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Sir Martin

Button, H. S.

Ellis, R. G.

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.

Cadogan, Major Edward

England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Astor, Viscountess

Cautley, Henry Strother

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)

Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. Bolton M.

Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

Barnston, Major Harry

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.

Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

Chilcott, Sir Warden

Flanagan, W. H.

Becker, Harry

Churchman, Sir Arthur

Ford, Patrick Johnston

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

Clayton, G. C.

Forestier-Walker, L.

Bellairs, Commander Canyon W.

Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman

Frece, Sir Walter de

Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Furness, G. J.

Berry, Sir George

Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

Gardiner, James

Betterton, Henry B.

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Garland, C. S.

Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)

Cope, Major William

Gates, Percy

Blundell, F. N.

Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)

Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Goff, Sir R. Park

Brass, Captain W.

Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)

Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Gretton, Colonel John

Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)

Gwynne, Rupert S.

Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Bruford, R.

Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)

Buckingham, Sir H.

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Halstead, Major D.

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Dawson, Sir Philip

Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Rogerson, Capt. J. E.

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

Roundell, Colonel R. F.

Harrison, F. C.

Margesson, H. D. R.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Harvey, Major S. E.

Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)

Russell, William (Bolton)

Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)

Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Shepperson, E. W.

Herbert, S. (Scarborough)

Molloy, Major L. G. S.

Shipwright, Captain D.

Hiley, Sir Ernest

Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

Singleton, J. E.

Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. C.

Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)

Skelton, A. N.

Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A. C. (Honiton)

Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Murchison, C. K.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Hood, Sir Joseph

Nall, Major Joseph

Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss)

Hopkins, John W. W.

Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.

Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

Stanley, Lord

Houfton, John Plowright

Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)

Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth

Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

Nield, Sir Herbert

Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Hudson, Capt. A.

Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton

Hughes, Collingwood

Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Hume, G. H.

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Suqden, Sir Wilfrid H.

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

Hurd, Percy A.

Paget, T. G.

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Hurst, Gerald B.

Parker, Owen (Kettering)

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

Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)

Pease, William Edwin

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Pennefather, De Fonblanque

Tubbs, S. W.

Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

Penny, Frederick George

Turton, Edmund Russborough

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Wallace, Captain E.

Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

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

Jephcott, A. R.

Peto, Basil E.

Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul

Philipson, Mabel

Waring, Major Walter

Kelley, Major Sir Frederick A.

Pilditch, Sir Philip

Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Wells, S. R.

King, Capt. Henry Douglas

Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Privett, F. J.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Lamb, J. Q.

Raeburn, Sir William H.

Winterton, Earl

Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.

Raine, W.

Wise, Frederick

Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

Wolmer, Viscount

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

Lorden, John William

Remnant, Sir James

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

Lorimer, H. D.

Rentoul, G. S.

Wood, Major Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)

Lougher, L.

Reynolds, W. G. W.

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.

Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

Yerburgh, R. D. T.

Lumley, L. R.

Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W.)

Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel

the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)

Kenyon, Barnet

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

Fairbairn, R. R.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Attlee, C. R.

Falconer, J.

Lansbury, George

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Foot, Isaac

Lawson, John James

Barnes, A.

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Leach, W.

Batey, Joseph

Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central).

Lee, F.

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Gray, Frank (Oxford)

Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)

Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Linfield, F. C.

Berkeley, Captain Reginald

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Lowth, T.

Bonwick, A.

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

Briant, Frank

Groves, T.

MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)

Broad, F. A.

Grundy, T. W.

M'Entee, V. L.

Brotherton, J.

Guthrie, Thomas Maule

McLaren, Andrew

Buckie, J.

Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Burgess, S.

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

Hancock, John George

Marshall, Sir Arthur H.

Buxton, Charles (Accrington)

Hardie, George D.

Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kine'dine, E.)

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Harney, E. A.

Middleton, G.

Chapple, W. A.

Harris, Percy A.

Millar, J. D.

Charleton, H. C.

Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Clarke, Sir E. C.

Hayday, Arthur

Mosley, Oswald

Collison, Levi

Herriotts, J.

Muir, John W.

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Hill, A.

Murnin, H.

Darbishire, C. W.

Hirst, G. H.

Murray, John (Leeds, West)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

Dudgeon, Major C. R.

Hogge, James Myles

Newbold, J. T. W.

Duffy, T. Gavan

Irving, Dan

O'Grady, Captain James

Duncan, C.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Oliver, George Harold

Dunnico, H.

Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

Paling, W.

Ede, James Chuter

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Parker, H. (Hanley)

Edmonds, G.

Jewett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

Phillipps, Vivian

1186

1187

Ponsonby, Arthur

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Potts, John S.

Simpson, J. Hope

Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

Pringle, W. M. R.

Sinclair, Sir A.

Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

Richards, R.

Sitch, Charles, H.

Welsh, J. C.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Smillie, Robert

Westwood, J.

Ritson, J.

Smith, T. (Pontefract)

White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

Snell, Harry

White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Snowden, Philip

Whiteley, W.

Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)

Spoor, B. G.

Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

Rose, Frank H.

Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Royce, William Stapleton

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Saklatvala, S.

Sullivan, J.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Salter, Dr. A.

Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

Scrymgeour, E.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Wright, W.

Sexton, James

Thornton, M.

Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)

Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

Tillett, Benjamin

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Shinwell, Emanuel

Trevelyan, C. P.

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Warne, G. H.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. Lunn and Mr. Ammon.

Question, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to enable local authorities to establish and maintain savings and housing banks, and for other purposes in connection therewith," put, and agreed to.

DENTISTS ACT (1921) AMENDMENT BILL (changed to "DENTISTS BILL").
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 190.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Sir William Whitla; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Shepperson.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,
Matrimonial Causes Bill,
Hawkshead Mission Chapel Charity Bill,
Lucas's Hospital Charity Bill,
Tancred's Charities Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Calne Water) Bill, without Amendment.
Amendments to—
River Wear Watch Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have agreed to,—
Port of London (Dock Charges) Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for the abandonment of the undertaking and the winding-up and dissolution of the West Somerset Mineral Railway Company, and for matters incidental thereto." [West Somerset Mineral Railway (Abandonment) Bill [Lords.]

WEST SOMERSET MINERAL RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL [Lords],
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
STOKE-ON-TRENT CORPORATION BILL [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
EMPLOYMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN BILL,
"to make provision for the employment and maintenance of men who served in the Navy, Army, or Air Force and who were disabled in the late war," presented by Lieut.-Colonel Sir RAYMOND GREENE; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 191.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST RESTRICTIONS BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee) further considered.
  RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST RESTRICTIONS BILL.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Notice of increase of rent.)
    (1) The County Court shall have power to amend a notice of intention to increase rent, whether served before or after the passing of this Act, by correcting any errors and supplying any omissions therein, on such terms and conditions as respects arrears of rent or otherwise as appear to the Court to be just and reasonable, and if the Court so directs, the notice as so amended shall have effect and be deemed to have had effect as a valid notice.

    (2) The form of notice in the First Schedule to the principal Act shall be amended by the substitution of the words "date of service of this notice" for the words "date of this notice."

    Mr. MOSLEY: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
    This is one of the most remarkable and also one of the most objectionable Clauses in this very remarkable measure. It is retrospective legislation, and retrospective legislation of a peculiarly vicious character. In the Second Reading Debate very little reference was made to this Clause, and it was only in Committee that its full purport was apprehended. I do not think that so far the House has had an opportunity very thoroughly to study or comment upon this Clause. I have said that it is retrospective in character, and it is also what I might describe as class legislation. Hon. Members will speedily see why it is retrospective and why, indeed, it gives a peculiar advantage to the landlord, if they read the Clause. It lays down that
    "The County Court shall have power to amend a notice of intention to increase rent, whether served before or after the passing of this Act, by correcting any errors and supplying any omissions therein, on such terms and conditions as respects arrears of rent or otherwise as appear to the Court to be just and reasonable, and if the Court so directs, the notice as so amended shall have effect and be deemed to have had effect as a valid notice."
    As I understand it, the Clause means that if in the rather elaborate calculations which have to be made in the filling up
    1204
    of a form of notice to increase rent the landlord makes an error, whether as to form or as to amount, he may appear at the County Court at any period after the passing of the Act and ask the Court to amend his notice and to say that amended notice shall have effect from the date of the original notice as if that were a valid notice, and he may then call upon his unfortunate tenant to pay arrears of rent for the whole period covered by his own error. That is a most amazing provision to introduce into this Bill.
    We have had some experience of legislation of this character recently in the case of Scotland, and that legislation was very properly strenuously resisted from these benches. But this provision is even more vicious. In the Scottish case the tenants knew what was their position. They knew that they were taking advantage of a technical mistake on the part of the landlord who was not properly cognisant of the law and were thus avoiding paying rent which it was the intention of the landlord to make them pay. The tenant knew his position, and he knew that it was the intention of the landlord to make him pay. He knew that he was taking advantage of the landlord's mistake. Here the position is entirely different. Here both parties may be in complete ignorance of the position. The tenant receives a form in which is filled a wrong amount. He, like the landlord, in nine cases out of ten will be ignorant of the provision of the law, and will be quite unaware that the landlord has wrongfully filled up the form. Then perhaps some years later, when the tenant has founded the whole basis of his life upon a certain rent, the landlord may come down upon him and make him pay a lump sum as arrears of rent. That is a far more serious situation than that which was produced by the retrospective legislation in regard to the Scottish case. These points were urged in the course of the Committee stage, and it was expected that the right hon. Gentleman would be ready with some reasonable reply. All the reply that he made was that there was a saving provision in the Clause which exempted the tenant from any possibility of hardship. He pointed out that the Clause used this phrase:
    "As appear to the Court to be just and reasonable."

    1205
    The right hon. Gentleman then said: "Oh, well, in any case, if hardship exists, the Courts, of course, will have a discretion in the matter." But what will be the actual situation facing a County Court Judge? He reads this Clause and he has to give his verdict in accordance with the law. He says: The landlord is entitled to the full amount of the arrears which have accrued, or he may come to the conclusion that under this Clause he is entitled to nothing at all. There is no case of making a reasonable and equitable compromise between two different conflicting points of view. His duty is actually to carry out the law as laid down in the Act, and he sees there, if the landlord makes a mistake of this character, he still may make a claim for the arrears of rent. I urged that position on the Committee stage. Since then I have consulted legal authorities, and I am informed that the most the Judge is likely to do in the matter of mollifying the position of the tenant is to say that, from the arrears of rent which the landlord is given, the costs of the action will be taken. That is the utmost extent to which the tenant would derive any benefit from this provision which gives the Court a certain measure of discretion; otherwise the Judge must carry out the law.
    The landlord, if he is entitled to arrears, will get the arrears in nine cases out of 10. Where he has made such a mistake he will be able to have that mistake rectified in the Court at the expense of the tenant. That is an extraordinary provision. Are we not entitled to say that this is retrospective legislation of a character to which this House has always objected? I only wish the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) had been in his place. I am sure he would join in this conflict. In addition to what I have said, this is class legislation of a peculiarly vicious kind. It sets the class of landlords above the law. It says to the landlord: "You, and you alone, are entitled to make a mistake, and your error in law will subsequently be rectified by the Court." The Bill puts landlords in a peculiar and favoured position such as no other class enjoys. Why should one class of the community be able to go to the Court and ask to have its errors corrected and its omissions supplied? Why should one class be able to do that any more than the rest of us?
    1206
    If we break the law or make a mistake we cannot go to the Court and ask the Court to supply our omissions and correct our errors. Think of what an extraordinary precedent the right hon. Gentleman is setting up? He says you must have a provision of this character so that a man can go back and get the matter put right. There are many forms which have to be filled up, large and complicated forms. By a precedent of this sort you would be saying that any man who makes a mistake in filling up any Government form should be able to have that mistake rectified and should not suffer for his errors! What an extraordinary new provision to introduce into the law of the country. It has never been held in English law that ignorance of the law is any excuse. It has always been held that a man who breaks the law, or is ignorant of the law, must suffer for his actions. This is introducing a particularly new and vicious principle on behalf of one class. I venture to say that throughout these discussions this legislation has been the subject of suspicion that it is class legislation, and I say that if this Clause is retained in the Bill it will be branded indelibly with the stigma of class legislation. I do trust, even at this stage of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman will see fit to omit, or drastically to amend, this very objectionable Clause.
    Mr. HILL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    In a few words I would support the deletion of the Clause. I want to emphasise the point that has been made so clearly, that this is class legislation. This is a proposal to create a privilege, especially for the landlords as against the tenants. In the Committee the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Mardy Jones) informed the Minister that in his opinion, if the Clause was left in the Bill and really became operative, the County Court Judges would bless, or curse, the Minister in appropriate language. Then the County Court Judge will be called upon to spend a good deal of time in going into details like this that he ought not to be troubled with at all. Briefly, it seems to me that the Clause is unnecessary, it would be very heavily weighted against the tenant, and must of necessity be mischievous.
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): In order to explain the purpose of the Clause that the hon. Member has moved to leave out of the Bill, it is necessary to recall the words of the provision in the original Act which have operated so harshly as to require some amendment. In Section 3 (Limitation as to permitted increases in rent) of the Act of 1920, it is laid down that the landlord must give a valid notice of increase in rent to the tenant, and that that notice must be in accordance with the Schedule of the Act. The first Schedule of the Act of 1920 gives the form of notice by the landlord. It is attached to the Act. It requires a great number of calculations to be made by the landlord. He has to put down what is still the rent, and the number of such various factors which make up the increase of rent that he is proposing to charge, and he has to give, at any rate in certain cases, what the percentage on the net rent is, and what this increase amounts to. But landlords have not always had the benefit of education; have not all enjoyed the same benefits of education as the hon. Member for Harrow, and they are fallible. They sometimes make mistakes not only in this but in other calculations. The result of a perfectly unintentional and accidental mistake on the part of the landlord, a mistake which may be actually against his own interests, which may mean that he is asking the tenant for a smaller increase of rent than that to which he is justly entitled—the effect of that is to render the notice invalid. And the result of notice being rendered invalid is not that the landlord is then given the rent which is his proper legal due, but that he is denied any redress. The hon. Member for Harrow is always one-sided. I confess that the suggestion that in some cases the landlord has claimed a much smaller increase of rent than that to which he is entitled is the first admission in favour of the landlord that I have heard from the opposite benches since this Bill was introduced. It is perfectly obvious that the thing should be put right if the landlord, having stated that he has charged the tenant so much extra per week by say 15 per cent. on the net rent, it turns out that it should be 2½ or 4 per cent. The punishment does not fit the crime. The purpose of the present Clause 5 is not to allow the County Court Judge
    1208
    in many cases where documents are found to be incorrect to amend them: it is to give the County Court Judge power to amend the notice so as to make it accurate. It will then have to be considered what is to be done about the new rent that has been paid or not been paid up to the time of the case coming into Court. The hon. Member for Harrow ridicules once more, as he has often done, the suggestion that the Court will take any course that is just and reasonable. I do not really know why we should make such an assumption. The County Court will not make the mistakes supposed between landlord and tenant. You take the case where the tenant has been paying for a long period of time less than he ought to have paid, without notice. The tenant has based his standard of life upon what he thought he should pay, and not upon the rent which he would have had to pay if the landlord had not made the mistake. Surely we ought not to assume that, unless the Court thinks it just and reasonable, the tenant will not be made to pay the arrears. For my own part, knowing what I do of the fairness and sympathy in general of County Court Judges, I am quite prepared to leave the matter to their discretion with the full satisfaction that in saying what shall be done in cases of this sort, they will take the circumstances that are relevant into account and will give a judgment, that will be fair and honourable, not only to landlord but also to tenant.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Would the tenant also be entitled to claim if the notice was inaccurate?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the notice was inaccurate?
    HON. MEMBERS: Yes.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: In connection with what you say, would the tenant be entitled to recover on the other side?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know whether I have made myself clear, but I do not quite see why the tenant should want to give notice to amend because, if it is not amended, the tenant is not liable to pay any increase at all. The point of view of the tenant, unless he were a much more philanthropic person than we generally find him to be, would be to sit tight.
    Mr. FOOT: The right hon. Gentleman a little while ago referred to the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) and said he was one-sided. I think, in this matter, it is on the right side, because the Clause to which he objects has not, I suppose, any parallel in previous legislation. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the complicated forms in the principal Act. I think that is a grievance. I think anyone who has had to fill in these forms has a complaint against them. I think the remedy for that complicated form is not to pass Clauses such as this, or suggest such a Clause as this; the remedy is to give us a simple form instead of a complicated form. Reference has been made to the First Schedule of the 1920 Act. It contains far too many particulars and comprises far too many details. If the right hon. Gentleman proposed in this Amendment a measure that would simplify that form, so that it might be quite understood by landlord and tenant, then I think he would have carried the sympathy of the whole House.
    Lawyers lately have been very much astonished by this legislation dealing with the restriction of rents and interest. They look upon this as a temporary evil and as something of mushroom growth, but they hope this legislation will be wiped away very quickly. But amongst all the strange legislation we have had recently nothing is more objectionable than that which is condemned by the Amendment now before the House. Let the right hon. Gentleman consider how wide is this subject. The County Court Judge can correct any error whatever amount is involved, and supply omissions, and there is no limit of time. I do not know how far the County Court Judge might go back. He might have power to go back as far as the principal Act itself which is 1920, and whilst we have every confidence in the decisions of our County Court Judges, we know that occasionally miscarriages of justice do arise, and I think it is a most objectionable thing that a tenant, against whom no complaint can be made, should be liable to have brought against him, without any worming, a substantial claim amounting to a very large sum of money.
    As far as I know, there is no other part of the law where we do not act upon the principle that where a mistake occurs the
    1210
    one who makes the mistake must suffer for it. By this proposal, however, you are reversing that principle. If it is intended to recover from B the consequences of a legal mistake made by A, there ought to be some other provision. You cannot demand a large sum of money in this way without easing the burden to the man upon whom it has been wrongfully placed. This Clause will tend to slackness in the filling up of the forms. In the past in the filling up of forms demanding an increase of rent a great deal of care has been exercised, but it will not matter in the future how the form is filled up, and this Clause will tend to slackness in that direction. It will also penalise many persons, and it is a reversal of the principle of our recognised law. The Bill would be very much more acceptable if this Clause were struck out. I agree with what the Mover of this Amendment has said, and while I recognise that there is a grievance, the attempt made by the Government to remove it has created another grievance very much larger.
    Mr. EDE: We have been told that the Government never make mistakes, and that those who have drawn up this Bill know what they are doing. I want to point out that Section 2 of the principal Act makes it very difficult to follow the reasoning of the Minister of Health when he says that a landlord who had to ask his tenant for 14½ per cent. was serving an invalid notice. Each time in Section 2 of the principal Act the landlord is authorised to make increases not exceeding certain sums, and therefore whether one puts in 15 per cent. or 14½ per cent. it is quite valid. Paragraph (c) of Section 2 of the principal Act lays down that it must be an amount not exceeding 15 per cent. of the net rent. There is another sub section dealing with improvements of the structure and alterations, and here again the amount of the increase is fixed. When we come to repairs the amount is to be a sum not exceeding 25 per cent., and the tenant is quite entitled if he has a notice for less than that percentage, to think that the landlord has availed himself of the opportunity so given by not increasing the rent to the full extent.
    It seems to me wholly unjustifiable to empower the County Court Judge, possibly years after, through some dispute having arisen to increase these

    1211
    increases to the full extent allowed by the principal Act. I know as a rule that these notices are drawn up with great care. I have had a good many of them submitted to me, and in no case have I ever seen less than the permitted increase, although I have occasionally found some where the landlord had got somewhat confused between 25 per cent. and 50 per cent. As a rule, however, I think these forms are very carefully filled up. I can say that in my experience every assistance is given by the local overseers and the rating authorities to enable them to arrive at what the rents were in 1914. These notices are bargains made between the two parties, and I do not think this power should be given to the County Court Judge because it is sure to lead to a good deal of bad feeling. It will make tenants very dubious as to how far this House is concerned about holding the balance fairly between the two parties to the transaction because they will feel that this gives them, if they have future friction with their landlords, the added terror that he may then seek to get the notice amended, although for some reasons best known to himself he may not have added the full increase.
    I know there are many landlords who have not added the full 25 per cent. increase because they do not want the tenant to go to the sanitary inspector. I know landlords who have asked me to make out their notices, and when I have said, "What about the 25 per cent. for repairs," they have replied, "Do not put that in because it will give the tenants the power to go to the sanitary inspector." There is nothing to prevent landlords putting in this claim years after, and it gives them power to get the increase during the whole period they have neglected to carry out the repairs which the sanitary inspector could have compelled them to do. This is retrospective legislation of the worst possible kind, and I hope the Minister of Health will withdraw this Clause, or else allow another place to give us cause to thank heaven that they still remain a part of the British Constitution.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I wish to make one or two brief observations upon some criticisms which have been made by hon. Members opposite. The Mover of this Amendment described this Clause as a piece of class legislation, but I can-
    1212
    not understand why he makes that statement. If he will reflect for a moment or two upon the different categories of people who own house property, I do not think he will be able to maintain his argument that it belongs to one particular class. I suppose there are millions of pounds' worth of house property to-day belonging to the working classes, trade unions, building societies, and other organisations who will, in fact, get the benefit of this Clause, and who are really the people who most constantly make mistakes in connection with the notices they give. It is not so much a question affecting the owners of a large amount or property, such as dukes and earls, because they are well able to employ professional advice, and I suppose in nearly every case their notices are in very good order. The people who have made mistakes in these notices during the last few years have been the men who own one or two or three houses, who have had to struggle with a form which they have probably bought at a newspaper shop, and have endeavoured to fill up the form to the best of their ability, and have tried to work out the extraordinary mathematical calculations required by this unfortunate legislation, and in the end have probably made unfortunate mistakes in the notices they have served on their tenants.
    In hundreds of cases, owing to the mistake in the notice, the tenant has been living free of rent altogether for a very long period. All this Clause does is that in such a case, or in any case which comes under this Section, a man can go to the County Court Judge and say, "I have made a mistake; will you please alter it on fair and proper terms?" That is not class legislation, and the Judge can reply, "If I do alter the terms I shall impose conditions, and you will have to suffer for your mistake." The County Court Judge has to come to a conclusion as to what is just and reasonable in the circumstances. I think it is the universal experience of all those who have had any experience of our County Court Judges in this country that they have been most reasonable and sympathetic in regard to all applications made to them from the point of view of the tenant. Like other hon. Members, I object to this sort of legislation, and I agree that it is unfortunate, but if you are going to do justice to people who are

    1213
    not particularly well educated, and who are not able to get proper legal advice, the only alternative is to allow the County Court Judge, on proper and reasonable terms, to deal with these cases and impose such penalties as he thinks are reasonable, and allow the notice to be so amended as to express what was really the intention of the parties concerned.
    Captain W. BENN: We are all anxious to be perfectly fair on this thorny question, but I would like to point out that the last argument used by the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken has been answered by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot). We have been told, in the first place, that we must simplify the farms This procedure is based on a Section of the Act which is needlessly complicated. There is a 25 per cent. permissible increase in regard to repairs.
    Sir K. WOOD: Nobody has put down any suggestion to simplify this form, and I think it is impossible.
    Captain BENN: But the answer to the argument has been to simplify the form in the first place; and secondly, that while we are anxious to be fair to the landlord, it is also necessary to be fair to the tenant. The best point in my judgment which has been made in the Debate is that people work on very small incomes. The wife has so much to spend and so much is allotted to rent. The thrifty wife perhaps makes ends meet and may save a little. It is a serious thing suddenly to announce that a mistake has been made, and that large sums are due retrospectively by these people. This Clause is retrospective and that in itself is bad. What kind of retrospective increase has been permitted?
    "The County Court shall have power to amend a notice of intention to increase rent by correcting any errors or supplying any omissions."
    I hope that I am wrong, but I would ask the Minister this. Suppose that a landlord had decided not to impose the 25 per cent. increase, is that an omission within the meaning of this Clause? That is a very serious question. Does the word "omission" in Clause 5 mean the omission to charge the 25 per cent. which is permitted under one of the Sections of the principal Act? If it does, by this Clause you say to the landlord, who had
    1214
    previously decided that he would not impose on the tenant the permitted increase, "You may now go to the Court and say, 'I omitted to charge the in crease permitted in one of the paragraphs of the Schedule and I ask permission now to increase my notice so as to charge the permitted increase from the time the tenant entered into possession of the house.'" Is that one of the operations which the Government permit by this Clause? It is most important to have an answer to that.
    It is not a question of saying simply, this is a matter of making a slip as regards structural alterations, or some other arithmetical slip arising out of the complications of the form, but whether the word "omission" means that, if he has wilfully omitted to demand the permitted increase, he is now to be allowed to go to the County Court and ask to be permitted to make the increase. That is a serious change which I imagine the Minister does not contemplate; but I would like a definite assurance on this point. If it were simply that this power in the County Court should exist, as and from, the passing of the Act, that might be a reasonable thing, but to say that it shall be retrospective as and from the earliest of these Acts seems to me to be utterly unreasonable. There are two later Amendments, which suggest that this procedure only comes into operation after the passing of the Act, which may not be divided on, but those of us who vote for the total omission of this Clause, in this as in other cases, have to record our opinion in a very rough and ready way, owing to the limitations under which we are working. I ask the Minister to answer the question which I have asked.
    Mr. ROBERT MURRAY: The chief objection which seems to me to exist against the Clause as it stands is that it is now proposed to put on a Court of law a duty which ought to belong entirely to the individual. Under this Clause it is now open to the landlord to come into Court with the most ill-digested, ill-prepared statement, and to put upon the Court the duty of amending his mistakes. This Clause will make for slackness and carelessness on the part of the landlord, and slackness and carelessness in the preparation of these statements will make of slackness and carelessness on the part of the Court in trying to do justice

    1215
    between the parties. It has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn)—though I do not agree—that both sides are trying to be fair to both landlord and tenant. I have listened carefully to the discussions, and I have not seen the slightest desire on the part of the Government to be fair to the tenant. If they had entertained any desire, here was an opportunity, by which they might have placed the duty definitely and distinctly on the landlord to make his statement clear as to his claims against the tenant, and, having submitted a clear statement, that he should take his stand definitely on that in making his claim against the tenant. But up to the last moment that statement may be subject to all kinds of alteration.
    The Minister has said that by permitting an unintentional error on the part of the landlord we are doing something altogether wrong, but as the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) has said, we are breaking upon what is a clear and definite basis of British law, that intentionally or unintentionally an error before the law shall stand against an individual who makes that error. The Minister of Health says that we are not to penalise the unfortunate landlord for mistakes of that kind. He suggests that the punishment does not fit the crime. But the punishment in this case would fit the crime, because if the landlord made a mistake, which resulted in penalising the tenant, the tenancy would come back on his own shoulders. Reasons have been given, however attenuated, with regard to some of the other Clauses which the Government defend, but not the slightest reason has been given why this Clause should stand.
    Mr. ALEXANDER SHAW: The Government are fortunate in finding so excellent and plausible an advocate for this Clause as the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood). He has uttered in this House the only single word of excuse for this Clause, which so far has been used. The chorus of condemnation from all parts of the House has been unanimous. I do not wish to stigmatise this Clause as class legislation, or anything of that kind, but I would ask my Noble Friend, who, I know, is reasonable in all these matters, to consider carefully whether under this
    1216
    Clause he is not taking a step which is in antagonism to a sound and important principle of constitutional law. My hon. Friend opposite, with considerable dexterity, strove to represent the people, for whom this Bill is intended, as half-imbecile, half-illiterate people, who are unable to fill in a form. I would remind my hon. Friend that the whole of the section of the community which he represents is not of this class, and that even for those who are, there are societies and willing friends to help them in what is, after all, a comparatively simple operation.
    Would it not be far better instead of putting a Clause of this kind into the Bill to have inserted a simple schedule which would have superceded the schedule in the Act of 1920 and would have made it simple even for those whom my hon. Friend represents to comply with the requirements of the law? My Noble Friend knows that with regard to the great bulk of transactions between parties in this country, which are carried on in writing, it is of the utmost importance in the general public interest that the intentions of the parties should be judged by what they sign. That is an elementary principle of constitutional law. No doubt in a certain limited class of cases a strictly limited discretion is given to the Courts. That may be wise or not, but at any rate the parties who put their hand to a document, as tenants or purchasers, or to any other class of document, and those who receive those documents, rely on them to know where they stand.
    Now we are opening a new era in which the right hon. Gentleman and my Noble Friend say, "Never mind, old boy, if you muddle through somehow we will put up the County Court Judge to help you to muddle along. Never mind what the document says." You are by this Clause displacing a document which is a definite thing, by something quite different, something fraught with great elements of danger. You are displacing a definite document to be interpreted, by a roving commission to the County Court Judge who is to attribute motives and intentions at his own sweet will. No two County Court Judges in any part of the country will agree in their ideas about those cases which are brought before them under this litigation-making Clause.
    These considerations which you are asking them to decide are not covered by any

    1217
    precedents or decided cases. You are leaving to them unlimited discretion to read into a document what, in the light of after events, they consider should be read into it, not to rectify a limited class of errors or omissions, but to rectify—and here I think that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith hit upon a rather important point—any omissions and any errors which, in the light of after events, they think to be reasonable and just. That is not clean cut legislation. It is muddled legislation. Instead of putting a clear schedule into this Act you open up a vista of muddle and ltigation, and you are taking, it may be in a very quiet and comparatively unimportant way, a distinct step away from the sound maxim of the British Constitutions which Members of the Government will some day regret.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. LORDEN: The point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith would be a rather serious one if it had not been dealt with already. But it seems to me that it has been dealt with by the Rent Restrictions (Notices of Increase) Act which has recently become law, and which provides that arrears can be recovered by a landlord from a tenant from the 1st day of December, 1922. Therefore that does limit the question of repayment about which the hon. and gallant Member raised the point. It would be a serious matter if it could be reopened on all these Acts ever since a little after the War broke out. Therefore the County Court Judge, however much he might desire to go behind it, is up against the Section of the Rent Restrictions (Notices of Increase) Act, 1923. It seems to me you cannot get behind it. Section 2 says:

    "(a) any validated increase of rent in respect of the period from the first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, to the date of the passing of this Act, both inclusive; and

    (b) any sum which during the said period has been recovered by the tenant from the landlord by deductions from rent or otherwise and which would not have been so recoverable had this Act been then in force;

    shall be payable by instalments"—
    There is a further reservation, which makes it almost impossible for the landlord to recover, because it goes on to say:
    "with and as part of the periodical payments of rent, each instalment being 15 per cent. of the standard rent for the week,
    1218
    month, or other period for which the rent is payable."
    Therefore, you have limitation upon limitation, so that the fears of the hon. Gentleman on the point he raised are entirely removed.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I am surprised at the point which has just been made by the hon. Gentleman opposite. He assumes that the provisions in the Rent Restrictions (Notices of Increase) Act will apply to the Clause we are now discussing, and that the discretion of the County Court Judge, as given by Clause 5, will be limited by the provisions which are laid down in Section 2 of the Rent Restrictions (Notices of Increase) Act, 1923. I would submit to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that he is really under a misapprehension in this respect. The Rent Restrictions (Notices of Increase) Act validated certain notices of increase, and only those notices of increase. Before that Act, it had been determined by a decision of the House of Lords that where a notice of increase had been given, and there had been no notice to quit, such notice of increase was not valid. The object of the Rent Restrictions (Notices of Increase) Act was to validate such notices. It only validated notices which were otherwise valid. It said that, even although there had been no notice to quit, nevertheless the notice of increase would be validated under the Act, and, for the purpose of determining the amount of arrears which would be due to the landlord, a certain date was introduced for the purpose of determining how far arrears would be payable, and, as the hon. Member clearly pointed out, the Act went on to lay down conditions as to the payment of arrears. That applies to a special case which is not within the purview of Clause 5 at all. Clause 5 seeks to make valid notices of increase which are invalid for other reasons, and deals with notices of increase which have been given since the beginning of the original Act, and you are imposing a very serious duty upon County Court Judges to determine how far, under these conditions, the arrears are to be payable.
    It is a very difficult matter. In connection with the Notices of Increase Act, the House at that time felt it necessary to define clearly he date as from which the arrears should run, and not only did it define clearly that date, but the House

    1219
    also defined the period at which instalments should be paid. But here you give a roving commission to the County Court Judge. If, in the other case, it was necessary, first of all, to lay down a date with reference to which the arrears should be payable, and that, even having laid down that date, it was necessary to make special arrangements with regard to instalments, then it is equally necessary in the present case. On that occasion we had an extraordinary position indeed, because the date was introduced in respect to which the legislation was made retrospective. That date was based upon a speech by the late Prime Minister, but here we have not even a speech of the late Prime Minister to guide us. The County Court Judge may, at his discretion, go right back to 1921. Also, of course, it is unfortunate that this poor landlord—and we will stick to the "poor landlord," out of deference to the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood)—the man who cannot make up a notice, the man who never in his business dealings has had to tabulate any percentages—we hear so often about these poor people, but we do not meet them in ordinary life.
    Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member moves in such high society!
    Mr. PRINGLE: I do not belong to the profession to which the hon. Member belongs, and, of course, I have not the means of meeting the enormous clientèle which patronises his firm, but if the clients of the hon. Member are of the character he depicts in the House, I can understand the prosperity of his business. Because he is peculiarly fortunate in his clients, I do not think that is any reason why this House should base its legislation upon the experience which he has been fortunate enough to obtain. We have, after all, to deal with the situation that the people who go in for investments in house property are no more ignorant or innocent than other people who invest. They are usually able to calculate percentages which they are going to get on 'their money, and the income they are going to receive from year to year, so that they can easily calculate the percentage in this case, and I believe in the majority of cases where mistakes have been made in notices, the mistakes have been made to the advantage of the land-
    1220
    lord and not to his disadvantage. I have had cases brought to my own notice where through, shall we say, a singular inadvertence, the landlord, in calculating this percentage, has managed to work it out as something more than that to which he was legally entitled, and, of course, if he is the innocent person depicted by the hon. Member for West Woolwich, he will go to the County Court Judge and will say, "I know nothing about arithmetic, it is so long since I was at school. I have not a ready reckoner; I have not been able to buy one in these hard times, and I cannot find the money to meet the cost of repairs. And so, of all these luxuries—even the advice of the hon. Member for West Woolwich—I have been unable to avail myself."
    Therefore, he appeals ad misericordiam to the County Court Judge, to whom he says, "I have made this mistake. My tenant writes to say that all the rent he has paid since 1921 should be refunded. Have mercy upon me! Here is a Clause—Clause 5—introduced by a benevolent Government, which expressly directs your honour to consider my weaknesses and shortcomings, and to say that I should not suffer for my mistake: It is true the mistake is in my favour, but I am an honest, deserving citizen, and I should not have thought of doing that. It is solely due to my inability to calculate." And, of course, with this Clause 5 before him, the County Court Judge will say that obviously the Government—a benevolent Government, a wise Government, a moral Government, a Government whose honesty verges upon simplicity—intended this, and the County Court Judge will give judgment in his favour, and say that the notice, in spite of this slight inaccuracy—in favour of the landlord, of course—is valid, and that the tenant will be bound to pay the arrears from the beginning. I know the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) is against all retrospective legislation. Here we have the worst kind of retrospective legislation.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: No.
    Mr. PRINGLE: It would be much better if we said how far it was to be retrospective, but we are leaving it entirely to the discretion of the County Court Judges up and down the country. I do not suppose the right hon. Gentle-

    1221
    man would consent to any such proposition. We used to be told in the old days that equity varied with the length of the Lord Chancellor's foot. We have now, apparently, the rights of landlords and tenants to be determined by the length of the foot of every County Court Judge. It was not altogether unsatisfactory when we had only one Lord Chancellor, but when we have all these County Court Judges, what is the situation? I suggest to the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London that the situation is appalling; that it is enough to make his flesh creep, and that he, as a good Constitutionalist, even at this moment, when we are told he is spending his last days in this House, he should protest against such a monstrous innovation, not only against constitutional practice, but against the constitutional traditions of this country. I am quite sure that the appeal I have made to him will not be made in vain; he will not be taken in by the references of the hon. Member for West Woolwich to the poor landlords who do not know how to calculate. Such appeals have never made any impression upon him in the past. He has shown himself a rigid adherent of the real spirit of our legislation, and the real spirit of our constitution, and I hope he will insist that it shall not be departed from in this legislation. I submit that no case has been made out by the Government for any such far-reaching provision as that which is now before the House. If any relaxation is to be made, it is the duty of the House to lay down the principles upon which it is to be made, to lay down clearly the nature of the inaccuracies which are to be condoned by the County Court Judge, and, having laid that down, having made it clear that it is something which does not go to the root of the matter, they should also lay down the equitable consideration which is to be granted in such cases, and only so will it be possible for Parliament rightly to discharge its functions to both sides.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I rise for the purpose of making some response to the one serious point which has been put to me from the opposite benches. I am sure the hon. and gallant Member will not protest, because it is his own point.
    Captain BENN: I do protest.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will not take up the time of the House in dealing with remarks which are merely made with the benevolent intention of entertaining us for as long as possible, but the hon. and gallant Member did make a point which requires some answer. He inquired whether it would be possible to claim that the omission should be corrected by the Court if a man omitted to make a claim under one paragraph set out in the Schedule. I do not think that could conceivably occur, because if the hon. and gallant Member will look at the Schedule he will see it begins with the formal notice, "I intend to increase the rent" by so much per week, and "the increase is made up as follows." There are two things to be filled up, the total amount of the claim and also details of that amount. If the total corresponds with the details clearly it will not be possible for the landlord afterwards to claim he has omitted some details, because all the details will have been in the total. Therefore I think the case which the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests could not possibly arise.
    Captain BENN: But if he failed to fill up one of the items? My point is this. The object of the Clause is to validate an omission. Suppose, even in the case the right hon. Gentleman takes, the landlord did not put in the total, although he filled in the other paragraphs, is his claim to be validated by the insertion by the County Court Judge of the total?
    Mr. HARNEY: Let me state what is in my mind.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I will say what is in my mind first. If the landlord has omitted to fill up the total or has omitted to fill up one of the details the Court may accept his claim if he comes along afterwards and says that the omission was accidental. If the hon. Member thinks there is any doubt about this matter, I will have it looked into. I do not contemplate the possibility of such a thing, but if there is any doubt I am willing to try and find some other form of words to make it quite clear.
    Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: I do not know that any Amendment could put this Clause right. It is wrong in principle. I do not think there is any other body of people in this country which has at its

    1223
    disposal the County Court Judge and all his officials. I never had them at my disposal. I have had something to do with County Courts in my time, and have had to fill in lots of forms and declarations and so on, and I never found that the County Court Judge or his staff were there to correct any of my omissions. Here you have singled out one body of men at whose disposal the whole of the officials of the County Court are to be placed. They are to supply any omission and to correct any error the landlord may make. Would not this open the door to the sending in of any sort of notice and leaving it to the County Court Judge or officials to put it right? I do not know anyone else in this country who is given such assistance. I do not see why we on these benches should object to it very much, because the more this kind of legislation is introduced the sooner will we on this side get into power. I am amazed at the attitude taken up by the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood). He seems to have set himself up as an unofficial Minister of Health; he is constantly offering the Ministry his assistance in getting through this Bill. He is always defending them. What is it this Clause is going to restrict? Is it not the case it is intended to put right what happened in Scotland some time ago? It provides, in fact, there shall be no more wrong notices. It does not restrict anything unless it is the County Court officials to help the landlord to restrict the wages of the people by taking more out of them than he would otherwise be able to do. The County Court Judge is a very busy man. He has plenty of work, and I do not suppose that his staff is any too large, but if these duties are going to be imposed upon them the staff will have to be considerably increased. It is not fair to put that staff at the disposal of one class of individuals in this country. Really, Clause 5 has nothing whatever to do either with rent restrictions or with supplying houses. It is simply a provision to assist one body of people in the country, and for that reason I am opposed to it.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) made a very amusing speech, as he always does. Except on very rare occasions, he does not repeat the speeches made by other
    1224
    Members in front of him, as was done repeatedly yesterday. But his speech had very little whatever to do with the question before the House. It is absurd to say, as he did, that the landlord cannot calculate. It would appear from what the hon. Member said that what the Clause ought to Jo is to put in a ready reckoner for the use of the landlord. He complains that the landlord is to be able to get the County Court Judge to make his calculations for him. But the speech of the hon. Gentleman had very little to do with the Clause. The real necessity for this Clause is to be found in the fact that, unfortunately, the late Government, or rather the first Coalition Government interfered with the law of supply and demand. At that time I had the honour of using my poor abilities to persuade Lord Long, who introduced that Bill, that it was a great mistake to interfere by legislation with the laws of supply and demand.
    Lieut. - Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: They gave £60,000,000 to the railways.
    Sir F. BANBURY: What has that to do with this Clause?
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: It is another case of interference with the law of supply and demand.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Having damaged the railways, the Government proceeded to make good—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): That has nothing to do with this Clause, the object of which is to give the County Court Judge certain powers.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I was referring to the fact that legislation of a certain kind had led to a lot of trouble. We were told in 1915 that that Act was only to last during the War, but in 1917 it required to be amended, and if hon. Members have watched matters they will have seen that every time a Bill of this sort is passed it requires amendment as soon as it has been in operation a short time. No Bill is going to Settle—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The right hon. Baronet is still a good way from the County Court Judge.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member for Penistone gave us his reason for opposing this Clause. He said the landlord could not calculate. The difficulty

    1225
    is, however, that neither the landlord nor the tenant understands the legislation which has been passed.
    Mr. PRINGLE: May I point out that I was not in the House at the time that legislation was passed? I was out of it and was looking to the right hon. Baronet to watch over my interests.
    Sir F. BANBURY: And I did. If the hon. Gentleman will again retire from the House and leave me to look after his interests, I think both the House and himself will be far better off. What I want to insist upon is that the real reason for the passing of this Clause is the legislation already in existence. It is because we cannot understand that legislation that it is necessary for the County Court Judge to correct errors in the claims sent in. I do not see anything unreasonable in that at all. As a magistrate I have before now, when a summons has come before the Court of which I have been a member, and when it has been found that that summons has been badly drawn, dismissed it and immediately granted another summons properly drawn. Is it not the object of every Judge and every magistrate, and of everyone in a judicial capacity to see that justice is done? It is not necessary, simply because a document is wrongly drawn, to refuse to hear a case. This Clause only allows the case to be heard in order that justice may be done. Another point which has been raised has to deal with the question of retrospection. I have always been opposed to retrospective legislation, but in view of the extraordinary body of legislation which has been introduced in this country it does sometimes necessitate a divergence from one's views. Therefore, although I am very much opposed to retrospective legislation, I see no particular harm in it in this case so long as justice is done. Hon. Members opposite have suggested that one ought to be fair to the landlords. I would suggest that if their opinion of fairness to landlords is embodied in the methods of discussion which have been pursued on this Bill during the last day or two, it is a very extraordinary idea of fairness.
    Mr. HARNEY: I regard this Amendment as of very great importance, and I do not think the Minister of Health really appreciates the significance of what he is doing. To increase rent is really to
    1226
    make a new contract between the landlord and the tenant, and we have heard, in the recent Debates, that the House of Lords found it necessary to invalidate a great number of notices of increase because the necessary steps were not taken to lay the foundation for new tenancies by determining the old. By the Act that was recently passed, this notice of increase is made to effect the purpose of a notice to quit, so that, substantially, the County Court Judge is being given the power to do what never has been done before, namely, to set right what can at all events be treated as a notice to quit. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) said that in his experience these Amendments are often made. Of course they are, and there is no need whatever for this Clause in order to give the County Court Judge the power to make the kind of Amendment to which he refers. There is a general jurisdiction to set right small slips that do not touch the root of the matter in question, and it has, on this particular Act, been specifically decided that, while minor matters can be set right, substantial ones cannot.
    When, therefore, a County Court Judge takes up this Clause and says, "I have to interpret it according to the intention of Parliament," he starts by presuming that Parliament knew the law, and he, there fore, must say to himself that, since Parliament knew that he already had the power to make minor Amendments, and goes out of its way to say expressly that he is to have the new power of supplying omissions and correcting errors, he is bound to construe these words as empowering him absolutely to make a new notice in all particulars. We have set out in the Schedule, not to this Bill, but to the previous Act, an elaborate form of notice. Why have a form embodied in an Act of Parliament, and given full statutory effect, if the result of a Clause like this is really to make it no more effective than if it simply said that the County Court Judge shall have power to give an increase of rent if a letter is written to him? Why have this elaborate notice if it is to be disregarded? The right hon. Gentleman can take it from me that County Court Judges are bound, according to the ordinary canons of construction, and knowing, as I have said that there is in them at all times the

    1227
    power to make small alterations, to regard this as an express instruction to them to make the most vital alterations in the notice. If that be so, why is this notice the Schedule at all?
    Now I come to another matter, which strikes me as being of more importance than, perhaps, the legal one. For a landlord to increase his rent is a somewhat serious thing, and this Parliament has chosen to say that, if he is going to increase the rent, he must comply with certain conditions. Parliament, presumably, was of opinion that the landlord had to mind his p's and q's when he was going to increase his rent, because, dealing as he was with a large number of more of less ignorant people, there was nothing in the world easier for him than, on the chance of the tenant not detecting it, to make out the notice for a larger amount than was due. I have little doubt myself that, if you were to take any given 100 notices of increase, you would be safe in saying that they would be passed by the tenants although 99 of them erred perhaps to the extent of 10s. or 15s. or more on the wrong side. It was just to prevent landlords who were dealing with persons who could not protect themselves from increasing to an undue extent the amount to which these calculations of 25 per cent. here and 15 per cent. there entitled them—to prevent them from taking advantage of that arithmetic in their own favour—that it was provided that a notice should be served not merely saying, as it might have said, "I desire an increase of 40 per cent.," but saying, figure for figure and date for date, how that increase was brought about, so that the tenant might be perfectly clear as to what was being done. Now we are told that all this is to be treated as moonshine, that a landlord can now serve a notice in which he says, "I claim an increase of 40 per cent.": and, if the case goes to a County Court Judge, he says, "Oh, County Court Judge, I know that notice is all wrong, and does not pay the slightest attention to the Schedule, but here is a Section enabling you to do what I did not do for myself."
    It seems to me to be a monstrous innovation. No Act that I have ever read in my experience at the Bar, and that has extended over some time now, has given to a Judge in any circumstances
    1228
    such power as is given in this clause, and given, not to an ordinary Judge, who is dealing with an ordinary case, but given to a County Court Judge in reference to what amounts to the creation of a new tenancy. If there has been one thing sacred in our law, from feudal days onwards, it has been the necessity for accuracy in notices to quit. This notice of intention to increase the rent is in effect also a notice to quit, or you could not get the increase, and still we are told that it can be filled up haphazard in any way whatsoever. The right hon. Gentleman, in answer to an hon. Member on this side, said that there was only one serious point that it was necessary to consider, and that point was this: Suppose that the landlord omits to put in the increase of 25 per cent., as he may, for repairs. There may be some conscientious landlords who know they have not done Ole repairs, and have no intention of doing them, and, therefore, do not put in the 25 per cent. Suppose he omits to put in the 15 per cent., as he may. The tenant gets the notice, and says, "Good landlord, nice kind man! I have now more money in my pocket than I thought I had." But suppose that, two years afterwards, the landlord has a row with the tenant, who may have annoyed him about something, serves him with a summons to pay the back increases, and then goes to the Couny Court and says, "Oh, I am very sorry, but I find I omitted to put in the 25 per cent., or the 15 per cent., as the case may be: will you supply it for me?" The County Court Judge is bound to do so.
    Sir K. WOOD: No.
    Mr. HARNEY: He is not bound to, but he may. I cannot go back at every moment and restate the ground that I hope I have made clear. When I say he is bound to do so, I mean as the result of my previous argument. If my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) were sitting on the County Court bench, clear-headed man as he is, and if he had this Act before him and I were the counsel and said to him, "What right, your Honour, have you to refuse to make this Amendment?" what would his answer be?
    Sir K. WOOD: I should say it was in my entire discretion.
    Mr. HARNEY: But counsel would reply that even the most self-assertive of Judges must exercise a judicial discretion, and the exercise of a judicial discretion is to confine the latitude of his own will to what was the intention of Parliament; and if he has before him an Act which says that this discretion is not to be confined to the ordinary discretion of amendment, but is to go to the extent of supplying errors and omissions. I feel satisfied that whether the hon. Member would do so or not, the great majority of County Court Judges would. The point that I was about to make, when I was interrupted, was this: What is there to prevent a landlord, who when he served the notice had no wish whatever to add these increases, from changing his mind two years afterwards, and going to the County Court Judge and compelling the unfortunate tenant to pay up arrears which the tenant rightly thought were his own money up to that moment? I do think that the effect of this Clause will be to make the tenant pay for the landlord's errors. What right has anyone to suppose that, if a tenant receives a notice only asking him for a certain amount of rent, he has not been forgiven the balance, or that the balance is not going to be insisted upon? Why should he not be entitled to think that he is justified in regulating his domestic budget according to the amount he has to pay, and what a hardship it would be on him if, two years afterwards, the notice upon which he based his financial arrangements is to be altered, and he has to pay that which, if he had been asked at the beginning, he could have paid, but which, when he is asked for it two years afterwards, becomes a wholly impossible hardship? For these reasons, I submit that the Clause in its present form is an entire legislative innovation. Nothing that I know of exists like it in any Act of Parliament, and I am at a loss to understand why landlords, who are, presumably, not grossly ignorant people, should be spoon-fed in this way, and why a special Clause should be put into an Act of Parliament for this reason, and this reason only, that the notice has to be filled up by the landlord class, and that they are by common consent such a stupid and uncultivated class that they would be unable
    1230
    properly to fill in the spaces that are provided in the Schedule actually printed in advance for them.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: I understood, from the interjections made when the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) was speaking, that the defence of this Clause was really founded on the discretion left to the County Court Judge. I submit, with respect, that, when you are dealing with this dangerous doctrine of retrospective legislation, the House should clearly define on what lines it is to go. The Minister, if I understood him rightly, suggested that it might be possible or desirable to alter the form of the words so as to make impossible some of the contingencies set forth by the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Ede), and I think the Minister's own speech at the beginning was rather suggestive that this Clause was going further than be intended. He mentioned an illustration of an undoubted hardship on a landlord who, in his notice, had charged less than he was entitled to charge. If I understood the Minister correctly, he went on to say that, because of some mis-statement in the original notice, the Court had found that the landlord was not entitled to any increase whatever, not even to the smaller amount which he had demanded, because of this mistake; and he referred to the principal Act. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would tell us on what that is based, because, in Clause 3 of the principal Act, it clearly states that if a notice contains any statement or representation which is false or misleading in any material particular, the landlord shall be liable to a penalty. Surely, if the notice demanded less money than the landlord was legally entitled to, the Court would hardly hold that the notice contained statements which were misleading or false, and, therefore, I put it to the Minister that, if all he desires to do is to protect the landlord who, through some oversight, has made a mistake, and because of that is debarred from receiving a lesser sum than he is legally entitled to demand, this Clause is going very much further than is really necessary. I may have misunderstood the Minister, but I am in the recollection of the House, and I think he made that point, that though a landlord had demanded less than he was legally entitled to under the original Act, because of some mis-statement in

    1231
    the demand on any point, he was debarred from any increase whatever.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN indicated assent.
    Mr. THOMSON: That is one matter, but does it require this Clause to do that? Would it not be possible to introduce amending words into Clause 3 which would provide that because of some unintentional misstatement the landlord should not thereby be debarred from receiving a sum which was less than he was legally entitled to if that was the sum he had demanded. I do not know whether I make the point clear but it seems to me that if that is all that was desired it does not require this Clause which may, if left to the Courts, enable the landlord to recover not merely the smaller sum which he has asked, but a larger sum to which he might be entitled if he had not made some misstatement originally. I put it to the Minister whether his own wording does not go much further than to relieve the case of hardship which he gave the House. I cannot but think that if he could meet the matter in that way it would remove some difficulty, though it would not remove the major difficulty of it being retrospective legislation. Surely if you are to have retrospective legislation for the landlord class why not have it for any other class of the community which, wittingly or unwittingly, has made these mistakes? We are on dangerous ground, and as the Clause has been shown possibly to do mare than the Minister really intends, he will be well advised to withdraw it and seek to put in amending words in another place which would do the more limited service which he outlined in his first speech.
    Captain BERKELEY: I hope the Minister will see his way to meet the argument which has been put forward and repeated very often from this side of the House—
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Hear, hear!
    Captain BERKELEY: It has only been repeated because he has not answered it. No one wishes to inflict the repetition of an argument on the House, but if no attention is paid to it and it is substantial, we are entitled to press for an answer. This is an argument of substance, because the effect of the Clause is to make a fundamental change in the law of con-
    1232
    tracts. If I enter into a continuing contract for a supply month by month, let us say of coal, to another person, and if I make a mistake in the contract and agree to supply at a price which is not going to be profitable, I can be kept to my contract, and if I break it damages can be recovered against me. The effect of this notice of increase is only to supplement a contract entered into between landlord and tenant. The landlord and tenant have agreed on a certain rent. Under the provisions of the Act the landlord is entitled to increase his rent. He decides upon an increase, and puts it in the form. That becomes, as it were, an annex to the original contract, and if you make it possible for the landlord, if he subsequently thinks he has not been quite fair to himself, to go to the County Court and have the contract amended, then it is perfectly just to say you are introducing class legislation, not in the sense that you are setting off dukes and earls on the one hand against working men on the other, but in this sense, that for the benefit of certain classes of persons who have entered into particular contracts you are modifying the existing contract law, which you are not prepared to do, and the House of Commons would hesitate very seriously in doing, for other contracting classes.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: That is exactly what the whole Bill does from beginning to end.
    Captain BERKELEY: That is true, but the reason for which the contract law has been amended is not in the interest of classes, but to meet a vital existing deficiency in the State. It is because of the shortage of houses. If the houses existed it would not be necessary to indulge in this kind of legislation, which I regret as much as the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I am sure all hon. Members regret the necessity of having to interfere with what the right hon. Baronet referred to as the law of supply and demand. But because it is necessary to do that in the big sense of making provision for the shortage of houses, it is not in the least necessary to introduce legislation in favour of one particular class of person to enter into contracts which you are not prepared to give other people who enter into contracts. The hon. Member for Woolwich referred very movingly to the hard case of the landlord who made a mistake in his percentage. I do not

    1233
    really think it was a point of great substance. Equity is for those who keep their eyes open for their interests and not for those who go to sleep on their rights. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make a serious reply to this contention of the modification of the contract law, which we have not put forward in the least for the purpose of prolonging the Debate, but merely to point out what we think is an unfortunate and, I believe, quite unintended effect of the Clause.
    Mr. GERALD HURST: I rise to deal with two fallacies to which hon. Members opposite have given expression. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) dilated at some length on the difficulty of a County Court Judge in dealing with the question of what Parliament intended by this Section. He knows perfectly well that no Judge would ever
    deal with an issue of this sort in that way, because the issue is not what Parliament intended but what the actual language of the Section means, so that that point is absolutely irrelevant. The other fallacy to which hon. Members have given expression is the fear that the phrase "errors and omissions" might be used to cover material flaws and omissions. There is no need for that fear, because there is high judicial authority that the expression "errors and omissions" must be intended and considered to cover small immaterial errors and inaccuracies, and not reckless and careless mistakes and omissions of a large type. That fear is entirely misconceived.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 251; Noes, 156.

    Division No. 281.]

    AYES.

    [5.56 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Churchman, Sir Arthur

    Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)

    Clayton, G. C.

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)

    Apsley, Lord

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Halstead, Major D.

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Sir Martin

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.

    Cope, Major William

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

    Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)

    Harrison, F. C.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

    Harvey, Major S. E.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

    Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Becker, Harry

    Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)

    Herbert, S. (Scarborough)

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

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Hiley, Sir Ernest

    Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

    Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)

    Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Berry, Sir George

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Hood, Sir Joseph

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Dixon, Capt. H. (Belfast, E.)

    Houfton, John Plowright

    Blundell, F. N.

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

    Hughes, Collingwood

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Brass, Captain W.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Ellis, R. G.

    Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)

    Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)

    England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Bruford, R.

    Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)

    Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Eyres-Monsell Com. Rt. Hon. Bolton M.

    Kelley, Major Sir Frederick A.

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.

    King, Capt. Henry Douglas

    Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.

    Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.)

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Lever, Sir Arthur L.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Button, H. S.

    Furness, G. J.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Cadogan, Major Edward

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Lorden, John William

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    Gardiner, James

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Cassels, J. D.

    Garland, C. S.

    Lougher, L.

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Gates, Percy

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.

    Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

    Lumley, L. R.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Privett, F. J.

    Stanley, Lord

    Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

    Raeburn, Sir William H.

    Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)

    Manville, Edward

    Raine, W.

    Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth

    Margesson, H. D. R.

    Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

    Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)

    Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Mercer, Colonel H.

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Reynolds, W. G. W.

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

    Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.

    Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Molloy, Major L. G. S.

    Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A. C. (Honiton)

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Murchison, C. K.

    Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W)

    Tubbs, S. W.

    Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

    Rogerson, Capt. J. E.

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Wallace, Captain E.

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

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

    Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

    Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Wells, S. R.

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Russell, William (Bolton)

    Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

    Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

    Winterton, Earl

    Parker, Owen (Kettering)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Wise, Frederick

    Pease, William Edwin

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

    Penny, Frederick George

    Shipwright, Captain D.

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

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.

    Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Singleton, J. E.

    Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

    Peto, Basil E.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Yerburgh, R. D. T.

    Pielou, D. P.

    Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

    Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss)

    Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

    the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Middleton, G.

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Gray, Frank (Oxford)

    Millar, J. D.

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Morris, Harold

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Attlee, C. R.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Muir, John W.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Groves, T.

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Barnes, A.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

    Guest, Hon. C. H. (Bristol, N.)

    Newbold, J. T. W.

    Batey, Joseph

    Guthrie, Thomas Maule

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Paling, W.

    Berkeley, Captain Reginald

    Hancock, John George

    Parker, H. (Hanley)

    Bonwick, A.

    Hardie, George D.

    Phillipps, Vivian

    Briant, Frank

    Harney, E. A.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Broad, F. A.

    Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)

    Potts, John S.

    Bromfield, William

    Hayday, Arthur

    Pringle, W. M. R.

    Brotherton, J.

    Herriotts, J.

    Rae, Sir Henry N.

    Buckie, J.

    Hill, A.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Burgess, S.

    Hillary, A. E.

    Riley, Ben

    Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Ritson, J.

    Buxton, Charles (Accrington)

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Roberts, C. H. (Derby)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

    Chapple, W. A.

    Irving, Dan

    Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Rose, Frank H.

    Clarke, Sir E. C.

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Saklatvala, S.

    Collins, Pat (Walsall)

    Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Sexton, James

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

    Darbishire, C. W.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Shinwell, Emanuel

    Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Lansbury, George

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lawson, John James

    Simpson, J. Hope

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Leach, W.

    Sinclair, Sir A.

    Duffy, T. Gavan

    Lee, F.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Duncan, C.

    Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)

    Smillie, Robert

    Dunnico, H.

    Linfield, F. C.

    Smith, T. (Pontefract)

    Ede, James Chuter

    Lowth, T.

    Snowden, Philip

    Edge, Captain Sir William

    Lunn, William

    Spoor, B. G.

    Edmonds, G.

    Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)

    M'Entee, V. L.

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)

    McLaren, Andrew

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

    Fairbairn, R. R.

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West

    Falconer, J.

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)

    Foot, Isaac

    Marshall, Sir Arthur H.

    Thornton, M.

    Gosling, Harry

    Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'd'ne, E.)

    Trevelyan, C. P.

    1236

    1237

    Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Wintringham, Margaret

    Warne, G. H.

    White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Whiteley, W.

    Wright, W.

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Weir, L. M.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Westwood J.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Mr. Ammon and Mr. Mosley.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Permitted increases of rent of sub-tenancies.)
    (1) Where part of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies is lawfully sub-let, and the part so sub-let is also a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies then in addition to any increases permitted by paragraphs (a) to (e) of Subsection (1) of Section two of the principal Act, an amount not exceeding ten per cent. of the net rent of the dwelling-house comprised in the sub-tenancy shall be deemed to be a permitted increase in the case of that dwelling-house, and an amount equivalent to five per cent. of the net rent of the dwelling-house comprised in the sub-tenancy shall be deemed to be a permitted increase in the case of the dwelling-house comprised in the tenancy.

    (2) In Sub-section (6) of Section two of the principal Act the expression "landlord" shall, in relation to a sub-tenancy, be taken to include not only the person who is immediate landlord of the sub-tenant, but also the landlord of that person.

    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (1).
    The intention of this Sub-section is to permit a further increase of rent over and above the 40 per cent. of permitted increase in the Act of 1920. The Minister may tell me, as he told me upstairs in Committee, that this Sub-section is based upon the Report of the Onslow Committee, but I would point out that the majority were not agreed. There was a good deal of difference exhibited in the Committee with regard to the question of permitting any further increase by the chief tenant or superior tenant for sub-letting. The ground that was put forward by some witnesses was that the house-owner and the chief tenant or superior tenant were entitled to get some extra rent to be divided between them for the inconvenience and the extra wear and tear entailed by more than one family living in the premises.
    I wish to draw attention to the very dangerous and disastrous consequences that may follow by making it possible for families to be congregated in houses of this kind, thereby leading to overcrowding. It was on that ground that the minority members of the Committee resisted very strongly the proposal with
    1238
    regard to sub-tenancies. It was admitted even by the majority that the already permitted increase of 40 per cent. was more than the extra cost of materials and wages, which were very high. They have been very materially reduced. Some of the witnesses said that both wages and materials were down more than 50 per cent. Those who signed the Majority Report, and those who refused to sign, made it abundantly clear that they were satisfied that the 40 per cent. already granted, and which is continued in this Bill, was more than sufficient tee cover the extra wear and tear upon the premises where the families were two or three in number.
    The householders or the houseowners are exceedingly well met when they continue to receive their 40 per cent. increase, and if they are allowed to put on another 10 per cent. in respect of houses that are occupied by two or more families, it will be very unreasonable and unfair. It is admitted that houses which were costing at the time the Committee sat £800 to £900 are now being built for £420, and houses that were costing between £600 and £700 are being built for £300. The hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) shakes his head, but I have seen the contracts being placed and the houses being built. I was a member of the Committee, and I know what the evidence was. I knew where the houses were that were being built, and the other houses are being built on the sites to-day at a much cheaper price. I hope the Minister will see his way to leave out this Subsection.
    Mr. AMMON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I do not think the full effect of the Subsection can be appreciated. Within a few weeks the sub-tenant will find an increase of another 10 per cent. put upon him, in addition to the 40 per cent., making 50 per cent. altogether. These buildings that are let in sub-tenancies are in a wholly different position from other houses. There are whole districts in Kentish Town, Lambeth, Islington, Hackney, Shoreditch, and the poorer districts, where these houses are let in sub-tenancies, and the

    1239
    rent has always been calculated on a higher level, having regard to the additional wear and tear and the additional inconvenience of having more than one family in the houses. These high rents have already had the increase of 40 per cent. put upon them, and there is no case for a further increase under conditions such as these. There is a great deal of difference in houses that were let prior to the War in sub-tenancies, and those which are being sub-let now, but which were not originally built for being so inhabited.
    On the ground that the landlords have had more than their share, I ask that this additional increase be not permitted. The 40 per cent. increase was largely given on the understanding that there should be 15 per cent. increase on the net rent, and 25 per cent. increase in respect of repairs, taking into consideration that the cost of repairs amounted to 150 per cent. over and above 1914 prices. The position now is that the cost of repairs has fallen to 80 per cent. That being so, the increase of 26 per cent. of the gross rent should more than meet every claim that the landlord may have in this particular respect. I hope that the Minister will try to see the matter from that point of view. If we take the rent in 1914 as £120, the net rent being £100, and £20 being calculated for repairs, that house receives another 15 per cent. in 1920 as the increase on the net rent and an addition allowed for the repairs. The position now is that these people, as the cost of repairs has fallen to 80 per cent., have still the 15 per cent. on the net rent, and an additional amount allowed to meet the increased cost of repairs, bringing the total up to £151, compared with £120 in 1914.
    Clause 6 assumes that a sub-let house would cost more for repairs than a house let as a whole. If it costs, say, 25 per cent. more, I suggest that the landlord's 40 per cent. is more than met by the provision already made. Still taking the gross rent in 1914 as £120, and allowing £20 for repairs in 1914, if sub-let £100 and £25 for repairs, or a total of £125; in 1923 the position is that there has been added 15 per cent. on the net rents, 80 per cent. being allowed for repairs, giving an additional £45, which gives £160 as the rent, as against £120 in 1914.
    1240
    The increase of 33⅓ per cent. would more than meet the cost of repairs. I suggest that there is no case made out on the figures for the increase of 50 per cent. for houses sub-let since 1914, and there is certainly no case in principle for it. Houses sub-let were always let at a higher rent because of the additional wear and tear and the additional inconvenience that arises. To put on this additional 10 per cent., over and above the 40 per cent., is to impose another 10 per cent. on tenants who, in the main, are the poorest type of tenants. On the other hand, the landlord has his 15 per cent., and, having regard to the very considerable fall in the cost of repairs—150 per cent. in 1920 over 1914, as against 80 per cent. now—it is making a present that is far too generous.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Many of the observations of the last speaker have been directed, not to the Amendment under discussion, but to an Amendment in his own name which is not now before the House. The Mover of the Amendment had two arguments. The first was that the landlord was already getting so large an increase of rent that it was not fair to give him anything more. I submit that that is an entirely irrelevant argument. We have already had a long discussion on the general question whether the permitted increase of rent should be allowed to remain or should be reduced. All the arguments that have been used on this Amendment are really directed to that general question. What we have to consider now is the question whether, where premises are sublet, it is fair that some extra rent should be demanded from the sub-tenant and divided between the tenant and the landlord. It is quite true that the Clause here is based on the recommendations of the majority of the Onslow Committee. They pointed out that there is a special wear and tear of buildings when they are sublet, and that the cost to the landlord is thereby increased. That is the foundation of the claim on behalf of the landlord that he should share in the increase of rent which will be permitted under this Clause. What is the tenant's claim? It is of a slightly different kind, but it was admitted by the last speaker that the tenant is put to special inconvenience by the fact that part of his premises is sublet and that people live in such close proximity to

    1241
    him. That was the whole case put by the Onslow Committee, and in respect of which they recommended a provision similar to that in the Bill. I come now to the second argument of the Mover of the Amendment. He says he is against this provision, because it will lead to overcrowding. His argument was that the more you charge for premises the more people are likely to crowd into them. I should have thought that the reverse was the case.
    Lieut. - Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: When wages are low it will not permit people to pay a high rent for a house, and they sub-let.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: An increase of rent does not cause people to flock into houses. An increase of rent cannot lead to overcrowding. The hon. and gallant Member must have some confusion in his mind on the matter.
    Lieut. - Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: I did not develop that argument because I thought that it was apparent to everyone. If the rent of a house is increased there is an inducement for the tenant to get two or three families into the house in order to share the rent.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid that the explanation will not make the matter any clearer to the House. What is the hon. and gallant Member's position? If these premises are sub-let a higher rent will be charged. Surely that is a hindrance to a sub-tenant taking the premises. I do not think there is much in this matter of overcrowding, which is not due to the rent being a little more or a little less but primarily due to the fact that there is a shortage of houses. When we have the shortage made up the overcrowding will no longer take place. It is true that if there was a sufficiency of houses the question of wages or the amount that a tenant can afford to spend upon rent may have something to do with his decision whether he shall go into sublet premises or take a house for himself. This matter was considered in Committee at some length. The Committee came to the conclusion that the Clause should be retained, and I hope that the House will support them in that view.
    Captain W. BENN: First of all we should remember in dealing with this Amendment, that we are dealing with the
    1242
    poorest class of tenants, people who have to occupy, to the extent of two or three families, one house and a small house at that—a condition of affairs which no Minister of Health can contemplate with satisfaction. The Minister has not used one argument which was used by the Onslow Committee and quoted upstairs, namely, that structural alterations have to be made which would justify an increase of rent. It seems to me that the Onslow Committee went wrong at that point, inasmuch as there is already, under the principal Act, a permission to increase the rent up to a certain percentage of the cost of structural alterations. On that point they seem to have overlooked the provisions of the principal Act. The Minister of Health today has used two arguments. The first is that we have already decided that 40 per cent. is a reasonable increase in the ordinary rent, and therefore that it is logical in these particular and special cases to permit a further increase. But on this side of the House many of us deny that in all cases 40 per cent. is a reasonable increase. We hold that it is an unreasonable increase in some cases, and that it is no argument for permitting a further unreasonable increase now. If the 40 per cent. makes a sufficient allowance for the additional cost which is involved in these sub-tenancies, surely that is an argument for not making any further addition to the 40 per cent. The second point of the Minister of Health I was totally at a loss to understand. Surely if rents are increased that promotes overcrowding. People with a limited income have to pay what rent they can afford to pay. If you raise the rent of a house by one-third it might be necessary to put three families into that house instead of two, because the income of the three families would be required to pay the landlord's rent. The argument of the Minister on this point struck me with amazement. The Amendment deserves the support of the House.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The question is sufficiently serious to deserve some further attention. The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt at all adequately with the points put before him. In the first place, he believes that the Majority Report of the Onslow Committee must be taken as conclusive on this matter. In that relation it is only fair to observe that in many

    1243
    other important matters with which this Bill deals the Onslow Committee's Report has been been turned down. The Onslow Report made very different recommendations in regard to decontrol from those which the Government have been forced to adopt. The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled simply to say that the matter is concluded because the Onslow Committee have so reported. The question really is whether the basis upon which the Onslow Committee came to this decision is a sound basis or not. Is there any justification in the fact that a house is sub-let in enabling, first of all, the main landlord to obtain a higher increase of rent than he otherwise would have, and in allowing the tenant himself, in the position of a landlord, to exact more from the sub-tenant?
    There are many cases in which you have sub-tenancies, where there would be less wear and tear than if you had one family occupying the house. You may suppose a case where a tenant has accepted as his sub-tenants a newly married couple and, in that case, there is likely to be less wear and tear than in a case where the house is occupied by a tenant with a very large family. Consequently, the basis of this differentiation is altogether unsound, and we should look at the matter from the wider point of view and ask whether, under existing conditions, there is any case at all for allowing a further increase of rent. It is admitted on the Ministerial side that the increases permitted under the principal Act were intended to be adequate to cover the various charges which then fell upon the owner in respect of repairs and so forth. It is now admitted that those increases are maintained in spite of a fall in costs and there can be no ground for a further increase such as is now suggested in this Clause. I know the hon. Baronet the Member for Dumbartonshire (Sir W. Raeburn) has a different idea with regard to this matter of sub-letting and he says there has been a great deal of profiteering.
    Sir WILLIAM RAEBURN: I will express my views upon that subject, if I get an opportunity.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I refer to what the hon. Baronet has already said in connection with the new Clause, which he moved as an Amendment to this Bill. The
    1244
    justification which he put forward was, that there had been an enormous amount of profiteering in regard to sub-tenancies, and that, as a matter of fact, the tenant had been able to charge increases of rent far beyond anything contemplated or permitted by the principal Act. The hon. Baronet's idea was, that the main landlord should be entitled to recoup himself to some extent for that profiteering. The Clause as it stands now does not deal with that situation at all. It means you are going to encourage the profiteers to charge more. If there has been profiteering as is alleged, you are going to allow the profiteer to charge 10 per cent. more and encourage the principal landlord to connive at that profiteering by allowing him to have a share of the loot. The Clause, as it stands, says not only is the tenant entitled to charge his sub-tenant on the increases permitted in paragraphs (a) to (e) of Sub-section (1), Section 2 of the principal Act, but he is to be entitled to charge 10 per cent. more of the net rent of the dwelling-house. Net rent is defined in the principal Act, and it is very important we should bear in mind exactly what that definition is. Paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the principal Act states:
    "The expression 'net rent' means where the landlord at the time by reference to which the standard rent is calculated, paid the rates chargeable on, or which but for the provisions of any Act would be chargeable on the occupier, the standard rent less the amount of such rates, and in any other case the standard rent."
    To disengage that paragraph from the verbiage with which it is overloaded the expression "net rent" is meant to imply the standard rent less the amount of such rates as would be paid in respect of the house. Then we come to the expression "standard rent" which means the rent at which the house was let on the 3rd of August, 1914, or if it was not then let the rent at which it was last let before that date, or in the case of a dwelling-house first let after the 3rd of August, 1914, the rent at which it was first let. The great majority of the cases of these sub-tenancies have arisen since 3rd August, 1914. It is precisely because there was no standard rent in relation to these sub-tenancies as there was in regard to other tenancies, that there has been the profiteering to which the hon. Baronet objects. Consequently, the net rent which

    1245
    we have for the purposes of this Clause is really a profiteering rent. It is undoubtedly true that from 1915 onwards, in all these cases where sub-tenancies had become rife, you had profiteering going on in an increasing degree. What the Government is asking the House to do under this Clause is to sanction all the profiteering since 1915 and to say to the profiteer, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant; take another 10 per cent." I do not think that is a proposition to which the House ought to assent, and I do not think that is what the hon. Baronet would consider right.
    I could understand having recourse to the reference committees provided under Part II because you have here no standard rent which is of any assistance in determining the just value of the sub-tenancy. You are on a profiteering basis in relation to the net rent here. You say: "As there has been profiteering in the past, let us put on another 10 per cent., and, in order to reconcile the principal landlord to the idea of his tenants making money, let him have 5 per cent. extra." Not only is this Clause not going to discourage profiteering, but it is going to continue and encourage and increase profiteering, and, therefore, it is contrary to the whole spirit and intention of the Rent Restrictions Acts. The Minister said overcrowding has no relevancy to this question, and that the fact that there were larger numbers of sub-tenancies now was not a matter that the House should have in mind when deciding the merits of this particular Clause. I submit that is a very important matter. Everybody agrees that these sub-tenancies are enormously increasing, firstly, because of the failure of two Governments to supply houses, and, secondly, because of the great fall in wages during the last two years. Had more houses been built at a reasonable rent, there would not have been so many sub-tenancies, and, owing to the fall in wages, large numbers who otherwise would have separate houses are compelled by their means to go into sub-let houses. In relation to these poor people, compelled by privation to live under overcrowded conditions, you further penalise them by increasing their rents under this Bill. On both these grounds it is unfair to allow this additional charge.
    I put forward a further objection to the Clause. We have the benefit of the
    1246
    assistance this afternoon of the hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir Leslie Scott), and I suggest to him that some clearer way might have been found of stating the Government's intentions than this Subsection. It is almost impossible to conceive the selection of any words less appropriate to the matter. I read this Sub-section at least four times before I could clearly understand what the Government intended to do, and certain legal friends of mine have found themselves equally embarrassed in dealing with it. If you are enacting a Clause which creates such difficulty to people who have had some legal training, you are going to create considerable embarrassment among those people who are affected and who have not any legal trading. That is an important matter from the point of view of landlords, tenants and sub-tenants. We heard a great deal on an earlier Amendment about poor people who did not know how to fill up notices. How will the people affected know their rights under this Clause? How will they know what is to be "deemed to be the permitted increase"? Why "deemed"? Why introduce these strange words at all? Then there is the expression "the permitted increase in the case of a dwelling house comprised in the sub-tenancy." From the point of view of the layman, what is the dwelling house comprised in the sub-tenancy?
    I have already read to the House the provision relating to net rent, and I ask how many people can clearly understand net rent as defined in the principal Act? The people immediately affected will have the greatest difficulty in knowing what they are entitled to under this Clause, and there are bound to be mistakes and if there are mistakes there will inevitably be litigation. Then you will have the Courts of Law interpreting a Clause which is admittedly as obscure as a Clause could be drawn. Nobody knows what the interpretation will be. You have here a Clause which combines in itself nearly every defect which a Clause can have. It is bad on the merits because there is no case for it arising out of the special conditions of sub-letting at the present time, and there is no excuse for giving permission further to increase rents. It is bad on the merits because it will encourage and increase overcrowding, and it is bad in point of form,

    1247
    because it is so obscure that those affected will not understand it, and it gives rise to the greatest risks as to the final interpretation which the Courts will place upon it.
    Sir W. RAEBURN: Knowing as I do the amount of work which is still before the House I have no intention of taking up too much time in replying to hon. Members opposite, but I am bound to make some reply to some of the statements which have been made. We have only had one hon. Member from Scotland taking part in the Debate, but he does not seem to know much about our Scottish practice in these matters when he talks about a 40 per cent. increase having been allowed. May I say, for the information of the House, that the 47½ per cent. increase has been whittled down to 13½ per cent. in Scotland? The landlord pays his tenant's flat rates and then is supposed to recover them. The corporation and the authorities look to the landlord for the rates, and he gets 2½ per cent. for the agreeable job of recovering them from the tenants. Then the landlord has to pay rates on his ownership, which is not the case in England. Look at the advances that have taken place. Look at the rate at which these rates have gone up—and we are faced now in Glasgow with another 6d. in the £, I understand, for education—so that that has brought the total increase that the Scottish landlord can get down from 47½ per cent. to 13½ per cent., out of which he has to pay his repairs, and other things. My hon. Friend says that the repairs are now down to a cost of 80 per cent. above pre-War. I have had a good deal to do with repairs lately, and I know that when I have asked my contractors, both in Surrey here and in Dumbartonshire, I can get no quotations less than 110 per cent. above pre-War. I do not know whether or not some fortunate people may have got it down to 80 per cent., but I have not been able to do so.
    To return to the hon. Member who used to represent a constituency in Glasgow, but who now speaks for an English constituency, I knew very well that he would trot out this argument. He says that I have been up against profiteering, but that I am now supporting the Government in encouraging profiteering, in
    1248
    licensing profiteering. He says I have said, "It is such a good thing that now we will legalise it and give the landlord his share of it." That is not the basis upon which this Clause is here at all. Any of us, especially those who have had their houses sublet by their tenants, know the extra wear and tear to which those houses are subjected when sublet, and I do not think the extra 5 per cent. allowed the landlord is more than trifling. It is nonsense to talk about this as an encouragement to overcrowding. Anyone who has been watching this subletting operation knows what exorbitant rents those tenants have charged their tenants. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) last night said that the worst tyrants were the tenants rather than the landlords, and he is right. I quoted formerly the great case of Kerr v. Bryde, in which Bryde had two rooms, and sublet one at more rent than he was paying, or, rather, that he did not pay, but at more rent than he was due his landlord for the whole house.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Under this Clause he could charge 10 per cent. more.
    Sir W. RAEBURN: It was not there a case of overcrowding. This man and his wife who took the sublet needed a house, and they had to take what Bryde was pleased to charge, and he charged them what I have said. What I regret is that it has not been possible for the Government to bring in some restrictions on subletting. No landlord, or any friend of mine, at least, wants to see a house sublet by his tenant to a family of six, seven or eight people. He wants it put a stop to, and in a great many cases we put in our leases or lets that there is to be no subletting, but where there is no such stipulation we have no control whatever over what the tenant gets in that way. I know the difficulty of preventing it by legislation, because there is a very large business done in letting houses for the summer months, and in subletting, and I can quite understand that there was an insuperable difficulty in the way of the Government, in a temporary Measure like this, dealing with that question.
    It is not on account of the greed of the landlords that the Government are doing this. They are giving a very inadequate provision in many cases, and saying that when a tenant does sublet and is getting a benefit thereby, the landlord should

    1249
    have something for the extra work entailed of putting the house in repair, and so on. Therefore, I have satisfaction in supporting this Clause. Let us disabuse our minds entirely of the belief that the landlords of Scotland, at any rate, are asking for an increase of rent. As I have said, the figures I have got show that this whole increase is 13½ per cent.
    Mr. SHINWELL: The hon. Baronet the Member for Dumbartonshire (Sir W. Raeburn) has been at great pains to prove to the House that the landlords in Scotland in particular have has the 40 per cent. increase of rent whittled down to 13½ per cent., but I am bound to say that he has submitted no evidence to justify that statement. With regard to the question of rating in Scotland, he forgot to tell the House that the rating system is precisely similar to that which was in operation before these Acts were passed, and, therefore, the landlord is in no worse position now, in that regard, than he was then. It is true that the landlords in Scotland pay a portion of the rates, but they have done so prior to the passing of these Acts, and I cannot see at all how they suffer because of any provisions of the Acts which we are now discussing.
    Sir W. RAEBURN: May I point out the tremendous rise in the rates?
    Mr. SHINWELL: The illustration which the hon. Baronet gave of Glasgow was the worst possible illustration he could have given, because there has been no rise at all in the rates in Glasgow, although there has undoubtedly been a very serious increase in the valuation, which may have meant a rise of some kind. As a matter of fact, Glasgow is not so heavily rated as are a very large number of other industrial centres throughout the country. The question of rating in Scotland and the differential treatment as between landlord and tenant in this connection appear to be somewhat irrelevant to the matter under review, however, and I want to approach it from the point of view upon which I thought the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) was about to embark, but which he stopped short of doing. I do so with great diffidence, because it seems to me to involve a clear understanding of the Clause we are now discussing. I join at
    1250
    once with the hon. Member for Penistone in appealing for clarity in provisions which affect so very large a number of people. What is a sub-tenancy? Presumably it is the occupation of a portion of a house which in full is occupied by a tenant.
    7.0 P.M.
    Let us assume a case of a dwelling-house with 12 or 15 rooms, occupied by a tenant-in-chief, but sub-let, not to one sub-tenant with, say, a large family, because I observe that the hon. Baronet the Member for Dumbartonshire does not care at all for any encumbrances of that kind. They were all very well in the days before the War, but to have children nowadays seems to be a serious disadvantage. You have your dwelling-house, and you sub-let, not to one tenant, but to three or four young married couples, and they live, we will say, one couple in two rooms, another in three rooms, and another couple in four rooms, and so on. What is the position of those sub-tenants under this particular Clause? Does it mean that a 10 per cent. increase is placed on the complete tenancy, which is apportioned between the various sub-tenants, 5 per cent. of which goes to the landlord, or does it mean that each particular subtenant pays a 10 per cent. increase over the increases already provided for, 5 per cent. of which goes in each case to the landlord? I am justified in assuming that the latter is the correct view, because the Clause says:
    "Where part of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies is lawfully sub-let, and the part so sub-let is also a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies.… an amount not exceeding 10 per cent. of the net rent of the dwelling-house comprised in the sub-tenancy."
    and so on. What is a "dwelling-house comprised in the sub-tenancy"? Surely a dwelling-house comprised in the sub-tenancy is each part of the dwelling-house occupied by a sub-tenant. And so, as I say, you may have four, or five, or a whole series of sub-tenants, all living in separate rooms in a dwelling-house of 12, 15, or 20 rooms. To digress for a moment, let me say that you are going to perpetuate a system with which I am sure the hon. Baronet the Member for Dumbartonshire is perfectly familiar, since he knows so much about Glasgow, which obtains in the Cowcaddens district of Glasgow, where the poor people all pay very high rents under what is known as a sub-letting system, which is a disgrace to

    1251
    civilisation. That is, however, a social question. I am concerned with explaining to the tenant, and to the sub-tenant, and, for that matter, to the landlord, what is their precise position in this matter. My submission is, with very great respect to the draftsman of this Clause and the right hon. Gentleman himself, that the Clause is far from clear, and that, as at present drafted, it would appear to be that there is to be, not merely a 10 per cent. increase—which may or may not be legitimate or judicious under the circumstances—5 per cent. of which goes to the landlord and 5 per cent. to the tenant-in-chief, but a whole series of 10 per cents. and 5 per cents. spread over a whole series of subtenants. That is my submission, and I ask that the right hon. Gentleman should face that issue as squarely as he possibly can. May I deal with a question which has given rise to some controversy, namely, whether the increase in rent, whether it be 10 per cent. as such, or a series of 10 per cents., which will lead to overcrowding or not? My view is that it is a very great inducement indeed to a landlord and to a tenant-in-chief to sub-let a dwelling-house if, by that means, there are to be derived greater emoluments from the possession of the house. They would much rather let the house to a series of tenants if greater profits are to be derived from that process than retain the house for one tenant or, say, a tenant and a subtenant, if there is no advantage to be derived by doing so. I submit that you are going to perpetuate a bad system, and to intensify overcrowding, and that you are not explaining to those chiefly concerned what is their precise legal position in the matter.
    Mr. HARNEY: I, in common with a great number of others, start with the main difficulty of really understanding what the Clause means. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell the House if this is right. I understand that if there is a tenant and he has sub-tenants, just because he has sub-tenants he can start straight away and add 10 per cent. to the rent of each of those sub-tenants. Also, I understand that just because there are sub-tenants, and the tenant is therefore entitled to increase their rent by this 10 per cent., the landlord is also, by that fact, entitled to increase the rent he receives, not by half of what the tenant
    1252
    receives from one sub-tenant, but by the accumulated halves of what the tenant receives from all his sub-tenants. That seems to me to be the literal construction of the Clause.
    The first question I ask is this: What is the object in view? Is the reason, as was put by the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Sir W. Raeburn), because the landlord is subjected to great expense because of repairs, etc., and because he is subjected to great risks by reason of the fact that the tenant may put in an unruly sub-tenant? If that were the object I should have expected to see the compensation in the way of increased rent given to the landlord. I certainly am surprised to see the landlord being compensated for this extra cost and extra risk by the person who let him in for it, namely, the tenant, who is receiving 10 per cent., while the landlord is only receiving 5 per Cent. It certainly is an enigma. I think the only other answer is that it is desirable to encourage tenants further to sub-let. Upon what material has that desire arisen? Has it been found that the tenants at the present moment, without getting this increase at all, have been letting and sub-letting? I understood that one of the complaints against the Act, as it at present works, is that, there is too much sub-letting and too much profiteering. We are now told, however, "because sub-letting is contrary to the policy of the Act, and because profiteering is to be condemned, therefore we will pass this Clause, which encourages a bad thing—sub-letting—and gives 10 per cent. more to the profiteer." That is how it stands.
    There is a third matter to which I would direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. The 10 per cent. increase is to the net rent. I can see a great deal of work for lawyers as to what is meant by the "net rent." As the law at present stands, where there was a dwelling-house cut up into apartments after the passing of the original Act, then the net rent would be the standard rent of the dwelling house, and the County Court Judge would apportionate it to the various apartments. Where, however, a house does not answer to that description, as a great number of houses now do not, I should take the net rent to be—there is no other way of getting at it—the actual rent that the tenant

    1253
    receives from the sub-tenant. If that rent is 20 per cent., or 30 or 40 per cent. higher than it should be, the only effect of the Clause is to add the 10 per cent. to that amount. There is one other point. I understand that if a tenant has cut up his dwelling-house into three floors—floors A, B, and C—and sub-lets floor A, he is regarded by 10 per cent. If he sub-lets floor B, he is regarded by another 10 per cent.; but if he sublets floors A, B, and C, so far from being rewarded, he is turned out. That is an anomaly which is rather difficult to answer. The only conceivable answer to it is this—and here comes in the question of overcrowding—"We desire to discourage tenants from subletting the whole house, because that is proof that they really do not want the house, and they are merely speculating; but we wish to encourage tenants to sub-let as much as they possibly can, screwing themselves into one room, and by that means affording accommodation by multiplying overcrowding." There can be no other way out of it. If the desire be not to multiply overcrowding, why do you place a premium on a tenant occupying one room himself, and letting out as many of the other rooms as he can? The more he lets out, and the more people he crowds into that house, the bigger is to be his reward. For all those reasons, I think the Clause is, to begin with, very meaningless. When, by an operation of the brain, you do discover some real substance in the Clause, it drives us to credit the Government with objects in justification of which they have given no reasons whatever.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps I ought to make some reply to the speeches of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell), who raised a very specific, and, I quite admit, a very important point. The point that was raised, and which was, I think, particularly developed by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, was, how will the standard rent, or the net rent, of a sub-tenancy be determined? The hon. Member for Linlithgow suggested that there were two ways in which it might be determined. One way would be an apportionment of the rent of the whole dwelling-house, that part of the rent being appropriated to the sub-tenancy which was appropriate
    1254
    to the size or proportion which that sub-tenancy bore to the whole tenancy; and another way would be to treat the sub-tenancy as a separate dwelling-house, with a standard, or net rent, of its own. He read the Rent Clause to mean the latter way, but if he will refer to the Report of the Onslow Committee, from which I will quote, on page 18, he will see that the passage, which deals with this particular subject and upon which this Clause was based, begins as follows:
    "It is also an undoubted fact that tenants who sub-let part of their house do so to get more than the apportioned value of the part sub-let in order to compensate themselves for the inconvenience which cannot be separated from sub-letting."
    That clearly shows that in the minds of the Onslow Committee—who, of course, were giving a great deal of attention to this matter, and were having much evidence before them, and who, I think we may suppose, were well acquainted with the details of it—the net rent of the sub-tenancy was the apportioned amount of the total rent of the whole dwelling-house.
    Mr. SHINWELL: If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for interrupting, I should like to point out that I had that quotation to which he referred before me. May I point out to him that it only makes reference to a tenant, and to one sub-tenant. It does not refer to sub-tenants, but only to a sub-tenant, and it obviously implies the sub-letting of a part of a house to one sub-tenant, and not to a number.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not quite follow why that should make any difference. If there were more than one sub-tenancy there would be an apportioned value to each sub-tenancy, and the total rent of the whole dwelling-house would be sub-divided among the different sub-tenancies, giving the proper proportion to each, according to the amount of space taken up. I do not see that that makes any difference. It might very well be said that those words which I have quoted, although they show what was in the minds of the Onslow Committee, need not necessarily be taken as the last word on the subject, since they are not a judicial pronouncement, and, of course, that is so. I have an idea that there is a case recorded, on appeal, which finally decided this matter, and in the same

    1255
    sense as the Onslow Committee had in their minds. I tried to get the case before the House, but unfortunately I have not been able to get it here. I have it in my mind, however, that that would be the way in which the net rent of the sub-tenancies would be determined. If that be so, then the particular objection—which I can quite recognise to be a serious objection—to the Clause, namely, that it gives 10 per cent. to a rent that has already been considerably increased, falls to the ground.
    Mr. HARDIE: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Sir W. Raeburn) is not in the House, because I wanted to protest against the statements he made with regard to the reduction of from 40 per cent. to 13½ per cent. Although the statement was challenged four times, he refused to hive any explanation of it. I do not know whether it is in Order, but I want to say that the statement is absolutely untrue.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to say that, but he can say that the statement was absolutely incorrect.
    Mr. HARDIE: It is the same thing. Not only has he failed in the House when challenged to bring forward arguments to prove his statement, but in the Committee a similar charge also failed. I have amongst my friends the owners of property and factors of houses in Scotland, and I have taken the trouble since the hon. Member for Dumbarton was challenged to write to Glasgow and other districts and have discovered again that his statement is incorrect. The statement he made in regard to the sub-tenants and their children I found to be true, and I want this information to be given to hon. Members here, just as he was trying to bring his incorrect statement to the notice of English Members. I have made efforts to get a place to live in London to be near the House of Commons, and I have found when wandering round the likeliest places that as soon as I got a response to my ring at the door the question that was put to me first was: "Have you any family?" Getting tired of that at one door I replied to the question that I had some fine dogs, and the lady went into ecstasies, and asked me if I was in favour of the Bill now being brought forward by the right
    1256
    hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London for the protection of animals. I made it quite plain that the first thing in life is to look after the children. The whole of the arguments used by the hon. Member for Dumbarton to-day is based on incorrect information, and his statements in regard to property in Scotland are also incorrect.
    I want to make an appeal to the Minister in charge of this Bill that he should withdraw this Clause. If a Clause such as this is allowed to go forward I know what is going to happen in cities like Glasgow. The present system in Glasgow lends itself to cases of which we have just had a report, of 12 persons living in a room 12 feet square. What is going to happen is this: Just as wages come down, and young married couples with a constant increase of their family demanding more to be spent on the growing family find less is left with which to pay rent, it happens that instead of the people under a proper system getting into bigger houses as they get on and their families increase, they are compelled, owing to economic conditions, to start to divide their house with the increased family in order to keep off paying more rent. Take the people at certain works in. Glasgow who earn 30s. a week and have to keep then families on that. Life under these conditions is a constant sub-letting of the houses one to another. If this Clause is allowed to go through it is going to be used by the builders before another year is out as an argument for not building houses. They will say since the people have got into this system of living as subtenants to each other, since the houses have been divided up, there is no more demand now, and we will not go on building houses because there is no demand for them, the people having settled down into this sub-letting system. I appeal, therefore, to the Minister in charge to withdraw this Clause instead of trying to make inroads upon all that is worst in human nature for a gain of 10 per cent., to wipe out the Clause and put his energies into the building of houses, and not into passing such a Clause as this through the House.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put"
    The House divided: Ayes, 246; Noes, 138.

    Division No. 282.]

    AYES.

    [7.22 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Furness, G. J.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.

    Gardiner, James

    Paget, T. G.

    Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

    Garland, C. S.

    Parker, Owen (Kettering)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Gates, Percy

    Pease, William Edwin

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Becker, Harry

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    Penny, Frederick George

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

    Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Perring, William George

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

    Peto, Basil E.

    Berry, Sir George

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Pielou, D. P.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)

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

    Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

    Blundell, F. N.

    Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Halstead, Major D.

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)

    Privett, F. J.

    Brass, Captain W.

    Harrison, F. C.

    Rae, Sir Henry N.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Harvey, Major S. E.

    Raeburn, Sir William H.

    Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)

    Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)

    Raine, W.

    Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

    Bruford, R.

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Herbert, S. (Scarborough)

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Hiley, Sir Ernest

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Reynolds, W. G. W.

    Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

    Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

    Button, H. S.

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

    Cadogan, Major Edward

    Hood, Sir Joseph

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)

    Cassels, J. D.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

    Rogerson, Capt. J. E.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Hudson, Capt. A.

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Churchman, Sir Arthur

    Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)

    Russell, William (Bolton)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

    Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

    Clayton, G. C.

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul

    Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)

    Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

    Cope, Major William

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

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)

    Kelley, Major Sir Frederick A.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell

    Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel

    Shipwright, Captain D.

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    King, Capt. Henry Douglas

    Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.

    Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Singleton, J. E.

    Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)

    Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

    Lorden, John William

    Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Lougher, L.

    Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Stanley, Lord

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

    Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)

    Dixon, Capt. H. (Belfast, E.)

    Lumley, L. R.

    Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Margesson, H. D. R.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Ellis, R. G.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

    England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

    Thorpe, Captain John Henry

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Mercer, Colonel H.

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Tubbs, S. W.

    Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. Bolton M.

    Molloy, Major L. G. S.

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

    Falcon, Captain Michael

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

    Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Waring, Major Walter

    Flanagan, W. H.

    Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A. C. (Honiton)

    Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Nall, Major Joseph

    Wells, S. R.

    Foreman, Sir Henry

    Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

    Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

    White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

    Yerburgh, R. D. T.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

    Wise, Frederick

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

    Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel

    the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Hardie, George D.

    Potts, John S.

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Harney, E. A.

    Pringle, W. M. R.

    Alexander A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Hastings, Patrick

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Attlee, C. R.

    Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)

    Riley, Ben

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Ritson, J.

    Barnes, A.

    Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)

    Roberts, C. H. (Derby)

    Batey, Joseph

    Hemmerde, E. G.

    Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Herriotts, J.

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)

    Hill, A.

    Saklatvala, S.

    Bonwick, A.

    Hillary, A. E.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Broad, F. A.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Sexton, James

    Bromfield, William

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Shakespeare, G. H.

    Brotherton, J.

    Irving, Dan

    Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

    Buckie, J.

    Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

    Shinwell, Emanuel

    Burgess, S.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham. Silvertown)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Buxton, Charles (Accrington)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Simpson, J. Hope

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

    Sinclair, Sir A.

    Chapple, W. A.

    Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

    Smillie, Robert

    Clarke, Sir E. C.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Smith, T. (Pontefract)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Snowden, Philip

    Collison, Levi

    Lawson, John James

    Spoor, B. G.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Leach, W.

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

    Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Lee, F.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)

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

    Duffy, T. Gavan

    Linfield, F. C.

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Duncan, C.

    Lowth, T.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Dunnico, H.

    Lunn, William

    Thornton, M.

    Ede, James Chuter

    M'Entee, V. L.

    Trevelyan, C. P.

    Edmonds, G.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Marshall, Sir Arthur H.

    Warne, G. H.

    Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)

    Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Middleton, G.

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)

    Millar, J. D.

    Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

    Fairbairn, R. R.

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Falconer, J.

    Mosley, Oswald

    White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

    Foot, Isaac

    Muir, John W.

    Whiteley, W.

    Gosling, Harry

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Gray, Frank (Oxford)

    Newbold, J. T. W.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Groves, T.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wright, W.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Paling, W.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Parker, H. (Hanley)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Phillipps, Vivian

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hancock, John George

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Ammon.

    Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 135.

    Division No. 283.]

    AYES.

    [7.30 p.m.

    Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dem

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Brass, Captain W.

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Churchman, Sir Arthur

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)

    Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Clayton, G. C.

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.

    Bruford, R.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew

    Cope, Major William

    Becker, Harry

    Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)

    Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell

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

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Button, H. S.

    Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Cadogan, Major Edward

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Berry, Sir George

    Cassels, J. D.

    Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Blundell, F. N.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Dixon, Capt. H. (Belfast, E.)

    Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.

    Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul

    Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

    Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Kelley, Major Sir Frederick A.

    Robertson-Despencer, Major (Isi'gt'n W)

    Ellis, R. G.

    Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    King, Capt. Henry Douglas

    Rogerson, Capt. J. E.

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.

    Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

    Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)

    Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. Bolton M.

    Lorden, John William

    Russell, William (Bolton)

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Lougher, L.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Flanagan, W. H.

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

    Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

    Foreman, Sir Henry

    Lumley, L. R.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l Exchange)

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Shakespeare, G. H.

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Margesson, H. D. R.

    Shipwright, Captain D.

    Furness, G. J.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

    Singleton, J. E.

    Gardiner, James

    Mercer, Colonel H.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Garland, C. S.

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)

    Gates, Percy

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.

    Molloy, Major L. G. S.

    Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Goff, Sir R. Park

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

    Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

    Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A. C. (Honiton)

    Stanley, Lord

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Nall, Major Joseph

    Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)

    Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

    Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

    Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

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

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Halstead, Major D.

    Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

    Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Thorpe, Captain John Henry

    Harrison, F. C.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    Harvey, Major S. E.

    Paget, T. G.

    Tubbs, S. W.

    Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)

    Parker, Owen (Kettering)

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Pease, William Edwin

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

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Waring, Major Walter

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Penny, Frederick George

    Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Herbert, S. (Scarborough)

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Wells, S. R.

    Hiley, Sir Ernest

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Perring, William George

    Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

    Peto, Basil E.

    White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Pielou, D. P.

    Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Hood, Sir Joseph

    Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

    Wise, Frederick

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Privett, F. J.

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

    Houfton, John Plowright

    Rae, Sir Henry N.

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

    Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)

    Raeburn, Sir William H.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

    Raine, W.

    Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

    Hudson, Capt. A.

    Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

    Yerburgh, R. D. T.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel

    Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)

    Rentoul, G. S.

    the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.

    Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

    Reynolds, W. G. W.

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Charleton, H. C.

    Gosling, Harry

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Clarke, Sir E. C.

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Gray, Frank (Oxford)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Collison, Levi

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Attlee, C. R.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Groves, T.

    Barnes, A.

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Batey, Joseph

    Duffy, T. Gavan

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Duncan, C.

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland

    Bonwick, A.

    Dunnico, H.

    Hancock, John George

    Broad, F. A.

    Ede, James Chuter

    Hardie, George D.

    Bromfield, William

    Edmonds, G.

    Harney, E. A.

    Brotherton, J.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Hastings, Patrick

    Buckie, J.

    Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)

    Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)

    Burgess, S.

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

    Fairbairn, R. R.

    Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)

    Buxton, Charles (Accrington)

    Falconer, J.

    Hemmerde, E. G.

    Chapple, W. A.

    Foot, Isaac

    Herriotts, J.

    1262

    1263

    Hill, A.

    Newbold, J. T. W.

    Smith, T. (Pontefract)

    Hillary, A. E.

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Snowden, Philip

    Hirst, G. H.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Spoor, B. G.

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Paling, W.

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

    Irving, Dan

    Parker, H. (Hanley)

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

    Phillipps, Vivian

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

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

    Potts, John S.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

    Pringle, W. M. R.

    Thornton, M.

    Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

    Raeburn, Sir William H.

    Trevelyan, C. P.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Riley, Ben

    Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Lawson, John James

    Ritson, J.

    Warne, G. H.

    Leach, W.

    Roberts, C. H. (Derby)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Lee, F.

    Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

    Linfield, F. C.

    Saklatvala, S.

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Lowth, T.

    Salter, Dr. A.

    White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

    M'Entee, V. L.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Whiteley, W.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Sexton, James

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Marshall, Sir Arthur H.

    Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)

    Shinwell, Emanuel

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Middleton, G.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Millar, J. D.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Wright, W.

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Simpson, J. Hope

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Mosley, Oswald

    Sinclair, Sir A.

    Muir, John W.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

    Smillie, Robert

    Mr. Morgan Jones and Mr. Lunn.

    Resolution agreed to.

    Sir W. RAEBURN: I beg to move, after Sub-section (1), to insert a new Sub-section—
    "(2) A tenant who has so sub-let part of any such dwelling-house shall, on being so requested in writing by the landlord of the dwelling-house, supply him, within fourteen days thereafter, with a statement in writing of any sub-letting, giving particulars of occupancy, including the rent charged, and should he without reasonable excuse fail to do so or supply a statement which is false in any material particulars he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two pounds.
    When I moved these words as a new Clause, it was suggested that my proposal would come best as an Amendment to Clause 6. I put down this Amendment, because the landlord cannot possibly know what rent his tenant is getting for subletting unless he makes some return. I think it is quite reasonable that the tenant, if requested by the landlord, should be compelled to give that information.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: We cannot hear a word you are saying.
    Sir W. RAEBURN: Hon. Members are making such a noise. The only means which the landlord has of knowing to what extent sub-letting is going on is by insisting on his tenant making out a return. Objection has been taken to the imposing of a penalty for refusing to supply this return or making a false statement, but my proposal cannot very well be carried out if there is no penalty
    1264
    attached for refusing to comply, because the tenant would only have to snap his fingers at the landlord and make no return at all. I would point out that penalties are imposed upon the landlord for failing to comply with the Act, and I do not see why penalties should not also be imposed upon the tenant under similar circumstances.
    Captain BRASS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir J. SIMON: I am not quite clear as to whether the proposal now before us is word for word the same as the proposal which was put down as a new Clause, or whether it has been modified in any way.
    Sir W. RAEBURN: In essence, it is the same.
    Sir J. SIMON: I feel some difficulty about this proposal, and I hope one of the Ministers in charge of this Measure will explain how this Amendment is going to work. The proviso is one which requires that
    "a tenant who has so sub-let part of any such dwelling-house shall, on being so requested in writing by the landlord of the dwelling-house, supply him, within fourteen days thereafter, with a statement in writing of any sub-letting, giving particulars of occupancy, including the rent charged."
    I should like to hear from the Minister how this proposal is going to work. First of all, the proviso appears to be one which is not of continuous operation. The landlord may ask the question to-day,

    1265
    again in six months' time, again in a year's time, and so forth. It has been said that this proposal will assist the operation of Clause 6, but I cannot see how that can come about. The first Subsection of Clause 6 merely provides that the landlord of a house may add 10 per cent. of the net rent of the sub-tenancy. I do not see how the net rent is going to be ascertained. In a vast number of cases there is sub-letting by tenants to sub-tenants at grossly excessive sub-rents. Am I to understand that the intention is to add 10 per cent. to that grossly excessive sub-rent? Is that the meaning of this Amendment? If that is not the meaning of the Clause, then what is the object of the landlord finding out what is the grossly excessive sub-rent? I very much question whether a number of people understand what Sub-section 1 provides. You have a tenant of a house who perhaps pays 10s. a week to the land lord. He has a sub-tenant occupying a portion of the house. In the vast majority of cases he overcharges that sub-tenant. It is a great scandal that he does, and I should be glad to find effective steps taken to stop him, but I do not find them in this Bill.
    Suppose he overcharges the sub-tenant by charging him for only half the house what is the rent of the whole house, what good does it do the landlord to find that out. If it is only to enable the tenant, who is already overcharging his subtenant, to overcharge him more by adding another 10 per cent. then I can understand it, but I cannot understand how any Government could propose so ridiculous and so unjust a provision. If, on the other hand, you mean that this additional 10 per cent. permitted is 10 per cent. on the properly apportioned rent, the standard rent for his portion of the house, then since in some cases there is an overcharge what good does it do for the landlord to ascertain what is being charged the sub-tenant? The thing does not hold together. The only explanation that will make it plain to me is the suggestion that the Bill is at present incomprehensible, and will become more incomprehensible if this proviso is adopted. No doubt my Noble Friend has some view as to what this sub-section and proviso mean and I should be very glad to hear from him what it is.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Lord Eustace Percy): I am prepared to accept this Amendment. As regards the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, the new Sub-section not only enables the landlord to get information as to the amount of rent charged, but also as to whether there is or is not a sub-tenant. As regards the statement as to the amount of rent charged, that I think must be taken in connection with the Clause which gives the landlord the power, which he has hitherto never had, to go to the County Court to get an apportionment of the rent as between the tenant and the sub-tenant. The sub-tenant who wants at present to escape from additional rent has to go to the County Court himself against his landlord who is the tenant of the house. This is a thing which very few sub-tenants like to do. Therefore the landlord will be able by going to the County Court to get the County Court statement as to what is the apportioned rent. He will be able to calculate the net rent. On the net rent he will be able to calculate what is the amount which is due to him from the tenant in respect of the sub-tenancy, and under this new Sub-section he will also have the power to find out whether the tenant is, in fact, charging only the permitted rent to the sub-tenant or whether he is charging more. There are many landlordq who wish to find that out, and I think that it is in the interests of the community that a landlord should ascertain that. I agree with the hon. and learned Member to this extent, that this power which is proposed to be given by the new Sub-section will be far more effective and far more useful after the landlord has been to the County Court and has found out the permitted rent than it would be before he has been there, but, taken in conjunction with his power of going to the County Court, I think it is a very good Amendment.
    Sir J. SIMON: Will the Noble Lord consider whether or not this ought not to be amended by limiting the landlord's right to make the inquiry and secure the punishment of the tenant in the manner and to the cases which he has himself indicated by introducing a proviso that it may be done after the landlord has exercised his power and got the subtenant's rent properly fixed?
    Lord E. PERCY: I am afraid that that would not do, because there are various cases in which the permitted rental has already been fixed. I cannot see why the right hon. Gentleman should be so anxious that the landlord should not have the right to get this information.
    Sir J. SIMON: I am not in the least anxious that the landlord should not have proper information, but I am anxious that the House of Commons should not pass a Bill which, to the best of my own understanding, is at present nearly unintelligible, and will, I think, become quite unintelligible when this proviso is put in.
    Mr. POTTS: Assuming that the landlord, the tenant and the sub-tenant appear in Court and are called upon to go into the witness box, will they be, by law, compelled to answer questions? So far as I understand, there is no law to compel either landlord or tenant to give any evidence in the box if he does not care to do so.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. CLYNES: May I ask for information, which I understand is available, as to the course of business during the night?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETAR to the TREASURY (Colonel Leslie Wilson): In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, I have his instructions to say that he realises that the House would like to have as much time for the Third Reading of this Bill as possible, and, as the House was up fairly late last night, if hon. Members opposite will agree, it would be convenient that we should finish the Report stage at a conveniently early hour tonight—that is not later than about half-past twelve o'clock. In such a case the Third Reading could be taken on Friday. But it is the general view in the House that the Bill standing on the name of the Noble Lady for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) should be taken in the earlier part of Friday. Therefore the proposal is that the first two hours on Friday should be devoted to that Bill, and the remaining three hours on Friday to the Third Reading of this Bill, if that he acceptable to all parties in the House.
    Mr. CLYNES: I can speak for a very large number of Members of the House
    1268
    when I say that they welcome the terms of the statement which has just been made, and will be glad to help to give effect to them, but perhaps it would be possible for us to conclude the business to-night somewhat earlier than 12.30?
    Colonel WILSON: On behalf of the Government, I may say that we shall be glad to conclude the business at the earliest possible hour.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman, who has not been following this Debate, is willing that it should come to an end as speedily as possible, but in view of the importance of the issues yet to be discussed, I do not think that anybody is sanguine enough to imagine that the Debate can be concluded much before half-past twelve o'clock, and at the same time allow a reasonable discussion of the important matters which have still to be thrashed out. With regard to the proceedings on Friday, are we to understand that if the Debate on the first Bill is not concluded at one o'clock then the Adjournment will be moved?
    Colonel WILSON: There is a distinct understanding that if the Debate on the Report stage and Third Reading is not concluded at one o'clock, the Government are prepared to move the Adjournment.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: With regard to the appointment of the Reference Committee and what may be called the constitutional position of that Committee if appointed, many of us think that that is a legitimate subject of Debate which should be discussed fully and frankly, though not at undue length.
    Mr. VIVIAN PHILLIPPS: I agree with the suggestions which have been made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury as to the hour at which we may conclude our proceedings to-night. What we on these Benches have undertaken is to do our best to facilitate the conclusion of the proceedings on the Report stage at a reasonable hour, on the understanding that we shall have the Adjournment moved on Friday on the first Bill, if it lasts longer than the first two hours of that day.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Excessive charges for furniture, etc., taken over in connection with tenancies.)
    (1) Where the purchase of any furniture or other articles is required as a condition of

    1269
    the grant, renewal, or continuance of a tenancy or sub-tenancy of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies, if the price demanded exceeds the reasonable price of the articles, the excess shall be treated as if it were a fine or premium required to be paid as a condition of the grant, renewal, or continuance, and the provisions of Section eight of the principal Act, including penal provisions, shall apply accordingly.

    (2) Where a tenant who by virtue of the principal Act retains possession of a dwelling-house to which that Act applies requires that furniture or other articles shall be purchased as a condition of giving up possession, if the price demanded exceeds the reasonable price of the articles the excess shall be treated as a sum asked to be paid as a condition of giving up possession, and the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section fifteen of the principal Act (including penal provisions) shall apply accordingly.

    Mr. GRIFFITHS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "if the price demanded," and to insert instead thereof the words
    "the price demanded shall be stated in writing and if such price."
    The object of this Amendment is to protect the tenant. In many cases landlords make a little extra when they are letting by asking payment for the keys and for other matters, and we want to protect the tenant so far as that is concerned, in cases where the house is furnished. I have been discussing the matter with some of my colleagues and I have met the Minister of Health, and I believe that he is accepting this Amendment in order to protect the tenant.
    Mr. SPEAKER: There will be a consequential Amendment.
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: Yes.
    Mr. McENTEE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    8.0. P.M.
    Further Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "if the price demanded," and insert instead thereof the words "the price demanded shall be stated in writing, and if such price."—[Mr. Griffiths.]

    CLAUSE 10.—(Restriction on right to possession in certain cases, after the expiry of the principal Act.)
    (2) For the purpose of the exercise of its jurisdiction under this Section, the Court
    1270
    may direct that the tenancy of the sitting tenant shall be treated as a subsisting tenancy notwithstanding the determination of the same by any notice to quit or similar notice or otherwise and may set aside and annul any such notice accordingly, and shall have power to determine what increase of rent (if any) is fair and reasonable, regard being had to the character and condition of the dwelling-house and the rents of similar dwelling-houses in the locality.
    (4) In order to assist the Court in the determination of questions arising under this part of this Act in relation to the rent, character or condition of dwelling-houses, the Minister of Health may establish reference committees to whom such questions may be referred by the Court for consideration and report, as the Court thinks proper.
    (5) The foregoing provisions of this Section shall not apply to proceedings against a sitting tenant under the Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838, and any such proceedings shall, on the application of the sitting tenant, be discontinued, subject to any provision that may be made by Rules under this Part of this Act for transfer to the County Court.
    Sir P. PILDITCH: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert a new Sub-section—
    "(3) The Court shall not exercise any of the powers given to it under the foregoing provisions of this Section in any case where it is satisfied that greater hardship would be caused to the landlord by the exercise of the power than would be caused to the tenant by the refusal to exercise it."
    The Noble Lord will remember that this proposal was under discussion in Committee. At that time, the Minister was not quite clear whether it was necessary in order to give effect to what both he and I, and, I think, most, if not all, members of the Committee desired to do. I undesrtand my Noble Friend is going to accept the Amendment, and, therefore, I will simply say that what it provides is this: The early part of this Clause contemplates that, in the event of proceedings against a person who, on the 24th June, 1925, is tenant,
    "should it appear to the Court that the proceedings are harsh or oppressive or that exceptional hardship would be caused to the sitting tenant by the making or giving of an Order or judgment for possession or ejectment, the Court may refuse to make or give such an Order or judgment or may adjourn the application for or stay or suspond execution of any such order or judgment,"
    and so on. The point of my Amendment is to provide that the Clause shall work

    1271
    fairly between landlord and tenant, that where it is a question of greater hardship to the landlord that he should be deprived of the possession of the dwelling house, than it would be to the tenant to be compelled to leave, the Court may have power to take that into consideration. I think it was generally felt in Committee to be a reasonable thing, and the Minister undertook to consider the matter between then and this stage. I rather gather that the words of my Amendment meet the situation in the view of the noble Lord.
    Lord E. PERCY: I am very glad to accept this Amendment. I think it is clear that the wording follows on the lines of the wording already existing in other Sections of the Act in regard to relative hardships, and I hope the House will be prepared to accept it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (4).
    The Committee will observe that this Sub-section seeks for the first time to set up what, I think, the Minister of Health himself described as a novel proposal, and, in fact, I suppose, for the first time in Parliamentary history, sanction is now being sought to establish statutory committees, and to give to such committees rights and duties as to rent to be paid in connection with house, property in this country. I think, at any rate, it deserves some little time and consideration from the House of Commons. One of the remarkable features of the proposal is that it is not to come into operation until two years have elapsed from the present time. Another feature to which I would call special attention is that it may well be that this will be the only Parliamentary opportunity of discussing the proposal, and the first point I desire to make to the Government is that I think it is an unwise thing to endeavour to anticipate a condition which may arise two years hence. A great deal may happen between now and the time when Part II of this Bill comes into operation.
    As I have stated previously in the Debate, I think the suggestion that there should be gradual decontrol is a good one. It certainly gives some hope to the people who invest money in property, and who
    1272
    erect houses, that at some later stage decontrol may absolutely take place. From that point of view, there is much to be said for the proposals, outlined, it is true, in very vague and indefinite terms, in Part 2 of the Bill. But it is sought under this Sub-section to introduce fresh procedure altogether. As the House knows, hitherto very difficult tasks and duties, which have been imposed under this and other legislation, have been entrusted to County Court Judges. Opinions may differ as to the suitability of that tribunal, but, from my point of view at any rate, as far as experience of this country is concerned, County Court Judges have carried out their duties, I believe, sympathetically, and with a view to doing justice, and certainly in the interests of landlords and tenants. If any criticism is to be directed to their jurisdiction, it is perhaps that they have erred, if anything at all, upon the side of the tenants of this country.
    Therefore, the first question I desire to put to the Government is, in what way have County Court Judges failed to carry out their duties, and why is it necessary to add any further machinery in connection with a matter of this sort? My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, in putting forward this proposal on the Second Reading of the Bill, stated that it was a novel suggestion, and, as far as I am aware, it has not been asked for by any particular body of opinion, by any Committee which has been set up to consider the matter, or by any association of people who are concerned either with the interests of landlords or of tenants, and, as far as the attitude of the parties in the House is concerned, I think it can be fairly said that it has not been accepted, at any rate, in the present form, by any party in the House. I understand the Labour party would like to have rent courts absolutely independent, and able to come to a conclusion, on their own account, without any reference to any judicial tribunal at all. I think that is a fair statement of what it is they require. As far as I am able to ascertain the Liberal party desire that there should be some form of tribunal, probably with an appeal to the County Court, but which either the tenants or the landlords would be able to approach, and that they should be called upon in that particular connection to give a decision. As far as my own party is

    1273
    concerned, I do not think there has been a single speaker who has spoken from the Conservative benches who has supported this proposal. Rightly or wrongly, it is looked upon as establishing a new and dangerous principle in this country, and one which should, at any rate, be approached with considerable caution. If, for instance, the Onslow Committee had looked into this matter, and made a recommendation of this kind, it would no doubt have had attached to it a curtain amount of weight. If my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health was able, for instance, to say to the Committee to-night that the County Court Judges had met and had stated that they required assistance of that kind, I have not the slightest doubt that the representations of those very hard-worked members of the judicial bench would receive a good deal of consideration from the House of Commons.
    But, as far as I am aware, no County Court Judge has at any time expressed the opinion or the desire to have the assistance which my right hon. Friend proposes they should have under the provisions of this particular Sub-section. It is true that one of the County Court Judges has on various occasions advocated the setting up of a rent tribunal, but I have at no time observed that any member of the County Court bench has asked for the assistance of committees of this kind, and I venture to put to my right hon. Friend that the proposals embodied in this Sub-section have a double disadvantage. I can well understand that there could be a good case made out for the establishment of rent tribunals which could come to a final determination, and by that means relieve the County Courts of a good deal of work, with which, unfortunately, they are considerably burdened at the present time. But that is not my right hon. Friend's suggestion. His suggestion is that these reference committees should be set up, if and when he desires, and that the County Court Judge himself should determine whether he desires a report from a particular reference committee. That, at any rate, is not going to relieve the congestion of the County Courts.
    I understand that one of the strongest arguments put forward for this proposal is that by some means or other these committees are going to relieve the
    1274
    County Court Judges of many of their duties, and take over a good many of their responsibilities in the administration of this Bill. I candidly confess I cannot see the justification for that argument, because, in fact, while the County Court Judge may receive a report from a particular reference committee, as many hon. Members who are members of the legal profession are well aware, he is by no means bound by that report, and, what is more, the parties to the dispute in the County Court are certainly not bound by it. The result may well be that when the County Court Judge receives a report from a reference committee, he will no doubt give consideration to it, but he will be bound, under the conditions which always obtain in our Law Courts, to hear the evidence, to have the witnesses examined, to give due weight to their evidence, and in fact, to try the issue together with the report which he will receive from the reference committee. Therefore, so far as relieving the congestion of the County Court is concerned, I venture to think it is more likely to add to its difficulties and responsibilities. No doubt one of the issues which will centre in the particular matter before the County Court will not only be the matter in dispute between the parties, but the facts in the report of the reference committee, and whether they are right and reasonable. It is in that connection that, so far from relieving the congestion of the Court, so far from lessening the time occupied by the cases, it may very well add to it. There is no doubt that if one of these certificates brought to the County Court Judge is in favour of the landlord the tenant will immediately bring every possible evidence, and as many witnesses as he can, to displace the findings of the committee. There is no suggestion in the proposal contained in this Clause that the County Court Judge must accept the report of the reference committee. He has to receive it, but he is still bound to follow out the usual procedure of the Court in this connection. Therefore I put it very strongly that the idea that this will relieve the congestion of the Court is a misconception, and that it may well add to the difficulty of administering a very complicated statute.
    Another question which I venture to address to the right hon. Gentleman is this. Why does he want to set up new

    1275
    machinery at all? If there is anything to be said for having the advice of a particular body of men, why does the right hon. Gentleman not look to the very many existing authorities? It might very well be that a sub-committee of the housing committee of the local authority could deal with the task which is here provided for. It appears to me that at this time, when there are so many different authorities up and down the country, one really ought to be trying to get the advice of the local administration rather than to set up another body. It is a mistake to endeavour to set up still one more body and one more committee to deal with matters of this sort. It will undoubtedly add to the expense of these proceedings. It will mean fresh machinery. In many cases it will mean the appointment of an additional official, and from the tenants' point of view it will be very detrimental, as they already have to face one hearing before the County Court Judge, and this will involve facing another hearing before the reference committee. I submit that this proposal is not only unnecessary, but in many respects it will prove cumbersome, and, I repeat, in many cases it will be detrimental to the tenant.
    My last point of objection to this particular Clause is that it will add to the uncertainty of the law which already unfortunately prevails in connection with house building, if you are to have a fresh tribunal to put into operation this Act. People who lend or borrow money on house property will begin to think there is going to be some authority interposed between them and then ordinary rights as borrowers or lenders or as purchasers of property, and I venture to think it will be well for my right hon. Friend on this ground to reconsider his proposal. It is not as if the matter need be left entirely to the County Court Judges. They will no doubt be able to carry out this task, but if they are not able to do so there are certain other means on the Statute Book by which they can get assistance. The work might be handed over to the Registrar, or the County Court Judge might appoint assessors. I think the proposal to set up this new machinery needs much more consideration than it is possible to give it at this stage. I want my right hon. Friend to-night to leave the matter open. He is now in this Clause giving the County Court Judges
    1276
    an opportunity to go to the reference committee only. I should like to extend the Clause and to put in as an alternative the power to appoint assessors, or to go to a panel, or to obtain the assistance of the Registrar of the Court.
    The strongest objection to this proposal at the present time is the fact that, under the Clause, there will be very little opportunity for Parliament to discuss this matter two years hence. The strongest objection that can be taken to this proposal is that we may pass a Clause to-night, and two years hence there will be no real Parliamentary opportunity for further discussing it. If the right hon. Gentleman can amend the Clause so that this matter may come up again for discussion in this House two years hence, when we shall know much more of the facts in regard to housing and shall be able better to judge if there is a sufficient number of houses built to justify us in putting the Clause into operation, I think it would relieve much of the anxiety that is felt in reference to this Clause at the present moment. But to put forward a Clause which has been asked for by no one, which has been objected to by every party in the House for one reason or another, and to provide no further opportunity for Parliamentary discussion of it is very undesirable, and I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to make such a statement and to give such an indication as to his future intentions with regard to the Clause as will enable us to concur more fully with him than we can at the moment. For these reasons I move this Amendment. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give some indication of much more definite proposals than he has at present outlined, and that he will indicate that an opportunity for full Parliamentary discussion shall be available two years hence from to-day when this matter will again be before the House.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    After the very full statement of my hon. Friend, but few words are necessary from me. It seems to me it is almost impracticable for this House to be legislating now on a position which we cannot possibly foresee as occurring in two years time. If this reference committee is going to be good in two years' time, why is it not good now?

    1277
    There is no provision for it in the present machinery, and I do not see why it will be any more advantageous in two years' time than it is now. I can see my right hon. Friend's objective, which is to let decontrol down as gradually as possible. I can understand that, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) that there is considerable anxiety in all quarters as to what may be the outcome of this reference committee. I presume that we may now discuss the whole question that is raised by Sub-section (4) of Clause 10, by which the committee is appointed, and by Clause 12, in which the constitution of the committee, as far as it is stated, is defined. I take it that the whole question is open on this Amendment.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think Clauses 10 and 12 hang together so much that it would be in order to discuss them both, but, of course, no such discussion can be repeated on Clause 12.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I take it that this Amendment will dispose of the whole question.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I hope it may not be taken that this Amendment disposes of all the Amendments on Clause 12. If I were so fortunate as to be called on this Amendment, I should have to refer to Clause 12, but I suggest that there are specific Amendments also.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I can relieve the anxiety of the hon. and learned Member. All that I ruled was that this could be discussed with Clause 12, but that such a general discussion could not be repeated. Specific Amendments, however, will not be cut out.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Thank you, Sir; I quite understand. I hope that when my right hon. Friend deals with this Amendment he will explain exactly what his intentions are, because we are really discussing this matter in the dark. In Clause 12 we are simply told that
    "The constitution and procedure of reference committees established under this Part of this Act shall be such as may be prescribed by Regulations made by the Minister of Health."
    Anything more absolutely vague than that it is impossible to conceive. The matter may have been discussed in Com-
    1278
    mittee, but very few of us were present in the Committee, and as the matter now stands it is very vague. We have no idea of the kind of constitution that these reference committees are to have. Are they to be composed of tenants and representatives of landlords, or are they to be composed of independent people, rather of the nature of a panel of expert valuers, who would have no particular leaning towards either landlords or tenant; or what class of person is to compose these reference committees? I attach the greatest importance to the last suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich, that this matter should not be definitely decided now, but should remain in skeleton form if it is to remain at all. I would much rather see it taken out, but my right hon. Friend has very skilfully conducted this Bill, which is one that he did not himself introduce, but has inherited. I do not know whether it would have been exactly in this form had he been responsible for it, but he has inherited it.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think I can allow that to pass. My right hon. Friend is quite correct in saying that some part of the Bill was drafted before I took office, but for the major and most important part I am personally responsible.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am glad to take that correction. I was under the impression that the Bill had been drafted for some time. I hope my right hon. Friend will realise that it will go a long way to satisfy me, certainly, if it can be made perfectly clear that this proposal will be discussed in the light of the then position in 1925, when it is to come into operation. For instance, we do not know, and it is a very important matter, what proportion of houses in June, 1925, will remain under control, or will not have been decontrolled. No one can possibly form any conjecture as to that. No Member of this House will get up to-day and venture to prophesy what percentage of houses will have been decontrolled under the provisions of this Bill before the 24th June, 1925. It may be that the situation then, on account of the number of houses that have been decontrolled, and having regard to the number of houses available, will make it unnecessary to set up this additional cog in the already complicated machinery of this Measure. I am sure

    1279
    there will be no disagreement on either side of the House that, so far as this Measure is concerned, it is an unpleasant necessity, because when we interfere with the ordinary law of supply and demand, and we meet with difficulties at every turn, which have to be met by some fresh provision, creating enormous complications—complications of such a character that they were bound to induce difficult drafting and careless drafting, the Bill is rather hurried, and endless litigation results which is good for no one. Anything, therefore, which adds complications, or which prolongs this awkward situation, is necessarily objectionable, and we do not want to bind ourselves to go on with these reference committees in two years' time unless it is absolutely necessary.
    The mere fact that Orders are to be laid on the Table in the ordinary way, and that those Orders will become operative unless a Resolution is passed in both Houses of Parliament against them, which is the ordinary provision, does not appear to me to be adequate to meet the situation. We are legislating entirely in the dark. We are creating an indefinite body. We do not know exactly what its duties are. Its powers are very limited, but there is always the feeling which was referred to by my hon. Friend, and which may have a very considerable effect on the degree of confidence with which people will undertake building enterprise. They know that some aspirations have been expressed on the other side of the House about rent Courts and interference with the rights of owners of house property, and they naturally are suspicious that, once this machinery is created, it can be very easily expanded by a short Bill, and the power of these bodies can be increased. At present, under Sub-section (2) of Clause 12, they can only deal with rents when a case is submitted to them by both the landlord and the tenant. There cannot be any very great objection to an arbitration, which everyone would agree is preferable to a law case, where both parties are willing to submit the matter to arbitration; but that could quite easily be expanded, and, on every ground, I think that this legislation upon which we are embarking in this Bill is already sufficiently obscure and sufficiently complicated, and is already giving rise to far too great a crop of liti-
    1280
    gation. Anything that will tend still further to complicate matter is, I think, very much to be deprecated, and I strongly support my hon. Friend's Amendment.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I want to ask the Minister two or three questions in reference to this matter. I approach this discussion, so far as one knows one's own mind and one's own position, in a mood of entire detachment from the ordinary controversy on this subject, but I must say I am rather startled at the presence in this Bill of a provision like the one to which this Amendment is directed, and the consequent provisions in Clause 12. Here is a proposal to set up what is called a reference committee, in Clause 10, for one purpose, and in Clause 12 for another purpose, by machinery so constructed as to leave to Parliament the least possible control or opportunity of intervention and consideration. I may have an opportunity on Clause 12, but in any case I do not want unnecessarily to repeat what has already been said; but one has to note the fact that these powers in Clause 10 and in Clause 12 are to be exercised by an Advisory Committee appointed by the Minister of Health, working under Regulations as to which there is no real Parliamentary control whatever. That matter of letting these things lie on the Table of the House to become law unless there is a Motion of both Houses, is one of those farces that ought to be brought to an end once for all. In the last Parliament several of us, in regard to certain matters of the Ministry of Transport, with the help of certain Lords in another place, were able to get the converse method into more than one Act of Parliament, and when it is necessary for any Department of State to issue Regulations under any Act of Parliament, those Regulations ought only to have force when there is a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament adopting them, and not wait until what everyone knows—Ministers, the Government, the House, and the country—the impossible happens and the House of Commons or the House of Lords or both pass some Resolution condemning it. That may have been quite appropriate in days when the adjustment between the Royal Prerogative and the rights of the Commons of England were in process of discussion and settlement. It is entirely out of keeping with the con-

    1281
    ditions to-day, and the Department loses in confidence what it thinks it gains in power if it tries to work this method of Regulations without deliberate Parliamentary sanction to them before they become effective. Therefore, I am sorry my right hon. Friend, whose connections, hereditary and personal, are so close with local self-government and so effective and able in that sphere, should bring forward a proposal which has this curiously unwholesome stamp upon it—this out-of-date method, no longer appropriate to present conditions.
    What is that my right hon. Friend is proposing to do in this most unsatisfactory way as regards the regulations? He is proposing to appoint an Advisory Committee to act, two years hence, under conditions which no man can now foresee, but when two years have passed to be in a position to appoint Advisory Committees without there being any effective opportunity for either House of Parliament to apply to the problems of that hour the knowledge which will then be possessed. I want to analyse the two distinct proposals. I have no objection in principle to Rent Courts at all. At some periods in history and in some places Rent Courts have been absolutely indispensable in the public interest. As and when proposals for that are brought four squarely before this House of Commons, I trust we shall consider them carefully and with the only object of trying to get machinery which will help in equity and peace and confidence among the persons concerned. It is quite another story to give some hint of something of that kind under circumstances and arrangements which remove it from direct Parliamentary consideration and direct Parliamentary decision. That, of course, is apparently what is meant in the second Sub-section of Clause 12. Whatever views are taken by different Members as to whether Rent Courts are good things or not, let us fight that battle frankly as and when it is raised squarely before the House. I hope my right hon. Friend is not wedded to taking some vague and yet unrestricted power to create something of that kind without further reference to Parliament and without the matter having been thoroughly thrashed out. So much for the second Subsection of Clause 12.
    1282
    Now for the Sub-section in Clause 10 in which these Advisory Committees are to advise. This brings me to the point which has made me most anxious, Sir, to catch your eye and submit one or two considerations which, so far as I can judge, are entirely free from any party or controversial reference. We all pride ourselves in this country upon the purity, the integrity and the intelligence of our judicial system, and it is an axiom of political science that a country develops in stability the more you are able to separate the administrative sphere from the judicial. We all know how they can be mixed up in war time. We have all seen, in one form or another, the chaos which comes whenever you blend the two together, as you have to do in the stress of a great war, but here we are dealing, I grant, with a very serious problem which is one of the many consequences of the Great War and its economic dangers and difficulties. But at the same time, up to now, the decision as to whether in any particular case a house shall be occupied by A or by B. when both have claims to it, but the other will have a real grievance if he does not win the case—that sort of thing up to now has been decided solely by County Court Judges who are trained in legal matters and infused with the proper legal spirit and who decide these things, I am confident, without conscious bias, and certainly without the least disposition to shirk a very difficult and delicate decision. A number of whom I know. Several of them are Persons with whom I have had the most intimate friendship for many years, and there is no part of their work which is more difficult or more trying or to which they feel the necessity of bringing the most rigorous trouble and impartiality. What are you proposing to do? If you have a committee merely to advise, you cannot have an Advisory Committee on a particular case. That is merely to darken counsel. You could only have an Advisory Committee properly on administrative matters laying down general rules or general lines of guidance in matters of administration.
    I am afraid we have not had a very close exposition of it, but I do not quite see how this is going to work, and I will call my right hon. Friend's attention to Section 103 of the County Court Act, by which it is open to any County Court Judge to appoint assessors, who shall help

    1283
    him with their special knowledge in any case in which he thinks it would be of value. There is nothing in that Section to limit the number of them. I have known, and many hon. Members have known, case after case where that has worked exceedingly well. In a case in which there has been a conflict of doctors, where an eminent local doctor has been called in as an assessor, with his special knowledge of the technicalities and details of medical controversy, it has been of the greatest help. Similarly, I have known builders called in when the question had to do with technicalities or the quantities of building, and so on. If there be circumstances such, for instance, as a case whether a cottage has to be reserved for a person working on a farm, not in the interest of the man or the other man but in the general interest of agriculture, and, presumably, of the country, there may well be an expert, who need not necessarily be a land agent. He may very well be the representative of great trade unions, like the Agricultural Labourers' Union, who may be in an admirable position to assist the County Court Judge in his decision. My point is, that any help in the form of advice to a Judge in his functions can best be given by one or two assessors appointed for the purpose by the Judge himself rather than by a vague committee appointed, not by the Judge but by a Government Department, who are concerned with administration and are not concerned primarily with the process of justice. I am not in the least unfriendly to the right hon. Gentleman, whose very skilful handling of one of the most difficult problems has been notable; but I do ask him not to muddle up administrative and judicial spheres by talking about an advisory committee, who are to advise the Judges on how they should act. If, on the other hand, his Department wants consultative or advisory committees, let him remember that his predecessors, and possibly himself, have already appointed such committees. There was a very famous one, of which Lord Dawson of Penn was Chairman, and another of which I had the honour to be a member for some years, and of which people connected with local authorities were members. You can have consultative committees without any fresh Act of Parliament. You can have assistance given to
    1284
    the County Court Judges without any fresh Act of Parliament. You can have a Rent Court whenever you bring it before the House of Commons, and the House of Commons approves of it. Is there any need to have this vague machinery detached from Parliamentary control, with, apparently, no precise and well-defined functions, and with no clearly cut statement as to the circumstances under which it will function. Is it necessary to have all that, for one vague indefinite part of the Measure while the rest of it has been put forward in an eminently clear and businesslike way? Whether we think my right hon. Friend is right or wrong, there is no doubt that in the future he will be proved to be right and wrong sometimes, but for the most part he has been clear and businesslike, and I do ask him whether there is any possible reason for so constructing and arranging this provision that Parliamentary control over it is really no control at all.
    Mr. G. W. H. JONES: Whatever concession the Minister of Health may make, I hope he will not abandon the principle of having some committee of some sort to settle the problems that will arise. I differ entirely from hon. Members who have spoken on this side, because I think, essentially, that this is a question that ought not to go before a County Court Judge to be decided upon narrow and very difficult technicalities. It is, in the main, an administrative question, which a committee could deal with very well. I do not in the least agree with the form that the proposal takes in the Bill. It is provided that the Judge can send matters to the reference committee for consideration and report. Supposing a man is legally represented. He has to pay one fee to go before the Judge. That fee will be exhausted when the matter is referred to the committee for consideration. When their report comes in, one of the most important things of all will take place, and that is, whether the Judge will follow the report or not. Then there will be a third set of fees incurred. It is lamentable that we should draft a Bill which will involve people, many of them people of small means, in three sets of legal costs, in order to get what may be a comparatively simple question settled. What I suggest to the Minister of Health is that this Clause should be altered so that the Judge has not to send the matter

    1285
    to the reference committee for consideration and report, but to be determined. That is not a novel thing. Already the High Court Judges have power, which they constantly exercise, of sending awkward and complicated cases, involving a lot of calculations, to a special referee. I suggest to the Minister of Health that permission might be made that these questions might be sent to the reference committees for the purposes of determination.
    Nine cases out of ten that come before the Courts to-day are in the main questions of reckoning up the amount of rent due. The standard rent is quite clearly defined, but it is very difficult to know what the standard rent was nine years ago. When you find the standard rent, all the rest is a mere matter of arithmetic, and it is absurd to go before a Court of law for the purpose of entering into calculations which are merely arithmetical. The bulk of the people who will go to the Law Courts under this Bill will be people of comparatively small means. Those people with some means, or with prudence, have good advice, and they can generally manage to keep out of the Law Courts, and to let other people make the law far them. They keep on the safe side. I do suggest that the machinery here provided is extremely unsuitable. Why do you want a County Court Judge or a trained lawyer to reckon up 75 per cent. of 10s.? The hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) says that nobody has asked for these committees.
    Sir K. WOOD: Not these particular committees.
    Mr. JONES: I agree there, because it is a hybrid proposal that nobody ever thought of; but I differ from the hon. Member if he says that nobody has asked for any committees. The idea of having committees instead of having to go to Court has been advocated by many people. People say, "Why do we want to go to a Judge and incur legal expenses?" I know from my own experience that one very large tenants' organisation is in favour of the idea of having committees instead of Judges to decide these questions. The hon. Member for West Woolwich said that there is no request from the County Court Judges. Of course, there is not. Nobody who knows the Judges would expect them to make such a request. They think, as one of them
    1286
    said before the Onslow Committee, that they are performing a useful duty, and they are willing to continue it if Parliament wants them to do so, and they will not complain; but the County Court Judge who said that, and expressed his willingness to continue the work, has to sit in Court until six or seven o'clock, day after day, trying to get through the work. He may sit until 12 o clock.
    A great deal of criticism has been made as to the provisions of Clause 12 in the Regulations. It is said that they are very vague. It is well that they should be vague in the Bill, because if you draft Regulations otherwise, lawyers will bring forward all sorts of points as to mandamus, etc. It is better, so long as you have the root idea, to put it vaguely in the Bill, and to let the Minister draw up his Regulations. We are putting work on tribunals already seriously overcrowded. They have more work than any other Courts that I know of. They are extremely congested. When you are going back three years on the question of rent you nearly always get an amount which represents a very considerable sum in costs. Supposing there is a dispute between a landlord and tenant for 2s. or 4s a week and it goes back over a period of two years to the 1920 Act, you get an amount over £20, and that involves the parties in £25 apiece, party and party, in costs. The people may have a bona fide dispute. There is no dishonesty on either side, but simply a difficulty in arriving at the exact amount. I have known of a case where four people have been held liable to pay, in addition to their own costs, £25 to the other side. Do not let Members of the Labour party run away with the idea that the landlords under this Bill are rich men. Very often landlords under this Bill are people who do not own a brick. The tenant who sublets is liable to pains and penalties. From my own experience, the landlord who is landed in unsuccessful litigation is often as poor as his tenant, and he has not the means of taking advice that some landlords in much bigger circumstances can do. I hope that the Minister will stick to these proposals in the Bill, and that he will re-cast Clause 4 on the lines which I have indicated, or on some other lines, so as to make a really workable measure. I want to see these disputes taken away from the Law Courts, to which they ought never to have gone, so that people who

    1287
    have a bona fide difference of opinion can get a case settled without being over-weighted with the knowledge that if they lose they will be bowed down with expenses out of all proportion to the sum involved.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On the Second Reading of this Bill I expressed the opinion that on Part II there would be a greater difference of opinion than on Part I. In stating that view I had particularly in mind the provisions which are the subject of the Amendment now under discussion. Of course I was not unconscious of the fact that the mere suggestion that Committees of this kind should be set up might give rise to doubts and fears, particularly on this side of the House, lest I should be doing something which would eventually lead to the setting up of permanent rent courts. Perhaps those doubts and fears have been strengthened by the sort of observations which have come from the opposite side in Committee upon this part of the Bill, in the course of which hon. Members on the Labour benches have made it clear that this is what they desire. But that is not news to us; it is what we would naturally expect; and it is a matter which we have to face, whether we put it in this Bill or not. I think that perhaps my hon. Friend has a greater faith in the willingness of the Labour party to be restrained by precedents than I have. I have always thought that they would make their own precedents.
    I would like to try to meet, so far as I can, the objections that have been raised. It is my fear that I cannot please all my hon. Friends. One of them is in favour of the very thing which is anathema to another. One is anxious that I should so recast this Sub-section as to make it what it is not to-day, and provide for the actual inception of rent courts. On the Second Reading of the Bill my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) pointed to the word "jurisdiction," which occurred in what is now Clause 12 of the Bill, and he asked what jurisdiction it was proposed to give to this reference committee. Jurisdiction had really no place in the Bill, and I have now taken it out of the Bill. So far as the functions of the reference committees are concerned, they are confined either to acting as an advisory committee
    1288
    to the County Court or as arbitrators in a particular case where matters are referred to them by the tenant and the landlord. But as to the matters which it is contemplated that these committees might consider and report on, there seems to be considerable misunderstanding, because two versions have been given by hon. Members. Both were quite wrong. One of them spoke as though they would have to advise as to who should inhabit a house, whether the existing tenant or whether the landlord should get possession of it. That is not so at all. There is no question of advising whether the occupant of a house on a farm is to remain there.
    9.0 P.M.
    If the hon. and learned Member for Middleton (Sir R. Adkins) would look at the Bill he would see that the only questions on which they may be asked to advise the County Court are instances arising under this part of the Bill in relation to the rents, character or condition of dwelling-houses. In Clause 10 it is stated that an increase of rent which may be decided upon must have reference to the character and condition of the dwelling-house, so that when these words are again used in Sub-section (4) the character and condition of the dwelling-house are to be considered merely as they may affect the amount of rent which it may be fair and reasonable to charge. The hon. Member for Stoke Newington (Mr. G. Jones) spoke as though all they had to do was to make some mathematical calculation. The House will see that the questions which they have to determine go very much further than that. These are not questions which can be decided by reference to a ready reckoner; they are questions of what is fair and reasonable in the particular circumstances of a particular house, having regard to the number of circumstances specified in the earlier portion of the Clause. Therefore that makes it clear that skilled assistants, of which my hon. and learned Friend spoke, are not substitutes for reference committees for this particular kind of work. It is possible that County Courts may desire to make use of assistants in considering questions even under this part of the Bill. I agree that in that case they will have power under the Section quoted to appoint them. But it is clear that if they are to be experts upon these particular questions, they are to be found

    1289
    among people who have some special connection with property, either as tenants or as landlords, or it may be as surveyors and valuers.
    Another criticism has been made. It has been said that all this is so vague and so uncertain that nobody can tell what it means and that that uncertainty must, in the process of time, react upon the situation generally as regards new houses. I cannot deny there is a certain amount of force in that contention, but can we get rid of the uncertainty? Granted we are going to have control of one kind or another for a certain period of time, is it not certain in that case, that so long as that control remains there must be a certain amount of doubt as to what the position of the landlord is going to be under that measure of control? It is not so much the case of the erection of houses, because as has often been pointed out, new houses do not come under control. It is a sort of psychological effect which is produced in the minds of people who used to, and who might now, invest money in property by the fact that property of this kind is still subject to certain restrictions. Although anything which is uncertain about this part of the Bill must to a certain extent have that deterrent effect upon the investment of money in house property, yet I do not think that the particular Sub-section which we are discussing and the reference to these proposed committees, really adds very much to the uncertainty which must inevitably attach to this whole Measure.
    There is a reason for this vagueness which has been criticised, and I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) when he said it was highly undesirable we should be tied down too definitely to what exactly we are going to do in two years' time, when conditions are going to be so different from what they are today. I entirely agree. That is the reason why this part is vague. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middleton very kindly said that up to now I have been clear except upon this point. If I may put it so, I am clear upon this point. I am clear that it is a point on which it is not desirable to be clear. I say you cannot tell to-day what are going to be the conditions in June, 1925; what is going to be the pressure on the County Courts, and so forth. The
    1290
    hon. Member for West Woolwich, I think, mentioned that a demand had been made by County Court Judges for further assistance. That is not in connection with what is going on now, but what may go on after the first period of control comes to an end. I think when that time approaches, when we see how many houses have come out of control, how many new houses have been provided by building or the conversion of old houses, then both we and the County Court Judges will have a much better idea as to whether the situation is such that they can easily deal with it themselves or whether they will need some assistance. I should desire myself to consult County Court Judges on this point, which I think is one upon which their advice would be invaluable and, indeed, almost essential. I do not desire, even in the matter of the composition of the reference committees, to be pressed to settle at this stage, more definitely what their composition is to be. I think it is very much better that that matter, too, should be left to be decided later. The House will observe that although Sub-section (4) states that the Minister of Health may appoint these committees, it does not say that he must do so, and, in fact, I contemplate, as one of the possible alternatives, that no reference committees need be appointed at all. But if they are appointed, then, just as I would rather postpone until I have a more reliable acquaintance with what the position is going to be, the actual appointment of the committees, so I would rather postpone until then the question of their composition.
    From both sides of the House—and this is the only point on which there was anything like unanimity—there was a request to me to give greater Parliamentary control over the Regulations which, under Clause 12, would govern the constitution and procedure of these reference committees. I am asked to give greater Parliamentary control than is provided by the procedure there set out. I should like to say that from the first it has been my genuine desire that Parliament should have full control of these matters. What I have to consider is whether that control should be given by Regulations under the existing Bill or whether I should take the only alternative course, namely, to introduce another Bill in the early part

    1291
    of 1925. It seemed to me there was a good many objections to the latter course. Another Rent Restrictions Bill! Surely the country is tired of Rent Restrictions Bills, and would be glad to be spared another one. Surely that would, above all other things, add to the uncertainty of the future. It would be said: We are going to have another Rent Restrictions Bill, and who can tell what sort of Bill that will be? Who can tell what sort of thing it will be by the time it becomes an Act? It seemed to me, therefore, much better to settle the policy now, once and for all, and leave the details to be filled in nearer to the time, and in such a way that Parliament will have full control, and will be able to say whether it likes or dislikes any particular proposals which may be brought forward and will have power to annul them altogether if it is thought they are on wrong lines.
    That was what I thought I had done in the Clause as it stands to-day. Since it was my intention and desire that Parliament should have the fullest possible amount of control, I have been considering an Amendment down in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middleton, the result of which would be to give a more positive diree tion to the procedure, so that when these Regulations are laid upon the Table they will not become operative unless both Houses of Parliament pass a Resolution in their favour, whereas under the proposal now in Clause 12 they would become operative unless either House passed a Resolution against them. I should be very willing to accept that proposal. I feel it is only carrying out the intention which I have had all along, and I hope the effect will be to satisfy hon. Members who have any doubt or fear as to what may be done under this Clause in the future. I hone it will satisfy them that what we are, in effect, doing is to postpone our decision as to whether there are to be reference committees or not, and, if if there are, what sort of committees they shall be, until a date when we are better able to consider the whole situation with full knowledge and decide on the best thing to do.
    Mr. FOOT: Whatever may be the ultimate decision arrived at by this House, there will be great gratification at the announcement that has just been
    1292
    made by the Minister of Health, acceding to what I think is a wish that will be shared by all parties. I was much impressed by what was said by the hon Member for Stoke Newington (Mr. G. W. H. Jones) as to the necessity of making some, provision against considerable expenditure upon legal proceedings. Whether hon. Members belong to the legal profession or not, they will, I am sure, all be willing to join in any scheme that will save at any rate the poorer tenants from having to incur large sums in the way of legal expenses. When he referred to the expenses that were incurred, I think he said, on fighting a case of a few shillings per week going over two or three years, that the expenses might amount to £25 upon each side, I think he must have been referring more to the practice in London than in the provinces, for such figures as he quoted would make the mouth of any of us provincial lawyers water. Such high figures are beyond our imagination altogether. If it were proposed in this scheme, and now suggested by the right hon. Gentleman in the latter part of this Bill, that we should have reference committees that would lift out from the Courts altogether these decisions as between landlord and tenant, I think a great deal more could be said for that proposal than can be said for the Clause in this Bill.
    As the Bill stands at present, we are only adding another trouble, we are only adding to the legal processes that are at present necessary, or that will be necessary in 1925, a further process, and that is the fear that I have. I think that he himself gave a clear indication of what might happen when he suggested that there might then be three contests, where, if the landlord and tenant were both represented, considerable expenditure in legal fees would be involved. It may be suggested by the right hon. Gentleman that in the Regulations which will then be proposed legal representation should be excluded. I think that in turn will meet with great opposition, and opposition, I think, from the people themselves. When it was suggested, in connection with the military tribunals, for instance, that legal representation should be done away with, the people themselves whose interests were concerned insisted upon having the advantage of legal representation. Here, I think, where a man's interests might be very closely involved, he is entitled to ask

    1293
    for legal representation, and if he is excluded from that, there will be discontent upon that ground. If his demand for legal representation is acceded to, there will be, first of all, the contest when the matter first comes before the Court, there will be the legal representation probably before this shadowy committee—for it is shadowy at present—and there will be the further contest when the Judge himself deals with the matter later on, so that we are not dealing now with the comparison of the use of the ordinary Courts of the land—the County Courts—and the use of an outside committee, which would commend itself to many in this House, but we are simply adding one further process to a process which is already expensive enough.
    We are committing ourselves, as the right hon. Gentleman said—and that is the difficulty—to a policy which, I think, grafts upon our law as we have it to-day something hitherto unknown. Will the House consider what will be the constitution of these committees? The hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) suggested that the committees might consist of members of the local authorities. I should object strongly to any such constitution, for this reason: The local authority is very often formed on strictly party lines, and when we come to constitute our committees, the membership of the committees is very often worked out on the same basis as the representation of the parties within the council. The housing committee, to which he referred, would be constituted upon party lines, and if they themselves appointed the reference committee, there would be upon it so many Conservatives, so many Labour men, and so many Liberals, according to the numbers of those parties upon the appointing body. When we deal with a matter involving tenancy to-day, we have this advantage, that the parties know, when the case is fought out, that it is a decision above any corruption or influence. There is not a County Court Judge in then land who would not be just as jealous as the highest Judge in the realm to resent the approach by any person interested in his suit. That would not be so if we were dealing with a local committee. We know what happened with the military tribunals during the War, the disgraceful back-scratching that went on, and the personal influence that was brought to bear. It is
    1294
    inevitable if you have a committee consisting of a number of local representatives that influence will be brought to bear upon the members—it may be political influence, it may be influence that comes from business acquaintanceship or from personal friends.
    Therefore, I think it is difficult for us to arrive at a decision to-day, until we know what the constitution of the committees will be. It is all very well saying we ought to commit ourselves to a principle and leave the constitution until a later date, but the constitution may be everything, and I suggest that where it is now proposed that we should put another ring around the house, and where we are giving to the parties concerned three legal fights, instead of one, the best course we could take—and we appreciate the fairness with which the right hon. Gentleman has laid this matter before the House—is not to commit ourselves to any definite policy to-day, but to wait, and realise what the circumstances of the next two years will enforce upon us, and in any event, if we decide upon the advantage of an outside committee, a reference committee, an expert committee, as against the ordinary courts of law, to decide fairly between two systems, and not to graft the later system upon the earlier and introduce into the administration of our law, affecting closely the interests of large numbers of our people, some idea which is entirely strange to all the laws as we have had them. I am only anxious in this matter that we shall not give an added burden to the people of this country, and particularly to the poorer tenants of this country, and I would ask the House to remember that we are not proposing here to set up a reference committee that will deal with all the difficulties between landlord and tenant; it will deal simply with the houses to which, in 1925, the principal Act will apply, so that there will be only a certain number of houses in this country—how many, I cannot now say—that will be dealt with by the reference committee, whereas all the houses at present over the rental limit, all the business houses of the country, and all the houses that have become decontrolled will be outside the advantage or disadvantage of the reference committee.
    If it were suggested that in 1925 all houses in this country could be dealt with in this way, that disputes relating to

    1295
    these properties could be dealt with by this new system, I think there would be a great deal more to be said for the argument, but I think it is an additional objection against the proposal that is now made that it will apply only to certain houses that will accidentally come within the definition that will then have application. I suggest that, seeing that the position in two years' time is so uncertain and doubtful, it would be far better for us then to decide, with such wisdom as we can acquire in the meantime, as to what is the best system we can apply in dealing with the properties concerned.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I thoroughly agree with every word the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) has said, except that I did not quite agree with his last sentence, when he said that there might be something in the proposal if it would apply to every class of house, and not only to the houses which will be decontrolled in 1925. I hope I am not going to repeat anything which was said when I was not in the House, but in confirmation of what the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has said, may I point out that the great principle and the great jewel upon which English law is based has been the fact that Judges have never been appointed by the Ministry, but always by the Crown, that their tenure of office is permanent, and that their salary is not subject to discussion in either House of Parliament. Are we going to change that, and to put forward, under the guise of a Committee, a judicial body appointed by a Minister? I do not know who is going to pay their salary. Probably it will be paid by the Minister who appoints them, and consequently they will be subject to any influence the Minister may bring upon them. Are we going to do that, and to jettison all the principles which have made English justice the first in the world, either in the past or at the present time? I sincerely hope we are not, and I shall be very pleased to accept the suggestion made by the Minister of Health, provided that we can be quite certain what that suggestion is. As I gather, from what he said, it is this, that in 1925, should he be desirous of setting up reference committees, he will come down to this House and lay upon the Table the proposals he intends to make.
    1296
    This House will then have an opportunity of considering them, and that opportunity will not be after 11 o'clock at night, but on an ordinary day, at the ordinary time of business. Then, unless this House or the other House both agree with the proposals of my right hon. Friend, those proposals will fall to the ground.
    I do not know whether I have put that clearly, but what I want to secure is that this House, and the other House, shall have a proper opportunity, when we can all be present, wide awake, and not asleep, at the commencement of business, to consider whether or not these committees should be set up. I want to guard against the possibility of the Minister coming down and saying, "The House has already agreed to the establishment of these committees; all we have got to consider is what powers they are to have." I want it to be clearly understood, if we withdraw the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) and myself, that nothing can be done until a new proposal has been submitted under this Bill to this House and to the other House. If that be done, so far as I am concerned, I shall be very glad to accept the proposal of my right hon. Friend, and I thank him for having made it.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think my right hon. Friend has correctly interpreted the suggestion that I made, except, of course, that I cannot commit the House two years hence as to the particular time of the day at which consideration of the proposals shall take place. That the House must decide for itself.
    Captain BENN: It is decided by the Government Whips.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There are various ways of making those arrangements, which are not unknown to my hon. and gallant Friend. My right hon. Friend is perfectly correct in saying that that is the suggestion which I propose, and if I, or the Minister of the day, desire to set up reference committees, he or I would have to bring down to the House and lay upon the table Regulations showing what the constitution and the procedure of the committees are, and unless this House, and the other House, passes a Resolution confirming those Regulations, they will be null and void.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any undertaking that the discussion will be at a time of day when we shall all be here?
    Sir K. WOOD: Perhaps the House will allow me, as the Mover of this Amendment, to express my thanks to the Minister of Health for the very handsome way in which he has met the objections from this part of the House. I think he has dealt very fully and very fairly with the situation. All we ask is that the House shall have an opportunity, in the light of the events and of the facts which may well occur in the next two years, of again considering this matter, and of again coming to a conclusion as to whether these particular committees shall be set up or not. In that respect, the right hon. Gentleman has very amply met us. Two years hence I hope he will still be here, and will occupy the same position. I hope also that all the other hon. Members of the House will be equally present to take part in the discussion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Captain BENN: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I must congratulate the Minister of Health on averting a very dangerous catastrophe. For days there has been a serious revolt among the Government supporters, which has been repressed. It was led by a very distinguished but, as we gather from the Press, a transient figure in this House, the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), supported by one of the most vigorous Members of the last Government, who was a right-hand man on the Front Bench. They objected to these Reference Committees, and the Minister has made a speech, has given compliments, and has made promises, and they have come forward and, with overflowing gratitude—with almost inordinate and incommensurate gratitude—they have thanked him for meeting their serious attack and for making concessions in virtue of which the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) is proposing to withdraw his Amendment. What exactly has the Minister given to these desperate mutineers? First of all, he has not accepted their Amendment; that Amendment he simply refuses to accept. The ultimatum, so far as that is concerned, is ignored. Then he says to
    1298
    the hon. and learned Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir R. Adkins), "I will accept an Amendment of yours, and these Regulations, when they come before the House, shall not require to be corrected, they shall require to be confirmed." What, precisely, is the difference between those proposals?
    The right hon. Member for the City of London, who is a master of the procedure of this House, knows perfectly well that his proposal that those Regulations should come before the House at a reasonable hour will never be met, for the simple reason that those Regulations will be laid before Parliament in pursuance of this Act when it is passed. Any matter laid before Parliament in pursuance of an Act of Parliament, is exempted from the Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House at 11 o'clock. Therefore, those Regulations will be matters so exempt. I have yet to see, whatever Government is in power, a Government Whip who is willing to give daylight hours to a matter which can be considered after 11 o'clock. These bargains do not exist in regard to exempted matters. They will get anything in after 11 o'clock that they cannot get in before that time. The concession does not appear to be very good. What are the concessions? Whereas it is proposed the Regulations should be laid and anyone should be at liberty to come forward and say, "This one should be omitted and this one amended" the Government concession is that they require a motion to be put forward that they be approved. What is the difference between these two proposals? Absolutely no difference at all. The hon. Member will come forward and say: "I wish so-and-so to be omitted." The Government Whips will be put on and he will be defeated. What he has gained is this, that the Government Whips will take the initiative on what is required to be approved. He will say: "I do not want to approve of that." The Government. Whips will be put on again, and again he will be defeated. The summing up of the whole matter is this, that the revolt is over, that peace has been restored in the ranks in return for a concession which is worth nothing whatever.
    Amendment., by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): Sir William Raeburn.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: On a point of Order. I have an Amendment on the Order Paper: in Sub-section (4) to leave out the words "the Court" ["to assist the Court"].
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Amendment to leave out Sub-section (4) has been withdrawn, and, therefore, the words remain and that covers the case of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dumfries.
    Sir W. RAEBURN: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (5) to insert a new Sub-section—
    "(6) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section one of this Act, Section seven of the principal Act shall continue to apply to a mortgage on a dwelling-house in respect of which the making of an Order for possession or ejectment is opposed by the tenant on any of the grounds referred to in Subsection one hereof until the determination of the proceedings, and in the event of the Court refusing to make or give an Order or judgment, or adjourning the application, or staying or suspending execution, or postponing the date of possession, or directing that a tenancy shall be a subsisting tenancy, the Court shall have power to deal with such mortgage as though Section seven of the principal Act applied thereto."
    Dr. CHAPPLE: On a further point of Order. I have a further Amendment to Sub-section (4), after the word "Court" ["to assist the Court"], to insert the words "or by a landlord or tenant," and a further Amendment on the next line. Are these also out of order?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: As I have said, the Amendments are covered by what we have previously done. Apart from that, Mr. Speaker has ruled that certain selected Amendments shall be taken, and I cannot deviate from that rule.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: On a further point of Order. May I draw your attention to the fact that even in the Committee upstairs this Bill was taken on one day when the Housing Bill was taken and the Minister himself was not present, and on another day when the Scottish Estimates were taken and the Scottish Members were required in this House. I would urge you, respectfully, to exercise more freely your power of selection, and, if in order, to give this House the opportunity of discussing other Amendments.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid I cannot go beyond what I have said and beyond what Mr. Speaker has ruled.
    Sir W. RAEBURN: I think there is great reasonableness in this Amendment. After June, 1925, there is sure to be a request or a demand from many landlords for an increase in rent, but you cannot proceed at once on the 24th June to put the sitting tenant out of the house. You have to go through some legal process, if a man objects either to the additional rent or to move. Sheriffs and Courts of Law have of recent times been taking a very lenient view in regard to arrears, and have been lenient where a man has admitted he owed the money, but said that he could not at present pay it out of his small income. After 24th June, 1925, hundreds if not thousands of tenants will come under decontrol who so far have been allowed to remain. What is to be done with them, and what is going to happen to the mortgagee or the mortgagor in relation to the property involved.
    Mr. HOUFTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The object of this proposal is to give some protection to the mortgagors who find themselves unable to get possession of their house, and who may, if the mortgage is foreclosed, be unable to replace it. The Government have considered this matter, and I think my hon. Friend has a case. As the hon. Member seems to anticipate the words which he has chosen, and the particular form of his proposed Amendment, are likely to give rise to certain difficulties. In the first place, he refers to Section 7 of the principal Act, and proposes that the Court shall have power to deal with such mortgage as though that Section applied thereto. That reference will no longer exist, because when the Act comes into operation that part of the Act will already have expired.
    I have tried to find some other form of words which I could suggest to the House, but I do feel that there is a great objection to bringing in manuscript Amendments at the last moment when they refer to such a complicated matter as this. It seems to me, therefore, that if anything is to be done to meet this case it would be much better that it

    1301
    should be done in another place, so that when it comes to this House hon. Members may have it on the Paper instead of attempting to deal with it now. Therefore I suggest to the hon. Member that, if he will withdraw his Amendment now. I will undertake to look into the matter, and endeavour to get inserted in another place an Amendment which will meet the case which he desires to meet by his Amendment and which will not be open to the same technical difficulties.
    Sir W. RAEBURN: In view of what the Minister of Health has just said, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 12.—(Regulations as to reference committees).
    (2) In addition to any questions that may be referred to a reference committee by the County Court under this Part of this Act, provision may be made by the Regulations for the reference to and determination by a reference committee of any questions in relation to the rent payable or to be paid by a sitting tenant which may be submitted to them by the tenant and landlord.
    (3) Every Regulation so made shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either of those Houses within twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such Regulations is laid before it, praying that the Regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Regulation, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the word "and" ["tenant and landlord"], and to insert instead thereof the word "or."
    The Clause provides that the reference may be submitted to them by the tenant and landlord, which means that both of them must combine to submit their point to the reference committee. I suggest that the tenant or the landlord should be able to approach the reference committee; that this should not depend upon concurrence between the tenant and the landlord, but that either the landlord or the tenant should have power to say, "I will not submit my point to the reference committee." I want the reference committee to be moved to activity either by the tenant or the landlord, whereas the Bill as it stands provides that both the
    1302
    tenant and the landlord must agree. If the landlord likes to say that he prefers to go to the Court, he has a great advantage over the tenant, and therefore may make the influence of the reference committee nugatory.
    This reference committee will be extremely valuable, economical, and efficient, but they must not be committees set up merely for the convenience of the Court. I want them available for the tenant or the landlord in the first instance, so that litigation may be avoided. I am under the impression that the committees may be conciliation committees, which will enable the tenants to get justice without the necessity of having to employ lawyers and go to the expense of going to Court. There are many of these poor tenants who would rather suffer injustice than go to Court or be taken to Court. If you have these reference committees, I should like them to be available to the tenant or the landlord, and to serve the purposes of conciliation committees. I imagine that perhaps nine out of 10 cases would be settled without the intervention of the Court. I had an Amendment down to Sub-section (4). This Amendment is not consequential on that Amendment to Sub-section (4) of Clause 10. If that Amendment had been accepted Sub-section (4) would have read:
    "In order to assist in the determination of questions arising under this part of the Act in relation to the rent, character or condition of dwelling-houses,"—
    etc. Reference committees may be established to which certain questions may be referred by the Court or the tenant or the landlord. That widened the scope of operations of the reference committee, which instead of being moved to activity only by the Court, might be moved to activity by the Court or the landlord or the tenant. If this Amendment is carried, then all questions, in cases of rent only, can be sent to these reference committees by the Court or the landlord or the tenant. This is a very important matter, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. FOOT: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If this Amendment were accepted the effect would be to transform completely the nature of the reference committees and convert them into rent courts. The hon. Mem-

    1303
    ber by this alteration gives the power to a landlord or tenant to appeal to the reference committee to decide any question in relation to the rent payable. That would be totally inconsistent with Subsection (4) of Clause 10 which has been already passed, which says that questions as to the rent, character, or condition of dwelling-houses are to be referred to the reference committee by the Court. The result of this Amendment will be that instead of the Court referring the matter to the reference committee it would be referred on the single initiative of the landlord or tenant. Therefore it can be seen that the Amendment is inconsistent with the Sub-section which has been already accepted, and therefore, in addition to being unacceptable, it is also out of order.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think that that is so. This Amendment would leave the Bill in an inconsistent, position, and is therefore out of order.
    Mr. FAIRBAIRN: On a point of Order, I submit that the first line of Sub-section (2) clearly shows that the matter is in the discretion of the Court. It does not necessarily follow that it must be referred by the Court. My hon. Friend's Amendment means that the Court shall have liberty to send the matter to the reference committee if the landlord or tenant asks. It is only a question of putting the tenant in the same position as the landlord, subject to the direction of the Court.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. FOOT: On a point of Order. It is suggested by the right hon Gentleman that Sub-section (4) of Clause 10 is inconsistent with the Amendment which is now proposed. May I submit that by Sub-section (2) of Clause 12 there is an additional power given so far as the reference committee is concerned. In addition to any question which may be referred to the reference committee by the County Court under this part of the Act, provision may be made for reference and determination by the reference committee of any question as to rent payable or to be paid by a sitting tenant, that may be submitted to them by the landlord or the tenant. I submit that what is done under this Clause is in addition to what has been done previously. It may be open, under Regulation, for the landlord
    1304
    and tenant without the intervention of the Court to call in the aid of the reference committee.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I point out that Sub-section (2) of Clause 12 says that, in addition to certain questions which may be referred to the reference committee by the County Court under this part of the Act, the Court may also send to the reference committee as an arbitrating body, for decision, any questions submitted to it by both the landlord and the tenant. What the hon. Member's Amendment does is to transform the arbitrating functions provided in Sub-section (2) of Clause 12 into a determination of exactly the same questions as are under Sub-section (4) of Clause 10 reserved to the Court.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: As I understand Sub-section (2) of Clause 12, the reference committees may be moved to activity by the Court, or by the tenant and the landlord coming together. My Amendment putting in the word "or" would mean that the reference committees, on questions of rent, may be appealed to by the tenant direct or the landlord direct; that is, that the tenant may ask the reference committee to hear a dispute between him and the landlord with regard to rent, or the landlord may ask the reference committee to hear a dispute between him and the tenant, and the reference committee may call upon the tenant, if the landlord appeals to them, or may call upon the landlord if the tenant appeals to them. The difference is this: If the tenant and landlord must first of all agree, the landlord has an advantage over the tenant, because the tenant may say, "I do not want to go to Court with you, but let us go to the reference committee"; but the landlord says, "No, I prefer the Court," and he takes advantage of his position, forces the tenant to Court, and gets an advantage over him. If the word "or" is inserted, the tenant can go to a reference committee. I submit that it is not the least inconsistent with Sub-section (4) of Clause 10, and has nothing to do with it.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I was not quite clear until now, but the hon. Member's argument makes it quite clear to my mind that the Amendment is inconsistent with Sub-section (4)
    Dr. CHAPPLE: On another point of Order. When Sub-section (4) was under discussion, and your Deputy was in the Chair, I rose to move an Amendment to leave out the words "the Court." The Deputy-Chairman said that you did not select that Amendment of mine, and, therefore, I could not move it.
    Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: Is it in order for an hon. Member to begin to argue all over again a point which has been decided?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must hear the hon. Member's point of Order.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: If it is now plain that my Amendment on Clause 12 is inconsistent with Sub-section (4) of Clause 10, but I had an Amendment on that Subsection which was not called, and that deprived me of the advantage of moving an Amendment to Clause 12, I want to know how I can get redress. Your Deputy in the Chair would not call me, although I rose to a point of Order, but if the words "in court" had been left out, would this Amendment then have been in order?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That proves more completely than ever that the present Amendment is out of order.
    Major-General Sir R. HUTCHINSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the word "either" ["either of those Houses"], and to insert instead thereof the word "each."
    Sir R. ADKINS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand this is the first of two Amendments, which together will carry out the intention of the original Amendments on the Paper, which, I have privately taken the opportunity of pointing out to the hon. Member, would, if moved exactly as they stand on the Paper, make nonsense of the Clause. I think he has now amended the Amendment in such a way as to make sense of the Clause: as amended.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words
    "annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Regulation, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder,"
    1306
    and to insert instead thereof the words
    "confirmed, His Majesty in Council may confirm the Regulation, and the Regulation shall have the force of law."
    Without agreeing with my right hon. Friend that the Amendment as originally drafted made nonsense of the Clause, I willingly insert the words in the form in which they are desired by his technical advisers. The Sub-section then will read as follows:
    "Every Regulation so made shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by each of those Houses within twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such Regulation is laid before it, praying that the Regulation may be confirmed, His Majesty in Council may confirm the Regulation, and the Regulation shall have the force of law."
    In this form the words carry out our intention, are acceptable to my right hon Friend, and are in accordance with similar words in the Act.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: On a point of Order. I have an Amendment down to reinsert in this Sub-section words which the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill took out in Committee. If he is now going to accept this Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman, can I still go on with my Amendment? As the matter now stands, under the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend the House may either annul or confirm the Resolution. If the words "or modify" are put in they will give a third alternative. The right hon. Gentleman is taking away from the House the power to modify. The Minister, in Committee upstairs, said he had learnt a lesson from the Nurses Registration Bill and therefore he is going to deprive the House of its right to modify any Rule or Regulation laid on the Table of the House. That, I submit, is an encroachment on our rights and privileges.
    Sir F. BANBURY: What was done was with the consent of all parties.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: I was not in the House, and I was not a party to the arrangement. I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman now whether he is prepared to accept the words "or modify," so as to give the third alternative. These words constitute a real privilege of this House. It is a privilege which has been enjoyed by the House ever since we started legislation by reference. When

    1307
    this Bill passed its Second Reading, the Sub-section provided that the Regulation should be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it had met, and if an Address were presented by the Houses or either of them within 21 days, the Regulation might be annulled or modified. Thus it gave the House the right to modify the Regulation, but upstairs the right hon. Gentleman declared that he proposed to deprive the House of that right. I want to suggest to him that the words should be reinserted in, my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment, so as to retain the rights and privileges of this House.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member has confused the whole issue in this case. The original proposition which we discussed in Committee was quite a different one from that which we are now considering. Under that proposition, the Regulations might be modified or annulled by a Resolution of either House. The hon. Member is quite unfair in his account of what I said upstairs, a correct account of which I will now give to the House. What I pointed out to the Committee was that experience under the Nurses Registration Act showed that a provision which gave to either House a power of modification by Resolution might reduce matters to this absurd deadlock, that one House might pass a modification in one sense, and the other House might pass a modification in exactly the opposite sense, so that there would be a deadlock from which there would be no way out. It was in order to remove that absurdity that in Committee I moved to omit the provision about modification. Now we have a different state of affairs. The Regulations can only become operative if an Address is presented to His Majesty by each House praying that the Regulations may be confirmed, and, therefore, if either House objects to any particular Regulation, all it has to do is to omit to pass an Address praying that that particular Regulation may be confirmed. In that case the Regulation in question will not, of course become operative, and it would then be for the Minister, having ascertained what the view of the House was, to consider what the proper procedure should be and to produce another Regulation.
    Captain W. BENN: I think the boon given to the right hon. Baronet is smaller and more meagre than I supposed at the time. In the case of these Regulations, an Address is to be presented to His Majesty praying that the Regulations be confirmed, but does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that for each Regulation a separate Address shall be presented? Of course that could not possibly be done. There will be one Address relating to all the Regulations, and the right hon. Baronet, if he is still here, in return for the revolt which he has led, will have got for us the privilege of saying that we will reject the whole, or we will take what the Government cares to give us. The hon. Member for Dumfriesshire (Dr. Chapple) seems to me to have made a point of substance in saying that we are losing power. What we have really got to now is that the Government will be in the position of presenting a set of Regulations, and we shall have no power except to say that we will take them exactly as they are presented, or, otherwise, to lose our opportunity.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 13.—(Rules as to procedure.)
    The Lord Chancellor may make such Rules and give such directions as he thinks fit for the purpose of giving full effect to the provisions of this Part of this Act relative to legal proceedings.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) desire to move his Amendment, to leave out the words "this Part of"?
    Mr. HARNEY: I put this Amendment down as being consequential upon an Amendment which has been disallowed. I had put down an Amendment which would enable the tenant to apply for a house to a landlord who had vacant possession, and, if the landlord refused, to go to the County Court and get an Order. It would then have become necessary to make a rule for the carrying out of that procedure, and, therefore, I put down this Amendment to strike out the words "this Part of," in order to enable Regulations to be made covering both Parts of the Act. It is quite unnecessary now.

    CLAUSE 15.—(Certificates of sanitary authorities and definition of repairs.)
    (5) For the purposes of this Act the expression "repairs" means any repairs

    1309
    required for the purpose of keeping premises in good and tenantable repair, and any premises in such a state shall be deemed to be in a reasonable state of repair, and the landlord shall be deemed to be responsible for any repairs for which the tenant is under no express liability.
    Mr. JAMES STEWART: I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), to leave out the words
    "repairs' means any repairs required for the purpose of keeping premises in good and tenantable repair, and any premises in such a state shall be deemed to be in a reasonable state of repair,"
    and to insert instead thereof the words
    "'reasonable state of repair' means good and tenantable repair, including whatever is required to make the premises fit for human habitation, and 'repairs' means anything required for the purpose of keeping premises in such a state."
    In Committee this matter received considerable discussion, and I think it is correct to say that, when we were dealing with the question of repairs, the Minister told us clearly and explicitly that it was intended that internal decorations would be covered by the word "repairs." I questioned that statement so far as Scotland is concerned, and said that, already we had had decisions arising out of the cases taken under the Rent Act whereby the certificate of the sanitary inspector was of such a nature as to declare that the house was not reasonably fit for human habitation. I instanced one case that had happened at Clydebank, not the Kerr and Bride case, dealing entirely with the question whether a landlord was entitled to get an increase of rent because of the fact stated by the tenant that the house was not habitable. It arose in this way. Repairs had been done to the plaster on the walls and the paper had been stripped from the walls. The landlord refused to put fresh paper on the wall, and the sanitary inspector gave a certificate that the house was not reasonably fit for habitation. The case was fought in the Sheriff Court, and the Sheriff Substitute gave a decision in favour of the tenant. The case was appealed to the Sheriff Principal who came to a different finding, and declared that the question of papering the wall was not a part of repairs at all. One other decision of a similar nature has been given, and consequently as far as Scotland is concerned the law as it stands for the moment is that the word repairs does not apply to internal decorations.
    1310
    What we are asking is that the law shall be made clear on the point, and that the wording of the Amendment shall make it clear that in the case of repairs, internal decorations of the kind I have referred to are part of what the landlord is entitled to do. That is the intention of the Minister. That is the intention of the Act as I understand. But if it is left as it stands and a case arose, as it will undoubtedly arise in Scotland, the result would be exactly similar to the decision which has been given already. May I read the plea of the defender:
    "The defender entered upon occupation of the house on 28th April, 1920. After entry he complained that the plaster was broken in parts and the landlord accepted the position and had the plaster repaired. In order to have these repairs to the plaster work executed, a very noticeable portion of the entire wallpaper had to be removed. The pursuer contends that the replacement of the removed and damaged wallpaper is a necessary repair for which the landlord is liable. Necessary repairs are defined by the Statute to be those necessary to put the house in a reasonable state of repair. The defender's position is that the house in its present condition is in a reasonable state of repair. Expert evidence was not spared by the defender in order to show that the house in its present state is in a reasonable state of repair. Of these witnesses, one, Dr. Taylor, admitted that he spoke only from the point of hygiene, which was not in question. Another witness, Chisholm, gave his personal views on the question of repairs, but these opinions did not appeal to me as being based on any principle allowing me to judge of their soundness."
    Other witnesses followed thereafter and the Sheriff Substitute decreed that the defender was entitled to a decree as against the landlord, and the Sheriff Principal, on reviewing the case, came to an entirely different finding. If the Minister desires to make it clear beyond doubt what is the intention of the Act he has to accept my Amendment or substitute words in the Bill to make it clear what the intention was as he stated upstairs.
    Mr. McENTEE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. HARRIS: Those people who are interested in housing reform owe a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend for putting forward this Amendment. It is one of the most difficult and burning questions in our poor districts to define what is the kind of repairs that are necessary, and enforcement is even greater. Anybody who has been follow-

    1311
    ing the administration of the last Act by leading sanitary authorities, knows how extraordinarily difficult a task they have had. The owner of slum property is usually a very cute, clever, sharp-witted person, very ingenious in covering up defects in the condition of the houses from which he draws rents, and for years there has been a constant conflict between the local authorities and the owners of this kind of property. These particular owners have extraordinary skill in covering up faulty workmanship, insanitary, verminous rooms, which badly want painting; and they are very clever in avoiding their responsibilities. Very often, there are too many families to each house, and too many persons to each room, and unless a decent standard is insisted upon, you cannot get these houses in anything like a decent state of repair.
    There is a constant struggle with vermin, where you have an insufficient water supply, and where the opportunities for cleansing the houses are insufficient, and the buildings originally were badly built, with unsatisfactory foundations, and no proper damp courses. I could take the right hon. Gentleman down to the East End of London, and no doubt he has seen the same thing in Birmingham, where there are houses with no proper damp course, with the ground floor below the level of the ground, the rooms constantly damp. Owing sometimes to the poverty of the owners of the property and at other times to their unwillingness to do their duty, these houses are from one year to another never really fit for human habitation, and it is only by insisting that Regulations in regard to repairs are made as clear as ingenuity can make them, that things are going to be anything like satisfactory. I hope that if the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept this Amendment now, he will see whether in another place he cannot substitute something better.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have been somewhat taken by surprise at the speeches made upon this Amendment, because they have been speeches of criticism of the present interpretation of the words in the existing Act. If it be true that the words in the existing Act do not give the protection to the tenant that he ought to have, this Amendment is not going to improve matters, because
    1312
    anyone who will read the relevant parts of the Bill, that is to say, Clause 15, Subsection (1), will find that it refers to works required to be executed to put a dwelling-house into a reasonable state of repair, and Sub-section (5) of the same Clause states what a reasonable state of repair is to be, namely, "good and tenantable repair"—words which appear in the Amendment of the hon. Member. In fact, the Amendment is nothing but a drafting Amendment. The hon. Member has taken the words in the Bill and turned them round. Still, it remains the fact that under the Amendment a reasonable state of repair would have to be interpreted as "good and tenantable repair." The Amendment really has no bearing on the case which the hon. Member put, but if he will allow me to have a look at the case I shall be glad. It seems to me that in that case the interpretation put upon the words is not the interpretation which I would have expected and not the interpretation which I had been advised would generally be attached to these words. I shall be quite prepared, however, to consider whether it is possible to define what is meant by "good and tenantable repair" better than it is understood at present. I do not want to be misunderstood. I am not giving any sort of guarantee. I am not sure that the proper place to put any alternative, if alternative were desired, would be in a temporary Rent Restrictions Act, and whether it should not be in a permanent Housing Act. Still, I recognise the force of the point of the hon. Member, and I am quite ready to give it further consideration on this Bill.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I have a recollection that a deputation from Dundee drew the particular attention of the Scottish Board of Health to the point raised in the Amendment. I can assure the Minister of Health that in Scotland at any rate the interpretation given does exclude, as far as operation is concerned, that reasonable provision which the Mover of the Amendment has in view. It is very gratifying to find that the Minister is prepared to consider this matter. It means a very great deal for the tenant. In Scotland, such important matters as the cleanness of a place, the redecoration, the giving of the requisite wallpaper, and the necessary application of

    1313
    workmanship, are all set aside, whereas before this housing control was in operation you could get a landlord to make a deal with his tenant, the tenant to buy the paper and the labour to be provided by the landlord. We have had instances to show how rigorously every allowance in the Bill is taken advantage of by the landlord for putting on the full increases, and we are faced with the difficulty that the tenants have to pay largely increased rents even when they are endeavouring to share the responsibility for those increased rents by sub-letting. It has been agreed to permit of a further exaction and I hope, on so important a matter as this, the Ministry will take action on the lines of the concession indicated by the Minister, and that if we are to permit the landlords to charge the fullest possible allowance, we will see that something substantial is done to make up for the increased charge.
    Mr. ENTWISTLE: I have every sympathy with the object of the Mover of the Amendment, but I suggest the Amendment will not have the desired effect, and that the words proposed will be restrictive. The obligation cast upon the landlord will be less than the obligation he is under according to the words of the Bill. The Bill provides that a reasonable state of repair means keeping the premises "in good and tenantable repair." These are words well understood by the law, which appear in the ordinary covenant of every lease, and upon which there have been numerous decisions. There is a leading case which is acted upon, in which the whole matter was gone into and a definition given in the most careful and meticulous manner of "good and tenantable repair." It means something more than keeping the premises in a state fit for human habitation. I do not think that is a very high standard. One might enter into comparisons between what is fit for human beings and what is fit for pigs, but, as I say, that is not a very high standard, and is not very definite. The words which are now proposed lack the clarity attaching to the definition of "good and tenantable repair." I therefore trust that my hon. Friend will not seek to add these words, and will see that the words "good and tenantable repair" provide a good standard. It means such a state of repair as any ordinary reasonable tenant
    1314
    would require, if he were going to take the premises himself, having regard to the nature of the locality in which the premises are situated. The words apply in a relative degree to Park Lane and other districts, and the better the locality the higher the degree of repair required. Therefore the words are sufficiently mobile, and gives a much higher standard than the Amendment seeks to enforce. I hope the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman will satisfy the Mover upon the matter.
    Mr. R. DAVIES: I am surprised at the argument used by the hon. Member for South West Hull (Mr. Entwistle). We have carried our point in this Amendment a step further than the Bill. The Bill simply states:
    "'Repairs' means any repairs required for the purpose of keeping premises in good and tenantable repair."
    That would mean a house with no decorations at all—simply whitewashed. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, it would. I have a document here to prove conclusively what I have said. The report of a sanitary inspector on a house recently was this:
    "In the kitchen the wallpaper on lower half of walls has been removed for the repair of the plaster work and has not been renewed at all."
    That house was deemed to be a house in a state of good and tenantable repair without re-papering the walls at all, and we carry the point further by saying that "good and tenantable repair" includes whatever is required to make the premises fit for human habitation. However, in view of what the Minister of Health has said, we are prepared, with the permission of the House, to withdraw the Amendment in the hope that he will meet somehow or other the case we have put forward.
    Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman was careful to tell us that we must not take it as a pledge that anything would be done. I would like him to make inquiries, and I think he will find that almost every medical officer of health and other person who has to inspect this kind of premises will tell him that putting a house into the condition laid down in this Clause does not mean papering a wall, but does mean just putting it so that water or wind do not come in. In the Poplar district we have

    1315
    the greatest difficulty in getting the magistrates to close houses which, in the judgment of ordinary people, ought to be closed, because we are not able to prove that water comes in. If there are windows in, and the roof is on, that is about all that the magistrates consider necessary. Therefore, if it is not to be done in this Bill, I think the Minister ought to bring in a short Bill in order to deal with this question, because it is one of the burning questions that the local authority is up against when trying to deal with slum property.
    Mr. HARNEY: I wish to point out a curious confusion in the drawing of the Clause and the Sub-section. The first Sub-section says:
    "A certificate of a sanitary authority as to the condition of a dwelling-house shall specify what works, if any, require to be executed, in order to put a dwelling-house into a reasonable state of repair."
    I suppose that the Judge would interpret what, that means, but when you come to the later Sub-section you find the words
    "Good and tenantable repair shall be deemed to be a state of reasonable repair."
    One would have thought that a natural thing to do would be to put into the first Sub-section that the certificate should deal with good and tenantable repair. Why is it necessary to have one Subsection saying the certificate shall state what is necessary to put into a reasonable state of repair, and then another Subsection to say a reasonable state of repair shall mean a good and tenantable state of repair? I simply wanted to draw attention to that as another illustration of the hopeless confusion that is imported into this Bill from beginning to end, designedly or from bad draughtsmanship, which will leave its mark in the future in all the Courts as the worst drawn Act of Parliament that ever was passed.
    Mr. JAMES STEWART: In view of the offer that has been made by the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 16.—(Application to Scotland.)
    This Act shall apply to Scotland subject to the following modifications:

    (a) The twenty-eighth day of May shall be substituted for the twenty-fourth
    1316
    day of June; the Scottish Board of Health shall be substituted for the Minister of Health; references to the Registrar of a County Court shall not apply; and "exciseable liquor" shall be substituted for "intoxicating liquor";

    (b) For removing doubts it is hereby declared that nothing in the principal Act affects the operation of the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1920, and the reference in Sub-section (2) of Section one of the last mentioned Act to the provisions of Acts repealed by the principal Act shall be construed as a reference to the provisions of Section three of the principal Act.

    Mr. SPEAKER: The two remaining Amendments on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Sir W. Raeburn)—at the end of Clause 16 to insert a new paragraph—
    "The landlord shall, in respect of all rates imposed upon him as owner for the current year of assessment and thereafter so long as the principal Act shall continue in force, be entitled, in settling with the assessing authorities, to such deduction from the amount payable as shall reduce the same to the amount whch would have been payable if the assessment had been imposed on the basis of the rate in force on the third day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen,"
    and to insert a further new paragraph—
    "All assessments leviable in Scotland upon the owners and occupiers in respect of houses to which the principal Act applies shall during the current assessment year ending at Whitsunday, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, and thereafter so long as the principal Act continues in force, be leviable only upon the basis of the annual rent or value as appearing on the valuation roll for the year ending at Whitsunday, nineteen hundred and fifteen."
    are both out of Order, as they are outside the scope of the Bill.
    Bill to be read the Third time upon Friday next.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS

    REMISSION OF DEBTS)
    Resolution reported,
    "That it is expedient to authorise the remission of arrears of principal and interest due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners in respect of Eyemouth Harbour, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session relating to Local Loans."

  NATIONALISATION OF MINES AND MINERALS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  I do so because I think the present condition of the industry leaves a great deal to be desired.
  Mr. AMMON: I beg to second the Motion.
  Lord E. PERCY: In the absence of my hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary for Mines (Lieut.-Colonel Lane-Fox)—
  Captain BENN: Why is he absent?
  Lord E. PERCY: My hon. and gallant Friend has not the same foresight as the hon. and gallant Member for Leith, who is always in his place. This is a Bill for the nationalisation of mines and minerals which the Government cannot support, and I do not think it should be read a second time, and at this hour of the night, without proper discussion.
  Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): It would be ill befitting the dignity of this House that a Measure of such importance should be passed into law without more discussion than this Bill has received. The attitude of the House raises memories of other Debates in the last Parliament on various Measures brought forward in different parts of the House. Seldom or never have we had the House discussing a Measure of this first-class importance with that light-heartedness and carelessness which is more the privilege of those who enjoy a position of greater freedom and less responsibility. On the general question of the nationalisation of mines and minerals I do not think hon. Members opposite on the Labour Benches can be quite serious—[HON. MEMBERS: Oh!"]—in proposing that a Measure of this importance should be given a Second Reading in this House in five minutes' time, after the long and heated discussion which has taken place this afternoon. There are many points of substance and indeed of principle in this Measure. [An HON. MEMBER: Have you read the Bill?] I have read all these Bills. The Clauses in this Bill are legion, and when hon.
  1318
  Members go through the Amendments which I shall put down, hon. Members will realise the extent to which responsible discussion may go in a measure of this kind. It raises the general question of the nationalisation of mines and minerals, and it is one which cannot be judged fully at the moment; but we know that we are having experience in the matter, year after year, as to the extraordinary inefficiency and failure of the undertakings conducted on the lines of nationalisation. There is the case of Russia. The hon. Member opposite when he went there became a Noble Lord.
  Captain BENN: On a point of Order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to Standing Order No. 19, which deals with irrelevancy and tedious repetition, and I would ask whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite is not indulging in this?
  Mr. SPEAKER: As for repetition, we have not had time for that yet. As for tediousness, the hon. and gallant Gentleman's own face is the best answer to that suggestion.
  Captain ELLIOT: I am endeavouring to protect the rights of private Members, because this is a Bill which will have to be worked by bureaucracy, and it is a Measure such as we may expect hon. Members opposite to pass into law when they get the opportunity.
  Mr. T. JOHNSTON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Captain ELLIOT: Important legislation of this kind will be rushed through under a Socialist administration. This Measure, for instance, of 23 Clauses has been moved in a speech lasting but a minute or two, formally seconded, and there has been no opportunity for discussion allowed to any hon. Member on this side of the House.
  Mr. LANSBURY: It might be a Crimes Bill we are passing.
  Captain ELLIOT: No doubt, new crimes will be created by this new legislation.
  Mr. LANSBURY rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be

  1319
  now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Captain ELLIOT: Measures of this kind have been under discussion on more than one occasion in other countries. We have discussions going as far back as the ancient relics of China and Japan—
  Mr. LANSBURY: And Peru!
  Captain ELLIOT: And Peru, that State in which private enterprise was abolished, and consequently the State decayed.
  Mr. EDE, rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put, but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent and declined then to put the Question.
  Captain ELLIOT: And as I was saying, Peru—
  It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  NATIONALISATION OF MINES AND MINERALS BILL.

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]
    Adjourned accordingly at One Minute after Eleven o'Clock.

BRITISH ARMY.
  WAR DESERTIONS.
  WAR DESERTIONS.
  OFFICER'S ACCOUNT (CAPTAIN CHILCOTT).
  OFFICER'S ACCOUNT (CAPTAIN CHILCOTT).
  AIRSHIP SERVICE, GREAT BRITAIN AND INDIA.
  AIRSHIP SERVICE, GREAT BRITAIN AND INDIA.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  HOSPITAL PATIENTS (COST).
  HOSPITAL PATIENTS (COST).
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (M. R. Moss).
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (M. R. Moss).
  PENSIONS INCREASE ACT.
  PENSIONS INCREASE ACT.
  MINERS' WELFARE FUND.
  MINERS' WELFARE FUND.
POST OFFICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, SCOTLAND.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, SCOTLAND.
  AGRICULTURE PRODUCE (POSTAGE).
  AGRICULTURE PRODUCE (POSTAGE).
  CLOTHING CONTRACT (MESSRS. HAMMONDS).
  CLOTHING CONTRACT (MESSRS. HAMMONDS).
  BILLINGSGATE BRANCH OFFICE (ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT).
  BILLINGSGATE BRANCH OFFICE (ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT).
  SUB-OFFICES (ASSISTANTS' WAGES).
  SUB-OFFICES (ASSISTANTS' WAGES).
  WIRELESS AND CABLE COMMUNICATION, WEST INDIES.
  WIRELESS AND CABLE COMMUNICATION, WEST INDIES.
  COST OF LIVING INDEX FIGURES.
  COST OF LIVING INDEX FIGURES.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURE ON RELIEF SCHEMES.
  INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURE ON RELIEF SCHEMES.
  TRADE FACILITIES ACT.
  TRADE FACILITIES ACT.
  ROAD SCHEMES (FOREIGN CEMENT).
  ROAD SCHEMES (FOREIGN CEMENT).
  CROFTING COUNTIES, SCOTLAND (FORESTRY).
  CROFTING COUNTIES, SCOTLAND (FORESTRY).
  AGRICULTURAL EXHIBITION, MOSCOW.
  AGRICULTURAL EXHIBITION, MOSCOW.
  SUGAR BEET.
  SUGAR BEET.
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS.
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS.
  WATER SUPPLY, HATHERSAGE.
  WATER SUPPLY, HATHERSAGE.
  EJECTMENT ORDER, BAKEWELL.
  EJECTMENT ORDER, BAKEWELL.
  SANITARY INSPECTORS, URBAN DISTRICTS.
  SANITARY INSPECTORS, URBAN DISTRICTS.
  EDUCATION CODES, SCOTLAND.
  EDUCATION CODES, SCOTLAND.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE on the Woolsack.

THE RUHR.
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: My Lords, I observe that a statement was made yesterday by the Prime Minister in another place that he hoped to be in a position to make a statement on behalf of the Government next Thursday on foreign affairs, especially in connection with the occupation of the Ruhr, and I should like to ask the noble Marquess the Deputy Leader of the House whether we may anticipate that the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will be in a position to make a statement in this House on Thursday next on that subject.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, the noble Viscount has most correctly recited what occurred in another place and it is a fact that my noble friend the Foreign Secretary hopes to make a statement upon the Ruhr in your Lordships' House on Thursday.
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: If that be the case may I ask further whether the noble Marquess can give us any indication as to how far it will be possible for a debate to take place on the statement which will be made by the noble Marquess? I do not, of course, suggest that the decision as to a debate would be quite definite until we have heard what the noble Marquess has to say, but I should like to know if it will be possible for a debate to take place.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the statement is made on Thursday it will be made, as is usual in your Lordships' House, just before public business in answer to a private notice Question. I think that probably the noble Viscount will feel that this would not be a very convenient opportunity for a debate. Discussion upon a private notice

851
Question has hardly ever in my experience taken place in your Lordships' House. Should the noble Viscount wish to have a debate he has, of course, only to say so and arrangements will be made, but I would venture to suggest to him that he might find it convenient to wait until he has heard my noble friend's statement on Thursday before determining whether he would like to raise a debate.

TORQUAY CORPORATION BILL.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which appears on the Paper in my name. I can assure your Lordships that there are adequate public reasons for taking this course.
Moved, That the Order made on the 26th day of April last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday, the 14th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a—.(The, Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill read 2a accordingly.

WEST SOMERSET MINERAL RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
PORT OF LONDON (DOCK CHARGES) BILL.
Read 3a with the Amendments, and returned to the Commons.

OYSTER FISHERY (ROACH RIVER PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER): My Lords, I beg to move the Resolution standing in my name. The delay in bringing forward this Bill has been unavoidable.
Moved, That the Order made on the 26th day of April last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought
852
from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday, the 14th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill read 2a accordingly.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill; Amendments proposed by the Committee made.

WILD BIRDS PROTECTION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: My Lords, I ought to explain to your Lordships first of all why a Bill of this kind has been considered necessary. It is not because there is at the present moment no legislation for the protection of wild birds, but rather because there is almost too much legislation. Several Acts for the protection of wild birds are now in force and there are enormous lists of protected birds which very often do not coincide as between one county and another. The result is that, though there is plenty of law, the law is not enforced as it should be enforced. In fact, to all people who are interested in the preservation of wild birds, it has for a long time been a matter of increasing distress that the legislation which at present exists is to so large an extent a dead letter, that the law is so constantly broken with immunity or, when it has been broken, that the penalties are so slight that they are really no deterrent to future breaches of the law. I may sum up the present state of things by saying that the law as it stands is so confused and there is such want of uniformity that neither the authorities whose business it is to enforce the law nor the public whose business it is to obey the law, have really any clear idea of what the law is. The result is that there does not exist behind the present law that force of public opinion which is necessary to encourage the authorities, who have it in their power to do so, to enforce the law, or to predispose

853
the public to comply with the law. That is the reason why fresh legislation is considered necessary.
Such has been the state of affairs for a long time past, but some years ago a Departmental Committee was appointed antler the chairmanship of Mr. Edwin Montagu, a man who has great knowledge of and great interest in wild birds, a Committee was which there sat some of the most distinguished practical ornithologists in England and Scotland. They issued a Report recommending the remodelling of the laws for the protection of wild birds. That Report recommended amongst other things that in connection with the Home Office in England and with the Scottish Office in Scotland there should be appointed advisory committees of persons who had an interest in or special knowledge of wild birds, and that these advisory committees should advise the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Secretary for Scotland with regard to matters affecting the protection of wild birds.
The Home Office, at the time when Mr. Shortt was Home Secretary, appointed an advisory committee, and there also exists an advisory committee appointed in accordance with that recommendation under the Scottish Office. When the advisory committee was formed at the Home Office Mr. Shortt asked me to take the chair of the Committee and, not foreseeing at that time that I should be drawn into more public work than I anticipated, I agreed to do so. I have found it a very interesting occupation. The committee is composed among others of one of the heads the bird department of the Natural History Museum, a distinguished representative of the British Ornithologists' Union, a distinguished representative of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and a representative of the Ministry of Agriculture. This committee has sat at the Home Office. The Scottish advisory committee has also had many sittings, and sometimes the two committees have had joint sittings in order to discuss their recommendations to the Government as to the legislation which would be suitable to meet the needs of the situation.
The Bill of which I am moving the Second Reading to-day is the outcome of
854
the labours of those two committees. These committees were, of course, entirely unofficial in the sense that they were composed of outside persons having no connection with the Departments but being appointed solely with reference to their interest in wild birds and, of course, without any pay or official status. This Bill, which is founded on their recommendations, has been drafted in the Home Office, and it is in that sense really a Departmental Bill. As having been chairman of the advisory committee, I have been asked to undertake to promote the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House. I should add that the Bill is not in absolute conformity with the recommendations of the advisory committees, but it is generally so.
I think the main point of difference is that the advisory committees would have liked a provision in the Bill that they should be made statutory committees in this sense, not that they should have special official status or salaries or anything of that kind, but that the Home Secretary in England and the Secretary for Scotland in Scotland should be under statutory obligation to consult the committees. The Home Secretary felt, for reasons which will be obvious, that there was some difficulty in introducing an innovation of that kind and the Bill therefore, while mentioning the committees, does not impose upon the Home Secretary or the Secretary for Scotland any obligation to consult them. It is, of course, assumed that as the committees will be kept in existence the Home Secretary in this country or the Secretary for Scotland in Scotland, except in a case of unforeseen emergency, will, on a matter affecting wild birds, consult the committees, who can meet for that purpose. With that exception I think the Bill really may be said to be founded on the recommendations of the two advisory committees and the recommendations of the two advisory committees are founded in the main upon the Report of the Departmental Committee called the Montagu Committee. That is the reason why new legislation is necessary and how this particular Bill came into being.
Now I would explain as briefly as I can the provisions of the Bill. There may be people who think that the Bill does not go far enough. I would ask those people to bear in mind that what we have been aiming at, above everything,

855
is to get legislation into a shape so uniform and simple, so well understood and so well within the limits of what is really desirable to protect rare birds in this country, that it will have behind it public opinion which will secure its enforcement. If you make it too far-reaching and complicated you defeat its object by simply securing legislation which is admirable on paper but which is not really effective or enforced. For that reason we have made the category of protected birds in this Bill as short as possible. One of the drawbacks of existing legislation is that there are enormous lists of protected birds which nobody reads through and which leave very little impression, except one of despair of being able to follow, upon the minds of those not specially interested in birds. We have, therefore, made the category of protected birds limited to those birds of which there is really some chance that they should establish themselves in this country, which are rare birds and which are in danger of extinction from being much sought after by egg collectors or people who make it their hobby in life to shoot rare birds in order that they may have them stuffed and put in their own private collections.
Category 1, therefore, though it is impossible to make any category absolutely logical, is limited to birds which might establish themselves in this country, which would be in danger of extinction if they were not protected, and whose maintenance as rare species in this country adds greatly to the interest of people who care for the wild life of birds and to the richness of the wild avifauna of Great Britain. We have omitted from it birds which are never likely to breed in this country but which appear on migration in autumn and winter and are frequently shot. I am speaking of birds of which there is no chance of their ever establishing themselves in this country—rare specimens which come to this country rather as wanderers, of which it cannot be said that either the number of species of birds which may really be called British is impoverished, or that the stock of birds in the world at large is diminished, by reason of the fact that when a rare specimen or two comes here in the autumn or winter it is shot, as being a rare bird. I think it is regrettable that it should be shot, but if you extend the category to cover those birds
856
you get again into long lists, and you do not get the protection you want for the birds which you really wish to protect. So far as it goes all the birds in Category I will be so protected under this Bill that it will be an offence against the law to kill any of them at any time of the year, or to interfere with their nests or eggs.
Category 2 consists of birds which breed in this country, which on the whole are not very common as breeding species, but which are very common in the autumn and winter, because they are reinforced by largo numbers from abroad. The simplest instance of the principle which obtains with regard to Category 2 is that of the wild goose. In the autumn and winter in this country there are numbers of wild geese of various kinds, and the shooting of wild geese is a form of sport as legitimate at least as any other form of sport; but there is only one species which breeds in this country at present, and that not in great numbers. Now, it would be impossible to say that it is an offence against the law to shoot wild geese in the autumn or winter, and therefore you cannot give them the protection of Category 1, but it is very desirable that any wild goose which showed a disposition to breed in this country should be protected in the breeding season, and therefore to add that possibly interesting breeding species to the birds which do breed in this country. Therefore, those birds which are put in Category 2 are birds as to which you cannot say that it is really an offence to take or shoot them in the open season, in the autumn or winter, because they are then present in very large numbers, but which it is very desirable to protect as breeding species in the close season, when, under the Bill, they will receive the same protection for their nests and eggs as the birds in Category 1.
Then comes Category 3, under which all birds are protected in the close season, from March 1 to August 31, except against, the owner and occupier. There is to be no list of those birds. It is possible to draw up a very long list of birds which should be protected, and which do no harm, and nothing but good, but if you get your long list it will receive very little attention. On the other hand, it would be possible to say that all birds are protected in the close season, and to have a black list of excepted birds. If you have a black list of excepted birds

857
the difficulty is that it leads to abuse, because by giving general permission to destroy the birds excepted from the protected list, there is the likelihood that while out to destroy the excepted birds the hunter may not confine his efforts to the destruction of the black-listed species. Then it is impossible to draw up a satisfactory black list. For instance, no one-would wish to put the bullfinch, one of our most beautiful and attractive birds, on the black list, but if the bullfinches multiply in a particular locality they may do very great injury to particular gardens. Therefore it has been thought best to say that all birds are protected in the close season, except against the owner and occupier, and to leave it to the owner or occupier to protect his fruit or his crops against any particular bird which is doing damage.
We had considerable difficulty when we came to the question of protecting the eggs of birds not in Category 1 or 2. We thought that, on the whole, if we wished the Jaw to he really enforced, it would be better that we should not attempt to draw up a list of protected eggs outside Categories 1 and 2. The birds left for Category 2 will all be birds which are in no danger of extinction, and which are not at present in danger from depredations of egg collectors; and, if you give protection to the eggs of the common birds, you then, of course, make it an offence for the boy or girl, on the way to or from school, or on a half-holiday in the country, or whenever they have spare time in the country, to take a single egg of a blackbird or a thrush. If you draw any legislation under which the police constable of a country parish has laid upon him the duty of prosecuting a boy or a girl who takes the egg of some quite common bird out of the nest we may feel quite sure, I think, that it is a duty which will not be readily performed and will probably not be performed at all. The effect will be simply to disparage public opinion with regard to the Bill, by making it less likely that the local authorities will fulfil the duties which are laid upon them by the Bill, and which it is really important and necessary should be fulfilled if rare birds are to be protected.
I would sum up the Bill by saying that what we have endeavoured to do is to give protection to rare birds. We have
858
left the protection of the common birds, and their nests and eggs, to the owner and occupier, and the general law of trespass, and power is given under the Bill to the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland so that, should it appear that any bird is suffering from the taking of its eggs or from the destruction of its species—any bird which is an innocuous bird or, indeed, any bird which is, in his opinion, innocuous—it can be given the protection afforded by Categories 1 or 2. That is what we have done to try to simplify the Bill. Then we have gone a little further in order to make it possible to enforce the Bill easily. At present, I am told, you can find in some parts of the country, places where, on the list of birds protected in the county, a bird like the barn owl appears, and you may find in the local bird staffer's shop stuffed specimens of that very bird exhibited for sale quite openly, specimens which notoriously have been killed in violation of the law, though it is most difficult to prove it.
In this Bill there is a most valuable provision from the point of view of enforcing the, law, namely, that with regard to birds in Category 1, or their nest or eggs, and with regard to birds in Category 2 in the close season, or their nest or eggs, if anyone is found exposing for sale birds of those species, the protected of proof that the specimen of the protected bird was legally acquired lies upon the person who exposes it for sale. That is an important provision, and I think that really it should go a long way to stop some of the breaking of the law which is now going on. Every bird stuffer will he obliged to keep a register of birds in Categories 1 and 2, which will enable the origin of the specimen which he has in his possession to be traced. With regard to birds which are not exposed for sale, but which are found in the possession of anyone, the wording it not quite so strict. If it appears to the satisfaction of the Court that there is reason to suppose that the bird was not legally acquired, or its nest or eggs were not legally acquired, the Court has the power to throw the onus of proof (that is what it amounts to) upon the possessor of the specimen, or the nest or eggs, of such bird. That is really most important from the point of view of enforcing the law.

859
The penalties go further than under previous legislation. The penalty for a first offence is a sum not exceeding £5; for the second offence it is a larger penalty, and it may even be a month's imprisonment. The Departmental Committee recommended penalties of that kind. I must say I should have very much liked to see a penalty in the Bill which would be more effective than a month's imprisonment. The greatest enemy, I believe, of the rare species breeding in this country is the egg collector. The collection of eggs of rare British species becomes, with certain people, almost a mania. It leads to a considerable trade. These people are willing to pay enormous prices for a British-collected egg. In the case of birds that breed commonly on the Continent, for instance, the bird collector does not care about getting one of their eggs; he wants it to be an egg of a bird which very rarely breeds in this country and which has been found breeding in this country, and then he wants not only an egg, but the whole clutch of eggs.
And the ideal of the egg collector who carries things to extremes, so far as I can make out, would be to find that a bird which had never bred in this country at all before, was for the first time nesting. He would then be prepared, if he could not get the nest himself, to give any price to get the nest, and his hope would be that the bird would never breed in this country again, so that nobody else would have a clutch of those eggs. That is the sort of thing which is doing more than anything else—far more than the shooting of rare specimens—at the present time to endanger some of our most interesting and rare birds to the point of extinction as British breeding species. That person really is one whom I should like to see subject to such penalties as would really be deterrent.
The Bill says that for a second offence he may receive one month's imprisonment, and that is the form in which I am going to ask your Lordships to pass this provision. What I should have liked would have been that in such a case, where a man was found taking the nest of a rare British bird, in contravention of this measure, the whole of his private collection of eggs should be confiscated and handed over to a museum. That really would be the most deterrent
860
penalty. I am told that there are great legal objections to that, and that you ought not to go beyond the confiscation of the particular egg, or clutch of eggs, or specimen, which is the subject of the offence. I mention that suggestion as the thing which, I believe, would be more-deterrent than anything else, and which, unless there were absolute legal objections to it, I should be very glad to see put into the Bill. However, all I am doing is to bring forward the Bill as approved by the Home Office and by the advisory committees, and I do not ask your Lordships, as far as I am concerned, to do more than pass the Bill in its existing form. I should like to move one or two Amendments in Committee, which have occurred to me, but they will be entirely within the agreed scope of the Bill—the scope as agreed between the Home Office and the advisory committees.
One more thing the Bill does. It enables the Home Secretary or the Secretary for Scotland to establish sanctuaries for birds in any particular area. He can do that at the present time, but he can only do it by saying that every bird in a particular area shall be protected. He is not able to make exceptions. There are some most interesting sanctuaries. There are, for instance, the Fame Islands off the coast of Northumberland, where several species of birds breed which are interesting or rare as regards British breeding species. It is most desirable that those islands should be made a sanctuary. But on those islands there also breed, in numbers far too great, the lesser black backed gulls, which are by no means the most innocuous of birds and which breed in such great numbers on those, islands that unless they are kept in check they will destroy and perhaps exterminate some of the rarer kinds of birds which breed there.
The Home Secretary cannot declare the Fame Islands a sanctuary and except any bird from the provisions, or allow any bird in the sanctuary to be taken or destroyed at all. Under this Bill he would be able to declare the islands a sanctuary and to say that the lesser black-backed gull and the cormorants and birds of that kind need not have the protection of the sanctuary. The rarer birds would have all the protection of the sanctuary. The less desirable birds, which are there in too great numbers, should he dealt with

861
in order to keep their numbers under control. That gives elasticity to the powers of the Home Secretary and enables him to give practical effect to his power of making bird sanctuaries in a way which he cannot do under the existing law.
Those are the provisions of the Bill, roughly, and I would ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading because I believe that there is a very large general public opinion in favour of the protection of our birds. I am sure that to maintain the number of interesting species which make a home in these Islands adds vastly to the interest of a considerable number of people who are specially interested in birds. It really adds to the amenities, and, I would like to say, to the general reputation of our country, that we should have as large a variety of avifauna in this country and of beautiful species of birds as the climate and conditions of the Islands would naturally produce. The object of the Bill is to make the law so simple that it shall be easily understood and so well within the limits of what everybody, at any rate, every reasonable person, really desires to see carried out that it will have behind it a public opinion which will encourage the authorities to enforce the law and will add to the powers of those authorities whose duty it is to enforce the law of making the law effective. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Grey of Fallodon.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for more than a few moments. I cordially approve of the principal outlines of this Bill. I am glad to say that when I was First Commissioner of Works I was enabled to do much towards the establishment of bird sanctuaries in different parts of this country. I believe that public opinion is moving with remarkable speed in favour of the movement for the protection of birds. My fear about this Bill is that so far from its not going far enough, as some of your Lordships may think, it is in danger of going too far and, as such, of defeating its own object. But I should be greatly afraid of giving any check to the wholesome, and salutary movement of public opinion which I now see in all parts of the
862
country. Broadly speaking, subject to an exception or two, this Bill lays down that no bird may be killed in Britain between February 28 and September 1, except birds in farmyards and except, subject to existing Game Laws, partridges, grouse, pheasants and black game.
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. The Bill only protects those birds which are not in Categories 1 and 2 against the public; it does not protect them against an owner or occupier.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I said, subject to certain exceptions, and I am going to deal with one of those exceptions which seems to me to raise an extremely controversial issue. I will not deal with it now; I will come back to it. It is a question, no doubt, of the interpretation of the Bill, and noble Lords who are learned in the law will, I dare say, look at this matter. I think the Bill is extremely difficult to understand. A number of these nine Acts which are about to be repealed are also certainly very much confused. Certainly, in reading this Bill through—and I have read it through several times—I found the greatest difficulty in understanding what actually is intended to occur under the Bill.
The idea of dividing the birds into categories covering the country as a whole is, of course, in accordance with the recommendation of the committees, and is, I am sure, a very suitable scheme. The noble Viscount, Lord Grey, says that, the categories have been made as small as possible. That is not quite so because every bird, with exceptions that you can count on the fingers of your hands, are included in one category or another in this Bill—every bird in Britain; so it has not been possible to make the categories really short. The first Category protects all the birds included in the Schedule against everybody throughout the whole year as regards the bird, the nest, and the eggs. Category 2 protects the bird, the nest, and the eggs during the close season, against everybody, again. Category 3 protects not the nests or the eggs against the owner or occupier, but I think it protects the birds against

863
the owner or occupier or anybody else during the close season. That is how I read the Bill.
There is no category for noxious birds, and I wonder if that is wise. There are certain noxious birds, and among those noxious birds are some of the most beautiful birds in this country; but I doubt whether it is to the interest of avifauna as a whole that those noxious birds should be preserved. The Germans, who know a great deal about this subject, have a regular schedule of noxious birds, and instead of putting those birds into Categories 1, 2 or 3, where they appear in this Bill, they are scheduled in what is practically a, black list by themselves; at any rate, in a list where they do not receive the protection which their charm, their beauty, and often their rarity would entitle them to receive. Now the noxious birds vary according to districts, according to cropping, according to the sylvicultural food supply, and according to a variety of circumstances which I need not go into, and the difficulty of making this list was originally that a raven, for instance, or a siskin, is in a particular category. In every parish in England, Scotland and Wales these difficulties may be produced in spite of the power to contract out, which is invested in the Home Secretary.
This Bill does protect noxious birds. It protects birds which many people regard as a danger and a nuisance in this country. It affords a measure of protection for the little owl. It also affords protection for another type of bird—the peregrine, falcon—in reference to which I read a case in this morning's newspaper. This is unquestionably one of the most voracious and in some ways one of the most dangerous birds. The case to which I refer was in North Wales where, yesterday, a boy was prosecuted for having in his possession a young peregrine falcon. I am quoting from the Manchester Guardian of this, morning. There is no question that the peregrine falcon is scheduled, and that possession of this bird was illegal, and the boy was very properly convicted. But what was the defence put forward? Mr. B. H. Brown, who is chairman of the local homing pigeon society, and who has lived in Llandudno for fifty years, stated that last spring he saw these peregrine falcons strike four pigeons, so he went to the
864
rocks where he knew their nest was, searched the rocks, and produced 1,800 pigeons' legs, of which 659 had identifying rings upon them. I do not know how long they had been accumulating, but I do NOT think that in an exposed place like that a pigeon's leg with a metal ring round it is likely to exist for more than two, or shall we say three years, if so long. Mr. Brown said, in effect: "Well, it may be against the interests of studying our native birds that this young falcon should be taken, but here actually below the lair I find 1,800 pigeons' legs—we will say 900 pigeons, it might be many more—and not less than 659 of these were carrier or domesticated pigeons carrying the identification marks of their owner."
I quote that because if we lay it down that all birds, however noxious, are to be protected against other interests—except by a long and tiresome rigmarole with which I shall deal in a moment.—we shall raise a prejudice against the protection of birds just at the moment when great progress is being made throughout this country. When I was First Commissioner of Works starting bird sanctuaries in all the Boyal parks in London and elsewhere, I got into communication with municipal authorities who own parks all over the country, and I found in great towns that for very little parks without any of the water and other things that we possess—parks much more congested than ours—movements had sprung up to start bird sanctuaries. What will be the effect in Lancashire, for instance, which is a great pigeon fancying and pigeon flying county, if we lay down absolute rules for the protection of the greatest enemy the pigeon has? I therefore urge your Lordships in this matter not to go in advance of public opinion, but to guide, canalise and encourage public opinion rather than hold the bludgeon at the malefactor.
I should like to see a provisional black list. The pigeon is often a really dangerous bird, and the sparrow is often a terrible and a dangerous nuisance. I should like to see a black list out of which you might contract rather than a protection list containing noxious birds which it becomes very difficult for one to destroy. As to sanctuaries, I think the provision is good, but the success of sanctuaries in this country is not going to depend upon anything the Government do, and is not going to depend upon any Act of Parliament

865
stating what birds may or what birds may not be shot, so much as upon the care with which the owner looks after the fencing and the destruction of vermin within the sanctuary.
I should like to come to the question that the noble Viscount raised just now. As I read Category 3 all birds, other than rare birds in Categories 1 and 2, are protected as regards the birds themselves against anybody except the owner or the occupier. The owner or the occupier is defined as the agent or servant also of the owner or occupier, but anybody other than a servant—a guest, for instance has to get permission from the owner or occupier.
LORD BUCKMASTER: What Clause is that?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Clause 6 (1). If anybody is aggrieved by what birds are doing, and requires to kill birds, or to take their eggs from the nest, notwithstanding the provisions of this Bill, in order to protect his property or his crops or his fisheries, he has to go to the Home Office to get permission to do so. Is not that really very ridiculous? And when he goes to the Homo Office, what is the procedure through which he has to go? In the first place, he has to enter into a bond with or without sureties for the payment of a sum not exceeding £50 in ease any permission attached to the licence is infringed. For the licence itself he has to pay £1, and the local authority has to receive copies of this licence, and the county council or the town council, as the case may be, has to have the licence ready for public display. Will that be done? If a man sees sparrows messing about an over-ripe oar crop, or bullfinches——
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: The licence is only to apply to Categories 1 and 2. He can deal with sparrows or wood pigeons without a licence, or delegate any other person to do so.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Does the Bill say so? Section 6 (1) states:
"The Secretary of State shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, have power to Errant a licence to kill or take birds or to take the eggs or nests of birds notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Act, to any person for any scientific purpose or
866
for the purpose of the protection of property, crops or fisheries, or for any other special purpose approved by the Secretary State."
That applies to Categories 2 and 3. If it is a bird in Category 1—the rarest of all birds—where the protection of property or crops is required, or if it, is the case of the peregrine falcon, for instance, is it not extremely unlikely that the owner of the crops will go to Whitehall and have his sureties or deposit £50 and pay £l for the licence and go through all the slow and tedious rigmarole? The vest of the clause seems to me to rest just on what we want to avoid.
What I want to do is to make friends with the taxidermist. Got hold of the local expert and persuade him to protect bird life; do not make an enemy of him. Do not treat him as if he were a culprit or criminal; bring him into this great movement, he is far from being averse from it. We must persuade these men that they have to take their share in the work of bird protect on. One subsection starts by saying, "Where any person sells" eggs—that does not apply only to the professional taxidermist. All sorts of people sell birds and birds eggs, and portions of birds' skins and feathers of birds, who are not taxidermists or professional business men. But they are all roped in under subsection (2) of Clause 3.
By January I, when this Bill is to come into operation, it will be presumed, so far as I can make out, that every owner who wishes to sell the plumage, or skin, or eggs of any birds mentioned in Category 1 has got that bird in contravention of the provisions of this Bill. I want to know—and this again is a question of the legal interpretation—if a blown egg is an egg within the meaning of this clause. It is not defined, and if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner, who I see opposite, will devote his mind to this subject I shall be glad. Subsection (3) of this clause deals, I suppose, with imported stuff. I do not know whether it is intended to make it difficult or impossible to import birds, plumage and eggs of the more rare categories. Here, again, the guilt is assumed. If anyone possesses these things, not merely for the purposes of sale but if he is found in possession of any bird or plumage, it is assumed that there- is reasonable ground for believing that the bird or plumage was killed or taken at a time when it was

867
protected by this Bill. That provision is going to make enemies of the very people whom we want to help in protecting bird life. I do not know what the bearing of this subsection will be on cold storage, but it is a point to which some attention should be given. Paragraph (c) of this subsection is drawn in such manner that you make it a crime for a boy to have in his possession a bird which he may have picked up dead in a country lane. I do not offer any observations about the lapwing except that there seems to be a hiatus of fourteen days which is not accounted for.
Clause 5 deals with the register to be, kept by taxidermists. It is difficult to define a taxidermist, or anybody who carries on business as a taxidermist, or anybody who buys and sells birds' eggs. There are tens of thousands of people in this country who sell and buy dead birds and birds' eggs who, if the authorities took an extreme view of this provision, would be roped in as taxidermists and made to register. The big people will not mind, of course—the auditing of their accounts is, in fact, a register—but it is the small people who will evade this clause. When a rare bird is brought in to the local man in the village who is in the habit of stuffing animals he will say, "This is a rare bird. You have committed an offence in taking it. On the whole you would do better to put this bird at the back of the fire."
Perhaps the greatest injury to archæological research in this country has been the attitude of the authorities towards treasure trove. It is perfectly heartrending to read accounts of the way in which magnificent, superb, and sometimes unique, objects of precious metals, of plastic beauty unquestionably of great value, tracing the history of our remote ancestors, have been smashed by artisans, peasants and farmers, who have dicovered them, because the State has been in advance of public opinion and has made penalties incommensurable in value in the eyes of the persons who are most likely to make finds. It would be disastrous if by anything we do in this Bill we should destroy the evidence of our rare birds by making these people evade the clear provisions of this measure by putting out of the way something which might get them into serious trouble.
I say nothing as to the cruelty; that is dealt with in the existing law. As to the
868
miscellaneous provisions it is a good thing to apply in this country the law which prevails in certain States of America and stop mechanically propelled boats being used to kill birds. But it is notable that it will be illegal to shoot duck off a steam yacht, and it is going too far to give the police powder to confiscate the steam yacht or motor punt from which such an offence has been committed. There is a certain confusion in this Bill. One clause makes it illegal for any person to kill or take or attempt to kill or take any bird on Sunday. On the whole it would be a much greater protection to birds if you made it Saturday instead of Sunday, but I do not think there is anything inherently wrong in leaving a duck decoy open over the week end. And it must be made possible for a farmer to scare a pack of sparrows who are playing loose with his overripe crops, not with a rattle or by waving a flag but by a charge of small shot.
It is extremely technical and I do not understand the whole implication of the subsection in Clause 8 with regard to a local authority granting licences to take birds for the purpose of sale alive, or to sell live birds or expose them for sale. In this connection, and in the same clause further down, there is some obscurity as to the place where such an offence is committed. In subsection (3) of Clause 7 a constable is given power to enter upon any land or premises without the consent of the occupier if he has reasonable cause to suspect that an offence under this subsection is being, or is about to be, committed on the land or premises. It is in the towns where the greater part of these outrages with regard to bird liming are hatched and it is obviously not the place where the offence is to be committed. I think that there and in subsection (5) of Clause 11 a certain amount of drafting amendment would be useful. As regards the advisory committees, I think they serve a useful purpose, but I should have been inclined to follow the lines suggested by the Montagu Committee, which did not wish to have these committees wholly nominated by the Secretary of State.
As regards the offences, Lord Grey seemed to think that the penalties created in this Bill were small. I assure him that in my opinion they are really very serious. I hope that the House is not going to

869
make them any more serious, because if they do so the Bill will be a dead letter. What does Clause 11 say?—
"If any person is guilty of an offence against this Act,"—
down to the schoolboy of fourteen——
"he shall be liable on a summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds or in the case of a second or subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, or imprisonment for a period not exceeding one month."
If you turn to Subsection (5) of Clause 11 you find that:—
"Where an offence under this Act is in respect of more than one bird, egg, or nest, the fines prescribed by this Act may be increased in proportion to the number of birds, eggs, or nests in respect of which the offence was committed."
That is to say, if a boy gets a clutch of half a dozen eggs he is liable at once, on his first, offence, not to a fine of £5 but to a fine of £30, and on a subsequent offence he is liable not merely to imprisonment for one month but to imprisonment for six months. Is not that drastic enough for the most advanced lovers of our wild birds? Surely that gives every chance to any bench of magistrates to inflict the most swingeing and the most deterrent punishments.
I notice that the section of which I am speaking does not apply to Scotland. I suppose Lord Novar thought that it was really too severe and I am bound to say that I agree with that view. There is no objection to confiscating the birds or eggs. I remember that when I was a lad I used to nest in Richmond Park, for which I used, during the last year or two, to be officially responsible. It was very wrong of me, and I used to be caught from time to time by the gamekeeper. For a considerable rime the stolen eggs used to be confiscated and crushed by the keeper's boot, but that was found to be an insufficient deterrent and the last time I was caught in Richmond Park stealing eggs I was made to swallow five. Keep the eggs by all means, put them into a museum by all means, but do not trust too much to confiscation. It is not any good confiscating a motor boat, or indeed a vehicle, as might be done under the Third Schedule if it were regarded as an instrument which was being used for the purpose of taking birds or eggs.
The only other question I wish to ask is this. I want to know what would be
870
the jurisdiction of the Admiralty. It does not apply to water where the boundaries of two local authorities coincide, for that debatable area is already accounted for. I should like an assurance that there is no intention of carrying this measure beyond the three-mile limit. I think that would be rather unfortunate. But in subsection 3 of Clause 11 I find a reference to offences being committed "on the high seas"—in inverted commas. I do not like inverted commas anywhere except in a definition clause, and the definition clause, as it happens, does not define "on the high seas." Whether this applies to great estuaries or to waters outside the three-mile limit the area of jurisdiction ought to be more carefully defined. I do not know whether it will fall to the Admiralty to carry out prosecutions, but I should be inclined to leave the point out altogether.
I have made a number of criticisms which, I think, with two or three exceptions, could probably be called Committee criticisms, but cumulatively they have an importance in relation to the future progress of this Bill. I do not think we want to inquire any further into the desirability of protecting small birds. I believe public opinion to be strongly in favour of that protection and to be growing in force every day. What we do want is to avoid looking upon this as a final measure. In years to come Category 3 will diminish at the expense of Category 2, and Category 1 will increase at the expense of Category 2 and the subordinate category. That is the object at which we ought ultimately to aim, and we should not look at this Bill as the final word in wild bird protection, but be satisfied with making-it the final word according to the public-opinion of the day.
I should like to urge, therefore, that in order to meet the half dozen criticisms that I have made of points each one of which in my opinion is retrogressive in the sense that it will not promote but rather retard the movement to preserve wild birds, the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee. We do not need any further inquiry into the general question of protection. What we need is a more careful scrutiny of how much public opinion will stand, how much public opinion is prepared to work for, and, above all, how much public opinion is prepared to support in the way of penalties.

871
I think such an object is more likely to be obtained in two or three rather informal conferences, such as Select Committees hold, than in any other way, and I hope that this suggestion will receive the sympathetic support of the promoters of the Bill.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I was indeed glad to hear from the concluding sentences of the noble Earl's speech that he was generally in favour of this Bill. I knew, and no doubt many of your Lordships knew, that he took a very keen and a very sincere interest in the welfare of birds, but I am bound to say that until the last few words of his speech I thought his remarks were directed to the destruction of this measure, because although it is true that a great number of his criticisms were, strictly speaking, of a character suitable to the Committee stage, they were undoubtedly marshalled together for the purpose of showing that the whole Bill as it stood was unworthy of your Lordships' support. I cannot help feeling that a great deal of the noble Earl's criticism is due to the fact that there is some misunderstanding about the meaning of the Bill. I do not intend for a moment to dogmatise about the Bill. All Acts of Parliament agree in this, that their language is obscure. I do not think there is any exception to that one general rule.
As I understand this Bill, however, it proceeds upon this footing. The whole class of birds is to be divided into three categories. There is a category in which birds are protected both as regards themselves and as regards their nests. Those are the birds that are specified in the First Schedule. They get universal protection unless anyone obtains permission to enable him to destroy them. Then there is the second Category, where the birds are protected during the close season. Then comes the third Category; and it is here that I think the noble Earl has stumbled, because the third Category is the category in which birds are protected as regards the birds themselves, but not as regards their nests and eggs during the close season against any person except the owner or occupier. That, as I understand it, means that the egg stealer may commit trespass as much as he pleases during the nesting season on
872
anybody's land—providing he is not caught—for the purpose of obtaining the eggs of birds in Category 3, but he must not go with a gun. If anybody wants to destroy the birds the owner or occupier of the place where the birds are is the person to do it, and I do not see anything very unreasonable in that. I should have thought that an Act of Parliament which, on the face of it, recognised the right of people to wander over other people's land for the purpose of destroying birds would not receive much support in your Lordships' House.
It is said that this Bill still leaves open the question of bird nesting. I suggest to the noble Earl that if he has any doubt about that he should put down Amendments to make what I understand to be the meaning of the Bill perfectly plain. Then the noble Earl, having, as I think, misunderstood Category 3, proceeds to misconceive the meaning of the clause with regard to licences. You do not have to obtain a licence under Category 3. Licences are only wanted for Categories 1 and 2. I think when that is considered, should it be accepted as the meaning of the Bill, it removes a great deal of what the noble Earl has said, but if he still thinks the Bill obscure, I suggest that he should bring forward Amendments to make it plain, and I am sure that the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill will do everything to facilitate them.
The next class of criticism to which the noble Earl directed attention was this. He said public opinion is growing and it is in your favour. Public opinion is a great support, but I want to know what is the use of public opinion without an Act of Parliament. It is perfectly useless. The only thing you can do is to formulate public opinion by Statute, and then it is astonishing how greatly, if your Statute is properly drawn, the weight of public opinion is increased. Of that we have abundant proof from the way in which public opinion has grown since the passing of the Children's Protection Act. So I say that the function of an Act of Parliament is not merely to put into operation what people think at the moment. You have always got to keep just a little ahead of public opinion, and I do not think that public opinion in favour of the protection of wild birds will thank you if you leave it without the means of making that opinion felt.

873
The noble Earl referred to the taxidermists. What does he mean about making friends with the village taxidermist? If it is not an offence the village taxidermist may be as friendly as possible, but he has his living to make, and he will continue to stuff birds, and I do not think you can carry out the provisions of this Bill unless you impose penalties upon people who infringe the law. The noble Earl also says that the penalties are ridiculous, and ought to be revised. I took time to consider how it was that he thought a steam yacht was going to be confiscated if a wild duck was shot from it. It takes ingenuity to discover that. I think he has discovered it from Clause 11, subsection (2), which says that the Court may order any bird, nest, or egg, in respect of which the offence was committed, to be forfeited, and that the Court may order any gun or other instrument, in respect of or by means of which the offence was committed, to be forfeited. Now I imagine that the noble Earl says that if you shoot a duck from a steam yacht the steam yacht is the instrument "in respect of or by means of which the offence was committed." If that is not the way in which he has introduced his argument, I shall be glad if he will tell me where it does come in.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The word "boat" is included in the Bill as drafted.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Then the noble Earl does not mean subsection (2) of Clause 11, which I have been reading.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Yes, I do.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I should have thought that as a matter of construction "gun or other instrument" can hardly include a steam yacht. If there is any doubt about it, then let him move to amend by inserting the words "not including steam yacht." It is not the first time that His Majesty's Judges have been confronted with these difficulties of legislation, and I have no doubt they will be able to find a way out. Finally, the noble Earl points out that the offences are cumulative, and he says that the noble Viscount, Lord Novar, who is discreetly absent, is responsible for the omission of Scotland. Where does he find that Scotland has not got the provision about the multiplication of offences.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Clause 11, subsection (5) says:—
"Where an offence under this Act is in respect of more than one bird, egg, or nest, the fines prescribed by this Act may be increased in proportion to the number of birds, eggs, or nests, in respect of which the offence was committed."
Then, on page 10, line 7, Clause 17 says, "Subsection (5) of Section 11 shall not apply" to Scotland.
LORD BUCKMASTKR: I think the noble Earl has discovered what was unknown to me, and I believe to Lord Grey, and it may be that Lord Novar was in this respect able to use his influence. If there is a muddle about it, it is the easiest thing in the world to put it right. These penalties do not shock me at all. I do cot see why you should assume that a bench of magistrates are going to exercise their discretion in an utterly harsh and unreasonable manner. It is not in the least likely that they are going to fine a village boy £30 for taking a nest with eggs in it. The whole elasticity of our criminal law always depends upon the hypothesis, generally justified, that the men administering the law are as sensible as the men who make it, and that they will not go out of their way to render an Act ridiculous by imposing penalties which are within their power but out of all possible proportion to the measure of the offence. If it is required to consider further whether the imprisonment period should be increased, it can be readily done in Committee.
Having anxiously listened to the speech of the noble Earl, I sec no reason why your Lordships should not read the Bill a second time, and I hope you will do so. It may be found that in some of these categories you want further elasticity than is afforded by the way in which they are drawn, but I think that your Lordships who must view, equally with the noble Viscount, the noble Earl who blessed the Bill with criticism, and myself, with great anxiety—and I would go further and say with distress—the swift destruction of the beauty of nature by the destruction of our birds, will hesitate a long time before you refuse a Second Reading to a Bill so carefully prepared, which has received the warm support and advocacy of Lord Grey.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (THE EAEL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I think from what was said by the noble Viscount who introduced this Bill your Lordships will understand that it is one of which the Government approve, and which has been prepared in consultation with the Department. Indeed, had it not been for the pressure of other business the Government would have been willing to consider the possibility of producing a Bill for this purpose, as a Government Bill. The noble Viscount has now introduced this Bill as a private Member's Bill. It has received a considerable amount of criticism from the noble Earl opposite, but, as he says, his criticisms are mainly of a Committee nature—criticisms which would doubtless be embodied in Amendments to be moved to the Bill if your Lordships should give it a Second Reading. In these circumstances I trust that your Lordships will read the Bill a second time to-day. It has been prepared at great pains in my right hon. friend's Department, in consultation with the noble Viscount. As regards the future of the Bill in another place, the Government are not in a position to make any definite promise, because, of course, we cannot prophesy the state of affairs, but if the Bill should emerge from your Lordships' House in such a shape that His Majesty's Government could accept it, and also if it were not of a controversial character in another place, we hope that it would be possible to find time for its passage into law.
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: My Lords, already more time has been consumed on this Bill than I anticipated, but, with your Lordships' permission, I must say one or two things in reply to the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, if only to remove some misapprehensions on the points he raised. I should like to say that I recognise the services which the noble Earl himself rendered with regard to bird protection when he had the opportunity of making sanctuaries in the London parks. I am convinced that he has real good will and a real care for bird protection in the same spirit as many of the rest of us who are specially interested in the subject. But I must say that this makes it all the more difficult to understand the spirit in which he criticised this Bill. It seemed
876
to me that on every possible point where there was a possibility of misconception he gave the interpretation always against the Bill. I doubt whether any legislation which was ever passed, however excellent it may have been, could have got through Parliament if it had been subjected to an examination so very critical, and to such an unreasonable construction as, I think, has been placed upon many of the clauses of this Bill.
For instance, on the question of birds in categories I think the Bill is perfectly plain. Birds in Category 3 are not protected against owner or occupier. If wood pigeons or sparrows are doing mischief the owner or occupier is not committing any offence under the Bill if he destroys them on his own land, or if he employs other people to destroy them on his own land. But if the person is not a member of his family, but someone outside, he has to give an authorisation in writing. He requires no licence to deal with birds like sparrows or the wood pigeon, or any of the birds in Category 3; he requires a licence only if he wants permission to do something which is in contravention of the provisions of the measure. If he wants to do that, to kill birds in Categories 1 or 2—the two categories which are kept so small—then he must, no doubt, apply for a licence. But he is not committing any offence against the Bill if he destroys on his own land, or authorises someone else to destroy, birds in Category 3, which form the vast number of birds in this country. So that, as regards protection against noxious birds, like wood pigeons or sparrows, the owner or occupier requires no licence. If that is not plain I am quite willing that it should be made plain in the Bill. If the noble Earl puts down an Amendment I should like, of course, to be advised by the competent drafting authorities who have drafted this Bill that an Amendment which looks like an improvement is not really going to be, from a drafting point of view, something which will defeat the measure, but I am quite willing to accept anything which will make that point clear beyond all doubt.
With regard to birds in Categories 1 and 2, what was in my mind when I was speaking was the instance of the raven. The noble Earl himself took the case of the peregrine, which is on all fours with that of the raven. In England the raven

877
is a rare breeding species, a noble and interesting species deserving of protection. Where it multiplies it may be a great nuisance, and we deliberately contemplated in this Bill that in Scotland, and possibly some parts of England, licences would have to be given in order to prevent the raven from doing-damage where it is too numerous. And so with the peregrine. The birds in Categories 1 and 2 are comparatively limited in numbers. And the numbers of those among them which may be noxious where they increase is also limited; but in those few places where comparatively rare birds are becoming so common as to be a nuisance the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland can, by giving licences to have the birds killed, accomplish everything, I think, which the noble Earl desires on that point. With regard to the provision in Clause 17 which states that subsection (5) of Clause 11 does not apply to Scotland I have made inquiries, and I find that that is a drafting mistake, which I had not noticed. It ought not to be like that in the Bill at all. That, of course, can be put right.
There are various small points which I need not go into, such as killing on Sundays. I think that is taken from some previous legislation. It is not a point to which I attach importance. If the noble Earl wishes to move an Amendment on small points like that I have no doubt that we could meet him. The hiatus which he complained of about the lapwing's eggs occurs for this reason. Those eggs are not to be taken after April 15. That would, enable the second layings of the lapwing's eggs to be protected and to be hatched. The eggs may be taken before April 15 and remain fresh for at least a fortnight, and so they are allowed to be sold for a fortnight after the date which is legal for taking them. The lapwing is a bird by which some county councils set such store that they protect it altogether—eggs, birds, and everything—in their own counties. But I do not think the noble Earl wished to weaken the provisions about the lapwing—I hope your Lordships will not do that, With regard to the three-mile limit, of course I agree that that should be very jealously guarded, and I will have inquiries made as to what is meant by the powers of the Admiralty under that head. With
878
regard to penalties, I do not think it is reasonable to assume that any bench would impose unreasonable penalties for a very small offence.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I think Lord Buckmaster was under the same misapprehension as the noble Viscount on that point. I never said that the penalties would be excessive; what I thought was that they were quite adequate, but I entered a protest against any idea that they ought to be increased.
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. When I was talking about penalties, what I had in my mind was the abolition of the penalty of imprisonment and the substitution for it of the confiscation of private collections belonging to the offenders. I was not thinking of an increase of the penalties in the Bill, but the substitution of a penalty which, I think, would be far more effective. But I did not propose to press that point. I do not quite know what the noble Earl's opinion upon it is, but should he wish to press it, I should regard the discussion with sympathy.
With regard to the black list, of course the Departmental Committee felt considerable difficulty about it. That is the point which the noble Earl raised, of naming definitely a certain list of noxious birds which are to be open to destruction by anybody. I do not think anything would be gained by a black list. The wood pigeon and the sparrow, for instance, would certainly be in the black list, but an owner or occupier can destroy them or have them destroyed on his own land now, and I do not think anything would be gained by putting them in a list to enable the public to destroy them in the close season. There is no protection for them at all outside the close season. If the noble Earl wishes to draft a black list, though the Departmental Committee felt considerable difficulty as to its merits, I do not see any reason why it should not be considered in Committee. But I would suggest that the Bill is already the outcome of consideration by a very able Departmental Committee and has already been considered by two advisory committees. Amendments which may be reasonable and which do not affect the real principle and scope of the Bill I think could be very easily dealt with in

879
Committee of your Lordships' House as a whole. I very much deprecate the Bill being sent to a Select Committee, and if your Lordships read it a second time I would urge that it be dealt with in the ordinary way in Committee of your Lordships' House later on.
I hope that I have removed one or two misconceptions from the mind of the noble Earl or, at any rate, made it clear that on one of the most important points he has raised I am willing to remove any objection by accepting any Amendment that will make it absolutely clear that the construction which ho placed on the Bill as to the powers of owners and occupiers is not that which was intended. If there is any doubt about it, I would infinitely prefer that it should be made quite clear than be left obscure.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

AGRICULTURAL CREDITS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Beading read.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, in asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, I may say at once that it is not intended to interfere in any way with the ordinary manner in which farmers at the present time obtain and have been accustomed in recent years to obtain advances. The object of this Bill is to fill up certain gaps in the credit system available to our agriculturists, and to enable them by such means to cultivate their land to better advantage. The Bill practically divides itself into three parts. Clause 1 provides long term credit facilities to meet the special case of those farmers who bought their farms during the period of the operation of the Corn Production Act; that is to say, between April 5, 1917, and June 27, 1921.
Sir Theodore Chambers' Committee, which investigated the subject, reported that there was a strong case for some special measure of assistance in these cases. In the majority of cases the banks have behaved very reasonably, but it cannot be expected that they would wish to keep their money locked up indefinitely in these mortgages on land, especially if trade improved and they found they could put their money out to better advantage.
880
It is, therefore, the opinion of His Majesty's Government that these men should be given, as soon as may be, the greatest possible measure of security and confidence. Under Clause 1 of the Bill it is proposed that a man who has bought his farm during the period I have named will be able to obtain a mortgage up to 75 per cent. of the present value of the holding and that the interest he will have to pay, including the sinking fund for sixty years, will be £5 10s. 7d. per cent. per annum.
Then Clause 2 of the Bill deals with the provision of short term credit -through the establishment of co-operative credit societies. It is well known that in practically every continental country, as well as in India and in the Dominions, systems of co-operative credit have played a large part in agricultural development. In this country, however, and despite many attempts, it has not hitherto made any very great progress. This is due partly to the fact that our banking system is better and more widely spread than in other countries, partly to our system of land tenure, and partly to the fact that previous attempts at establishing co-operative credit have been based on the German system of unlimited liability, which seems clearly unacceptable to our people. The Government for three years will advance to any properly constituted agricultural credit society a sum equal to the share capita' subscribed by the members, on which only five shillings in the pound need be paid up. That is to say, if there is a capital of £2,000 the Ministry will advance £1,000 and the members will have to find another £l,000 in shares, but only 5s. will be called in and they will, therefore, have to find only £250. The loans from the Ministry will probably be made in the first instance at 5 per cent., and if the society is economically managed, it should be able to grant short term loans to its members at under 6 per cent.
Clause 3 deals with the facilities for obtaining advances for permanent improvements which are usually carried out by a landlord. The Credit Committee, to which I have already referred, reported that the machinery of the Lands Improvement Acts would be admirably adapted to meet this need, as it would enable the landlords to borrow money for the purpose from the lands improvement

881
company. The limit of 5 per cent., which was all the lands improvement company was, under the Lands Improvement Act, able to charge as interest, has been done away with by this clause, as the limit has hindered business owing to the rise in the value of money. They could not be expected to be able to raise money and lend it at 5 per cent. now that money has become more valuable, The Minister is given the discretion as to the rate of interest that may be charged by the company. The objects for which money may be advanced are extended to include all those objects enumerated in the Law of Property Act, 1922.
Those are the main provisions of the Bill. As I have already said, it will enable those farmers who bought their farms during the time in which land was fetching very high prices when the Corn Production Act was in operation, to get mortgages on their land at the rate of about 5½ per cent. including sinking fund and up to 75 per cent. of the present value. That. I think, must be of enormous benefit to them as they will not always be under the perpetual fear that the mortgage may be foreclosed. In addition to that, I believe it will give assistance to many smallholders and others who require short term credit for the cultivation of their land, and will also enable landowners to make necessary and permanent improvements upon their property. It is for those reasons that I ask your Lordships to consent to the Bill being read a second time. I hope it will receive favourable consideration at your hands.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Karl of Ancaster.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, it has been my lot to comment on various Bills introduced by the noble Earl, and I hope that he will allow me to say that on this occasion I am in favour of the measure which he has just introduced. It is part, of course, of the piecemeal legislation in favour of agriculture which His Majesty's Government are introducing by various instalments, and is, I think, one of the most fortunate portions of then-general programme. It will carry out, undoubtedly, a promise which they have made to the farmers, a promise of much benefit and one of which I hope they will take considerable advantage. Indeed, one of the first criticisms I should venture
882
to make about this Bill is to express my regret that a measure of this kind was not introduced into this country many years ago. It would have been of very great advantage to those who are engaged in agriculture. Naturally measures of this kind take some time to get into operation. It takes some years for people to become accustomed to them, and those of your Lordships who know and have had experience of an attempt to make use, of co-operation in agriculture will know how difficult it very often is. I think that as a class farmers are generally willing to enter into co-operation for the purpose of purchasing things, but it is very much more difficult to make them enter into co-operation for the purpose of selling things. I only wish that they would look upon co-operation with equal favour in both the one case and the other.
The noble Earl mentioned what, of course, will be one of the stumbling blocks in the way, and that is the rate of interest which will be charged by His Majesty's Government. A good farmer who is well known to the bank will be able to get a loan at a rate of interest which he will regard as more favourable than that which he is likely to get from His Majesty's Government, or through the associations which are sanctioned under this Bill. But we must remember in this connection that the rate of interest which he would get from the bank would probably not include the amount for sinking fund. That is one of those matters which people so often overlook. They do not see the advantages which they get if they put the additional one per cent. into the repayment and thereby secure a sinking fund. If we can persuade them to look upon it in that way I am sure we shall be able to induce them to realise what the advantages are which they will get in coming under this Bill rather than in making personal arrangements with the bank. But I am afraid that in a great many cases, for the present at any rate and until they have learned the advantages of this Bill, we shall probably find that the good farmer will prefer an arrangement with his bank to an arrangement made under this Bill.
For my own part I hope very much indeed that this Bill will be made use of, particularly by labourers. There is nothing to help labourers if they want to get a small capital whether to build a pigstye or to buy a pig. We want something of

883
that kind in our rural life if we are to help the labourer. I hope that as a result of this measure there may spring up all over the country a number of local societies which, knowing the character of the individual who applies to them, will give him, with the help of His Majesty's Government, just that little assistance which will enable him to put his foot perhaps on the bottom rung of the ladder, but which will enable him eventually to climb a long way up it. Co-operation in other countries has been proved to be of so much use that it can hardly be overestimated in trying to persuade the farming community to take it up in this country.
The other day I read a report of the visit which was paid by the British Dairy Association to Denmark, where they had the advantage of listening to a most interesting address from the Danish Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Nygdal, in which he explained the tremendous progress that has been made in Denmark in the produce of milk during the last forty years. It will interest your Lordships if I read one short passage from what he said—
"In connection with freehold the credit associations system must be mentioned. In some other countries there are only very small mortgages on the farms, and the farmers have to pay in cash nearly the whole value of the farm when starting. In Denmark possession requires only a comparatively small outlay, and the farmer's own money is, in a larger degree, available for the cultivation of the farm."
He went on to lay stress upon the benefit of these co-operative credit associations—which are provided for in this Bill—and the advantage that they have been to the Danish farmer. What has been of use in other countries we may well hope will be of use in this country too, but it will be, as some noble Lord said just now in regard to the last Bill which we were discussing, of comparatively little use unless it is backed by public opinion. I hope His Majesty's Government may be able, in some way or other, to make known to the agricultural community the advantages which they are offering to them, and that those interested in farming will make use of those advantages.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOUSTNG, ETC. (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Government contributions to expenses of local authorities in assisting construction of houses.
(2) The houses in respect of which contributions may be given under this section shall be either—

(a) a two-storied house with a minimum of six hundred and twenty and a maximum of nine hundred and fifty superficial feet; or

(b) a structurally separate and self-contained flat or a one-storied house with a minimum of five hundred and fifty and a maximum of eight hundred and eighty superficial feet;

such measurements being calculated in accordance with Rules made by the Minister:
Provided that if the local authority in any particular ease satisfy the Minister that, having regard to special circumstances existing in their area, there is a need for houses of smaller dimensions, the minimum measurement may be reduced, as respects such limited number of houses for that area and subject to such conditions as the Minister may determine, in the case of a two-storied house to five hundred and seventy, and in the case of a flat or a one-storied house to five hundred, superficial feet.
Except where otherwise approved by the Minister on the recommendation of the local authority, every house or flat to which this section applies shall be provided with a fixed bath.
(4) Where within fifteen months before the passing of this Act a local authority have submitted to the Minister proposals for assisting persons or bodies of persons undertaking to construct houses, or for the provision of houses by the local authority themselves, or where after the twenty-fifth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, and before the passing of this Act, a society, body of trustees or company to which Section three of this Act applies has submitted proposals for the provision of houses, and such proposals have been approved by the Minister otherwise than for the purposes of Section seven of the

885
Housing, Town Planning, Etc. Act, 1919, contributions may be made of the like amount as if the assistance had been given or the houses provided after the passing of this Act, and notwithstanding that the houses do not comply in every respect-with the conditions imposed by or under this section.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWAEK THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWAEK moved, in the last paragraph of subsection (2), after "authority," to insert: "(a) the number of houses to which this section applies shall not exceed twelve per acre; and (b)." The right rev. Prelate said: I will detain your Lordships for a very short time in moving the Amendment which stands in my name. I hope that His Majesty's Government may see their way to accept this Amendment. I know that it is desired by a large number of those who are keenly interested in questions of housing and town planning. For a considerable time it has been realised how important it is that houses should be built well and strongly and wisely, but it is only comparatively recently that it has been realised that it is almost equally important that provision should be made that there should be sufficient space between the various houses. The result of this neglect has been that in many districts you can find houses which themselves are quite excellently built, but which are so crowded together that they form an unhealthy and unattractive district We are increasingly recognising that it is impossible to have an Al population unless sufficient air and light are given to the citizens of this country.
In a very striking sentence a noble Lord in the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, one who speaks with unique authority on matters of health, Lord Dawson of Penn, said:
"Germ diseases would be reduced, maladies of infancy would speedily decline, together with all those maladies which modern knowledge tells us are increasingly dependent on the absence of light and air, and the health that would arise from increased light and air would be compensation far out of proportion to the cost which would be involved in any scheme however large."
I do not think I need argue the matter of limiting the number of houses to an acre. That is not only largely recognised by public opinion, but it has been officially recognised. It was recognised by the Manual of Housing issued in 1919
886
where it was laid down that there should not be, normally, more than twelve houses to the acre. And in a more guarded way this is recognised in a circular which was issued by the present Ministry of Health in April of this year, in which it is stated that the Minister is of opinion that a density of approximately twelve houses per acre represents a desired standard, and that as a general rule a local authority should not approve the building of more than twenty houses on one acre.
But notwithstanding this, there is no provision in this measure which prevents overcrowding as the result of having too large a number of houses per acre. There is nothing in this measure which prevents the building not of twenty but of thirty and even forty, possibly fifty, houses to the acre, and there is a real danger that there may be overcrowding of houses which in themselves are good. I understand that the great city of Leeds is now urging a scheme which involves the building of houses back to back, a policy which has been condemned by every competent health authority. I therefore urge His Majesty's Government to accept the Amendment. The main objection may be that this will interfere unduly with the discretion of local authorities. This objection was urged on the Second Reading, but I would point out that already in this measure you are interfering with the discretion of local authorities. You are laying down the exact size of the house which must be built if grants are to be received under the scheme. The Amendment does not lay down a rigid rule which must be applied everywhere. I could not propose or support a rule which would have to be applied in every locality. There must be variety. Twelve houses per acre may be generally accepted, but here and there there must be exceptions, and if the Amendment is adopted it would always be possible for the Minister of Health to grant exceptions.
The paragraph would run—
"Except where otherwise approved by the Minister on the recommendation of the local authority, (a) the number of houses. …
And where twelve houses to the acre would prove a real hardship and a hindrance to a good housing scheme it will be perfectly possible for the local authority to appeal to the Minister of

887
Health and make good their case. If the Amendment is accepted the burden of proof rests on the local authority. That is most important. There are a large number of local authorities who will desire to have the best building scheme practicable, and I understand that the vast majority of local authorities have accepted the principle of twelve houses per acre. But, on the other hand, there are some local authorities on which there are a disproportionate number of those who are actively interested in the building trade, and there is a real danger that in those cases where the local authority has on it comparatively few of those who are independent and disinterested it might be ready to accept a scheme of housing which would not be advantageous to the health of the community.
I press this Amendment on the Government. We are eager to do what we can to remove the disgraceful legacy of bad and unhealthy houses, but in doing this we must see that we are not creating new slums and new problems for the future. Experience tells us that many of the housing reforms of fifty years ago are now proving the slum problems of to-day. In accepting the policy embodied in this measure let us also take such safeguards as will prevent the new houses of to-day proving the slum problem in the years to come.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 43, after ("authority") insert:
("(a) the number of houses to which this section applies shall not exceed twelve per acre; and
(b)").
—(The Lord Bishop of Southwark.)
LORD ASKWITH: I sympathise with much that the right rev. Prelate has said as to the importance of light and air, but I trust that he will not press his Amendment, and that if he does, your Lordships will reject it. It may be ideal but it is not practical, and it will not bring the desired result so far as the number of houses is concerned. It will stop many "housing schemes that are now in being and being prepared. It would bring within a rigid form a rule which might be very difficult to apply in some cases. It might prevent a cottage being built on the edge of a common or close to a recreation ground. The right rev. Prelate goes further than the Act of 1019. In that Act it was provided that in any
888
scheme the average number of houses per acre should be put down, but the right rev. Prelate gives a fixed number of twelve.
Having taken some trouble to inquire what would be the effect of this Amendment, I understand that in some cases, particularly where the land has cost a great deal, it would absolutely stop the housing scheme were it stipulated that only twelve houses were to be built to the acre. It would put an end to many schemes that were partly finished before the war or which were designed before the war, and as for new schemes, for houses of the kind which it is desired to build cheaply, the excess of expenditure in making builders' roads and making roads generally, water pipes and gas pipes, and all the other amenities required, would be such that no houses would be built. After all, the Bill gives elasticity. The aim has been not to make things rigid but elastic, and to enable local authorities to adapt the circumstances of the houses to be built to the circumstances of the neighbourhood and the requirements of the population. The Amendment would do much to hinder and prevent many of the advantages which the Bill proposes to confer on the community.
LORD PARMOOR: I heartily support the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate. There is a great danger lest in the demand for houses, which is undoubtedly great, too little consideration is given to the class of houses built and the conditions under which the houses are built. For many years I had to deal with building in the neighbourhood of Battersea and Kennington, well known to the right rev. Prelate. We went carefully into the question as to the relative cost of the land adequate for the houses, as compared with the cost of building, and the result of our investigations, in Kennington at any rate, was that the cost of the land was small in relation to the cost of building. The cost of the land generally is an infinitesimal item as regards the rental of the house. That is almost entirely fixed by the cost of building. After all, the Amendment gives the Minister of Health discretion to approve of other schemes on the recommendation of the local authority. I hope that a provision of this kind may be introduced, subject, as the right rev. Prelate has said, to alteration by the local authority under special conditions.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am sure your Lordships will agree very largely, as my noble friend Lord Askwith said, with what has fallen from the right rev. Prelate, and certainly the Government is with him in the object which he has in view. The right rev. Prelate read to your Lordships an extract from a circular which I have here and which, I think, shows that such is the case. That circular is the document which was issued at the time of the introduction of this Bill into another place to explain to local authorities exactly what were the provisions of the Bill and also the methods by which my right hon, friend the Minister trusted that the Bill might be carried out by them. I think that the only question which is at issue between the right rev. Prelate and myself is the question whether a rigid standard should be introduced into the Bill or not, and I may say quite frankly that the Government are strongly of opinion that this is a matter in which the discretion of local authorities may be allowed play and where elasticity is obviously required.
The right rev. Prelate mentioned a certain safeguard which he suggested should be introduced into the Bill in order to enable local authorities to build more than twelve houses to the acre in special circumstances. The suggestion which he made was, I think, that in such cases the local authority in question should submit to the Ministry of Health the suggestion which they had in view, their proposed methods and their reasons for wishing to exceed the standard of twelve houses to the acre. If that were done it would necessitate that the specifications and plans of the whole lay-out of the estate should be submitted to the Ministry of Health, and of course careful inquiry would have to be held into that material. The result of this would be a considerable delay, and we want to get houses built. We cannot allow any reasons for delay to conflict with the necessity of getting houses built at the right and proper time. Your Lordships are, of course, aware that house building is really a seasonal" trade; you must build in summer and use the fine weather while you have it. Any provision which tends to delay the construction of houses must tend to militate against the objects which we have in view. I have no doubt that the right rev. Prelate will have read the
890
circular, a copy of which I sent him, although I believe he had seen it before. He will gather from that circular that our object is to leave full discretion to local authorities while giving them precise guidance as to the manner in which it is hoped, and. I am sure, not hoped in vain, that they will proceed to carry out the provisions of this measure.
Let me turn for one moment to the reasons why it is necessary that discretion should be given to the local authorities, that there should be elasticity, as I think has been admitted even by the right rev. Prelate himself, in regard to this question of the limit of the number of houses to the acre. There may be, and no doubt there are, many partly developed sites, as my noble friend, Lord Askwith, mentioned, close to the centre of large towns, where there are perhaps more than twelve houses to the acre and the lay-out and development of such an estate, which has been partially constructed, has been on a basis of more than twelve houses to the acre. If you have laid out an estate on a basis of sixteen houses to the acre, let us say, and put down your roads, drains, gas, water and so forth, it is very difficult to change it when you are half way through and convert it to a scheme based on the limit of twelve houses to the acre. I am afraid that if you were to introduce, this rigid limit of twelve houses to the acre the result would be that on many of those sites no houses would be built at all. The authorities would give up building houses, or at any rate they would be very seriously delayed by having to allow an inquiry to be held by the Ministry of Health such as I think might equally well be entrusted to the local authority on the spot.
I think the right rev. Prelate made the suggestion that we are running a danger, under the present wording of the Bill, of the construction of thirty or even forty houses to an acre. As my right hon. friend said in the House of Commons, and as, I think, was accepted, there really is no danger, in view of the present state of public opinion, that local authorities would sanction the construction of thirty or forty houses to the acre, especially in view of the very precise terms of the circular which has been issued to them and which was read to your Lordships by the right rev. Prelate. Although there may be places such as I have described where the lay-out has already been made

891
on the basis of sixteen or twenty houses to the acre, we do not think it possible that we should have a recrudescence of such crowding as the building of thirty or forty houses to the acre. To meet cases of the kind where we think that sixteen or twenty houses to the acre might possibly be desirable in certain special circumstances we feel that it should be left to the local authority to decide, and this is the principle which we think should govern the execution of this Act. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will not accept the Amendment, and will be content to leave the execution of the Act to the local authority in the light of the wording of the circular which has been issued to them by the Ministry of Health and which prescribes the approximate standard of twelve houses to the acre with the general maximum of twenty houses to the acre.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I confess frankly that I am disappointed with the line that has been taken by the representative of His Majesty's Government. There is, I gather, general agreement that there should be no overcrowding. The noble Earl who has just sat down said that it was inconceivable that we should find thirty or forty houses to the acre in future. The word "rigidity" has been used more than once already this afternoon. As I understood him, the right rev. Prelate did not propose rigidity. His sole suggestion, as I understand it, was that exceptional cases should come before the Ministry for their approval, but that as a general rule, where a local authority was up-to-date in its ideas and desirous of moving with public opinion and carrying out the general intentions of the Government, there should be only twelve houses to the acre, and that in that case it would not be necessary for the plans and lay-out to be submitted to the Ministry. It would be only in exceptional cases where building had already been undertaken and where owing to local circumstances it might be desirable to have sixteen or even twenty houses to the acre that the approval of the Ministry of Health would be obtained.
It seems to me that there is everything to be gained by this Amendment. It does not establish the principle of rigidity, and it does give local authorities that power of local autonomy which I think is an object
892
for which we ought to fight. I am a great believer in the principle of local autonomy, of allowing local opinion to make itself felt. In a question of education or the use of permissive health powers it does not matter a bit if a certain number of authorities move rather more slowly than their more progressive neighbours; it does not really much matter if an authority waits a few years before setting up a complete system of medical inspection or treatment of school children; but it is absolutely vital, when you are dealing with houses and when the whole future of a locality may be prejudiced if too large a number of houses are built to an acre, that there should be no delay. There we are dealing with an entirely different question, and I venture to hope that His Majesty's Government may be prepared to reconsider the matter.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I venture to think that on this occasion we may usefully read the words which precede the passage to which the right rev. Prelate wishes to make an Amendment. As amended, the words would run:—
"Except where otherwise approved by the Minister on the recommendation of the local authority, (a) the number of houses to which this section applies shall not exceed twelve per acre."
Surely we give in this case every opportunity to the Ministry in special circumstances to allow the increase. What seems to govern the matter is surely the cost of land, and I think on a previous occasion, when we had to discuss that question, noble Lords opposite rather approved of a remark which I made to the effect that the cost of land was a much smaller item in the cost than it used to be, and that we do not now hear the same attacks which used to be made upon the landlord. The attacks are upon the capitalists who build the houses. I do not think that in most of these cases we should much increase the cost if we made it a general rule that there shall be not more than twelve houses to the acre. I am sure that the right rev. Prelate would be ready to make the necessary amendment of his proposal to safeguard schemes which are pending.
I think the argument used by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill is one of weight, and that it would be extremely hard in the case of schemes now proceeding that we should force the local

893
authorities to go to the trouble and expense of changing their schemes. I imagine that the right rev. Prelate would be only too glad to meet cases of that kind, but, as a general expression of opinion, I venture to hope that the Government, keeping still in hand for the Ministry its power to have a larger number of houses, will allow the right rev. Prelate's Amendment to pass into law. If not, so far as my own vote goes I can assure the right rev. Prelate that it is at his disposal, and that if he wishes to press his Amendment to a Division I shall follow him into the Lobby.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Speaking only for myself, I am to a certain extent torn between two conflicting opinions, because in my long connection with this question I have built a very large number of houses, and I have always wished to follow the garden city conditions of building. I do not think there is any question at all, in any part of the House, that where it is feasible and does not conflict with the general policy of the Bill we should all be only too glad to see such a limit inserted as is suggested. I may say, parenthetically, that the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate could not be accepted because twelve houses to the acre is a counsel of perfection, and we know that in very many well-developed estates a larger number have been put up.
The important thing to consider is this: If you are going to control from the centre, under the Act of Parliament or by the authority of the Minister, all these conditions of house building, you cannot stop at this one question of so many houses to the acre. There are a great number of other conditions which probably the noble Earl opposite, and Lord Astor, and others who have studied the question, would like to see carried out in any house buiding but if you once begin to do that you are back in the old difficulty of plans being submitted from the locality to the centre, plans being sent back, rigid conditions being insisted upon, and all the bureaucratic interference that we have seen during these last melancholy years, and which have hampered so much the success of the policy of providing houses for the people. It is not as if we approached this subject without any experience. I suppose everybody deplores the interference of Whitehall in these
894
local matters. It has been shown to be deleterious on the whole, not because the intentions were not of the very best, but because the interference of the central authority has produced rigid conditions not applicable in all cases, and, above all, has produced delay.
Those are things which we want to avoid, and so the policy of the Bill proceeds upon the other basis. I suspect that those who listen to me will say: "What about your baths, which come immediately afterwards?" I regret the baths proviso—it was inserted in another place—not because I begrudge them but because I do not think that they are the sort of things which should be imposed centrally. It is far better to nourish and cherish the freedom of the locality to develop its own responsibility in the best way possible. That is the way in which you get good government. It is always plausible to say: Make your conditions at the centre. You see what ought to be done; enforce it by Act of Parliament. You do that, and then you produce the bureaucratic system that we have seen in operation, and which we know does not work; and although there is a great deal to be said for this particular Amendment, yet, if you once embark upon a provision of this kind, I am sure that logically you cannot stop there—you must go a great deal further and produce instead of a local authority Bill a bureaueratic Bill. I hope that your Lordships will not do that, at any rate on the present stage of the Bill. I hope that the right rev. Prelate, who made a speech with which I greatly sympathise, but whose Amendment I am sure will emphasise or intensify in this Bill the principle of central and bureaucratic control, will not press his Amendment.
LORD TREOWEN: I merely rise to express the hope that the right rev. Prelate will press his Amendment. The noble Marquess who has just sat down spoke of a counsel of perfection, and my noble friend Lord Askwith spoke of the Amendment as aiming at an ideal. We want an ideal when dealing with this question. It is the absence of ideals which has produced the terrible condition of things of which we have complained for years, and of which we see the result in the industrial districts at the present time. If there had been in existence such a limitation as the right rev. Prelate proposes, to my own certain

895
knowledge, in certain housing schemes with which I have been familiar in an industrial part of the country, we should have had the number of houses per acre which he wishes to see. As it is, they have in several cases drifted back into a worse condition of things than that at which we had hoped they were in the future aiming. I know that in some of these cases the land has been obtained at the cheapest possible rate, and the whole of the cost of the housing really has been due to the cost of building. The local authorities have not been able to resist the temptation to try to make that a more profitable business by putting more houses to the acre and in that way getting a lower average cost per house. That is the disastrous thing which has happened so many times in the past, and which, I sincerely hope, will be prevented by the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate, if it is accepted by the House. If he goes to a Division, I shall certainly support him.
LORD LOVAT: I do not think sufficient stress has been laid on the difference that occurs in the cost of these schemes owing to the question of roads, drainage, gas, and electric light. I sat for more than four years on the Royal Commission on Scottish Housing, and, while I think all the members of that Commission were agreed that twelve houses per acre was the ideal to be aimed at, it was also agreed by the large majority that it was an ideal unattainable in a great many cases. The cost of land, as has been stated, is quite a minor matter: it really hardly counts: it means only the difference of a few shillings per annum. But what is a substantial cost arises from the number and length of roads that have to be made. The natural configuration of the ground and the employment of the population make it quite impossible, in many cases, to have twelve houses to the acre. A standard case in Scotland is the town of Greenock, a large and flourishing place, where, from the configuration of the ground, it is impossible to build any houses except on a couple of plateaux near the beach. Another instance would be the narrow valleys of Wales, where it is almost impossible to get good building ground except at the bottom of those valleys. If you were to build on either side of the hill it would make your
896
building scheme very costly, and a large number of the workers would also be at a considerable distance from their work. That, I submit, is an important matter. We wish to get as many of the population as possible within reasonable distance of their work.
A second point upon which I do not think sufficient stress has been placed is that where you have to make a reference to a central body it always leads to delay. In the case of a very small local authority with which I am acquainted we found that wherever we have had to refer anything to a central authority it generally meant two months' delay before we could expect an answer. The building season is remarkably short, and two or three months' delay might mean the postponement for a year of a building scheme. I am whole-heartedly in favour of twelve houses to the acre, where it can be managed, but I hope the Government will adhere to the Bill as it stands, because I believe that it is in the interest, if not of ideals, certainly of getting houses built—which is what we mainly require.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: I hope that, with even the highest aspirations you will not altogether forget the object and purpose of this Bill, which is to provide for the better housing of the people. I wonder whether the right rev. Prelate who moved this Amendment in perfectly good faith is aware that in the enormous area of the County of London not a single house would have been built by public authority if his proposal had held good, save by special leave and privilege accorded by the Ministry of Health. And if you took the Administrative County of London and all the big cities out of the Bill not very much would remain. I am bound to say I thought that in this House, where members have so much practical experience, you would not, for the mere sake of ornament (if I may so express it) and to win public assent to an excellent principle, have so far curtailed and limited the possibilities of building and rebuilding under the Bill as to exclude all the big centres of population.
It is true that under the Amendment exceptional cases may be dealt with in an exceptional way. On the other hand, it is in the great centres that there is the greatest call for better housing, and I most earnestly support the argument of

897
my noble friend Lord Askwith that the greater the elasticity and the better the Bill is adapted to the circumstances that prevail, the more effective it will be. I hope that the right rev. Prelate will not put us in a position of having to vote against what we all admit to be an ideal standard wherever it is possible, and certainly outside the great boroughs and urban districts, but which cannot possibly apply to the existing state of things in them.
LORD SEMPILL: I should like to support what Lord Burnham has just said. I think we are rather inclined to lose sight of what house-building for the working classes really is. Our ideals are nearly always too extravagant. I have had something to do with housing committees, and I hold in my hand papers on the cost of a building scheme and what it has done towards finding accommodation for the working classes. This is a scheme in a part of the world to which I belong, where they built seventy-six houses at a cost of about £97,000. In addition to that amount we had to spend about £5,000 on roads and lighting; and the more you spread your houses out the greater this expense becomes. That is the point upon which Lord Lovat touched just now.
Having built these houses, what was the result? In Scotland we have a very valuable thing which, I believe, you have not in England—a valuation roll, which enables you to look up what any person pays for his house, and what the landlord receives for it. I was thus able to ascertain how many working men had occupied those houses, and I found that the number was very small. I wrote for information, and I was told that out of seventy-six houses practically only forty working men occupied them. But my informant added that, owing to decrease in wages, many working men had been obliged to leave their houses. In the other cases the unfortunate taxpayer is being taxed for supplying with houses people who are not working men; they are being subsidised to the extent of about 50 per cent. These seventy-six houses produce a net rental of a little under £2,000. But the interest on the money spent upon them, at six per cent., amounts to nearly £5,000, and, after deducting the local rate of four-fifths of a penny, which is the maximum you are
898
allowed to raise, it leaves £2,000 to be found. That is to say that the majority of these householders, who are capable of paying a bigger rent, are being subsidised by the unfortunate taxpayer to the extent of £26 a year. That is to say, they are having their houses at 50 per cent. below the economic cost. I heard the noble Earl, Lord Derby, talking the other day about cutting one's coat according to one's cloth, and I think we ought to follow that idea too. If the housing question is such a clamant one surely, instead of building palaces, a man ought to be only too glad to go in for something more moderate.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The next Amendment on the Paper is a drafting amendment to subsection (4), Section 19 of the Housing Act refers to assistance to public utility societies under the old scheme, in the same way as Section 7 already in the clause refers to local authorities under the scheme of 1919.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 31, after ("seven") insert ('" or Section nineteen").—(The, Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause a (Power of local authorities to promote the building of houses by means of grants, etc.):
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The Amendment standing in my name to this clause is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 13, leave out ("that").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 (Government contributions to expenses of public utility societies, etc., in building houses):
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I have a drafting Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 20, after ("classes") insert ("being a society, body of trustees, or a company").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Power of local authorities to make advances, etc., for the purpose of increasing housing accommodation.
5.—(1) A local authority for the purposes of Part III of the principal Act may, subject to such conditions as may be approved by the Minister, at any time before the first day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-six:—
(b) undertake to guarantee the repayment to such building society as aforesaid of any advances made by the society to any of its members for the purpose of enabling them to build houses or acquire houses the construction of which was commeneed after the twenty-fifth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-three;
Provided that the local authority before granting any such assistance shall satisfy themselves that the houses, flats, or tenements, in respect of which assistance is to be given will, when the building, alteration, or conversion has been completed, be in all respects fit for human habitation, and in particular that the superficial area of any such house, flat, or tenement will not be less than the minimum permissible under Section one of this Act.
(2) Any such advance as aforesaid shall be subject to the following conditions:—
(a) The advance with interest thereon shall be secured by mortgage and shall not exceed ninety per cent. of the value of the mortgaged property; and the mortgage deed may provide for repayment being made either by instalments of principal of by an annuity of principal and interest combined, so, however, that in the event of any of the conditions subject to which the advance is made not being complied with, the balance for the time being unpaid shall become repayable on demand from the local authority; and
the advance may be made by instalments from time to time as the building of the house progresses, so that the total of the advance does not at any time before the completion of the house exceed fifty per cent. of the value of the work done up to that time on the construction or on works incidental to the construction of the house, including the value of the interest of the mortgagor in the site thereof; and
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), to leave out "such building society as aforesaid" and insert "a society incorporated under
900
the Building Societies Acts, 1874 to 1891, or the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, 1893 to 1913." The noble Earl said: This is a Scottish Amendment. In Scotland, building societies are not generally incorporated under the Building Societies Acts, but under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts. The object of the Amendment is to make it clear that the local authorities may give guarantees in those cases.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, lines 7 and 8, leave out ("such building society as aforesaid") and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am under an engagement to the noble Lord opposite, and if he does not want this Amendment put in at this stage I will put it off to the next. I think it is very-little more than a drafting Amendment.
LORD DYNEVOR: That is so, I believe.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON had on the Paper an Amendment to omit "or tenements" from the proviso to subsection (1). The noble Lord said: There is no matter of controversy in this Amendment. In another place the words "or tenements "were connected with this clause, but now, I think, they are unnecessary. Unfortunately, my Amendment as it stands on the Paper is not quite correct, and I think it should be so drafted as to make the proviso read in this way: "Provided that the local authority before granting any such assistance shall satisfy themselves that the houses or flats in respect of which assistance," and so on. I hope the noble Earl will accept it in that form.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am quite ready to accept my noble friend's Amendment, but I am not sure that the addition he has suggested quite covers the point. I think that in addition to what is in his Amendment it would be necessary to move to insert the word "or" after the word "houses" in line 32. He said that I think. We also want to insert "or" after "houses" in line 36 on the same page. If my noble friend will move his Amendment in that form I should be glad to accept it.
LORD MONK BRETTON: I am obliged to the noble Earl, and I move my

901
Amendment in that form, and the suggested consequential Amendments.
Amendment moved —
Page 7, line 32, after ("houses") insert ("or").—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 32, leave out ("or tenements").—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Page 7, line 36, after ("house") insert ("or").—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MONK BRETTON: The next Amendment is consequential.
Page 7, line 36, leave out ("or tenement").—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The next Amendment which stands in my name is merely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 42, after ("and") insert ("the advance").—(The Earl, of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), to leave out "mortgaged" and insert "interest of the mortgagor in the." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is intended to make clearer what I believe to be the intention of the paragraph in question. That is, that the advances should not exceed a certain percentage of the value of the interest in the property mortgaged. As drafted I do not think it is accurate. I would call your Lordships' attention to lines 16 and 17 on page 8 of the Bill where reference is made to "the value of the interest of the mortgagor," and there is also another place in the Bill in which that reference is made. I hope the noble Earl will be able to accept my Amendment.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Yes, I shall be glad to do so.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 43, leave out ("mortgaged") and insert ("interest of the mortgagor in the").—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (2), after
902
"building," to insert "or alteration." The noble Lord said: This deals with the same point as the last Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 10, after ("building") insert ("or alteration").—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I will accept that Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Provisions us to housing schemes outside area of local authority.
(4) Where a scheme to which this section applies has been carried out, whether before or after the passing of this Act, by the London County Council within the area of a metropolitan borough, the council of the metropolitan borough shall be under the like liability as to the maintenance of roads as if the metropolitan borough had been a borough outside London.
LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON moved, in subsection (4), to leave out all words after the first "borough" and to insert "the liability to maintain the roads shall vest in the council of that metropolitan borough unless that council, or on appeal the Minister is satisfied that the roads have not been properly constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the Minister." The noble Lord said: My objection to the language of the subsection as it stands is that it would have the effect of applying to the Metropolitan Borough Councils in relation to the maintenance of roads under the clause, the law which is applicable to authorities outside London. In London the law is contained substantially in the Metropolis Management Acts, while outside London the law, generally speaking, is contained in the Public Health Acts. I am very anxious, therefore, that it should be made clear that the law applies only in its relation to the liability of the Metropolitan Borough Councils.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 1, leave out from ("borough") to the end of the clause, and insert the said new words.—(Lord. Monk Bretton.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I shall be very glad to accept that Amendment. What

903
the noble Lord has said is quite correct. It is really a drafting Amendment, and I think it improves the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 (Provisions as to licensed premises included in Part I and Part II schemes):
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Amendment to Clause 9 is also a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 30, leave out ("was") and insert ("had been").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 10 and 11, agreed to.
Clause 12:
Provisions as to by-laws relating to new streets.
12.—(1) For the purpose of facilitating the erection of dwelling-houses, the Minister may prescribe a code of building by-laws relating to the level, width, and construction of new streets, but no such code shall have effect unless and until adopted by resolution of a local authority; and where such code or any part thereof is so adopted it shall not be necessary for the local authority to comply with the requirements of Section one hundred and eighty-four of the Public Health Act, 1875, or, if the by-laws are made under a local Act, the corresponding provisions of that Act, and the code or such part thereof shall have full force and effect as part of the by-laws of the local authority in substitution for such of the existing by-laws of the authority as may be specified in the resolution.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON moved to insert the following new subsection after subsection (1):—
"(2) A code made by the Minister under this section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if an Address is presented by either House within twenty-one days from the date on which that House has sat next after such code is laid before it, praying that such code, or any part thereof, may be annulled. His Majesty in Council may annul the code or any part thereof to which objection has been taken, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder."
The noble Lord said: The clause to which I am moving this Amendment authorises the Minister to frame by-laws
904
dealing with the construction, levelling, and width of roads, which are very important objects, no doubt. Local authorities can adopt these by-laws wholly or in part by simply advertising the fact in the local Press and so relieve themselves of any obligation to carry out the procedure laid down in the various Public Health Acts. It seems to me to be only-right in a matter of such importance that Parliament should not lose all control over the Departments, and that, possibly, the Departments would be more careful, if they were aware that their actions might be considered and, it may be, revised by Parliament. As the interests of individuals might be very largely affected by these by-laws, it seems to me that some such provision as that suggested in my Amendment should be adopted. The Amendment is a moderate one. No delay would be involved by its adoption. The local authority could carry out the by-law, and it would be permissible for the Minister subsequently to modify it at the dictation of Parliament. The Amendment affords some protection to the individual, and I hope the noble Earl will be able to give it favourable consideration.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 13, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Lamington.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I hope the noble Lord will not insist upon the Amendment, because it would introduce a new principle in regard to by-law making. The code which is contemplated in this Bill, and which will be drawn up by the Minister, has no effect of itself. It is merely a model which local authorities may adopt either wholly or in part as they think fit. Therefore the functions of the Minister, under this clause, are purely advisory, and any suggestion which he might make by way of model by-laws could be modified by the local authority, which would then submit their by-laws in the ordinary way for confirmation. I should explain that under other Acts of Parliament local authorities are constantly making by-laws based on models—as is contemplated here—which are suggested by the Ministry, and in no other case, to my knowledge, has it been suggested that such by-laws should be laid before Parliament. The validity or the reverse of a by-law is a matter cognisable by the Courts.

905
I would like to recall to your Lordships' recollection an instance which occurred the other day. A certain local authority made by-laws based upon models supplied by the Ministry with regard to the slaughter of animals. These by-laws were called in question before the local Court of summary jurisdiction, which held that they were ultra vires. An appeal against that decision was made to the High Court, which decided that the by-laws were not contrary to the relevant Statutes. That is the procedure, and I give it as an example of what governs the making of by-laws. There are a great number of cases in which by-laws are made on models. That those by-laws should be laid before Parliament in one solitary case would be an undesirable precedent, and would cause confusion. Therefore I could not advise your Lordships to accept the Amendment which the noble Lord has put down.
LORD LAMINGTON: Do I understand that the only procedure is to go to the High Court if there is anything objectionable in the by-law?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: If it is thought that the by-law is contrary to the relevant Statutes its validity can, as I understand, be brought before a court of summary jurisdiction, and the appeal from the decision of that court is to the High Court.
LORD LAMINGTON: The noble Lord said that the local authority can have its by-law confirmed. By whom is it confirmed?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: It is confirmed by the Ministry concerned—sometimes the Home Office and sometimes the Ministry of Health. It depends upon which Ministry has authority over the subject dealt with by the by-law. In regard to this matter it would be the Ministry of Health, in regard to good government it would be the Home Office, and in regard to some other matters it would be the Ministry of Agriculture.
LORD LAMINGTON: I do not press the Amendment, although I think it is an important point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:
By-laws respecting houses divided into separate tenements.
14.—(1) Section twenty-six of the Housing. Town Planning, Etc. Act, 1919 (which relates to by-laws respecting houses divided into separate tenements), shall, in its application to the administrative county of London have effect—
(b) as if in paragraph (a) of subsection (10) of that section for the words "for those purposes" there were substituted the words "under Section ninety-four of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891."
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved to leave out paragraph (b) of subsection (1). The noble Lord said: I will endeavour to explain as briefly and clearly as I can this rather difficult point. It arises on paragraph (b) in the, first part of Clause 14, and refers, as so many of these subsections do, to other Acts of Parliament. The matter is a dispute between the County Council and the joint standing committee of the Metropolitan Borough Councils, and I am speaking on behalf of the joint standing committee of the Borough Councils who offer strong opposition to this subsection which was passed in another place upon a statement being made that an agreement had been come to when no such agreement had been reached. The Minister accepted that statement. The clause has come out in its present form, and is put forward as being an agreed clause. In stating that this agreement had been made the subsection was said to have a certain meaning attached to it which I am advised does not attach to it, and into a Bill providing a subsidy for houses there has crept, by a side wind, on this supposed understanding and on the initiative of the County Council, an alteration of the law which has existed since the year 1898 and which, almost without their knowledge, takes away from the Borough Councils the power of making by-laws which they have had since that year. It is not germane to the purpose of this Bill, and it is a very unusual sort of thing to have happened.
I am not sure whether, if the noble Earl were willing to call the parties together and to exercise his good offices, he might not get some clause which would at least save the existing rights, or if not

907
that, a small agreed Bill could be passed dealing with the by-law question. My point is that this matter ought not to have been brought up in this hurry in this Bill. It takes away an authority, and leaves outside of by-laws a very large number of houses which up to the present have been the subject of by-laws. The Public Health (London) Act of 1891, Section 94, conferred upon all Metropolitan boroughs the power of making by-laws for houses of all classes letting lodgings. That power was confirmed by the Housing and Town Planning Act of 1909, Section 16, and remained with the borough councils until the passing of Dr. Addison's Act of 1919. In that Act—the Housing (Town Planning), etc. Act of 1919—it was said that, in regard to houses intended or used for occupation by the working classes, the by-law power should be transferred to the London County Council. The result was that the Metropolitan Borough Councils still had the power of making by-laws in respect of all houses letting lodgings other than houses intended or used for occupation by the working classes.
Then there comes forward this Bill of 1923, and the County Council seem to have thought that it provided an opportunity for transferring to them the power of making by-laws in all cases. That may be a good thing, or it may not be, but on May 15 they passed a resolution to that effect." It was not till May 31 that the honorary treasurer of the standing joint committee of the Borough Councils received a telephone message that an Amendment was going to be put down on this Bill. On June 2 an Amendment was proposed at a meeting between the parties, but it was objected to by the standing committee of Borough councils, and a new suggestion was made that by-laws should be made by the County Council, and that if the Borough Councils objected to thorn the two authorities should meet and discuss the matter, and, failing agreement by them, the Minister of Health was to decide.
When the Bill came before Committee in the House of Commons, on June 11, the County Council strongly objected to the final appeal to the Minister of Health, and at the suggestion of the Minister of Health the clause was withdrawn. He invited them to try to come to some arrangement. On June 18 a new clause was proposed during the Report
908
stage. It was objected to on June 19 by the Borough Councils, but on June 20 it was brought forward, and the representative of Wandsworth said this—
"The Minister of Health, therefore, in Committee, proposed that we should try to get an agreement. Since then the Metropolitan Borough Councils and the London County Council have come to an arrangement. The London County Council has agreed with the Metropolitan Borough Councils, so that we have omitted powers over the houses above those of the working classes."
And this was emphasised by the seconder of the new clause. He stated—
"Local authorities took some exception to this clause as introduced, but I am able to say that meantime their objections have been met, and now there is pretty well general agreement."
These gentlemen must have been misinformed, or must have misunderstood the position, because I am authorised to say on behalf of the standing joint committee of the Metropolitan Borough Councils that they are entirely opposed to this clause; they do not desire to have these powers taken away from them in this manner.
In order to understand the effect of this clause I shall have to deal with the law upon it. The clause refers to Section 26 of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919, and that section says that the power of making and enforcing by-laws shall in the case of houses intended or used for occupation by the working classes be deemed to include the making and enforcing of by-laws. Subsection (10) of Section 26 provides that as respects the County of London the by-laws for the purposes specified shall be made by the London County Council; that is, for "houses intended or used for occupation by the working classes," and any by-law made for those purposes was to supersede any by-laws made for those purposes by the council of any Metropolitan borough.
That has been the law. The proposal in the present Bill is that instead of the words "for those purposes" there should be substituted the words "under Section 94 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891." The effect of that would be this. Power is taken away from the Borough Councils to make by-laws with regard to lodging houses which are not intended or used for occupation by the working classes, but that power is not transferred specifically to the London County Council,

909
and, therefore, that class of house would not be subject to any by-laws made by any authority. There can be no reason why Borough Councils who have had powers to make their own by-laws since 1898 should have them taken away because of a misunderstanding which has arisen in another place.
I have suggested that the noble Earl might deal with the parties between now and Report stage, but I do not want to have to go through this rather long statement again or listen to what my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton has to say on behalf of the London County Council. I should prefer to take the opinion of the House to-day. It, is not a Government matter. It is a question whether these powers ought to be taken away in what I may almost call a hole and corner manner. It may be suggested that some Borough Councils have agreed to it but the joint standing committee certainly have not. They have expressed the strongest opinion against this proposal. They wish to keep the powers they have at present, and if they are to be handed over to the London County Council then it should be done in a proper manner. They should not be pushed into it at a moment's notice.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, lines 32 to 30, leave cut paragraph (b).—(Lord Askwith.)
LORD MONK BRETTON: I hope your Lordships will not accept this Amendment but will leave the Bill as it was left in another place, with the approval of Mr. Chamberlain, the Minister of Health. I really cannot follow all the details of what has been going on between the standing joint committee of the Metropolitan Borough Councils and the London County Council, and I do not suppose your Lordships wish to do so either. What we on the London County Council desire is to have one set of by-laws. At the present moment there are two authorities making by-laws for London. One authority, the Metropolitan Borough Councils, does it under the Public Health Act, 1891, and the other, the County Council, under the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919. We have duality. What we want is uniformity. We bless this clause, which was inserted after a great deal of consideration in the Standing Committee of the House of Commons, and finally
910
adopted and recommended by Mr. Chamberlain. I hope the noble Earl. Lord Onslow, will stand by it.
The noble Lord has made a speech about the standing joint committee of the Metropolitan Borough Councils. Your Lordships are aware of the sort of authority one gets in a hybrid delegation from other local authorities. You are acquainted with the County Councils' Association. It is a worthy association, but your Lordships would never take the opinion of the County Councils' Association as the opinion of county councils throughout the country. You would ask the county councils themselves for their opinion. The same thing obtains in connection with the Association of Municipal Corporations, and I must give your Lordships one instance. The Association of Municipal Corporations was deeply interested in the question of a censorship of cinemas and passed a unanimous resolution that the Secretary of State for Home Affairs should be the censor. The Secretary of State called them together. I was present, and I do not think there were two who agreed with one another on the point: and they had to disperse. I say that in order to show that because a hybrid delegation says a thing it does not follow that it is truly representative.
Consequently, if the noble Earl follows the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Askwith and calls a conference, I hope that he will deal with the boroughs and not with the standing committee of the boroughs, because I do not think he will get the truth unless he goes to the fountain head. I am quite prepared to agree that the London County Council should come before the noble Earl, but I do not think any useful purpose would be served by asking the London County Council to confer with the bodies to which I have alluded. I only hope that the noble Earl will hold to the opinion which was stated by the Minister of Health in another place and will stick to this clause, which I think is a good clause and will abolish this duality and bring about uniformity in the making of by-laws, the administration resting with the boroughs. The clause is quite satisfactory as it stands.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: This point, as my noble friend Lord Askwith has said, relates really to a domestic difference, if

911
I may say so with great respect, in the government of the great Metropolis. I think the whole question seems to have been misunderstood. I was not present in another place, but so far as I am aware the clause was brought up by the representative of the London County Council and was not accepted by the representatives of the Metropolitan Borough Councils. My right hon. friend said that in those circumstances he was unable to accept the clause and suggested that the London County Council should try to reach agreement and bring up a new clause on Report. The new clause was brought up on Report and was embodied in the Bill. My right hon. friend accepted it because he was under the impression that it was an agreed clause. Evidently some misapprehension has arisen. I do not quite know how it happened, but it was clearly a misapprehension, and nobody was to blame in the matter. These things will happen occasionally, and it cannot be helped.
The result is that we are really back at the stage in which we found ourselves when the Bill was in Committee in another place. The clause has been put in under the impression that there was agreement about it, but there really was no such agreement. I would suggest that the same course should be pursued as was pursued when the clause was brought forward and there was found to be disagreement—namely, that the two parties concerned should confer together. If the Department which I represent can be of any service it will, of course, be only too glad to render such help as it may be able to render. I would suggest that we now leave matters as they are, and that between now and Report both parties should get together and endeavour to come to an agreement with regard to this matter. I do not see that any other course would really solve the problem which is before us.
LORD ASKWITH: May I ask the noble Earl whether he would attend such a conference himself and invite both parties to come? Otherwise I do not think there is the slightest hope of their getting together and coming to an agreement. I am a great believer in the persuasive powers of the noble Earl, and I have an idea that, either by means of a new clause or in some other way, he
912
might secure an agreement which would lead to a settlement of this matter. It is really a thing which ought to be settled, but if it is not settled, do not let us have this Bill delayed, for there is plenty of time for making by-laws concerning the houses in question.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I do not think we need delay the Bill, because, as my noble friend behind me said, the Secretary for Scotland must be present on the next occasion in order to give certain explanations for which the noble Lord asked, and there will be plenty of time before the Report stage. As regards the request made by my noble friend, if I can be of any service, and if my right hon. friend agrees, I shall be glad to do so.
LORD ASKWITH: Will the noble Earl take the initiative?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I will bring the matter before my Department, and I am sure they will do anything they can.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clauses 15 to 20 agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD THE EARL OF CRAWFORD moved, after Clause 20, to insert the following new clause:—
Power to make town planning Schemes in special cases.
(".Where it appears to the Minister that on account of the special architectural, historic or artistic interest attaching to a locality it is expedient that with a view to preserving the existing character and to protecting the existing features of the locality a town planning scheme should be made with respect to any area comprising that locality, the Minister may, notwithstanding that the land or any part thereof is already developed, authorise a town planning scheme to be made with respect to that area prescribing the space about buildings, or limiting the number of buildings to be erected, or prescribing the height or character of buildings, and, subject as aforesaid, the Town Planning Acts, 1909 to 1923, shall apply accordingly.")
The noble Earl said: This new clause is simple, it is very limited in its character and I think it is useful as providing for an omission in the existing Act. It authorises the preparation of town planning schemes in places where there is a special interest, whether architectural, historic

913
or artistic, and the Minister is empowered to authorise a town planning scheme in such eases, including partly developed areas, prescribing the number of buildings, the height and character of the buildings, and so forth. This can apply only to a very small number of areas in this country, but those areas are in many ways the most interesting and the most historic areas in Britain, and as such are "most deserving of consideration. This clause provides in a very modest fashion an opportunity of preserving the historic character of such places, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Onslow will see his way to accept it.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 20, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I do not think I need say any more than that the Government are very glad to accept the clause and that they regard it as an addition to the Bill.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am much obliged.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 (Amendments of 62 and 63 Viet):
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Amendment to this clause is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 21, after ("is") insert ("to be").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22:
Application to Scotland.
22. This Act shall apply to Scotland, subject to the following modifications:—
(1) References to the Minister of Health in this Act, except in Section ten, shall be construed as references to the Scottish Board of Health, and the references to the Minister in Section ten shall be construed as references to the sheriff.
(4) Section eight, Section nine, and paragraph (d) of subsection (2) of Section ten shall not apply.
914
(13) Section nineteen shall apply with the substitution of the words "councils of burghs and other local authorities are or may be required" for the words "councils of boroughs or urban districts are required."
THE EARL OF ON SLOW THE EARL OF ON SLOW moved, in paragraph (1), after the second "in," to insert "paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of." The noble Earl said: This is a Scottish Amendment. I do not know whether the noble Lord opposite would like me to press it now or to postpone it. It is consequential on an Amendment which was accepted by the Minister of Health on the Report stage in another place, and is intended to put the matter on all fours in Scotland and in England.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 6, after ("in") insert ("paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD PENTLAND: By all means.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My further Amendments to this clause are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 19, line 8, leave out ("Section ten") and insert ("paragraph (b) aforesaid")
Page 19, line 27, leave out ("paragraph (d)") and insert ("paragraph (e)")
Page 21, line 31, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule (Assimilation of proceedure under Parts I and. II):
THIS EARL OF ONSLOW: I have a drafting Amendment to the First Schedule.
Amendment moved
Page 25, line 20, after ("forty-one") insert ("of the principal Act").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule:

SECOND SCHEDULE.

Minor Amendments of Housing Acts.

Enactments to be amended.

Nature of Amendment.

Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, 53 & 54 Vict. c. 70.

s. 38(10)

The words "at the expense of the owner" shall be omitted, and after the words "alter the same" there shall be added the words "and the expenses of such abatement or alteration shall be recoverable from the owner summarily as a civil debt."

Housing, Town Planning, &c., Act, 1909.

s. 12 …

For the words "four inhabitant householders of" there shall be substituted the words "justice of the peace acting for the district, or by any four or more local government electors therein," and after the words "exercise their powers under" there shall be inserted the words "Part II. or," and for the words "that Part" there shall be substituted the words "the said Part II. or the said Part III., as the case may be."

s. 59 (1)

At the end of the subsection the following words shall be inserted" or are contained in any general Act or local Act, or Order in force in the area."

Housing, Town Planning, &c, Act, 1919.

s. 26 (2)

For the words "The Public Health Acts" there shall be substituted the words "the Public Health Act, 1875, or the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, as the case may be."

THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My first Amendment to the Second Schedule is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 18, after ("owner") insert ("thereof").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, after the paragraph relating to Section 39 (1) of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, to insert—
"Section 39 (2). For the words from ' be served in manner provided in Part I of this Act ' to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words ' be published and served as provided in Section seven of this Act."
The noble Earl said: This is really a drafting Amendment. It is intended to secure uniformity of machinery throughout the Acts. I think I mentioned on the Second Reading that we propose as soon as possible to introduce a consolidation of the Housing Acts, and this Amendment will facilitate that end. The Amendment which follows is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 39, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 40, at end insert:
("Section 45. For the words 'inhabitant householders' there shall be substituted the words 'four or
916
more local government electors in the district'").
—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in the paragraph relating to Section 12 of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909, to leave out from "therein" to the end of the paragraph. The noble Earl said: The omission of these words is suggested with the object of minimising the complications of the already elaborate provisions as to default. As I said just now, we are proposing to introduce a consolidating Act, and the numerous provisions with regard to default will be dealt with therein, but in the meantime it is convenient, as I hope your Lordships will agree, that the provisions regarding default should not be made more confused than they are already. This is an attempt to simplify them.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 5, leave out from ("therein") to the end of line 12.—(The. Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The Amendment which follows is consequential on that which has just been accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 12, at end insert:
("Section 53 (11) (a). For the words 'four inhabitant householders of' there shall be substituted the words 'four or more local government electors in'").

917
("Section 53 (11) (b), For the words 'four inhabitant householders of' there shall be substituted the words 'four or more local government electors in'").
—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, leave out lines 13 to 17 and. insert:
("Section 59 (1). After the words 'if or so far as the provisions' there shall be inserted the words 'are also contained in any public general or local Act or order having the force of an Act of Parliament in force in the area or'").—
(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THIRD SCHEDULE.

Enactments repealed.

Session and Chapter.

Short Title.

Extent of Repeal.

3 Edw. 7.c.39

The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1903.

Subsection (1) of section thirteen.

9 Edw. 7. c. 44

The Housing, Town Planning, &c, Act, 1909

Subsections (3) (4) (5) (6) and (8) of section fifteen.

Section thirty.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The inclusion, after Section thirty, of the words mentioned in my next Amendment is required in consequence of the Amendment to Section 50 (1), made in the Second Schedule.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 34, at end insert:
*("In subsection (1) of Section fifty-nine in its application to Scotland the words ' or are contained in any general Act or local Act or order in force in the area'")
—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, with reference to the next stage of the Bill, I propose to put it down for Report on Monday next, when Lord Pentland will have an opportunity, if he avail himself of it, of dealing with the Scottish side of the Bill.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The next Amendment, to add to the amendments of the Housing, Town Planning, etc. Act, 1909, has a certain amount of substance. The county councils can buy land for building houses, but they cannot buy land for police or other purposes. This is to give them power to appropriate as well as to buy.
Amendment moved—
Line 22, at end insert:
("Section 8 (3). After the words 'to acquire' wherever they occur there shall be inserted the words 'or appropriate'").
—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as Amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule:

BASTARDY BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. It might facilitate procedure if the noble Earl opposite can, on this Motion, state what he proposes to do with regard to certain tentative and provisional undertaking; given in another place.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Autor.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, as my noble friend has stated, during the passage of this Bill in another place the question was raised as to whether an amendment in legislation should not be introduced whereby committal to prison for non-payment of maintenance should extinguish the debt, and the Government promised to

919
consider the matter carefully with a view to the possibility of introducing an amendment in your Lordships' House. This matter has been considered very carefully and it is found that the same principle is embodied in the Guardianship of Infants Bill, in Clause 7, subsection (b). This Bill has been referred to a Joint Committee of your Lordships' House and the House of Commons, and it was felt that it would not be possible to introduce in to any Bill before Parliament an amendment which would ask Parliament to decide a principle which was at the time sub judice and under consideration of a Committee of both Houses of Parliament. The Guardianship of Infants Committee might make some recommendation to Parliament which would differ from any Amendment proposed in this Bill and so the Government did not feel that they were able to decide upon the principle and to recommend an amendment of the law of bastardy to your Lordships, until the whole principle of the matter had been reported upon by the Joint Select Committee.
Then my noble friend referred to another point. In the House of Commons on Report stage an undertaking was given to consider whether there could be introduced into the Bill a new principle, allowing the mother of a bastard to rank as a creditor of the estate of the putative father. This point has been most carefully considered, but the Government are unable to accept it. A similar proposal was examined by a Select Committee in 1909, and was unanimously rejected by them on the following grounds: They said that the great majority of persons against whom affiliation orders are made leave no estate worth administering. If the man were a bachelor he would probably leave no estate at all, and the provision would be a dead letter, but in the case of a married man with a wife and two or three children his estate would probably consist of his home and his furniture. These would have to be sold up, the widow and her children would be turned into the street, and after paying the costs of administering the estate there might possibly be a small balance left certainly not enough to make any substantial provision for the illegitimate child. Therefore the Select Committee was not in favour of accepting this
920
amendment of the law. I hope that the explanation I have made will be satisfactory to my noble friend.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Increase of maximum payments under orders.
2. Section four of the Bastardy Laws (Amendment) Act, 1872 (which provides for the making of an order on the putative father for the maintenance, etc., of a bastard child), shall, as amended by the Affiliation Orders Increase of Maximum Payment) Act, 1918, have effect as well for the purpose of pending applications as for the purpose of future applications as though twenty shillings a week were therein substituted for ten shillings a week, and subsections (2) and (3) of Section one of the last-mentioned Act, which relate to the variation of orders under the said Section four in force at the date of the commencement of that Act shall extend to the variation of orders under the said Section four which are in force at the date of the commencement of this Act, or which may be made subsequent to the commencement of this Act, with the substitution of references to this Act for references to that Act.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to leave out the words "or which may be made subsequent to the commencement of this Act," The noble Earl said: On the Report Stage in another place these words were moved and accepted provisionally. They are, however, founded on a misconception. The clause without these words, by incorporating subsections (2) and (3) of Section 1 of the Affiliation Orders (Increase of Maximum Payment) Act, 1918, (i) allows the Court without fresh evidence, if it thinks proper having regard to all the circumstances of the case, to increase existing orders to a maximum of 20s. a week and (ii) requires collecting officers to give the person entitled to receive the money notice in writing that an application for an increase in the amount of an existing order up to 20s. can be made to the Court: while the amount of an order made after the commencement of the new Act can be varied by the Court under Section 30 (3) of the Criminal Justice Administration Act on "fresh evidence."
It is reasonable to allow variation of existing orders without fresh evidence on the ground that the limit has been raised by a new Act since the Order was

921
made, but it is quite another matter with orders made after the Act raising the limit has come into operation. In the latter cases the magistrates are able at the time to order the new maximum to be paid and fresh evidence should therefore be required for a variation; otherwise there would be nothing to prevent applications for variation on matters and facts already adjudicated upon. "Fresh evidence," for this purpose, means evidence of changed circumstances since the last order was made, or evidence of facts which have come to light since the order was made.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, lines 4 to 6, leave out ("or which may be made subsequent to the commencement of the Act").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I am quite willing to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

FORESTRY (TRANSFER OF WOODS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before eight o'clock.

CHESTERFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
GREENOCK CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

RAWMARSH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
CALEDONIAN INSURANCE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
The LORD SPEAKER acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
London County Council (Money).
Seaham Harbour Dock.
Also the Certificates that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2).
Tramways Provisional Orders.
And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 9).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

TORQUAY CORPORATION BILL.
Committed.
GREENOCK CORPORATION BILL.
POTTERIES AND NORTH STAFFORD-SHIRE TRAMWAYS AND LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.

WIMBLEDON AND SUTTON RAILWAY BILL.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Orders made on the 13th and 27th of June last discharged, and Bill committed for Wednesday the 18th instant.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
WILD BIRDS PROTECTION BILL. [H.L.]
House to be in Committee on Tuesday next.
AGRICULTURAL CREDITS BILL.
House to be in Committee on Tuesday next.