Sitting of 16 December 1927

Preamble
The House met at Eleven of the Clock.
The CLERK AT THE TABLE informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker from this day's Sitting.
Whereupon Mr. JAMES HOPE, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Ship Building during Financial Years 1924, 1925 and 1926.

Vessel.

Dockyard.

Machinery.

Main.

Auxiliary.

Completed or laid down in 1924.

"Frobisher"

…

Devonport

…

Wallsend Slipway Co.

"Suffolk"

…

Portsmouth

…

Parsons.

"Cornwall"

…

Devonport

…

Beardmore.

"Kent"

…

Chatham

…

Hawthorn Leslie.

For each ship the auxiliary machinery was ordered from the contractors for the main machinery and made in partly numerous sub-contractors.

Completed or laid down in 1925.

"Effingham"

…

Portsmouth

…

Harland & Wolff.

"X. 1"

…

Chatham

…

Chatham.

"London"

…

Portsmouth

…

Fairfield.

"Devonshire"

…

Devonport

…

Vickers.

Completed or laid down in 1926.

Nil.

Ships Building during Financial Years 1924, 1925 and 1926, but laid down before 1924 and completed after 1926.

Vessel.

Dockyard.

Machinery

Main.

Auxiliary.

"Adventure"

…

Devonport

…

Devonport and Vickers.

For each ship the auxiliary machinery was ordered from the contractors for the main machinery and made in part by numerous sub-contractors.

"Oberon"

…

Chatham

…

Chatham

SUBMARINES.
Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the size of the largest submarine, built or building, of each of the five leading naval Powers, together with the cost in each case, along
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  INDIAN CHURCH BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members being present—
  Earl WINTERTON: The House is being asked to-day to consider another ecclesiastical matter, immediately after the historic Debate of yesterday, but there is this difference between the question which we are discussing to-day and the question which we have so recently debated, that to the best of my belief, no doctrinal issue is in dispute. But while this matter has a small direct importance as far as the Church of England in this country is concerned, it has very great importance indeed for the Church of England in India. In asking the House to give the Bill a Second Reading I can give the assurance as regards the Church of England in India, that its opinion upon this Bill is as nearly unanimous as it is possible to be in this imperfect world. The Bill is supported by all the Bishops of the Church of England in India and the voting upon it in the Provincial Council of the Church in India, which corresponds to the National Assembly in this country, in a House of 89 persons present, was 87 in favour and only 2 against. In addition, the Measure which was also required to give effect to the proposals contained in this Bill was passed unanimously by the Church. Assembly in this country and passed through this House about six weeks ago without a Division.
  For many years past, notice has been directed to the fact that the status of the Church of England in India is markedly different from that of other Churches belonging to the Anglican Community in the self-governing Dominions or even to the Church of England in foreign countries like the United States, Japan or China. These Churches belong to the world-wide union of Federated Churches looking towards the Archbishop of Canterbury, but with
  2666
  their own independent life and organisation. The Church of England in India, on the other hand, is, in the eyes of the law, merely an extension of the Church of England separated from the rest of that body by nearly 6,000 miles, with the ecclesiastical law of England applied to it and with no representation of any sort in the National Assembly of the Church of England and in the Houses of Convocation in this country. That arrangement was natural enough in the early days when the vast majority of the members of the Church of England in India were Europeans, temporarily resident in India—mainly servants of the Crown together with some who were in India for private business reasons. To-day, the situation is very different. The Christian community in India is growing very rapidly. The numbers, I believe, are increasing at the rate of something like 100,000 or 200,000 a year and the total number of Christians in India is computed at somewhere in the neighbourhood of 4,000,000 persons. Of these, 500,000, roughly speaking, belong to the Church of England and of that 500,000, no less than 380,000 are Indians and 37,000 are Anglo-Indians—using the term in its present official sense—and the remainder are Europeans.
  That shows clearly, to my mind at any rate, that the time has come to give the Church of England in India its proper-status—that is to dissolve its legal union with the Church of England and give it freedom to organise itself and develop along its own lines as a voluntary society legally entitled to manage its own affairs. The history of the relations of the Government of India and the Secretary of State with this matter is as follows. Five years ago the Government was tentatively approached with a view to this change, namely, the dissolution of union. They sympathised with the proposal but felt bound to assure themselves that the change was really and truly desired by those whom it would affect. That assurance was given by the voting figures which I have just mentioned, by the overwhelming majority in the Provincial Council and the support of all the Bishops of the Church in India. May I here interpolate the remark that when I speak of the Bishops of the Church of England in India it must not be supposed that all those Bishops are Europeans.

  2667
  One of them is an Indian. The very distinguished Prelate, who has been in this country this year and has spoken on behalf of this Bill, the Bishop of Dornaral, is an Indian, and, of course, those voting equally in the Provincial Council, and the Church Assembly of India were both Indians and Europeans. In addition to the opinion expressed by the Provincial Council, the Diocesan Councils—there are councils in each diocese—were also in favour of the Bill.
  Now, how is the change of which I have spoken to be effected? Firstly, it will be brought about by the Church Measure to which I have already referred, which passed through this House without a division as a Measure under the enabling Act in this country. That will mainly effect the self-government of the Church after the change has been effected. Secondly, it will be brought about by this Bill, which repeals certain Sections of the Government of India Act and renders self-government possible. Notably it repeals a Sub-section which lays down that the Bishop of Calcutta, the Metropolitan Bishop in India, is subject to the general superintendence and revision of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The repeal of these provisions will take effect on what is called the date of severance, which will be fixed not less than two years or more than three years after the coming into operation of the Indian Church Measure. After this date, the Bishops will be appointed in accordance with the constitution of the self-governing Church, instead. of by the procedure which is necessitated at present, that is, by submission to the Crown.
  Sir HENRY SLESSER: Will the Noble Lord give us the date of the Government of India Act to which he referred?
  Earl WINTERTON: When I speak of the Government of India Act, I refer to the Consolidated Act. The Government of India Act has been amended, as the hon. and learned Member is aware, on a great many occasions, and after it is amended a fresh copy of the Act is placed in the Library of the House. Some difficulty arose over an earlier Amendment, of which a copy was not immediately available, for which perhaps I was responsible, but now, on each revision of the Act, copies of the consolidated,
  2668
  altered Statute are placed in the Library. When I speak of the alteration of the Government of India Act, I refer to one of the provisions in the amalgamated Act, but I will give the hon. and learned Gentleman afterwards the actual provision.
  There is one special matter with which the House will be concerned. In fact, it is the matter, I think, with which the House will be much more concerned than with some of the other questions which arise under the Bill, and that is in respect to what, I venture to assert with confidence, are the obligations which this House has, as it has always had, towards those who are serving in that country as servants of the Crown. From the earliest time, since indeed the grant of a Charter by William III to the East India Company, it has been the practice, in the first decade of the East India Company, and afterwards of the Government, when the Crown assumed responsibility for the government of India by the Act of 1858, to provide chaplains and churches for British born subjects of the Crown in India. It is evident that under the new arrangement that privilege ought to be maintained, together with the rights of the chaplains, now 138 in number, as Government servants, because they are Government servants.
  It is quite obvious that the problem with which the Government of India and the Secretary of State were faced when they had to consider this matter as a result of the first submission made to them by the Church of England in India for severance, the problem of, on the one hand, giving the freedom to the Church of England in India which they desired, and, on the other hand, of making proper provision for servants of the Crown, was a very formidable one, but the manner in which it was finally decided appears to all concerned to be very satisfactory. Rules will be made under Clause 5 of the Bill. The draft Rules, a copy of which I presented to this House in May last, represent an agreed and balanced scheme, arrived at after long consultation between the Government of India and the Bishops, who acted strictly in accordance with the mandate received by them from the Provincial Council in India.
  The Secretary of State was, of course, consulted at every phase of the negotia-

  2669
  tions, and I may say that I, as his representative, was present when every rule was under discussion by a Committee of the Council of India, the Metropolitan of India, that is to say, the Bishop of Calcutta, and the Bishop of Bombay being present and taking part in the discussion, though not in the voting; and I can assure the House that the very greatest care was taken by both parties to go through every Rule and to discuss almost every word in the proposed draft Rules. These rules, which, as I say, were presented to Parliament in May last, represent the agreement reached to which I have just made reference. In saying that, I must not be taken as implying that circumstances may not necessitate some verbal alterations, because it must be remembered that these Rules will not come into effect until the date of severance, which will not be for two years, but what I want to emphasise is that there is a well understood honourable obligation, on the part of both parties to the agreement, to ensure that no alteration in principle is made without the concurrence of both parties. It is extremely unlikely that any such alteration will be made.
  Having said that, let me emphasise the points which the agreement actually makes. British-born servants of the Crown in India are not to be deprived of the Church of England services to which they have been accustomed. Rule 15 in particular lays this down by describing the churches that will be maintained by the Government, which are to be called the maintained churches. It is also laid down that they shall be available for the service of the Church of England as contained in any Book of Common Prayer from time to time authorised in England. I need hardly say that this means that whatever services are authorised in England will be open to worshippers in the maintained churches—no more and no less. The Rules further ensure, in regard to Government chaplains, that there must be equitable treatment in such matters as the refusal of licence, posting to particular stations, or proceedings before Ecclesiastical Courts. The chaplains are represented on the Provincial Council and the Diocesan Councils in India, and there is full confidence that they will naturally take their place as a body under the new
  2670
  arrangement and give the same valuable services as they have rendered in the past.
  British troops will have available for their use the maintained churches in all parts of India where there are such troops, and the Army Council assented to the Bill in draft before it was presented to the House. Rules have been carefully drafted to ensure that the authorities of the Church of England in India, after it has become legally separated from the parent Church, shall not withhold their licence from a chaplain except upon grounds upon which a licence would be refused in England. Rules have been made to bring in the aid or arbitration of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and in the last resort the Government have power to resume complete control of all or any of the maintained churches. The Government consider that in this matter they are in the legal position of trustees and are bound to provide against every contingency, however remote it may be, to protect the spiritual interests of the European Church of England members of the Services in India.
  I come to one other point in connection with the authority which is behind this Bill. I think I have made it sufficiently clear that, while this Bill is a Government Bill, and represents the honourable agreement come to between the Government and the Church of England in India, the Bill originated with the demand of the Church of England in India for self-government. I am not afraid to state the position, which is, that that demand was for the same independence as is enjoyed by the Church of England in every one of the self-governing Dominions of the Crown, and every foreign country in which there is an Anglican community. The support for the Bill in India, as I have shown, is overwhelming. The Bill, to the best of my belief, is supported by the heads of all political parties in this country. Indeed the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) is, I understand, going to speak later in the Debate in support of the Bill.
  Sir H. SLESSER: Only in my private capacity.
  Earl WINTERTON: I should have made that clear. At the same time, I am given to understand—I believe it is rather a delicate subject—from private inquiries, that there is no official opposition on the part of hon. Members of the Labour party, and I received a similar assurance from hon. Members who normally sit below the Gangway. I want to make the position quite clear, and to be perfectly frank with the House. If there should be much opposition to this Bill, it would be quite impossible to get the Bill through in the present Session. If that occurs, no damage will be done, either to His Majesty's Government or the Government of India, except in so far as they are deeply concerned, with every one responsible for the government of India, that the Church in India should have what it wants, and is entitled to have in their opinion. But if the Bill be delayed for another Session, the Government have every intention to get it through next Session. It will, however, involve the Church of England in India in heavy expense—heavy, at any rate, in comparison with its resources, which are not large. I am told that the cost of putting off a conference which was going to be held in the early part of next year to give effect to the change, will alone be £1,000, and I would make an earnest appeal to those hon. Gentlemen who, I understand, are going to oppose the Bill, to reconsider their position.
  I think I know the grounds on which they are going to oppose it, and I am the last person to attempt to suggest for one moment that they are not absolutely sincere in their opposition. I am sure they are entirely sincere, but if, as I apprehend, the ground of their objection is that the money of the taxpayers is going to be spent in the future to support the service of the Church of England in India, let me point out that the position will be exactly the same as it is now, with this very important distinction as far as the Church of England in India is concerned, that they will acquire more freedom and far more self-government than they ever enjoyed in the past. But it will be impossible for this House to say at the same time as we agree to the severance, that we are going to wash our hands entirely of the obligation which we have had in this House for 300 years—for, after all, the old John Company
  2672
  was to a great extent under Parliament—the obligation of providing out of public moneys in India spiritual ministration for servants of the Crown. In fact, I myself am quite convinced that if we were to take that attitude, we should find it impossible to get a large number of people, both in important and in humble capacities, from the highest positions in the Civil Service down to the private soldiers in the Army, to serve in India at all. They would say, "We refuse to serve in a country where you refuse to provide us with religious service to which we have always been entitled, and to which we knew we were entitled when we joined a particular service."
  So that I must warn the House that if, which is most unlikely to happen, the House as a whole took up the attitude that it is not prepared to see this money spent out of the taxpayers' money for the service of the Church, the Government would have to say, "Then we cannot agree to this freedom which is being conferred on the Church of England in India as a whole." I should have thought that it was a sufficient answer to that point of view to say that the members of the Church themselves, including Indians—because, after all, Indian members of the Church of England in India are taxpayers—have adopted this Bill almost with complete unanimity. I would like to mention another very delicate question, I admit. I would like to pay a tribute to the attitude which has been adopted by the great communities other than Christian in India. As far as I know, none of them has taken any exception either to this money being spent in the past or to it being spent in the future. On the contrary, I think there is a general feeling in a country like India that it would be very wrong to curtail the activities of any one community in that way.
  In conclusion, I would like to add that my noble Friend and the Government of India are confident that they have done right in asking Parliament to implement this agreement—an agreement which is honourable to both parties, which has been entered into between the Church of England in India acting through its authorised episcopal representatives with their authority based on the almost unanimous opinion of those whom they represent and the Government of India.

  2673
  The Government believe that, on the one hand, this arrangement will enable the Church of England in India to fulfil all its functions in the same way as the Church of England in the Dominions and foreign countries is doing, with a sense of more freedom and initiative than it has hitherto possessed, and that, on the other hand, the spiritual welfare of servant® of the Crown for which, in a lay sense, the Secretary of State is undoubtedly legally and constitutionally responsible, will be adequately assisted and maintained after the severance has been effected. I very much hope that the House to-day will pass this Bill without a division, and thereby show to the very flourishing and growing community of members of the Church of England in India that it has for them a feeling of good will and of encouragement in the great task which they have undertaken.
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: May I ask one question before the Noble Lord sits down?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Noble Lord will be able to answer, I am sure, by the leave of the House. The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I listened carefully to the Noble Lord's statement about finance, but I am not quite clear as to the actual position. The point I want to be clear about, first of all, is, can he tell us by whom was found the money which supplied the actual fabric of the churches or any endowments, if there are any? Secondly, who is supplying to-day the means for the upkeep of these churches, and could he give us a rough figure of what it is? Thirdly, who has controlled hitherto the expenditure of this money, and who will control it if this Bill becomes law?
  Earl WINTERTON: It is difficult to answer all these questions in detail. The hon. Gentleman asked me who supplied the money in the first instance for the endowments, and things of that kind. Some of it was supplied undoubtedly out of Government money as far back as the 17th century. Other money was supplied by pious benefactors, some of them Europeans and others Indian people, who died and left money to the Church. The Government will provide the money for
  2674
  the upkeep of the fabric of maintained churches and the Chaplains—
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The Government of this country or the Government of India?
  Earl WINTERTON: The Government of India. The Government of this country only comes in in respect of the obligation of the Secretary of State to see that the agreement is carried out, and to see that the interests of servants of the Crown in India are safeguarded. The Government of India are solely responsible financially in respect of maintained churches. With regard to the churches which will pass to the Church of England in India, which were dealt with in the Measure which has been passed by the House, the money for them will be found out of the funds which the Church of England in India has at its disposal. Some of these funds will be made over to the Church of England in India, and others will be found from the pockets of worshippers and from supporters of the Church of England in India. I hope that satisfies the hon. Gentleman. It is impossible for me to give a detailed account showing where the money came from. I doubt if any living person knows. It is like the money in the hands of the Church in this country or the Roman Church or any other Church.
  Sir H. SLESSER: Before the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill standing in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) is moved, I wish to make my position clear. The Noble Lord is quite right in saying that the Labour party, as such, offer no official opposition to this Bill; it is equally true that the Labour party, as such, do not officially support the Bill. Therefore, my hon. Friends who have put down the Amendment are, so far as the Labour party is concerned, equally as entitled to move it as I am to support the Bill, because it is no party question at all. I wish, if I may, to join in the appeal of the Noble Lord and to ask the right hon. Gentleman when he has explained his position, as I am sure he will, to help us in facilitating the passage of this Bill. We know that, as a fact, in every one of the Dominions of the Crown there is now a self-governing

  2675
  Church, and I should have thought that my right hon. Friend, who desires so much self-government for India, would have been among the first to welcome autonomy to India in the matter of ecclesiastical government. That is all that this Bill does. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has frequently demanded that India should be given the same rights of self-government as the other Dominions and Colonies, and now comes along an earnest or instalment of this very autonomy and freedom in the form of self-government to the Church.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: They have got to pay, whether they like it or not.
  Sir H. SLESSER: I will deal with that point in a moment. The shackles which tie India compulsorily to this country are severed by this Bill. By this Measure the Church is allowed to conduct its own affairs. I really think that, were it not for this unfortunate misunderstanding about the matter of the money, my right hon. and gallant Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) would not find it in their hearts to oppose the Bill. In fact, they would have welcomed it. By far the greater number of the members of the Indian Church are native Indians. This is not a case of supporting an alien Church in India, composed of persons who came originally from other countries. The Noble Lord gave us some interesting figures, from which it appears that the majority of the members of the Church are native-born Indians. Therefore, the last objection to allowing these Indian Christians and the Anglo-India Christians to conduct their own affairs seems to me to disappear. In addition, we are told that in the Episcopate in India you have Indian-born Bishops, and they also desire this Bill. We spent a considerable time yesterday in discussing the limitations of the powers and rights of the Church, but that was a case where the Church was disagreed. I have had a conversation with the Bishop of Bombay, and he assures me that the Church in India is absolutely unanimous in desiring this Measure. Really, in these circumstances, I should have thought that the Erastianism of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would have been sated yesterday.
  2676
  In regard to the question of finance, the position, as I understand it, is that this Measure makes no difference whatever in the existing financial position. Not a farthing more will be paid in the future than is paid in the present. The only difference is that, whereas the money is now paid under conditions of which the Government here or in India are in control, the money given in future will be received by the Indian Church to spend at its own discretion; and I am amazed that. Members like the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Shoreditch should object that the Church should be freer to spend its money than it is at the present time. I never thought that I should have to come here and implore my right hon. and gallant Friend to allow a voluntary association to become free of State control. If I had been asked before we came here which Member of the House would be most anxious and active to see this Bill passed into law, I should have said the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for New-castle under-Lyme. His attitude seems inconsistent with his whole philosophy of self-Government, and I hope that on this minor financial point he will give us the Second Beading, and, if it be not too much to hope, that he will give us the remaining stages also.
  Sir CHARLES OMAN: There are two questions which I should like to ask the Minister. Will this Bill result in India in the remission of services in English in any scattered small communities, as apart from places where provision is made for the Army and the Civil Service? Does the Bill mean that any English residents in future will be more likely to have the Anglican service rendered into Hindustani or some other language instead of their own tongue? The other question which I want to bring forward is very much more important. This Church, which we are setting up by this Bill, is a very small thing indeed—a few hundred thousand members, of whom the greater number, as I understand the Noble Lord, are recent converts, and as we all very well know, these recent converts have been drawn in the large majority from very primitive elements.
  Earl WINTERTON Earl WINTERTON indicated dissent.
  Sir C. OMAN: I know something about India. I was born there, my father was born there, and my grandson was born there, and, if the Noble Lord wants to imply that the majority of the Indian converts are not drawn from primitive classes and races, I must differ from him. Lastly, I would like to know whether the Noble Lord really thinks it is a wise thing to hand over for Indianisation a small community like this, after the experience which the centuries have given us of the position of small, isolated Christian Churches in the East? A small, isolated Christian Church in Eastern countries often falls into very strange ways. There is the case, for example, of the Abyssinian Church—I will not quote other cases in China, and elsewhere. We have a moral responsibility for this body in India. They were our missionaries who built it up, and it is upon our hierarchy at home that it depends at present. Have we a moral right to cut loose the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury and to say that this small Church shall be autonomous and go on to rule itself, knowing its component elements and knowing what has happened in the past to similar small bodies? It raises a very grave doubt in my mind. The fact that the Church Assembly passed this Bill without comment does not count for very much in this House, I am afraid, after yesterday. I have received criticisms of the Bill from English people from India, particularly one from the head of a large English training college there, who is very strongly against it. I do not know how far that feeling of opposition is widespread in India, but it would be a great mistake to represent feeling there as absolutely unanimous, and to say that this Bill is approved by all the English in India. It is a move towards the Indianisation of India, no doubt, but we are still responsible for the Church, and considering how small that Church is, and in face of the fact that there is yet no large body of learned clergy nor any large body of educated laity, I have the gravest doubt whether we have yet the moral right to cut off the connection with the See of Canterbury.
  Mr. THURTLE: I beg to move to leave out the word "now ", and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
  2678
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) said that yesterday the House spent a considerable time in considering another question which had been put forward by the Anglican Church. The House considered that question with a very happy-result, and I hope the Debate to-day will have similar happy results, although I am not exactly sanguine of it. This Bill proposes to create a self-governing, independent Church in India, and, at the same time, to take from the revenues of India certain moneys to assist in the maintenance of that Church. It is quite true, as the Noble Lord says, that in taking these moneys from the Indian Revenue it is merely continuing a longstanding practice, but the very fact that we are asked to give a statutory basis-to this practice affords us an opportunity of deciding whether it is desirable that it should be continued. My hon. and learned Friend said that an analogy might be established between this Indian Church and the Churches which exist in our various self-governing Dominions, but I submit that there is this vital difference between the proposed Indian Church and those other Churches, that in no case in the self-governing Dominions is any of the revenue of those Dominions taken for the purpose of maintaining those Churches.
  I object to the very name of this Church. It is to be called "The Indian Church." What right have we to give a legal basis to a Church in India to be called "The Indian Church"? It will represent what is, after all, an alien religion in India. The Noble Lord said there are about half a million Anglicans in India at the present time. The total population of India is something like 300,000,000, which means that only 1 in 600 is an Anglican. How can we rightly and properly create a Church in India to be called the Indian Church on a basis like that? Suppose we were to reverse the position. Suppose some people were to bring to this country an alien form of religion and were to succeed, by great industry, in getting adherents to it to the extent of l-600th of the population, and suppose, further, that we had not got an English Church. Should we not consider it to be an outrage upon England if this alien religion, with an infinitesimal degree of support, were to ask this House for authority to call itself "The English

  2679
  Church"? We have there an exact parallel of what we are proposing to do in regard to India at the present time.
  My main objection to this Measure, however, is in reference to the revenue which is to be granted to it from the poor people of India. It is said that the practice was begun in 1698; the Noble Lord said it had always been done. The argument of antiquity is never conclusive, so far as I am concerned. The fact that something has been going on for centuries is not necessarily conclusive that it ought to continue, and we ought to consider the question not on the basis of the practice having been in existence for three centuries but from the point of view of whether it is right and proper. Certainly it was done in the days of John Company, but many things were done in those days which have been abandoned since, and I think this is one of the practices established by John Company which ought to be reconsidered and, probably, changed. This money, amounting to £300,000, is to be taken from the revenues of India and devoted to two purposes, one the maintenance of chaplains and churches for the military forces in India, and the other the maintenance of chaplains and churches for the Civil Service in India The House should bear in mind that by far the greater proportion of the money is to be devoted to the Civil Service in India. Out of 310 maintained churches no fewer than 221 are civil churches, so that the great bulk of the money is to be used for the purpose of providing Anglican services for Civil servants in India. Really, there is no justification for expenditure of that kind. So far as the Army is concerned I beg leave to question the wisdom of spending money in India on services for the Army. I happen to have served in the Army, and I got to know something of the feeling of the rank and file about compulsory church services and chaplains, and my experience taught me that practically 99 per cent. of the men who were serving in the Army did not want any church services and did not want any chaplains.
  Colonel APPLIN Colonel APPLIN indicated dissent.
  Mr. THURTLE: One always speaks, of course, from one's own experience, and I am speaking from the point of view which I learned from my experience in the Army.
  Colonel APPLIN: You did not want to go.
  Mr. THURTLE: I did not want to go, and certainly the great bulk of my colleagues did not want to go. I do not think that a strong case has been made out for spending all this money even on the military side, but there is absolutely no case for spending any of this revenue in maintaining an Anglican service for the Civil servants in India. I hope in a matter like this that I am as broad-minded as any hon. Member of this House, and if any man wishes to practice a particular religion I should be the last man in the world to interfere with him. If the British Civil servants in India wish to follow and practice the Anglican religion I would not dream of attempting to stop them, but if the degree of fervour amongst these Civil servants is so weak that they are not prepared to find the money to maintain their religion in India, they have no right at all to go to the poor poverty-stricken people of India and ask them to provide money for that purpose.
  What a presumption it is to call upon the Indian people to provide money for the maintenance of the Anglican religion. Look at the number of religions which India has already. They are far more numerous than in this country, and. of far greater antiquity than the Anglican religion. Those Indian religions represent the faith of hundreds of millions of poor people as against 500,000 who hold the Anglican faith. What right have we to ask these people, whose religions are much more numerous and much older than ours, to provide money in order to maintain what they regard as an alien religion? This is not merely a question of the amount of money. I do not care whether it is 10 rupees or 10,000,000 rupees. The amount does not matter, but what we are concerned about is the principle of taking the money of the Indian people without their consent for the maintenance of an alien Church.
  12 n.
  When John Hampden objected to the payment of ship money, it was not the fact that he had to pay 20s. that he objected to, because he could have paid that amount without difficulty, and it would not have impaired his fortune seriously at all; but he objected to the payment of that money on principle. When the people of our American

  2681
  Colonies objected to the payment of a tax on tea, it was not the amount of the tax to which they objected. I believe, if my memory serves me right, the rebate that was allowed was only a paltry tax of 3d. on the lb. They did not object to that so much but they objected to the whole principle of the tax. That is what I object to in this case. Even if the amount had been £10,000 I would have objected to it in the same way because we have no right to ask the Indian people, to whom this religion is alien, to subscribe money out of their revenues for the maintenance of the Anglican religion.
  I hope that within the next few years there is going to be a change in the Government of India. We have been led to believe that, as a result of the inquiries of a Royal Commission which is about to investigate the Indian question, there may be very great changes in regard to self-government in India in the comparatively near future. I hope that may be the case. I would suggest that we ought not to regard this question as being urgent at the present time, and we ought to defer action in regard to it until the people of India have received a larger measure of self-government. At the present time the Indian people regard the Anglican Church as an alien Church, as the Church of their conquerors, and as being the Church of a Nation which dominates over them. For these reasons, I think that before we give this Church a national status in India we should wait until the Indians have become the rulers of their own destiny. When the Indian people are free to decide for themselves, when they have control of their own national fortunes and national finance, then, if they think fit to create an Indian Church which in fact is the Anglican Church, no one can object to that course. Until that happens I say that we ought at least, defer action in this matter, and under the circumstances we ought not to proceed with the Measure before the House.
  Mr. WELLOCK: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I do not believe that this Bill is quite such an innocent one as it appears to be on the surface. I am inclined to think that this Bill is very closely related to the Measure that was before the House
  2682
  yesterday in regard to which a considerable spate of literature was poured upon the Members of this House. My opinion on this point is strengthened by the fact that this Bill has received the support of the hon. Member for South East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser). I do not know that the hon. Member has shown any particular interest in Indian affairs, although he may have taken a general in that subject. We have been told to-day that this Bill has the support of the great majority of the Bishops in India. Yesterday we were told exactly the same thing with regard to the Measure which was then before the House.
  My real objection to this Bill is that it does not allow the democracy of India to express its voice upon it. It has been stated that this Bill is really in sympathy and unison with the idea of self-government in India, but I think that in the present circumstances that point of view cannot be upheld. We must recognise that India has not self-government to-day, and the voice of the democracy of India cannot be registered in regard to this Bill. We may pass this Bill through this House during the present Session, but we know that, if that be done, whatever India thinks about this Bill will not be registered in the Legislature of India. The Bill will be passed, whatever India may feel and think about it. The name of the Bill also comes into consideration. We are going to establish in India an Indian Church. Let us think what we are doing; let us remember the feeling that was aroused in the country and in this House yesterday upon the question of the Prayer Book. The Indian people are just as religious as we are, and the disputes that have arisen in that country recently between Mohammedans and Hindus are only a proof of the strength of feeling there on the question of religion. It is now proposed that we, the British people, should impose upon India what we call an Indian Church. That will mean that the only Established Church in India, the only Church that goes by the name of Indian, will be the Church of an alien religion.
  Considering the relationship between this country and India, and what is to come before the Indian people during the next few months, the time for bringing

  2683
  in this Bill is very badly chosen. It is bound to create antagonism in India, and, especially if it goes through the Indian Legislature without the people of India having an opportunity to register their voice, it will very deeply prejudice the feeling in India against the Commission that is going out to consider the future government of India. We may say that these are sentimental matters, but it was admitted yesterday that we are sentimental. If I were an Indian and a member of the Hindu community, with its 220,000,000 followers, or of the Moslem community with its 60,000,000 or 70,000,000 followers, I should certainly feel very strongly opposed to the introduction into my country of a Bill to establish a Church which carried the name of my country and yet at the same time was the Church of an alien religion. In view of these considerations, and particularly in view of the fact that this cannot be considered to be a democratic Measure in India today, and that it is certainly an attack upon Indian sentiment, I feel that the least we can do is to oppose the introduction of this Bill until India has at any rate a very much larger measure of Home Rule than she has at the present moment.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The hon. Member who has just sat down is an awful warning of the way in which, if you once yield to suspicion, it spreads over the human mind—it corrupts it altogether. The hon. Member has now reached a point which reminds me of the well-known story of Lord Bowen, who said, about a colleague of his on the Judicial Bench, "The decision of Mr. Justice So-and-so is like going to sea on a Friday—not invariably fatal, but very unfortunate." The hon. Member feels very much the same about Bishops. He thinks that there is a certain presumption, in regard to the Episcopate, that, if the Bishops are in favour of anything, it is probably wrong. That makes things very difficult in dealing with episcopalian churches. I could not help observing that the opponents of this Bill seem hardly to have read its opening words. This is
  "An Act to make provision incidental to and consequential on the dissolution of the legal union between the Church of England and the Church of England in India."
  2684
  It goes on:
  "Whereas by the Indian Church Measure, 1927 provision is made for the dissolution of the legal union between the Church of England and the Church of England in India:
  "And whereas for the purpose of giving effect to certain changes consequential on the said Measure it is expedient that the provisions hereinafter contained should be enacted by Parliament."
  The Indian Church Measure has passed; it has received the Royal Assent, and is the law of the land. Parliament, therefore, has adopted the principle of the dissolution of the legal union between the Church of England and the Church of England in India. As to its being called the Indian Church, it is not Parliament that calls it the Indian Church; it is the body itself that uses that name. All religious bodies choose their own title. The Church of Ireland is only the Church of a minority, but it calls itself the Church of Ireland; and there is a much smaller body which calls itself the Reformed Church of England, though personally I should not regard that as an appropriate title for that particular body. It is, however, part of the courtesy that passes among Christian people that they should be allowed to call the body to which they belong by any name that they please, and the Indian Church is so called because that is the name which has been adopted by the Bishops and other authorities who preside over it. My hon. Friend and colleague in the representation of the University of Oxford (Sir C. Oman) asked whether this would make any difference to the small scattered congregations. I cannot imagine that it would. They have to be provided for by the Church in any case. I am advised that there is the greatest possible anxiety not to do anything that would distress the ordinary English worshipper, and, at any rate so far as we are able now to foresee, there is no likelihood of any difficulty in that direction.
  As to the question of money, this money is not to be given, as has been suggested, to maintain the Church; it is payment for services received. Religion, like other things, has to be paid for if you want it. The State has a large number of servants in India who need these ministrations. [Interruption.] We are happy in having, owing to the generosity of past ages, an endowed Church, but that does not exist in India, and, there-

  2685
  fore, provision must be made. Buildings have to be repaired, and chaplains who minister have to be paid for their services. The only purpose of this Bill is that the payments which are necessary, and without which, of course, those ministrations cannot be provided which are needed by the State for its servants, shall not be interfered with. A time may come when there are no Christian Civil servants in India, and, if that should ever be so, a new situation will, of course, arise; but at the present time there is this large body of State servants, and it is only reasonable and fair that the State needing this service should pay for the service.
  The intention, both of the Measure and of the Bill, is that the Church should be absolutely independent, that it should be a voluntary association, distinct both from the State and also in law—though not, of course, spiritually—from the Church of England. Spiritually it is still to be united, of course, in full communion with the Church of England. Provision is made, rather quaintly, I think, for the contingency—and this, I hope, may satisfy my hon. Friend and colleague—of severance in the future. The Archbishop of Canterbury is to certify, and a good many other things are to be done, including the resumption by the Governor-General of the property which, as it were, has been loaned to the Church as long as it retains its present position. All that has been done in order—
  Mr. WRIGHT: On a point of Order. May I call your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the fact that there is not a quorum present in the House?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I recently counted the House, and satisfied myself that there are forty Members present.
  Mr. WRIGHT: On a further point of order. Will you declare to the House what interval it is necessary should elapse between one point and another at which your attention may be called to this fact?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is in the discretion of the Chair.
  Lord H. CECIL: When I was interrupted, I was saying that, as long as the State has in India persons who need religious services, it is only reasonable that the State should make a contribu-
  2686
  tion for such services. It does not increase the charge on the Indian taxpayer, and there is no analogy, therefore, with the charge on the American Colonies which led to their severance from this country. It is only paying for what you get. If you buy stationery in India you have to pay for it in a shop. If you get religion in England you have to pay for it.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: Why do you not pay for it?
  Lord H. CECIL: We pay the expense of government, and this is part of the expense of government.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: That is what we object to.
  Lord H. CECIL: That is part of the much wider problem how India ought to be governed, and we cannot decide that on this Bill. It is quite clear that what the Bill does is not at all to invade the rights of the Indian people. If anything it rather increases them. Many are Christians and are united in this Church and they will henceforth be entirely independent of the State and of English control. Last night we were told that we ought to have disestablishment. This is a measure of disestablishment. I am amazed to find that whatever we do is always wrong. The Church Assembly can never do right. When it tries to adjust its affairs consistently with establishment, it is wrong. If we assent to the separation of the Church, by which it becomes autonomous, disestablished from all connection with the State, we are wrong. May I read the words used in the Indian Church Measure, which must appeal to every convinced liberationist. They could not be more definite and more explicit:
  "As in the respects particularly in this Section mentioned, so in all other respects the Church of England and the Indian Church shall, as from the date of severance, be legally severed, separate and distinct, and every law and custom shall, except as in this Measure expressly provided, be interpreted and applied accordingly."
  Again:
  "Any rule of the Indian Church made by any synod, council, assembly or officer thereof shall not, after the date of severance, be subject to any legal limitation in respect to scone or effect (whether arising from the operation of an Act of Parliament or other-

  2687
  wise) other than such as would apply to the like rule if made by a voluntary association altogether distinct from the Church of England."
  This raises no question of principle. The principle has been raised and decided. This merely carries out the necessary machinery, which has to be dealt with by a Bill, and I earnestly hope the House will not be so foolish as to shrink from the consequences of the Measure.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Noble Lord has given an admirable exposition of the advantages of disestablishment, but I cannot think it can have escaped his mind that this Bill as an example of disestablishment, of securing freedom from control, while yet retaining control over the cash—retention, shall I say, of the emoluments. I hardly think that is an exact parallel for the general argument in this country in favour of disestablishing the Church of England. He emphasised more clearly what he regarded as the advantages of establishment. He said we are bound, in India and in this country, to provide Church of England ministrations for the Civil Service, the Army, and indeed generally for the servants of the Crow6n throughout the world. I demur to that entirely. It indeed would be going beyond anything that has hitherto been suggested that the State should supply for Civil servants in this country Church of England ministrations. Many members of the Civil Service are Nonconformists; some are even Agnostics. Would the Noble Lord provide at the expense of the State ministrations for all the varieties of faith that go to compose the Civil Service?
  I was interested in this Bill in the first place because, in spite of what the ex-Solicitor-General the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) said, apparently a large number of the members of the Church of England in India were afraid of this Measure because they thought directly the Church of England in India was severed from its connection with this country the disestablished Free Church would proceed to move along Anglo-Catholic lines and would develop on the Roman side of its character. That was the allegation of these people who wrote to me and of the 20,000 petitioners who sent in a petition against the Bill. I am satisfied, after
  2688
  discussing the matter with the Noble Lord, that there is no danger from that point of view, and indeed I think the whole House can see that, after the most emphatic vote yesterday of the Protestant under-world, there is no likelihood whatever of any Bench of Bishops, whether in this country or in India, ever again attempting to graft on to the Protestant reformed doctrine of this country the principles of the reservation of the Sacrament.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This seems to be renewing yesterday's Debate.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Perhaps I should explain how this is germane to the subject. We are setting this Church of England in India free. The principal opposition to it comes from those people who think that by setting it free they will move in the direction of the Roman Church, and I think we are justified in pointing out to these people who are objecting to this Bill in India that their fears, although they may have been justifiable before, are now no longer justifiable. The real criticism of this Bill must come not from those who object to it being set free from control—being subject to its own Bishops and laity—but from those who are doubtful as to whether we should continue indefinitely the practice of drawing upon Indian funds for the maintenance of this Church.
  The main argument in favour of the Bill is that this has always gone on and therefore, on sound Conservative principles, because it has always gone on it always should go on. Let us realise that this is a question which every Member of Parliament must seriously consider. I do not remember any protests being made in the Indian Assembly against the moneys that are voted year after year for the upkeep of chaplains, not merely of the Church of England but Catholic and Nonconformist Chaplains with the Forces in India, but at any moment very reasonable objection to that may be taken, and I think we must face the fact that, this issue having been raised in this country, we shall in future have the matter raised in India. It is trifling with the matter to say, as the ex-Solicitor-General said, that this was merely giving to India the right of self-determination. Of course, if it were giving to India the right of self-determination as to whether they should find these funds or not.

  2689
  there would be no sort of financial opposition to the Measure, at any rate, but he knows, and we all know, that over the question of this fund, at the present time, India has no control whatever. To reduce the sum allocated to the Army is practically impossible. Really, the less we talk about self-determination in India at the present time the better, I think, for the subject is hardly one which comes with very good grace from us just now. We are in the position of trustees for not only the English Church but also for the Indian people on this question, and I would ask the Noble Lord, before he definitely asks us to vote for or against the Second Reading of this Bill, to tell us whether there have been any expressions of hostility from the Indian Legislative Assembly to the voting of this money in the past. If there have not been, I for one shall be quite content to support the Second Reading of this Measure. I do not believe that there are religious dangers, and as long as there have been no objections from India, from the people who pay, to the making of this payment, I do not feel that the matter is serious enough to force a Division. Do not let us attempt now to rush this Measure through the House. Do not let us attempt to take the Committee stage to-day. Do allow public opinion outside some slight opportunity of expressing itself on this question, which has never really seriously been discussed before in this House, and enable us to see more clearly, some day next week, whether we want to take the concluding stages of this Bill.
  Colonel APPLIN: I find myself in an extremely difficult position. I do not wish to do anything to embarrass the Noble Lord on a Measure which deals with the financial support of the Church in India, but I am going to speak on this subject as one who served in India, in the Army, for many years and who was a lay reader in the Church of England, with a licence from the Bishop of Nagpur, when I had to take services every Sunday morning and evening for nine months of the year until the Bishop could come up into the hills for three months and take the services himself. I feel that we soldiers in India break our connection with the old country in every possible way. We go to an utterly strange land, with a climate totally different from our own, among an
  2690
  alien people, leaving our families and everything behind. There is just one thing which we have, and it is the Church of England, to which we march on Sundays. When we get into that Church and have that old service we feel ourselves back at home again. I differ entirely from the hon. Member for Shore-ditch (Mr. Thurtle), who spoke of his experience in India and expressed an entirely opposite view. My experience is that 90 per cent. of the men who march to the Church of England on Sunday desire to go to that Church. What they may not desire to do, and I agree with the hon. Member, is to have to clean their buttons and put on their full dress uniform, and march out in the sun in the morning. They may have a natural desire in their hearts to kick a football rather than sit and listen to a prosy sermon, but I do say that 90 per cent. of these men would feel it a very great hardship if they had not the Church of England service to which they are accustomed, giving them that connection with the old country which is so valuable out there.
  I feel that we are passing a Measure without realising the fact—and it is in regard to the Clauses of this Bill dealing with finances that I have any doubt—that it is the separation, or, as the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil), in front of me, said, the disestablishment of the Church of England in India. We in the Army, and they are some 35,000 of us, and the civil servants—and I think I am speaking for the Anglo-Indians also—would much rather that the Church of India remained in the Church of England and kept its connection with it. For that reason, I feel bound to oppose the Bill.
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I reluctantly feel compelled to support the Amendment that has been moved. I do so, because I feel that it would be a great mistake to rush through this very important Bill at the tail end of this Session. To-day is probably the last day when we have even the pretence of having the full numbers of the House present. Next week large numbers of members will be away. It is quite a mistake to regard this Bill as a trivial and unimportant Bill. I do not think that the Noble Lord himself would take that view. The more the Bill is studied

  2691
  the more we shall realise that it is important in itself dealing with most important principles, and for that reason I protest against rushing it through in these last few days and claim that it ought to be considered when the House is able to give full consideration to it. I do not share the view of the hon. Friends who sit behind me with regard to the proceedings of yesterday. The more I think over what happened then, the more I am convinced that we ought to have devoted longer time to a question of such great; importance. It seems to me that in devoting only one day to a matter which had been dealt with at such great length and with such great consideration by the Church was totally inadequate. My reason for saying that is, that I want to avoid falling into the same mistake on this occasion. We have vital principles at stake in this Measure, and we ought to give to them proper thought, proper debate, and only after we have done all that to carry, if we desire it, this Bill into law. On the merits of this question, I am very much more uncertain, because I have not discovered, though I have taken some pains to do so, exactly what we are doing in this proposal. It seems to me that the position of the fund is completely changed if the status of the Church is changed.
  My right hon. Friend made a point which I think was not fully appreciated in this Souse. He said that if we were going to ask for State funds for the support of churches of the English Church in India for the purpose of ministering to civil servants who were Anglicans, he did not see why the same argument should not apply to the support of all other churches to which other civil servants might belong. That seems to me to be a very vital question. So long as this Indian Church is a State Church, so long as it is definitely connected with the English Church and is a State organisation, there is a certain amount of ground for seeing that any State funds that are found are legitimately used for maintaining the State Church. But the moment that connection between the "Church of India and the Church of England ceases, then, it seems to me, there are no grounds whatever for using State funds to support the so-called Indian Church, that would not equally be
  2692
  arguable in support of other Churches to which a body of civil servants in a particular locality belong. You may have a Civil servant in an up-country station, and he and one or two in the immediate circle may be the only people really concerned in attending Church. It would be a very difficult matter to prove that you are in any sense ministering to his requirements if he be a Nonconformist by supplying him with an English Church when the Church has already ceased to be the State Church, as we understand it. I would like to press this point that we are undoubtedly on the eve of very important constitutional changes in India —some of us hope that that will be so in any case—and it seems to me that this is not the right moment to make this very grave change. For these reasons, without saying that I am against the Bill, I do say that we ought not to rush it through in the last few remaining days of a short Session.
  Earl WINTERTON: I hope the House will forgive my asking permission to speak a second time.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is not necessary for the Noble Lord to ask permission in this case.
  Earl WINTERTON: I am very much obliged to you for that assurance. I hope that I shall be in the pleasant position of being able to make some converts. I hope that the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), when he has heard my statement, will vote for the Bill, and I hope that the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), who put his views in a most moderate and reasonable way, although I think his premise was wrong, will also vote for the Bill. As I understand the hon. Member for West Leicester, his point was this; that the Church in India is to cease being a State Church; that so long as it remains a State Church there is reason for providing money and a case can be made out for providing money for servants of the Crown; but, when it ceases to be a State Church, there can be no such reason, because the people for whom we are intending to provide the services, European servants of the Crown, may not be members of the Church of England. The answer to that is two-fold. In the first place, provision is made for a very

  2693
  carefully chosen number of maintained churches in those places where there is a considerable Anglican community of servants of the Crown. In the second place, provision is made from Army funds and has always been made and will continue to be made for the spiritual ministrations of Roman Catholics and Nonconformists. That is to say, the chaplains are maintained out of Army funds for this purpose. In that way we provide for the members of practically every Christian community in India who are in the service of the Crown.
  An equally serious point was put by the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) who moved the Amendment. His argument, if there was no answer to it, would be a powerful one. He said that the Anglican community in India, admittedly, only numbers half a million people out of a population of 300,000,000. The actual Christian community, as I have said on many occasions, is very much larger and is growing. He asked why should we provide any sort of State money, taxpayers' money for the needs of that Christian community. Apart from the fact that we have distinct obligations, despite what the hon. Member said, towards the servants of the Crown, the answer is that the Christian religion is not the only religion for which money is provided by the State in India. Probably the House is unaware that all the lands and sites belonging to the mosques and temples in India, and they are very numerous, are entirely free from land assessment. An enormous sum of money is provided in that way, and quite properly provided, if I may say so with all respect, for those great religions out of State funds.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does that apply to the property of those religions in the Mosques and Temples?
  Earl WINTERTON: The Mosques and Temples are entirely exempt from land taxation. That is a very valuable assistance to them. I think, I cannot say definitely, off-hand, that it applies to some extent to certain endowments. At any rate, the sum of money which they obtain in that way is enormous. The right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme asked a very reasonable question. He asked what has been the attitude of the Assembly in regard to this matter.
  2694
  I have made such inquiries as have been possible in the time at my disposal, and I learned that there has never been any Resolution passed or moved in the Assembly hostile to this Measure. There have been one or two questions on the subject. It naturally aroused curiosity on the part of Members when the Bill was on the tapis and was first mooted, but there has been no Resolution of any kind hostile to this proposal. I believe the reason for that is that there really is no opinion in India against assistance to the great religions of India, and I imagine that the Moslem and Hindu Members of the Assembly would feel that it would be a rather ungracious attitude on their part to object to this comparatively small sum of money being given in assistance of the Church of England in respect of the obligations of the Government to the European servants of the Crown, when at the same time their own religions were receiving great assistance in the way I have described.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) has been very effectively answered by his fellow Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil). The hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Colonel Applin) is under a complete misapprehension. He spoke as if the dissolution of the legal and not, as the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University pointed out, the spiritual union between the Church in India and the Church of England in this country was going to make the position of the soldiers in respect of their religious services far different from what it is to-day. Nothing of the sort. They will continue to attend the parade services, and I believe that not one in a dozen will know that there is any difference. They will be in exactly the same position as they are now, because at very great trouble and after long deliberation the Government of India, the Church, myself and others concerned in the negotiations in deciding which churches shall be maintained, have made most careful provision for the spiritual welfare of the troops.
  I am sorry that I must end on a more controversial tone. There is a point to which I must take exception in the phrase used by the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Wellock) which if it were not answered would cause consider-

  2695
  able feeling among Christians in India. He said that Christianity was an alien religion in India. I can assure him that Christianity has no frontiers. It belongs to no one country more than another. Every Indian Christian will feel as wounded by that phrase, which I hope was used inadvertently by the hon. Member, as will his own constituents. "An alien religion" is not the term to apply to Christianity in any part of the world. It has no frontiers any more than the great religion of Islam has frontiers.
  Mr. WELLOCK: I only meant that it was an imported religion.
  Lord H. CECIL: So is Christianity in this country.
  Earl WINTERTON: I am sure the hon. Member used the phrase not in the sense in which the House took it. I am speaking on behalf of Indian Christians, who I am sure would be deeply wounded by the use of the phrase, just as a Mohammedan in this country would be deeply wounded if his religion was referred to as an alien religion because it is a religion which is follwed by millions of people in the British Empire. I think I have dealt with all the points that have been raised. The House has shown great moderation in dealing with this matter, and, although there is only a small number of Members present, it has shown a high sense of responsibility. I hope that we shall pass the Bill without a Division.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: The Noble Lord has drawn an analogy between the direct payment for services of religion for military and Civil servants in India and the indirect payment in the form of remissions of taxation on the land in which the temples of other religions in India are built. It does not seem to me to be an altogether clear analogy. In any case, the land upon which the temples are built happens to be Indian land, and the people of India surely have the right, as have the people in this country, to make whatever assessment arrangements they please. The Noble Lord also takes up the use of word "alien religion." I do not think it is an offence to the Christians of India, or to anybody else, to call the Christian religion in India,
  2696
  alien. It is alien in the sense that there is establishment, just as much as the Church, when it was established in Ireland, was an alien church, to that country, and because of that establishment and the forcing of a different religion upon a nation in its state and financial relations, it came to be considered a hardship from the material and spiritual point of view. If we have a vote upon this Bill this afternoon, it implies that this House may not sanction the payment of the small sum of £300,000, and it does raise the question of principle which is behind the Bill.
  The point I want to put is this: If it is necessary for the troops in India or the Civil servants to have the ministrations of the Christian Church, it is far better for this country, which is predominantly Christian, to pay the expenses of that ministration. If the civil servants cannot be expected to pay for their own religion, surely it would be far better and more reasonable for this country to pay the expenses rather than make the Indian nation pay them. As for the troops, and their appreciation of the compulsory or semi-compulsory religious services in India, or anyhere else, there is a world of difference between being an officer in the Army and being a private. I have been both, and I am perfectly sure that the average officer does not know what the average soldier thinks about compulsory religion in the Army. The reason why religion and religious services are objected to by the troops, and bitterly objected to in spite of the nonsense of the 99 per cent., is not because of an objection to religion itself, but because every form of compulsion in religion is objectionable. The whole essence of religion is self-sacrifice and its spontaneous expression. If it does not come spontaneously, then religion is worthless. That is the principle involved, and because this expenditure, or the sanction of it, does involve that principle I shall support the Amendment rather than the Motion.
  Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next, 19th December.—[Earl Winterton.]

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL.
Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I beg to move "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
I understand that the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Col. Wedgwood) who is not able to be here at the moment, agrees with me that in so far as they are not purely drafting Amendments they are an improvement in the Bill and, therefore, as we are now in complete agreement as to the form, I hope that we shall rapidly dispose of them.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendments considered accordingly.
Lords Amendments to page 8, line 2, agreed to.

CLAUSE 13.—(Provisions as to renters' quota.)
Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 15, at the end, insert new Sub-section:
"(5) Where a renter has in any such year acquired any registered films and subsequently in the same year his business as a renter by assignment or will or on intestacy or by operation of law, becomes vested in some other licensed renter, that other renter and not the first-mentioned renter shall for the purposes of the provisions of this Part of this Act as to the renters' quota be deemed to have acquired the films."
Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment makes plain what I think we all assumed to be the law in this case. If a renter succeeds in the course of a year to the business of another renter he carries the quota rights as well as the quota liabilities of the man to whose business he succeeds. I was advised that the law was not quite clear without the insertion of this Amendment.
Question put, and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 16, line 31, agreed to.

CLAUSE 26.—(Films to which Act applies.)
Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 43, at the end, insert the words:
"but it shall be lawful for the Board of Trade to relax this requirement in any case
2698
where they are satisfied that the maker had taken all reasonable steps to secure compliance with the requirement, and that his failure to comply therewith was occasioned by exceptional circumstances beyond his control, but so that such power of relaxation shall not permit of the percentage aforesaid being less than seventy per cent."
Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
1.0 p.m.
I ought to explain that when an Amendment for the same purpose was moved in this House on Report the purpose was agreed to but the form in which it was moved was not agreed to. I gave an undertaking that the words would be reconsidered favourably if put in a very strict form which showed that there could be no general relaxation and relaxation only under very strict conditions. This Amendment complies with that arrangement.
Colonel DAY: This Amendment reduces more or less the amount of money that has to be spent on British labour in the making of British films. My opinion is that it leaves a loophole for Continental or American labour to be brought in, whether films are made here or elsewhere.
Mr. SOMERVILLE: I cannot help agreeing with the hon. Member who has just spoken. I regret that this relaxation has been permitted, and that there is now a possibility of less emolument for British labour.
Question put, and agreed to.
Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [Lords]
Read a Second time. Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. F. C. Thomson.]

MEDICAL AND DENTISTS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

2699
This Bill embodies an agreement between the Irish Free State and this country which is designed to meet an administrative problem resulting from the establishment of the Irish Free State and the legislation consequent thereon. As a result of that legislation, the General Medical Council, which had previously been charged with the duty of supervising the medical profession in regard to the whole of the United Kingdom, ceased to exercise any authority or control over the profession in the Irish Free State, and also ceased to be able to place on the register here students who obtained their medical qualification in the Irish Free State. That position was regarded on both sides as unsatisfactory, and negotiations have been taking place for some time. In the meanwhile, by an interim arrangement the General Medical Council have agreed to accept for the Medical Register here, students with qualifications obtained in the Irish Free State. One of the objects of the Bill is to validate that arrangement.
An agreement was reached in the early part of this year in the form of the signed agreement which is set out as Part I of the Schedule of the Bill. I may say that in this matter the British Government has been assisted by Sir Donald Macalister, the President of the General Medical Council, and the agreement has the concurrence and support of the Council. The terms of the agreement are briefly these. On the one hand, so far as the Medical Register in the United Kingdom is concerned, the General Medical Council will continue to admit to the register all persons who, prior to the establishment of the Irish Free State, would have been admissible in respect of qualifications obtained in the area which is now the Irish Free State. Secondly, they will have all the power formerly possessed by them of controlling the examinations giving the right of such admission, so far as is necessary for the purpose of keeping the United Kingdom Register. On the other side, the Irish Free State will establish an Irish Free State Register, and will have complete control of that register and of the profession in the Irish Free State. Provision is made for the admission to the Register on equal terms of all persons on the United Kingdom Register.
2700
The position with regard to the Dentists Act is practically similar, and it is embodied in Part II of the Schedule. I may say that in that matter we have been assisted by Sir Francis Acland, Chairman of the Dental Board of the United Kingdom. The agreement requires legislation both in this country and the Free State. I am glad to say that in the case of the Free State legislation has been passed to give effect to the medical part of the agreement, and I believe it has received the Royal Assent. The legislation in regard to the dental side in the Irish Free State will, I think, under their procedure involve a separate Bill, and I understand that legislation is now going through. I think this is a happy solution of the difficulties which have arisen, and I have no doubt the House will be prepared to give a Second Reading to the Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Sir K. Wood.]

NURSING HOMES (REGISTRATION) BILL.
As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
NURSING HOMES (REGISTRATION) BILL.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Power of Minister to exempt Christian Science nursing homes.)
  "(1) The Minister of Health may grant exemption from the operation of this Act in respect of any nursing home, as respects which he is satisfied that it is being or will be carried on in accordance with the practice and principles of the body known as the Church of Christ Scientist.
  (2) It shall be a condition of any exemption granted to a nursing home under this Section that the nursing home shall adopt and use the name of Christian Science nursing home.
  (3) An exemption granted under this Section in respect of a nursing home may at any time be withdrawn by the Minister if it appears to him that that home is no longer being carried on in accordance with the said practice and principles."—[Captain Cazolet.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Captain CAZALET: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

  2701
  The first Clause of this Bill makes it compulsory for any nursing home in the future, if the Bill is passed, to have in charge of it a qualified medical doctor or a qualified nurse. Hon. Members are no doubt aware that the method of healing disease as practised by those who profess the faith of Christian Science is entirely different from that practised by the medical profession. It is obvious, therefore, that if there is to be a qualified medical man or a qualified nurse at the head of these homes there must be a period when either he or she will disapprove of the methods adopted in the homes to which the proposed New Clause refers. I should state here that these homes do not take maternity cases, cases requiring surgical operations, or cases of infectious diseases. There are, at present, 30 or 40 of these homes spread about the countries of England and Wales. If they cannot obtain exemption under this Bill the result will be that those who profess the faith of Christian Science or who desire to be healed by its means, will be subjected, in my opinion, to an intolerable degree of persecution merely for their religious convictions. That I declare to be quite contrary both to the traditions of this House, and the objects of the promoters of the Bill.
  The only other alternative is that these homes should be closed. No attempt is being made under this proposed New Clause to evade any of the rules and regulations in regard to ventilation, sanitation or such matters. These homes are prepared to submit to any degree of inspection and registration which may be thought desirable and necessary by the Ministry of Health. These homes would, of course, have to satisfy the requirements of the Ministry in these respects, and in other matters, before they could gain exemption. Now the object of the Bill is presumably to close undesirable establishments and not to interfere with well-conducted homes where hundreds of our fellow citizens today are seeking and finding comfort and health. In face of these facts, we place our position before the Ministry of Health. We have accepted this proposed New Clause which, I understand, conforms in every way with the requirements of the Ministry of Health. I feel sure that no one in this House, and in particular none of those who represent the medical profession in this House,
  2702
  desires to interfere with the free right of any individual in this country to think upon religious matters as he or she desires nor does anyone desire to interfere with the right of the individual to seek relief from his ill-health and his troubles as he or she may think best. If this Clause be rejected, however, it will, in my opinion, constitute an intolerable interference with the right of the individual in these respects, and, therefore, I trust that this Clause, which is agreeable to the Ministry of Health and which is satisfactory to those most intimately concerned, will be accepted by the House.
  Viscountess ASTOR: I beg to second the Motion.
  Sir CYRIL COBB: I feel bound to say a word on this Clause, as a member of the Select Committee which took evidence. We took evidence specially of the representative of Christian Science, and I think this Clause does raise some difficulty. The main object that the Select Committee had before it, and which is indeed embodied in the Bill, was to ensure that in all institutions which held themselves out as nursing homes, there should be qualified nursing service for the public who went to those homes and who paid the fees required of them. We were not willing to make any exemptions whatever, except those which are contained in Clause 6 of the Bill, and those are cases where people are in institutions of the nature of nursing homes for which they do not pay; but in all cases where there is payment made, we held very clearly indeed, after all the evidence that came before us, that there should be no exemption. We had, amongst other cases, the cases of medical men who keep nursing homes in various parts of the country and where they receive patients for fees, and a very great deal of evidence was given before us, and a good deal of pressure was brought to bear upon the Committee, to induce us to make a recommendation that in all cases where nursing homes were run by a medical man for gain there should be exemption from the provisions of the Bill. We were told that the General Medical Council would ensure that such homes were properly run and that we need have no fear whatever in cases of that kind that the homes would not be properly provided with qualified nurses. The evidence, however, that came before us showed us that some

  2703
  of the very worst cases of neglect occurred in these nursing homes which were run by doctors, and we found it quite impossible, under those circumstances, to make any recommendation for the exemption of such homes.
  Now we are met with the suggestion that there should be exemption in the case of a particular religious body. We are not dealing here with a religious question at all, but with a medical question, a nursing question, a question in which the House desires, through this Bill, to protect the public, and, therefore, we should be very chary of making an exemption in the case of this particular religious body, which wishes to conduct treatment in homes of its own of a special character, entirely and absolutely distinct from what is generally known as nursing treatment. We have defined in the Bill what a qualified nurse is, and we have said throughout the Bill that qualified nurses are to be employed in these homes. The only little relaxation we have made of these rules is in connection with nursing homes actually in existence at the present moment, and which will be carried on under the Regulations under the Bill when those Regulations are made by the local authorities, and we have given a certain time for these existing nursing homes to get a better staff than they have at present. I do not think they ought to be thrown out immediately because they have not got the necessary staff which ought to be provided under the Bill, and so we have made a little exception in their case, but in all other cases we feel that no exception should be made. The evidence that a nursing home should have qualified nurses on the staff, even if it does not have for the moment a qualified nurse at its head or a qualified man at its head, was conclusive.
  Therefore, I think it is extremely difficult for me, as a member of the Select Committee, to agree with this Clause, which, as even the Under-Secretary said in Committee upstairs on a similar Amendment, would drive a horse and coach right through the main provision of this Bill, which is to provide qualified nursing, or rather to assure that qualified nursing is provided, in all nursing institutions which are registered by the local
  2704
  authority under the Bill. Therefore, I am afraid I must vote against this Clause, although I do not do so with any idea in the least of wanting to injure this particular body of religious persons. Let them carry on their religious work in their own way as much as they like, but I do not think they ought to come to the Ministry of Health and say that the Ministry is to take the responsibility, for that is what it comes to, for the nursing service which is given in these institutions, when we know that that nursing service would not be the nursing service of qualified nurses as provided under the Bill.
  Mr. MORRIS: I agree with the observations of the last speaker with regard to the qualifications of medical nurses in nursing homes, but this Clause raises a religious difficulty, and I have no desire, any more than has any other hon. Member, to interfere with the religious views of other people, but I cannot help thinking that the form in which this new Clause is being moved raises the religious issue in a very half-hearted way by the people who believe in it. If people really believe that exemption should be granted, why do they say that only permissive power to exempt shall be granted to the Ministry of Health? The Clause says: "The Minister of Health may grant exemption," but if he is satisfied that these homes are Christian Science homes he can even then refuse the exemption. It is merely a permissive power, and it seems to me to indicate a position in which even the supporters of it have no clear belief in their own case. There is another objection that I see to the Clause, and that is this, that it is taking the Minister of Health away from his proper duties and, instead of being primarily a Minister of Health, it is turn-him into a theological expert, because the first part of the Clause says:
  "The Minister of Health may grant exemption from the operation of this Act in respect of any nursing home, as respects which he is satisfied that it is being or will be carried on in accordance with the practice and principles of the body known as the Church of Christ, Scientist."
  He is to examine the practice and principles of the Christian Science Church, and to see that all the principles of that Church are being carried out; he is to find out that they are not heterodox in any way, but that the proper orthodox practice and principles of the Christian

  2705
  Science Church are being observed. This is a new duty to cast upon a Government Department. Why should the Minister of Health be the high priest of the Christian Science Church and see that their homes are properly conducted? This is a new form of Popery. As I understand it, the Minister of Health is to be converted into a new kind of Pope, and I object to that doctrine. I do not pretend to be familiar with the doctrine of the Christian Scientists, but if I am more or less accurate in saying that they believe in faith healing as against other methods, I do not see what is the necessity for a home at all.
  Captain CAZALET: There is nothing in common between what is the accepted idea of faith-healing and the doctrine of Christian Science.
  Mr. MORRIS: How are you going to ascertain, and keep the Minister of Health informed as to any modification that might take place in the doctrine? The Clause says "in accordance with the practice and principles."
  Viscountess ASTOR: They do not change.
  Mr. MORRIS: There is another very great objection in the second part of this Clause which says:
  "It shall be a condition of any exemption granted to a nursing home under this Section that the nursing home shall adopt and use the name of Christian Science nursing home."
  Many homes might adopt that name. You are opening a new loophole. How are people who have adopted the name to prove, or how are the supporters of this Bill to prove, to the Minister of Health that these people are qualified Christian Scientists? It opens up a mass of difficulties, and upon these grounds I hope this new Clause will be defeated.
  Major-General Sir RICHARD LUCE: Also as a member of the Select Committee, I wish to oppose this Clause, and I do so for several reasons. The first has already been referred to by a Member on this side who was Chairman of the Committee, and it is that when we were taking evidence before the Committee, we had applications from two sets of nursing homes for exemption under this Bill. One was from the medical profession, that is to say, from those
  2706
  members of the medical profession who had nursing homes of their own, and the other was from the representatives of the Christian Science Church. When all the evidence had been taken, it became perfectly evident that it was not wise to grant exemption to those homes which were under the charge of a medical man, and that has not been given in the Bill. It would therefore, be very unfair that an exemption should be given to any other body who are claiming on very much the same grounds. That seems to me to be a very genuine reason for not granting this concession. The Mover of the Clause has stated that there are something like 30 or 40 of these nursing homes in the country at the present time. That is not at all in accordance with the evidence we received from the representative of the Church in question before the Select Committee. At that time, he said there were only three Christian Science nursing homes in the country, that there were other kinds of places to which patients could go to receive their treatment, but which could not in any way be called nursing homes. He gave them the name of a kind of boarding-house. There has either been an enormous growth in nursing homes between last year and now—they have been multiplied by 10—or else the boardinghouses are now being included among nursing homes.
  If that be so, and if the great majority of those homes are such as need not come under the name of "nursing home" at all, but are really boarding houses in which patients can see their own professor—I do not know exactly what he calls himself—who treats these cases, there is not any very great hardship in closing down the few ones which are definitely nursing homes. If they are really to become what is definitely a nursing home, there should undoubtedly be control over them, to see that they keep up to the standard which is going to be exacted from nursing homes of any other kind. Another reason is that under this Clause there seems to be no proper guarantee that the homes which are going to be exempted by it will be properly inspected. The Minister does not take the responsibility of inspecting them. All he does is to say that he will exempt them if it is definitely shown that they are homes belonging to a particular church.

  2707
  That does not cover the ground. It does not guarantee that they will be inspected. It does not give the users of those homes any sort of guarantee that the homes are being run on proper lines, and, that being so, any guarantee that would be left would be that which would be provided by the managers of the homes themselves.
  The evidence we obtained before the Committee was that, at the present time, or at that time, at any rate, there was absolutely no body which controlled these homes in any way. In fact, the representative of the central body who gave evidence knew extraordinarily little about the homes at all. He said it might he possible to set, up a central body which would control the homes under directions from Boston, but at the time there was no such body in existence. That is a very nebulous state of affairs. If they are going to be exempted, they are going to be exempted by a certificate from the Minister that they are Christian Science homes. There is to be no form of inspection or any kind of control other than a nebulous one not yet set in being by their own body. There seems to be one further extreme danger in allowing this Clause to go through. There are many other methods of treatment in vogue in this country besides that of the orthodox Christian Science. There are, as we have been informed, many unorthodox methods of treatment. What is to prevent, in the case of any one of these other methods, the setting up of homes, and if this exemption be given, how can the present Minister, or any Minister in the future, justly claim to refuse exemption in those cases also? We are setting up a very dangerous precedent which will be very difficult to resist in the future, and I hope that the House will not agree to this Clause.
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): I think it would be convenient if I were to intervene at this moment to say what is the attitude of the Ministry of Health towards the Clause which the House is discussing. It is all the more necessary, because I do not think that the House has yet had before it some of the considerations that ought to be taken into account in deciding a matter of this kind. My hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment spoke of Christian Science as a religion, a form
  2708
  of faith. I do not know that it is necessary for me to say that I am not a Christian Scientist. I do not profess even to know what are the tenets of Christian Science, but so far as it is the practice of Christian Science to substitute for medical and surgical skill some other methods I entirely disapprove of it.
  Mr. W. THORNE: It is faith.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Having said so much, I want to ask the House to consider what would be the effect of rejecting the Clause which has been moved, and consequently bringing institutions carried on by Christian Scientists under the provisions of the Bill. One is bound to consider that we are not now concerned with the doctrines of Christian Science. What we are concerned with in this Bill is to see that no member of the public is deceived, and that no member of the public shall enter one of these institutions under the impression that he is entering it as a nursing home in the sense in which that term is generally used. Christian Science is not carried on as medical treatment; it is not a species of quackery which pretends to be something it is not. You may agree or you may not agree with it, but there is no pretence that such treatment as is given by Christian Scientists is offered as a variety of medical treatment. It is in fact an alternative to medical treatment.
  Having got that clear, let us consider what is going to be the effect of bringing these institutions under the provisions of the Bill. Without some form of exemption, there is little doubt that they would come within the provisions of the Bill, and, if so, they would be required, as a condition of their continued existence, to appoint a qualified nurse to be resident in the home as the superintendent of the home. But they cannot do it; it would be contrary, as I understand it, to their beliefs to do it. It would be a case of camouflage, and I put it to hon. Members who feel that it is a danger to leave the homes out of the Bill, that if, as a result of bringing them in, this piece of camouflage were introduced so that it could be said that they are nursing homes, you would be doing the very thing which some of my hon. Friends want to prevent. You would be deceiving, or likely to deceive, the public. On that account, I suggest to hon. Members who are alarmed about

  2709
  these things, that they are unwise to attempt to bring them within the provisions of the Bill. Suppose they refused to appoint a qualified nurse. The home would be closed. Can we contemplate the possibility of doing that? That, however, would be the effect, because they could not exist without registration, and they could not be registered without having a qualified nurse.
  Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Only if they are nursing homes.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In Clause 1, on page 2 of the Bill, you find that the authority may refuse to register the applicant if they are satisfied—
  "(d) in the ease of a nursing home (other than a maternity home) which was in existence at the commencement of this Act, that the nursing of the patients in the home is not under the superintendence of a qualified nurse who is resident in the home;"
  That is the Clause to which I am referring. It says the authority "may" refuse to register, not "shall," but in practice the "may" might mean "shall."
  Dr. DAVIES: This Bill refers to homes which are nursing homes. If the Christian Scientist refers to them as homes of rest or homes of treatment, they will not come under the Bill at all, and will not deceive the public.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not a matter in which a layman can decide. It is a legal question. It all depends on whether institutions of the kind we are discussing would come within the definition of nursing homes in the Bill, and I am advised that they would, and certainly I do not think my hon. Friend can give us an assurance that they would not. Therefore we have to contemplate the possibility that they would come within the definition. If there is any dispute, no doubt in practice the matter would be taken to the Courts, and it could be finally decided whether they come within the definition. We must therefore contemplate the possibility; and I ask the House to consider this. How can we say that the principles and the practices of Christian Science shall be lawful in this country so long as they are not carried on in an institution? What is the logic in that? This would leave it perfectly free and open for any
  2710
  persons who desired to obtain Christian Science treatment to obtain it in their own homes, and it seems to me that there would be great force in the argument of my hon. and gallant Friend that this would be regarded as a piece of persecution for religious opinions for which opportunity had been given by this Bill in one direction, but which had not the courage to come out and fight the main question as to whether Christian Science should or should not be permitted to be carried on in this country. These are considerations which have led me to think that the inclusion of these institutions under the provisions of this Bill offers difficulties so serious that I cannot contemplate it with complacency.
  I have, therefore, had to consider what was the other alternative, and, in doing that I have had in mind all along this main consideration, which is the only one which concerns me, namely, to see that the public, if it enters one of these institutions, shall do so with its eyes open, knowing precisely what it is that it is going there for, and shall not be liable to be misled or deceived by the fact that such a home has been inspected by some Government or local authority. Provided it were possible to isolate these particular institutions, separating them from such homes as might be set up by unqualified persons posing as medical practitioners; provided one could get some test by which they could be separated, and could ensure that they could not call themselves by a title which would give rise to misunderstanding; and if one could also provide a safeguard so that on any change taking place in the situation an exemption could be withdrawn, then the objects which I have in view would be secured. I think with one exception the Clause which has been moved by my hon. and gallant Friend carries out my ideas. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Sir C. Cobb), who was chairman of the Select Committee, spoke all the time in his speech of nursing homes, and protested against the exemption of any kind of nursing home, and I think I agree with him there, but the whole point is that these are not nursing homes. This seems to me to be the weak point of the Clause as it stands upon the Paper, that they are still to be called nursing homes, and I am going to ask my hon. and gallant

  2711
  Friend if he would consider amending his Clause in that respect.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: What part of the Clause?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In Sub-section (2) it says:
  "It shall be a condition of any exemption granted to a nursing home under this Section that the nursing home shall adopt and use the name of Christian Science nursing home."
  I ask the House not to approve that name, which would bring such homes under the general description of nursing homes. I suggest that he should use some other title which would separate those institutions entirely from nursing homes and afford no excuse to anyone to say that he had gone there under some misapprehension. I think they might possibly be called "Christian Science Houses," a term which does not, I think, involve any suggestion of medical practice. I suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend that if he could adopt that title in place of the one which is in the Amendment, it might go some way at any rate to meet the objection.
  Sir R. LUCE: Would that apply to the first part of the Clause as well where it says
  "In respect of any nursing homes,"
  so as to make it read, "In respect of any homes"?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think it would be necessary to qualify every reference in the Act itself to the institutions as "nursing homes." I dare say it might be possible in another place to make some further alteration; but I am concerned with what the public will think. The public will not read this Act; they will read the title which is put up on the door of the institution, and that is where I think it is important to have the alteration, and the course I have suggested would really bring about that end. This would indicate quite clearly the reasons why we are making a special exemption in this case, because, as I say, these are not really nursing homes.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: May I suggest that we should leave out the word "nursing" making the phrase "Christian Science Homes"? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I
  2712
  think that would emphasise the protection of the public, just to leave out the word "nursing."
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that would quite meet the objections of other hon. Members. The fact is that in their minds even the word "home" suggests something in the nature of nursing home. As it really does not matter to the Christian Scientists what they call their institutions, for all the people who enter them quite understand what they are going there for, I think it would be better to substitute the words which I suggest.
  Mr. THOMAS: I think if ever there was an illustration of the magnificent atmosphere which seemed to permeate the House yesterday it is to be found in the speech of the Minister of Health. I do not think I have ever heard a case more fairly stated on both sides. To sum up, I would say that the Minister of Health approached the question somewhat in this way. He said that yesterday the House of Commons was very much divided on certain phrases and formulas and interpretations; but yesterday the House was absolutely united in saying that whatever be the religious belief of any individual, it is not for us to dictate to him. It is for us to say "This is a matter as between the individual and his conscience," and to pay a tribute to his sincere belief. That appears to be the spirit in which the Minister has approached this question. It is no good to disguise the fact that there were apprehensions. Large numbers of people when they saw this Amendment put this interpretation upon it—this may be all-right for a particular body, but however well-intentioned that particular body may be, look how easy it will be for someone else to create abuses by all manner of quack institutions opened here and there. I know that a number of my friends had that very natural apprehension.
  The first thing the Minister has made clear is that no body, under any name, whether Christian Scientists or otherwise, can come to the House with any hope that we should concede the right of any institution to be able to say, "No matter what we do, no matter what we practise, we are independent of any inspection." The House of Commons would not listen to any such claim. Therefore, the Mover of the Clause and those responsible for

  2713
  it, make it perfectly clear that no such claim was ever intended or ever made. Then the Minister of Health, approaching the question quite fairly again, puts forward this difficulty. He says the one thing we ought to avoid is saying to some particular body, "We refuse to allow you to do it through the front door but there are a 101 ways in which you can get through by the back door"; in other words, to say that if they comply with the provision as to a qualified nurse, all will be well. We know perfectly well that those responsible for this new Clause would feel straight away that they were being asked to do something that was a travesty of the whole thing. Frankly, I feel sure that they would say, "Rather than have this back-door method, we would close down altogether." For these reasons, I feel that those responsible for the new Clause would be well advised to take the advice of the Minister. I would like to ask whether it is worth while now insisting upon the importance of the determining words. I am sure that we should all prefer the best words to be used for this purpose, but if we draft them too hastily they may turn out to be wrong.
  There is no difficulty in the case, because, whatever form is decided upon, the altered form of words can be inserted in another place. I think that course would be better than asking the House to agree hastily to any form of words at this moment. I make that suggestion. I thank the Minister of Health for so clearly and accurately explaining the position. I am sure that it would be much better for all concerned in our controversies if we refrained from making debating points, and endeavoured to get at once at the real facts. In this case, the Minister of Health has enabled us to get at the facts, and for that I thank him. I suggest to the Mover of this Amendment that he should alter the words in the way which has been suggested, in order that they may be inserted in another place.
  Captain CAZALET: We put down the new Clause in its present form because we were told that was the best way. Of course, we are willing to take any name to effect our purpose which the Minister may suggest, and which is agreeable to the wishes of the House.
  Mrs. PHILIPSON: I thank the Committee for the splendid work which they have done in regard to this question. Since this new Clause was moved, I think all our minds are a little clearer, after the statement which has been made by the Minister of Health. I was most anxious that all nursing homes should be registered, and I think that a great difficulty will be removed by the Mover and Seconder of this new Clause agreeing to the suggestion which has been made by the Minister of Health. I think there would be a great danger if Christian Science homes were exempted, because that would only mean a loophole for any other bodies doing the same thing. We know what might go on all over the country in this respect, and I think it will be a benefit to everybody if the Christian Science homes come under the Bill. I am anxious, not only from the point of view of the medical and the nursing profession, but also from the point of view of the public, that all these homes should be registered and should come under the control of the Minister of Health.
  I was told by the chairman of the Christian Science Church that the members of that Church were perfectly willing that their homes should be registered, and, if that course is taken, there will be no loophole for anybody setting up a nursing home for any other purpose. If they were exempted, homes of this kind could be run for any other purpose while declaring that they were practising Christian Science. Therefore, if we can come to some arrangement on this point, it will be much better for all the parties concerned. I have no desire to question the sincerity of the Christian Science movement or their religion, but I do want to see this Bill passed into law, and placed upon the Statute Book to protect the nursing profession, as well as the public. I feel sure that those interested in this Bill will do their best to come to an agreement, and I hope that the Mover and Seconder of this new Clause will not insist upon any course which will jeopardise the passing of this Bill.
  2.0 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I should accept this new Clause at once if I had simply to consider the point of view of helping the work of Christian Science nursing homes so far as they were relieving people, and so far as this question is concerned

  2715
  with liberty of conscience and freedom for experiments, as we are bound to look upon the Christian Science movement. But I hope the House will recognise how grave is the position of medical men in being called upon to make such an exemption. The attitude which we have taken all along in this House is that these matters are not questions of kindness, humanity, charity, or liberty to the persons concerned. What we are concerned with is the protection of the public. Again and again, when questions come up affecting our profession, we try to bring things round to the point of view as to what is the public interest, and not the interests of the particular exemption to be served.
  The arguments which we have heard on this new Clause have been almost entirely from the point of view of these particular homes. I have nothing to say against them, and I know nothing about them. The Minister of Health knows nothing about them, and we have not been informed in this respect. At first, we were told that there were three of these Christian Science Homes, but since then we have been told that there are 37. Now we are being asked to give a blank cheque, not only to these homes, but to any others who come along with the same credentials. What are those credentials? They are to be certified as coming under the Christian Science faith. I understand that there is no body in this country representing that faith which can certify these homes. Therefore, it seems to me that the House is being asked to give a blank cheque.
  I am now looking at this matter from the point of view of the public. The public will say, "Here is a house which is not to be called a nursing home." If the Christian Science movement, with all its resources has been able to increase; its number of nursing homes from three to 37 in 12 months, what is to prevent them going ahead at the same rate? These places will be well equipped, because they will belong to an affluent community, and we shall soon know whether they are really nursing homes or not. Of course, if they are rest homes they will attract people to them. They will attract people who have diseases, and it will become practically impossible to know whether they are nursing homes or not.
  The general public do not know the difference between Christian Science and
  2716
  any other science—I am speaking, of course, of the more ignorant portion of the public. I am afraid, therefore, that this would be opening the door to the wide deception of the public against which the Minister thought he was providing. If we open the door to this extent, how could we prevent opening the door to, let us say, the much older and more widespread cult of homeopathy? If the homeopathists come to this House and say that they have an equal right to exemption for their houses, surely it could not be denied them, and yet the proposed new Clause does not provide for such exemption. It would be the same with regard to the osteopaths, of whom Sir Herbert Barker, whose reminiscences have just been published, and who has so much influence, is at the head. I think that the exemption proposed is most dangerous. It is said that an exemption under this Clause may be withdrawn by the Minister "if it appears to him," and so on. We have not been told in what way it may appear to him, and I cannot help wondering how he is to have that knowledge which obviously the public have a right to demand and which would make it appear to him that these homes are or are not being properly carried on. Possibly we may have some reply before we are asked to go to a Division on the Clause. We should like to know whether the Minister and his officers will have the right of inspection. If so, should not that be put into the Clause? The Mover of the Clause said, very rightly, that he was prepared to admit any amount of inspection, but, if that be so, it should be put into the Bill, and we should have an assurance from the Minister that he intends to do whatever may be necessary to keep himself acquainted with what is going on. We have not had that assurance, and, unless we have it, I personally feel—I do not know whether my hon. Friend is with me who is in such close touch, as I am not, with the British Medical Association—I personally feel that I cannot vote for this Clause unless we have some definite understanding of how it is going to be carried out, and how the position stands in relation to the very much larger field of the safety of the public.
  Mr. GERALD HURST: I came here with a view to opposing this Clause, but the concession which has been made by

  2717
  my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Clause seems to me to remove absolutely all the suspicions and distrust which its opponents entertain. Once a Christian Science nursing home adopts the term "Christian Science house," it cannot be said to contravene the main principle of the Bill, which is that a nursing home should connote something definite, and something which ensures to the public that the nursing given by the home shall be, in the ordinary sense of the word, qualified nursing. That objection having been met, my only object in rising is to make two suggestions to my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Clause. I think he will agree with me that, having regard to the substitution of the word "house" for the words "nursing home" in Sub-section (2), it is no longer necessary or desirable that a Christian Science nursing home should be classified as a nursing home in Subsection (1), and I suggest that the proper word to use in the second line of Subsection (1) and the first line of Sub-section (3) would be the colourless word "institution," instead of "nursing home." We do not want it to be implicit in the language of this Clause that the Christian Science house is a nursing home at all, and, if my hon. and gallant Friend would be willing so to amend the Clause as to substitute the word "institution" for "nursing home," he would get exactly what he wants, and the Clause would cease to have the repugnance which now exists between the language of Sub-sections (1) and (3) and that of Sub-section (2). I would also suggest that in Sub-section (3) the words "that house" should be substituted for the words "that home." These are quite obvious improvements on the Clause as drafted, and I think we ought to take the making of these Amendments into our own hands, rather than leaving it to another place to make them.
  Mr. C. EDWARDS: I came to the House to-day with the definite intention of voting against this Clause, and I am afraid I have not yet departed from that intention. I must confess that I am very suspicious of people with these peculiar ideas, and I have the notion that, if any registration or control is necessary in nursing homes or anywhere else, it is necessary in places carried on by these peculiar people. Unless, therefore, these
  2718
  places can be taken altogether outside nursing homes as we know them, I think we ought not to agree to this Clause. The Minister says that if the wording of the Clause is changed it will be all right, but I am not sure that even then it will be all right. Sub-section (1) says that the Minister may grant exemption to a home if
  "he is satisfied that it is being or will be carried on in accordance with the practice and principles of the body known as the Church of Christ Scientist."
  The Minister has not to determine whether the thing is right or good for the community, but whether the place is carried on in accordance with these principles. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) seemed particularly anxious to get this Clause through. I am afraid that religious scruples are not his strong point. Why should he be so anxious to get it through? It is not an uncommon thing to read in the papers of cases in which people have died for want of medical skill and in places carried on by these peculiar people. I do not want to say anything against people with religious scruples. That is not my point at all.
  Viscountess ASTOR: There is also religious toleration.
  Mr. EDWARDS: I believe in giving people the fullest liberty to carry out what their conscience dictates, but, if it is a question of nursing homes which are carried on for the benefit of the public, that is a very different thing, and I think that, if these places are to be carried on as nursing homes, they ought to be definitely under the registration proposed in this Bill. I am still very suspicious. If the Minister can invent a form of words which takes these places altogether outside, I have no more to say, but it will not satisfy me, at any rate, unless they are very definitely taken outside. If that cannot be done, I shall vote against the Clause, as I voted against the Measure that was before the House last night. We seem to be in for religious scruples this week, and they provoke a fighting spirit such as is not in evidence in the case of many other matters which are considered by this House. If it is not possible to take these places definitely outside, I shall oppose the Clause.
  Dr. V. DAVIES: I am grateful to the Minister for the suggestion he has made, because I think that the alteration of the words "nursing home" to "house" gets over a very great deal of difficulty. Although I speak as a medical man, I cannot associate myself fully with the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle). We have to recognise in this country that people have a right to their own opinions, and that, if they are adults, they have a right to do what they like with their lives. If a certain section of people in this country believe that the principles of Christian Science are such that they can get a better effect from them than from the ordinary medical and surgical skill that is available, they have a perfect right to hold and act upon that view; and, if it is necessary that homes or houses should be provided for that particular kind of treatment, they have a right to go into them. I do not think that we, either as medical men or as Members of Parliament, have a right to interfere, provided that we are assured that the public are safeguarded and are not being deceived.
  If a place is described as a "Christian Science house," the majority of people in this country will know that it is a house to which people go for Christian Science treatment, and they know that Christian Scientists have absolutely no belief or faith in anything medical or surgical. Therefore, I say that it would be impossible for a person of adult age to go into one of these homes in ignorance. Whether, when they get into the home, they will be well or ill treated, is not the concern of the community. They have gone there of their own free will. So that I think hon. Members can with safety accept this new Clause subject to the redrafting suggested by my hon. and learned Friend. I do not think the public would have any right to complain, this House would have no right to complain, and it is a way out of a difficulty, although not satisfactory from the medical point of view, because we are totally and absolutely opposed to it. We do not know where in the world you have got your ideas from. Still we recognise that you are entitled to hold them. We honour you for sticking up for your beliefs, and I think we have no right to interfere with your principles and
  2720
  practices provided the public are not deceived. Therefore, I think the House can with safety accept my right hon. Friend's suggestion and have the Clause amended accordingly. I should like also to make a suggestion, for the Minister to be satisfied that it has been carried on in accordance with the principles of the body known as the Church of Christ Scientist, that he should require that the head of that religion in this country should actually certify that it was one of their houses carried on according to their principles and put the onus on him.
  Sir K. WOOD: As regards the last point, that will be the case, and the head of the Church will give that certificate.
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Is that the head of the Church in England?
  HON. MEMBERS: No, in Boston.
  Viscount SANDON: Will that be put into the Bill?
  Sir K. WOOD: I do not think there will be any necessity for that. There is a good deal of common agreement about the matter. What I suggest is that at any rate to-day we insert in the second paragraph the word "house' and I will undertake between now and the Bill going to another place to consider the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend behind with a view to substituting the word "institution"—I do not think anyone will object to that—and also in paragraph 3 to the same effect. That will meet very much the views of hon. Members opposite but naturally we should like, before inserting a word of that character, to have an opportunity of considering it and consulting the legal advisers of the Crown. With these three alterations the Committee can be satisfied that everyone's view is met.
  Miss WILKINSON: As a member of the Select Committee on the registration of Nursing Homes, I am very anxious indeed that this Bill should go through, but I am also anxious that we should know exactly what we are doing with this Amendment. With the general principle of religious toleration I am in entire agreement, and I think there is always room in the medical world for experiment. The difficulty has always been, if I may say so with due respect to the British Medical Association, that that body has attempted to set a stern face against it, but it has

  2721
  had to face a great deal of public indignation and is learning better nowadays. We know the terrific fight Sir Herbert Barker had. I should on principle support any experiment in the whole science of healing or any experiment that tended to widen the possibility of bringing comfort and health to any human being, but with all that, we have to realise that there is no more profitable way of making money in this country than having some way of curing people that is different from anything that has been discussed at all. I am sure it is in the interests of Christian Scientists themselves that there should be no loophole which will allow bogus or quack organisations which are merely run for profit at the expense of people who are, either for themselves or for their loved ones, seeking health and healing and will almost do anything and go anywhere to get it. I was amazed to hear the extraordinary doctrine propounded that individuals are able to do as they like with their own lives. If the hon. Member, bored with the proceedings of the House, went out and tried to commit suicide the law would very sharply remind him that he could not do as he liked with his own life. The same thing applies when you are dealing with mothers and their children. A woman may be the most devoted mother and yet be very dangerous when she is seeking healing for her child. She may be led away by specious advertisements or wrong advice and might find herself entirely in the wrong hands. An hon. Member opposite asked whether the certificate would be given by someone in this country or someone in Boston, and the Under-Secretary said, "I suppose so."
  Sir K. WOOD: The head of the Church in this country is perfectly well known and he will be recognised so far as the Department is concerned.
  Miss WILKINSON: If we are going to have the Clause re-drafted in another place we ought to know definitely who is going to certify these homes, and we ought to have the fullest safeguards that they will make themselves responsible.
  Sir K. WOOD: The Minister of Health has to be satisfied that it is being, or will be, carried on in accordance with the practice and principles of the body known as the Church of Christ Scientists.
  Miss WILKINSON: We all know what religious bodies are. We can take an example from yesterday, when we had the Primate of the Church and his most, notable ally and supporter very violently quarrelling as to what exactly are the principles and practices of so well established a body as the Church of England. When you are going to have questions of nursing and healing and medical practices you may have the possibility of divisions in the church and of two sets of people claiming to be the sole repository of the practices and principles of the Church of Christ Scientist. The Noble Lady the Member for Plymouth has said these practices and principles never change. I am a little dubious about practices and principles that never change, but while I do not want to oppose it, and have the utmost sympathy with religious toleration, I do not want the public to be deceived and I want them to have the very clearest guarantee—after all we are the only people the public looks to in this matter—that they are going to get what they came for. I should like some indication from the Minister that we can have some guarantee that there will be some definite body who will certify these homes and will be held responsible to the Minister if anything goes wrong.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time.
  Amendment made to proposed new Clause: In line 7, leave out the words "nursing home," and insert instead thereof the word "house".—[Captain Cazalet.]
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

  CLAUSE 5.—(Inspection of nursing homes.)
  Mr. GERALD HURST: I beg to move, in page 4, line 37, after the word "some" to insert the word "qualified nurse or".
  This Amendment makes no change at all in the legal effect of the Clause as at present drafted. The only effect of the insertion of these words in the Clause is that it will emphasise to those who have to administer the Measure that when the medical officer of health deputes some officer to inspect and visit these nursing homes he shall bear in mind that the official primarily qualified to deal with questions of nursing is a qualified nurse. The effect of this Amendment will be that

  2723
  when it is necessary to inquire into the character of the nursing in a home, or the credentials of the nurses, or the conditions under which the nurses live, the official of the local supervising authority to make that inspection will, normally speaking, be a qualified nurse. That is desirable because a qualified nurse is the best person to undertake that task.
  Miss WILKINSON: I beg to second Amendment.
  I want to do so for certain very definite reasons. When we were discussing this question, it was recommended by representatives of nursing organisations, that in addition to the medical inspection of the homes, it might also be necessary to have a qualified nurse to go into all the work and the organisation of the homes which would not normally be dealt with by a medical practitioner. There have been, undoubtedly, and there are now, some very serious scandals connected with nursing homes. There are many nursing homes that possess quite good premises, have charmingly-attired nurses, with flowers in the public rooms, giving a general air of freshness and beauty on the outside. They present a very different view when one goes inside. We appeal for a qualified nurse to be able to go in and see the back premises, to see the nursing side. We had one case before us, and another case has been brought to my notice since, of a nurse going into the kitchen of one of the homes where the food of the invalids was being prepared and finding in one corner of it masses of dirty linen, much of it from septic patients, being stored pending removal to the laundry. In some cases septic and dirty material was placed in the bathroom, and in other cases the lavatory accommodation was extremely bad and dirty. While, no doubt, it might be said that it is as much a part of the doctor's job to see that these things are looked after, a busy practitioner cannot go into such details. They are jobs for nurses. Moreover, a nurse is accustomed to looking after this sort of thing. I hope, therefore, the Minister, who has shown himself so gracious in the previous Amendment, will also give us this concession in this Clause. I know that it might be argued that the words
  "or some other officer duly authorised by them."
  2724
  might be taken to include a qualified nurse. We want to be quite sure that the position of the nurse is safeguarded in this Clause and that it is possible—the fact should be emphasised—for a qualified nurse to go and visit some of these nursing homes.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 8.—(Local supervising authority.)
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 6, line 1, after the word "Act," to insert the words:
  "the council of every county as respects that county and the council of every county borough as respects that borough shall be."
  Clause 8 of the Bill deals with the local supervising authority and defines it. There has been a rather chequered history of this Clause. The local supervising authority was, in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee, the, council of the borough or of the county, and the Committee upstairs decided also that a district council whose medical officer was not otherwise employed might also act. Since the proceedings in Committee, there have been discussions with representatives of the various classes of local authorities concerned, and they have all come to an agreement upon the Amendment which now stands in my name. I think, therefore, that under these circumstances it is quite unnecessary for me to detain the House with a speech on this subject. We go back to the original county borough or county council as the local supervising authority, but there are powers given to the authority to delegate their powers to the minor authorities, and the minor authorities have the power of appealing to the Minister if their application for such delegation be refused. The present Amendment deals with these points. There are some other Amendments, which are consequential, dealing with the way in which the expenses are to be distributed. I understand that technically, because of the fact that the incidence of rates will be somewhat varied by these Amendments, it is not possible to move them on Report. Therefore, I shall propose, when we come to those Amendments, to move that the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House for their consideration. After those Amendments have been made in

  2725
  Committee, we shall resume the Report stage.
  Mr. EVERARD: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this Amendment has been accepted by the County Councils Association?
  Mr. WILFRID PALING: My information is that it has not. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us who represented the County Councils Association?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Chairman.
  Mr. PALING: My information is quite the contrary. It is that the Chairman represented himself and not the County Councils Association. In any event, I have a resolution which has been passed by the County Councils Association stating that in the circumstances the Committee are not prepared either to abandon or to pursue their opposition to the Clause. My information is that the County Councils Association have never met from that day to this, and that what is being done is being done on the individual authority of the people concerned. In any event, some of the members of the County Councils Association are still as adamant in their opposition to the Clause as they were on that date. They state that this compromise has been reached without any authority from the County Councils Association, and that only the individuals themselves have taken the responsibility. I do not propose to vote against the Bill or to cause any trouble, but I was asked to bring this matter forward and make a protest and to say that in so far as a compromise had been reached the individuals concerned would have to take the responsibility.
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I have been in close touch with the County Councils Association and certain county councils. Although the association ha, not had a full meeting, I understand that their constitution and arrangement such that the chairman has power to act and he was assured that he would gel sanction and approval at the next meeting. I agree with the hon. Member that the whole compromise is questionable I have been very much concerned about it and very doubtful whether we ought to give way. The Bill as originally introduced left the inspection entirely to the county councils and the county borough
  2726
  councils, and I am certain that that would have been the best form of administration; but we were faced with the fact that certain boroughs felt very strongly that they should have responsibility in the matter, and that they were prepared to block the Bill at all costs rather than that it should go through as it was. I am afraid that, as in the last Bill, we are liable to deal with these questions in the interests of certain parties concerned and not of the public.
  I was responsible for introducing last year, with the support of the Minister of Health, a Bill which became the Maternity Homes Act, and which is working perfectly well at the present time. That Bill, with the strong support of the Minister of Health, gave the whole power of inspection to the county councils and the councils of the county boroughs. When the present Bill was introduced, it seemed to me only natural to follow the same course. Some opposition was raised last year, and opposition has been raised in connection with this Bill with the result that we have this compromise. I would ask my hon. Friends who feel with me so strongly as regards the desirability of having the larger authority responsible for dealing with this matter, to realise that we are confronted with the alternative of losing the Bill or accepting the compromise. I ask them to accept the compromise. I do so with great hesitation, but in a matter so urgent as the inspection of nursing homes, and the scandals which have been revealed by the Select Committee, I suggest that we accept the compromise. I would ask the Minister to be most careful to see that the bodies to whom the power is delegated shall carry out the powers so delegated, not in the interests simply of themselves and of their credit but in the interests of the public, which are liable to be lost sight of when we are making this kind of bargain.
  Miss WILKINSON: I wish to add my protest against the compromise which has been arrived at, not as the result of the decision of the County Councils Association but through the action of the chairman and secretary. I think it is a thoroughly retrograde step and it may do a great deal towards limiting the good that might otherwise have been done by this Bill. We all know what happens. If you allow inspection by these small authorities, especially in the rural dis-

  2727
  tricts and the smaller urban areas, there is always the possibility of intrigue and influence and the fear of people losing their jobs, and it is only by entrusting the inspection to the wider authority, where the inspector is free from any economic difficulty and the fear of losing his job, that you can really get adequate inspection.
  The public have a real grievance in this matter. The question of the registration of nursing homes was not taken up until it had become a public scandal. Everybody knows the intolerable conditions that exist in many nursing homes; homes which are charging very high fees. It is not simply a question of homes which have not good financial backing, but homes charging 20 guineas a week have been responsible for some of the worst scandals, and homes which have had medical practitioners at the head of them. After so much public indignation and after the Report of the Select Committee, surely it was the duty of the Minister to see that the Bill was carried through with the fullest possible protection for the public. I submit that the Clause making the inspection the duty of the larger authorities was the only safeguard that the public had that inspection would be properly carried out. I have had a series of resolutions from the National Council of Nurses and from local bodies in my constituency against the idea of inspection being carried out by these smaller bodies.
  I suppose we have to accept the compromise or lose the Bill but I, nevertheless, feel that the Minister has been lamentably weak in the matter and that he ought to have forced the Bill through. The Minister smiles, but I would suggest that the Government of which he is so shining an ornament has forced through much more contentious matters. If he was genuinely concerned in protecting the public he would have seen that this Measure, which everybody on the Select Committee agreed was much the best, would have got through rather than accept a compromise which may destroy a certain part of the value of the Bill. I wanted to make my protest and to say that we regret that this compromise has been made, although we cannot vote against it.
  Colonel APPLIN: I wish to make my protest. I feel very doubtful about this
  2728
  Measure, largely because it will bring the midwife under two authorities. If the Minister will give us an assurance that the midwife will not be under two authorities with regard to inspection when the minor people are doing it, I should be completely satisfied. That is a very important matter and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some assurance on the point.
  Mr. VIANT: We are apt when discussing a question of this kind to overlook the fact that there are exceedingly large urban areas. I am speaking now as one who has had a request from the Middlesex County Council and from the Willesden District Council, who differ on the question. The county council has appealed to me to support the Bill as it stood, and the urban district council, representing a population of 170,000 people, claim that on a matter of such importance, and being responsible for such a large population, they should have the right to have a say in the administration of the Act. I have no doubt that there are other areas equally as large nd equally as important. I hope the House will support the compromise. When I received information from the County Councils Association that a conference had taken place and a compromise had been arrived at, I hoped that the House would be prepared to accept it almost without discussion. If this compromise is not accepted the Bill will be lost, but if it is accepted the Bill will be able to go through, I hope, unopposed. We must not overlook the fact that there are quite a number of urban districts which have their own medical officers, and in that case the administration will be far more up to date and efficient than if it was left to the county council, which has to cover such a large area.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I can only speak again by leave of the House, and I would have said more in moving the Amendment if I had supposed there was likely to be any considerable discussion upon it. The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) considers that I have displayed a lack of interest; that is perhaps due to the fact that I have not had my lunch. I would certainly not put my name to a compromise of this kind, even to secure the passage of this Bill, unless I was satisfied that it was a good one and would

  2729
  work out in practice. I would ask the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Colonel Applin) to look closely at what this delegation covers. It says:
  "The council of a county may, on the application of the council of any county district within the county, delegate to the district council, either with or without any restrictions or conditions as the county council thinks fit, any of the powers or duties of the county council under this Act."
  I call his special attention to these words, and I feel certain they will avoid any possibility of the duplication of inspection. What would happen would be this. In some cases the county council will refuse to delegate at all. It may be on the ground that these maternity homes have been inspected by them and that they see no reason for making any alteration in the practice. The municipal authority will have the right to appeal to the Minister, but I do not imagine he would make any change in a case like that. In another case the county council will agree to delegate to a body which is a capable one and which has a competent staff already undertaking some of the work in connection with pre-natal conditions. It would be quite easy in that case to make arrangements between the two authorities which will avoid any duplication of inspection. The county council may delegate the inspection of these homes to them, and may say: will you, therefore, take from us the inspection of the midwives, and act as our agents. It will be quite possible to make arrangements of that kind. I am quite sure there will be no friction or inefficiency in the administration.
  Miss WILKINSON: Might not that lead us to this position? The Minister said on the Maternity Homes Act that he wanted the larger authority, now he leaves a loophole that the county council may delegate their authority—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member has exhausted her right to speak. She can ask a question if she desires.
  Miss WILKINSON: I am not making a speech; I was only asking a question.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Member wants to ask a question will she put her question?
  Miss WILKINSON: I am endeavouring to do so to the best of my poor ability.
  2730
  Is not the effect of what the Minister has said to make it possible for the county council to hand over to the smaller authorities the supervision of midwives, which they could not do under the terms of the Maternity Homes Act?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: They cannot delegate responsibility. They may make arrangements for the inspection to be carried out by the officers of another authority, if that authority cares to lend them for the purpose. It is not a question of the delegation of responsibility, but merely a question of the particular individual who will make the inspection.
  Mr. PALING: Is it not the case that in reference to the Midwives and Maternity Homes Act the evidence of his own Department was to the effect that it was working badly?
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 6, leave out from the word "authority," in line 2, to the end of line 13, and insert the words:
  "(2) The council of a county may, on the application of the council of any county district within the county, delegate to the district council, either with or without any restrictions or conditions as the county council thinks fit, any of the powers or duties of the county council under this Act.
  (3) If any district council by which an application is made under Sub-section (2) of this Section is aggrieved by the refusal of the county council to delegate any of its powers or duties under this Act or to delegate any such powers or duties otherwise than subject to conditions or restrictions the district council may make a representation to the Minister with respect to the matter, and the Minister, after consultation with the county council may direct the county council to delegate to the district council either with or without restrictions or conditions such of its powers and duties under this Act as the Minister thinks proper, and the county council shall comply with any direction so given."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The next four Amendments to Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Clause 8 involve a charge and cannot be taken on consideration.
  CLAUSE 11.—(Short title, extent, repeal and commencement.)
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in Clause 11, page 9, line 22, to leave out the word "January" and to insert instead thereof the word "July."

  2731
  Obviously, there is not enough time to get this organisation by next January, and it is proposed to postpone it until next July.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question,
  "That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 8, Sub-sections (2) and (3), standing upon the Notice Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for the Ladywood Division of Birmingham.—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
  put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee.
  [Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

  CLAUSE 8.—(Local supervising authority.)
  Amendments made:
  In page 6, leave out from the word "for," in line 17, to the end of line 19, and insert instead thereof the words "general county purposes."
  In page 6, line 20, leave out the words "or of an urban or rural district."
  In page 6, leave out from the word "that," in line 24, to the end of line 32, and insert instead thereof the words:
  "Any expenses incurred by a district council in the execution of any powers or the performance of any duties delegated by the county council to the district council under this Section shall, up to an amount not exceding such sum as may be fixed by the county council, be repaid to the district council by the county council, and the amount by which the expenses so incurred exceed the amount repaid by the county council shall be defrayed by the- district council as part of the general expenses of the council in the execution of the Public Health Acts."
  In page 6, line 38, at the end, to insert the words
  "and any fees received by a district council under this Act shall, as the county council may direct, either be paid to the county council or applied in reduction of the sum to be repaid by the county council to the district council under this Section."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported; as amended, on recommittal, considered.
  Mrs. PHILIPSON: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  I would take this opportunity of thanking Members of all parties for the way in which they have helped in passing this Bill. That the Bill was really necessary there was not the slightest doubt in the minds of the Members who sat on the Committee. I feel sure that the Bill will be a great benefit not only to the nursing profession but to the public.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.
  The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3, until Monday next, pursuant to the Order of the House of 8th November.
  Adjourned at One Minute before Three o'Clock.

ROYAL NAVY.
  SHIP CONSTRUCTION.
  SHIP CONSTRUCTION.
  GLASS (IMPORTS).
  GLASS (IMPORTS).
  DIPHTHERIA.
  DIPHTHERIA.
SCOTLAND.
  TELEGRAMS, KINLOCHBERVIE AND FANAGMORE.
  TELEGRAMS, KINLOCHBERVIE AND FANAGMORE.
  AGRICULTURAL RETURNS.
  AGRICULTURAL RETURNS.
  SMALL HOLDINGS.
  SMALL HOLDINGS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT DISALLOWED (DEVONPORT).
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT DISALLOWED (DEVONPORT).
Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
WEST MIDLANDS ELECTRICITY DISTRICT (IRONBRIDGE GENERATING STATION) ORDER, 1927.

  SOUTH DURHAM DISTRICTS ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1927.
  THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Peel, I beg to move that these Orders be approved.
  Moved, That the Special Orders which were presented on the 15th of November last be approved.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

BOURTON-ON-THE-WATER ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1927.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order which was presented on the 17th of November last be approved.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEATHERHEAD DISTRICT ELEC- TRICITY (EXTENSION, ETC.) ORDER, 1927.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order which was presented on the 23rd of November last be approved.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NEW WINDSOR AND ETON ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1927.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order which was presented on the 28th of November last be approved.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NEWBURY ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1927.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order which was presented on the 29th of November last be approved.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DUNDEE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.
PERTH COUNTY BUILDINGS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.
HERIOT-WATT COLLEGE AND GEORGE HERIOT'S TRUST ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (No. 2) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Tenant's right to compensation for improvements.
1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, a tenant of a holding to which this Part of this Act applies shall, if a claim for the purpose is made in the prescribed manner—
(2) In determining the value attributable to such net addition as aforesaid, regard shall be had to the purposes for which it is intended that the premises shall be used after the termination of the tenancy, and if it is shown that it is intended to demolish or to make structural alterations in the premises or any part thereof or to use the premises for a different purpose, regard

1065
shall be had to the effect of such demolition, alteration or change of user on the additional value attributable to the improvement and to the length of time likely to elapse between the termination of the tenancy and the demolition, alteration or change of user.
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved, in subsection (1), after "this Part of this Act applies," to insert "being a holding which is not subject to the provisions of the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts, 1920 to 1925". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I dare say you will remember that I moved this Amendment in Committee, only in a different place in the Bill, and I went to a Division and was beaten by eight votes. I think the Government must have been grateful to the Liberal and Labour Benches for their support on that occasion. It is not clear whether business premises controlled by the Rent Restrictions Acts come under this Bill or not. If they do a serious position arises. A tenant under the Rent Restrictions Acts might be in occupation of his premises, although on an annual tenancy, for a term of five years and thus be entitled to make a claim for goodwill under Clause 4. On the other hand a similar tenant occupying premises not controlled by the Rent Restrictions Acts and on an annual tenancy, might lose his claim through the landlord determining the tenancy before a five years period had elapsed. This is unfair between individual tenants, as a tenant of premises controlled by the Rent Restrictions Acts has the benefit of occupying the premises at a low rental, the landlord being unable to raise the rent. He would have a claim for goodwill whereas the other tenant, occupying premises probably at their full market value, for reasons already stated could build up no claim for goodwill.
If premises controlled by the Rent Restrictions Acts are under the Bill it is difficult to see how such tenants could strictly come under Clauses 1 and 4, where tenancies are terminated by notices given by the landlord, because the Rent Restrictions Acts place restrictions on the giving of those notices. In order to avoid the expense of litigation to discover what is intended by the present Bill with reference to these premises, it is essential that it should be definitely stated either that these
1066
business premises do come under the Bill or are excluded from its operations. They should preferably be excluded. Thousands of business premises are still controlled by the Rent Retrictions Acts. It is to be remembered that it is not the rental value which determines whether premises come within those Acts, it is rental or rateable value. All houses or parts of a house let as a separate dwelling where the rateable value does not exceed £105 in London—I need not refer to Scotland—and £78 in other parts of the country come within these Acts. In many cases one might almost double these values to arrive at the rental value of premises subject to the Acts. It will be seen that a very large number of properties are affected. As I have pointed out before, premises occupied for professional purposes have been brought within the scope of this Bill and many professional men such as doctors and surveyors—one could enumerate a very long list—live in houses which are under the Rent Restrictions Acts and can claim for improvement and be offered a new lease in lieu thereof. If the rent under the new lease is increased, which measure is to apply — the Rent Restrictions Act or the present Bill? I beg to move my Amendment and I sincerely hope that it will be included in the Bill because I think it is a most important one.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, after ("applies") insert ("being a holding which is not subject to the provisions of the Rent and Mortgage Interests (Restrictions) Acts, 1920 to 1925").—(Lord Dynevor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, I have never doubted the sincerity with which this Amendment has been moved, or its importance. Indeed I admitted it on a previous occasion. But on that occasion the Committee of this House rejected it, and, although I shall be able to make a proposal in a moment, I think the House was wise in not accepting the Amendment in this form. The House will observe that the Amendment would exclude from this compensation clause all holdings which are subject to the provisions of the Rent Restrictions Acts. That means, of course, all houses which have a rental or rateable value of not less than £105 in Greater London and

1067
£78 in the rest of the country. In other words, it would exclude from the clause all small holdings to which improvements may be made. I am sure that in that general form it would be quite wrong. The importance of compensation for improvement may be just as great, or indeed greater, to a tenant of a holding not of great value, because he is more heavily burdened by the cost of improvements than in the case of a valuable shop. I do not think the House would be willing to exclude all the smaller holdings. It does not seem to be fair or just. Having listened to what my noble friend has said to-day I think that his object is not that which would be effected by the Amendment in this form, but is rather to exclude from the clause those holdings where the tenant is in possession only by virtue of the Rent Restrictions Acts, that is, holding's where, but for the Acts, he would have to leave, but where, because of the Act, he has become a statutory tenant who is holding against the will of the landlord.
Of course, there are many cases where the landlord would wish him to go on, but there are others where that is not so. I recognise some force in the Amendment if it is so limited. I appreciate the feelings of a landlord whose tenant is in possession against his will, and is authorised by the Court to execute improvements to which the landlord objects but which, if sanctioned by the tribunal, will impose a liability upon the landlord at the end of the tenancy. With my friends I have very carefully considered whether we could not meet that objection. What I would suggest, if the House will agree to it, is that we should insert at a later stage of the Bill a provision that—
"The tribunal shall not entertain an application under this section if at the time of the application the applicant is a person in possession of the premises by virtue of the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts, 1920 to 1925.
An Amendment in that form would affect all those who are statutory tenants under those Acts and who continue in possession by virtue of those Acts. I believe that an Amendment in that form would fulfil the intentions of noble Lords, and I think it would fairly meet the point which arises.
So far, I have dealt only with improvements, because improvements
1068
are in question in this Amendment. I do not know whether the noble Lord proposes to press his point with regard to goodwill, which arises at a later stage. If so, I shall certainly have to consider that point, and to see whether I cannot meet it by an Amendment applicable to it. I hope the House will think that I have met the noble Lord's arguments fairly, and that I have met the substance of the criticism that he has made. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment now, and allow me to propose the Amendment that I suggest at a later stage.
VISCOUNT SUMNER: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend and those who are associated with him will adopt the suggestion which the Lord Chancellor has made. We must be practical. If the effect of the Amendment is to exclude from this Act a very large number of small premises simpliciter, we should be inclined not to stand by the Amendment and the Bill would then pass in its present form. If on the other hand, the Lord Chancellor on Third Reading introduces the qualification that he has outlined, it appears to me that an advantage will be gained which is in substance that to which the Amendment was directed and which will greatly improve the Bill.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, I wonder if the Lord Chancellor would kindly tell us, for the benefit of lay members of the House, whether, in order that a tenant under the Rent Restrictions Acts may become a statutory tenant, it is necessary that the landlord should take proceedings against him. I think that the Lord Chancellor was, in Committee, unduly sanguine as to there not being a great number of tenancies of mixed business and residential premises under those Acts at a rent of less than £78 a year. If I may say so, I think that this is hardly a correct view, but that the great mass of the smaller of such premises are at rentals under that figure. While recognising the desire of the Lord Chancellor to meet my noble friend's Amendment, it seems to me that it would hardly be fair that because the landlord had taken no action and consequently it could not be said that the tenant was still in possession against his will, the landlord, when it came to a

1069
question of improvements, should be put in a position of having a yearly or monthly tenant who was in occupation at a very much smaller rental than he ought to have paid.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I may speak again by leave of the House, in my view it would not be necessary for the landlord to take proceedings. He would only have to give notice to quit, and then, if the tenant refuses to quit on notice, he becomes a statutory tenant and would come under this provision.
LORD DYNEVOR: Do I understand that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, is going to put his Amendment down after the Third Reading, or will he move it to-day? I should like to know this before I go any further.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am willing to do whatever the noble Lord wishes, but before I put the Amendment down I should like to know whether he presses his point about goodwill as well as about improvements, because that would affect the form of my Amendment.
LORD DYNEVOR: I should like the Lord Chancellor to deal with both points after the Third Reading. Let us not deal with it to-day. We shall then see the Amendment in print and have an opportunity of studying it. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "value attributable to" and to insert "amount of". The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is purely verbal. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 23, leave out ("value attributable to") and insert ("amount of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, the Lord Chancellor says that this is only a drafting Amendment, but I am afraid that I cannot quite agree with him. I should like to point out to your Lordships that the Government seem to have had some difficulty in making up their minds about these words. I should like to remind your Lordships that when the Bill came
1070
from another place the proviso to subsection (1) ran:—
"Provided that the sum to be paid as compensation for any improvement shall not exceed—
(a) the capitalised value of the net addition to the letting value of the holding…."
Then we came to the Committee stage, and the Lord Chancellor, although I opposed the charge, altered the wording to:—
"the net addition to the value of the holding."
I pointed out that the original words were preferable to the new ones, but to no avail. Now, on Report, the Lord Chancellor proposes to include words in subsection (2) which will make it read:—
"in determining the amount of such net addition—"
and so on. It looks to me as if the Home Secretary wished to chastise the owners of business premises with whips, and the Lord Chancellor wishes to chastise them with scorpions.
The difficulty really arises from the word "improvement." What is an improvement? The word should never have been used in the Bill. It should have been "structural alteration." At the end of subsection (1) of Clause 3, just before the proviso, we find that the tribunal may
"certify in the prescribed manner that the improvement is a proper improvement."
I want to know what is the difference between an "improvement" and a "proper improvement." If it is an improvement, what is the use of speaking of a proper improvement? When is an improvement not an improvement? The answer is that you must ask the tribunal. When we get to subsection (2) of Clause 3 we have the ludicrous position of the tribunal saying that an improvement may injure the amenity or convenience of the neighbourhood. How could that be if it is an improvement? The Lloyd George Land Policy showed that you could have a minus site value. Now we have this Bill telling us that an improvement need not be an improvement, and, although it is an improvement, it may injure the neighbourhood. Really I think this is farcical legislation, and I really hope that the Lord Chancellor will not press his Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord has indulged in

1071
minutiæ, and I think that he really does not understand the meaning of the Amendment. An improvement may be an improvement to the house, but having regard to the character of the other houses in the neighbourhood it may be one of which the tribunal does not approve as in all respects proper. These words "value attributable to" are a residue from the Bill as it existed before we made an Amendment in proviso (a), but having regard to that Amendment these words no longer make sense. You do not want to determine the value attributable to a sum of money. The value of £10 is £10. All you want is to determine the amount, and in determining it regard shall be had to certain things. It is purely an Amendment to make one line of the Bill agree with another.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2:
Limitation on tenant's right to compensation in certain cases.
2.—(1) A tenant shall not be entitled to compensation under this Part of this Act—
(a) in respect of any improvement made before the commencement of this Act; or
(d) if within two months after the making of the claim under section one, subsection (1), of this Act the landlord serves on the tenant notice that he is willing and able to grant to the tenant or obtain the grant to him of a renewal of the tenancy at such rent and for such term as, failing agreement, the tribunal may consider reasonable, and if the tenant does not within one month from the service of the notice send to the landlord an acceptance in writing of the offer the tenant shall be deemed to have declined the offer.
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (a), to insert as a new subsection:—
"(b) in respect of any improvement which is intended or calculated to facilitate the carrying on of a trade or business other than a trade or business of the kind for which the premises were expressly let by the terms of the contract of tenancy; or"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as regards the Amendment which I desire to make the Lord Chancellor said in Committee that he would carefully consider the first part of the Amendment which I then moved. It may be within the recollection of your Lordships that my Amendment as originally moved had two other paragraphs, but I do not pro-
1072
pose to refer to them. The Lord Chancellor first of all said I had forgotten that if the tenant wished to change the nature of his business he had got to obtain the landlord's consent to the improvement, and also the consent of the tribunal. The objection to that is that it involves going to the tribunal, and there is no guidance or direction to the tribunal on the subject. It does seem to me rather absurd that if a man has rented a business, say for a fruit shop, and he afterwards turns it into a fish shop, that the landlord should have to go to the tribunal. I think this is a reasonable Amendment, and I hope the Lord Chancellor will be prepared now to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 7, at the end, to insert the said new paragraph (b).—(Lord Jessel.)
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, the Amendment put down by Lord Jessel has been very carefully considered since this Bill was in Committee and we still hold the view that the Amendment is really not required. Noble Lords will see by looking at the Bill that this Clause 2 applies to improvements. Improvements, of course, are bound to be structural improvements, and they are therefore cases where there is a change of user involving a structural alteration. This cannot be done without the consent of the landlord under Clause 19 (3), which deals with the consent of the landlord:—
"… such covenant condition or agreement shall, if the alteration does not involve any structural alteration of the premises, be deemed, notwithstanding any express provision to the contrary, to be subject to a proviso that no fine or sum of money in the nature of a fine, whether by way of increase of rent or otherwise, shall be payable for or in respect of such licence or consent."
Therefore, it is clear that the consent of the landlord is required. Alternatively, suppose the consent of the landlord is given. In that case there does not seem any particular reason why the tenant should not receive compensation for an improvement which increases the letting value of the premises. Therefore, apparently, both cases are provided for, more particularly the first, on which my noble friend laid stress, that the improvement should not be made without the consent of the landlord.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, the principle of this Bill, which the House accepted and from which I imagine it will not be prepared to depart on Report, is that there should be compensation for improvements effected in business premises by the tenant. The real idea, I imagine, underlying it is twofold. Firstly, it is that there should be removed a sense of injustice which undoubtedly has been bitterly felt by people who have spent a great deal of money in building up a business, the value of which at the end of the lease has been transferred wholly to the landlord. I imagine that the second idea is to encourage men to extend their trade activities, reassuring them that they will not lose their business if they do so. This Amendment would provide that if a man began with one business, and finding that it failed changed to another, which is the essence of all trade activity, he is to get no compensation at the end of the term. The Amendment refers to the fact that premises have been let expressly for the purpose of carrying on a particular business. That involves one of two things. It means either that in the lease it was contemplated that the premises should be used for that particular purpose, and so permitted, or it must mean that there is a restrictive covenant preventing him from carrying on any such business. If it is the first case there is nothing to prevent changing if it be desired. If the second, the change in the business could by no means be effected without the assent of the landlord to the relaxation of the covenant. In either case there seems to be no reason for excluding a man from benefit, merely because he has changed his original purpose for which the premises were used.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, I spoke on this Amendment when the Bill was in Committee, and it seems to me to be a very reasonable one. It supposes the case of a landlord granting a lease to a tenant with an undertaking by the tenant to carry on a particular kind of business for which the premises may be presumed to be suitable. They may be premises that he took up from some other tenant, and there may have been compensation to that other tenant because the structure has been adapted for another kind of business. Then the landlord, having the premises in his own hands, lets them
1074
to somebody else, and arranges the rent and all the conditions of the lease on the assumption that the tenant is going to carry on with the premises in the structural condition in which they have been put and for which the landlord has paid. Then this Bill comes in, and apparently, if this Amendment is not made in the Bill, the tenant can claim for turning the premises into an entirely different class of premises for an entirely different class of business, and the landlord, who has paid one tenant for making the premises suitable structurally for one class of business, then has to pay the next tenant for adapting them for another class of business.
This is exactly like the cases we used to have in the Land Courts in Ireland, where a tenant was paid for improvements, and I have heard hundreds of cases in which a tenant claimed for an improvement made by taking down a fence in a particular field, and his successor in title claimed for another improvement for having put back the fence which, according to him, was the better way of carrying on an agricultural operation. That was a very common case in Ireland, and it will be a very common case here. Now, not only are you going to break the contract to enable the tenant to do this, but you are going to make the landlord pay for it. My noble and learned friend who has just spoken says that the landlord can refuse permission. That is quite true, but then he is brought to the tribunal. What is to guide the tribunal? I tried to picture myself as a counsel in the county court, where I used to practise very largely many years ago, and I tried to imagine what I could say to the court to guide them in the matter. All I could tell the Judge would be that the premises were let in a structural state suitable for one business, and that they had been changed for another business, "and therefore," I would add, "I submit, your Honour, I should get compensation." What other guidance is there in the Bill? Under what circumstances is compensation to be paid, and under what circumstances is it not to be paid? This Amendment merely says that where the trade or business is different from that for which the premises were let the landlord is not to pay, and I cannot imagine any reason why the whole thing should be turned upside down, the contract

1075
practically put an end to, and the landlord mulcted by each tenant who wished to change the premises for a different business.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my noble and learned friend has been gravely misled by his experience of a totally different Act which was in force in Ireland, and also, if I may say so, by a failure to read the plain terms of this Bill. No doubt, like myself, he has other things to do, but he has failed to notice the point which my noble friend Lord Peel took, and which was conclusive on this point. Lord Carson supposes the case of a tenant changing the use of his business premises, and coming for permission to make an improvement in the premises only suitable for the new business. That he cannot do under this Bill. He cannot change the use of the premises against the covenants unless the landlord actually consents, and, if the landlord refuses to assent, the tenant cannot, as my noble and learned friend supposes, act in defiance of him. He must accept the refusal, and not make the change. Will my noble and learned friend, who is accustomed to read Acts of Parlaiment, be good enough to turn to the clause to which my noble friend Lord Peel referred, Clause 19 (3)? He will find that the subsection only applies "if the alteration does not involve any structural alteration of the premises." So that, if a tenant wants to change the user of the demised premises contrary to the covenants of the lease, and the alteration of user involves an alteration of the structure, that is an improvement he cannot make without the consent of the landlord. That, I think, is conclusive. And so this Amendment really has no meaning. If the landlord says "No," there is an end of it. If the landlord does consent to the change in the use of the premises, and an improvement is desirable for the purpose of the business, then there is surely no reason why the tenant's expenditure should not carry a right to compensation.
LORD CARSON: As the noble and learned Viscount has referred to my ignorance of the Bill, which I admit is considerable, because we have not been given proper time to consider it, with all the other business we have had to do, may I say that Clause 19, as I read it, only refers to a lease which contains a
1076
covenant or agreement against an alteration. This Amendment has nothing to do with that.
LORD LAMINGTON: May I ask whether the Lord Chancellor's remarks are not inconsistent with the approval given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, to the provisions of the Bill in reference to carrying out improvements against the wish of the landlord? I understand that Lord Buckmaster approved of a provision of that kind.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (d), to leave out "if" and insert "where such a notice is so served and". The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, in consequence of the argument of my noble friend Lord Dynevor when he moved an Amendment in Committee, my attention was called to the wording of the clause at this part and I concluded it was not quite satisfactory. I think the change which I now propose will make the meaning more clear and may possibly meet the noble Lord's wishes. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 25, leave out ("if") and insert ("where such a notice is so served and").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved, after "offer", in subsection (1) (d), to insert "to refer the consideration of the rent and term to the tribunal." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is an explanatory one. I want to make it quite clear that the word "offer" means to refer the consideration of the rent and term to the tribunal and not, as might be inferred from the wording in the Bill, the acceptance of the landlord's rent and length of term of the tenancy. The offer is not a specified rent but an offer to have it adjudicated upon. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 28, after ("offer") insert ("to refer the consideration of the rent and term to the tribunal").—(Lord Dynevor).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I did consider these words and I do not think they are the right words. The offer is not an offer to refer

1077
the consideration of the rent and term to the tribunal. It is really an offer to grant a new lease on terms which, in case of difference, the tribunal will settle. I think that is the plain meaning of the clause and that these words are not necessary. I hope therefore the noble Lord will not press the Amendment. It is really only a matter of drafting.
LORD DYNEVOR: I do not want to press the Amendment if the Lord Chancellor tells me the wording of the clause is quite clear. I was not certain on the point and I am glad he tells me again that it is.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3:
Landlord's right to object.
3.—(1) Where a tenant of a holding to which this Part of this Act applies proposes to make an improvement on his holding he … may, in the prescribed manner, apply to the tribunal, and the tribunal may … certify in the prescribed manner that the improvement is a proper improvement:
Provided that if the landlord proves that he has offered to execute the improvement himself in consideration of a reasonable increase of rent, or of such increase of rent as the tribunal may determine, the tribunal shall not give a certificate under this section unless it is subsequently shown to the satisfaction of the tribunal that the landlord has failed to carry out his undertaking.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Amendment in my name to this clause is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 10, leave out ("receipt") and insert ("service").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL moved, in subsection (1), immediately before the proviso, to insert "and any work so certified shall be carried out by the tenant to the reasonable satisfaction of the landlord's surveyor whose fees shall be paid by the tenant." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, when we were in Committee, said he would consider at a later stage this, as I venture to call it, reasonable Amendment. It is hardly necessary for me to explain the meaning of this Amendment. It simply means
1078
that we guard against the landlord having a tenant who has agreed before the tribunal to do certain work and has not done it. In such a case we should safeguard the interest of the landlord by seeing that the work the tenant has promised to do is done. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 27, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Jessel.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I would suggest to my noble friend that the words as they stand would leave the tenant in rather a difficult position. It says "to the reasonable satisfaction of the landlord's surveyor whose fee should be paid by the tenant." That really leaves the matter entirely in the hands of the surveyor of the landlord, and it states "whose fee shall be paid by the tenant." Therefore there does not appear to be any limitation, as the words stand, on the fees that should be paid. So much for the form of the Amendment to which I think some objection should be taken. I may say that very careful consideration, as promised, was given to my noble friend's Amendment. Take the different alternatives and I think your Lordships will find that this Amendment is not really necessary. First of all take the case of an agreement between the two. If the two agree I have no doubt the landlord would require certain fees to be paid, but in that case no question really arises. Then, if the matter goes before the tribunal, the tribunal can make it a condition that fees should be paid for the carrying out of the improvement according to the specifications and to the satisfaction of the landlord. But, in a further case, my noble friend will see that under subsection (6), if the tenant has to go to the landlord for a certificate, in that case when the landlord furnishes such certificate the tenant shall be liable to pay any reasonable expense incurred for that purpose by the landlord, and if any question arises as to the reasonableness of the expense it has to be determined by the tribunal. Therefore it seems to me that in all the different cases which may be contemplated the position suggested by my noble friend is provided for. I hope he will not press his Amendment. As drawn I think it would not be fair and would work hardship in practice.
LORD JESSEL: After the explanation of my noble friend I do not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, near the end of the proviso in subsection (1), before "failed," to insert "unreasonably." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is the usual wording to have in this class of provision, because the landlord may not be able to carry out his undertaking owing to a protracted strike or some other unforseen circumstance. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 34, after ("has"), insert ("unreasonably").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I really do not think this Amendment is necessary. The noble Viscount has taken a case where in consequence of a strike the landlord has not been able to carry out the improvement. In that case, of course, if he was brought before the tribunal by an unreasonable tenant, he could very easily show that it was owing to the strike that he had not carried out the improvement. In such a case no tribunal in the world would penalise him. So I really do not think the word "unreasonably" is necessary to meet such a case as the noble Viscount has suggested.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, if the noble Viscount does not think the Amendment necessary I will not press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4:
Compensation for goodwill.
4.—(1) The tenant of a holding to which this Part of this Act applies shall, if a claim for the purpose is made in the prescribed manner—
be entitled at the termination of the tenancy on quitting the holding to be paid by his landlord compensation for goodwill ….
Provided that—
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR had given Notice to move, in subsection (1), after "applies," to insert "being a holding which is not subject to the provisions of the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts, 1920 to 1925." The noble Lord said:
1080
My Lords, this Amendment would have been more or less, I will not say quite, consequential had my first Amendment on Clause 1 been put into the Bill. As the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has kindly consented to put another clause down on Third Reading I will put my Amendment down for Third Reading also, and then your Lordships will decide which Amendment you approve. In the circumstances I do not move this Amendment at this stage.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved, after proviso (d) in subsection (1), to insert the following new paragraph:—
"(e) where the landlord proves that the value or the goodwill has been created or increased owing to restrictions imposed by the landlord, whether by agreement with the tenant or not, upon the letting for a competitive trade or business of other premises in the neighbourhood owned by or under the control of the landlord, the tribunal shall have regard thereto and may refuse the application for compensation or may award a reduced amount of compensation."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I moved this Amendment on the Committee stage and my noble friend Lord Peel was good enough to say that he would consider the matter between that stage and this. I gathered from him that he was inclined at that time to give me some concession in the matter, but not to go as far as I desired. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 33, at end insert the said new proviso.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am prepared to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after subsection (1), to insert as a new subsection:—
"(2) For the purposes of this section, premises shall be deemed to be used for a more profitable purpose if, but not unless, the rent which the landlord could obtain for the premises if used for that purpose would be greater than the rent which could be obtained if they were used for the purpose of the trade or business carried on by the tenant."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, some comment was made on the words "more profitable" in Committee, and I undertook then to consider the matter and to make it quite clear. I propose, therefore, to insert this sub-

1081
section which shows what "more profitable" means, and which gives effect, I think, to what was desired.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 11, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, may I say that I am quite content with the Amendment moved by the Lord Chancellor.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5:
Right to new lease in certain cases.
(3) Where the tenant is the applicant, the grant of a new lease under this section shall not be deemed to be reasonable—
(a) unless the tenant proves that he is a suitable tenant and that he would be entitled to compensation under the last foregoing section, but that the sum which could be awarded to him under that section would not compensate him for the loss he would suffer if he removed to and carried on his trade or business in other premises; or
(7) The tribunal shall not order the grant of a new lease under this section if the landlord offers as an alternative thereto to sell to the tenant the landlord's interest in the premises for such consideration as, failing agreement, the tribunal may determine, and the duration of the landlord's interest is in the opinion of the tribunal adequate, and the consideration may as to the whole or any part thereof if the tribunal so determines be in the form of a terminable rent charge for such amount and of such duration not exceeding the duration of the landlord's interest as the tribunal may fix.
(12) A new lease under this section shall if the landlord so requires contain a covenant prohibiting the carrying on of any trade or business and the doing of any act prohibited by the original lease.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved, in subsection (3) after paragraph (a), to insert the following new paragraph:—
"(b) where the landlord proves that the value of the goodwill has been created or increased owing to restrictions imposed by the landlord, whether by agreement with the tenant or not, upon the letting for a competitive trade or business of other premises in the neighbourhood owned by or under the control of the landlord; or"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think this Amendment is purely consequential on the one I have just moved. The Lord Chancellor dissents from that. I should
1082
have thought it was. I think I said so in Committee, and rather expected it to be treated in the same way as my earlier Amendment has been. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 30, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I think that my noble friend has rather hastily assumed that this paragraph is consequential upon the other. I do not think it is. If no compensation is payable for goodwill by reason of the new paragraph in Clause 4 then no new lease can be claimed under Clause 5. If the compensation for goodwill is merely reduced and not abolished altogether there seems no reason why the tenant should not claim for a new lease. You might say that the fact that the compensation for the goodwill is reduced is rather an additional reason than otherwise for the granting of a new lease. I suggest, therefore, to my noble friend that the case is not on all fours with the other one, that the Amendment is not consequential, and that it is not really necessary.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I do not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, at the end of subsection (7), to insert "Any such rentcharge shall have priority over any mortgage which the tenant may thereafter create." The noble Viscount said: I put this Amendment on the Paper, my Lords, to make certain that the rentcharge should have priority. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 19, at end insert the said new words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think the proposed addition is quite unnecessary. We all know that a tenant can only mortgage such interest as he possesses, and if his interest is subject to a rentcharge he can only mortgage his interest subject to that rentcharge. I hope my noble friend will not think it necessary to add a further Amendment to our long list of Amendments which have to be considered elsewhere unless there is some good reason for it.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, after what the Lord Chancellor has said, I will not press my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to subsection (12) the words "unless the landlord has by licence or otherwise consented to a variation of the original terms of the lease in this respect." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment was considered by and agreed upon between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Surveyors' Institution, both of whom desired that it should be made. Somehow it was not put down for the Committee stage. Many cases exist where landlords have by licence, or in some other way, permitted trades prohibited under the original lease to be carried on. Where such a licence has been granted, it should not be made obligatory on the tribunal to import into the new lease the prohibition contained in the original lease which may have become obsolete. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 33, after ("lease") insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Provision when claim is both for improvement and goodwill]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have a note to the statement I made in Committee that I moved to include in the clause the words "if both such claims are valid," but by some error they have not found their way into the Bill. They are plainly necessary, and in the interests of everybody, especially of the landlord, I move that they be inserted.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 17, after ("shall") insert ("if both such claims are valid").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is purely verbal. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 18, leave out ("either") and insert ("whether").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8:
Rights of mesne landlords.
8.—(1) Where, in the case of any holding, there are several persons standing in the relation to each other of lessor and lessee, the following provisions shall apply:—
Any mesne landlord who has paid or is liable to pay compensation under this Part of this Act shall, at the end of his term, be entitled to compensation from his immediate landlord in like manner and on the same conditions as if he had himself made the improvement or created the goodwill in question, except that it shall be sufficient if the claim for compensation is made at least two months before the expiration of his term.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1), after the paragraph beginning "Any mesme landlord", to insert:
"Provided that the amount to which a mesne landlord is entitled in respect of an improvement shall not exceed the total sum paid by him in respect of that improvement."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have purposely limited this Amendment to the case of improvements and have not included goodwill because the goodwill might increase owing to the industry of successive mesne landlords; whereas an improvement can only increase owing to unforeseen circumstances, such as an increase in the cost of production. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 33, at end insert the said new proviso.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, under the provisions of Clause 8, where a mesne landlord has paid compensation to his tenant for an improvement, he is entitled at the end of the term to recover from his landlord the value of the improvement as if he himself had executed it. The Amendment of my noble friend proposes to limit the amount which such mesne landlord may recover to the amount which he paid to the tenant for the improvement. It is rather difficult to see what would be the class of case to which the Amendment would apply. After all, the payment is for the unexhausted value of the improvement, and I do not think that, as a rule, with the lapse of time the value of an improvement tends to increase. It is very difficult to think of cases to which such an Amendment would be really applicable. Therefore the Amendment hardly seems

1085
a practicable matter. There is another difficulty about the Amendment, and that is, that my noble friend uses rather a vague expression. The Amendment refers to "the total sum paid by him in respect of that improvement". It is not quite clear from that whether the sum to be paid is to include the costs of the mesne landlord. It is rather a pity, I think, to leave that in doubt. Certain costs may have been incurred in discussions before the tribunal and so on, and it would be a pity to leave the matter of payment of them in any doubt. Surely it is fair that he should be covered for costs so incurred. As, however, the Amendment is of rather doubtful value on the score of practicability, I hope my noble friend will not press it.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, in reply to the noble Viscount, I would say that building before the War was fairly cheap. I saw a house the other day, and asked a building contractor what it would cost. He said: "You could not even get it done." This particular house had increased in value enormously. It does not seem to me that the landlord should get the benefit of unforeseen circumstances.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think the noble Viscount has quite dealt with the important objection to this. Take this case. A lease has been granted to A. who grants a sub-lease to B., of course for a shorter term, it may be for a substantially shorter term. At the end of the lease to B. his landlord A. has to pay compensation for an improvement. Suppose the compensation which he has to pay is cut down because of proviso (b) of Clause 1, which limits compensation to the cost of carrying out the improvement subject to certain deductions. He has to pay a sum limited by that. Then A.'s lease comes to an end perhaps ten or twenty years afterwards. By that time the cost of carrying out the improvement has grown and the reason for cutting down, so to speak, no longer operates. In that case—there may be others, but that is the only one I can think of at the moment—the superior landlord may have to pay for an improvement which has gained in value since its execution. The Amendment of my noble friend would cut out that case, and I think it might do an injustice.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Prohibition of contracting out.
9. Any contract (other than a contract to make an improvement) made whether before or after the commencement of this Act, by virtue of which a tenant would be, directly or indirectly, deprived of his right to obtain compensation or the grant of a new lease under this Part of this Act, shall be void unless the tribunal, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, is of opinion that the contract was reasonable and, in the case of a contract made after the commencement of this Act, that the consideration for the deprivation of the right was adequate."
LORD CARSON LORD CARSON moved to omit Clause 9. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I do not propose to move the first Amendment which stands on the Paper in my name to leave out, "having regard to all the circumstances of the case," because I shall be able to deal with it in my second Amendment to leave out Clause 9. Of all the clauses in the Bill it seems to me that this is the most extraordinary clause for any Party having the slightest regard for a contract to put in a Bill. I cannot help wondering what we should all be saying on the Conservative Benches if the Labour Party had brought in a clause such as this. It upsets every principle of the sanctity of contract. I am not saying there might not be wanted some protection in the nature of a clause dealing with the case of small holdings where people did not contract upon equal terms, but a clause of this kind is to my mind the most unfortunate precedent that could be put in an Act of Parliament.
Let me read the clause:—
"Any contract (other than a contract to make an improvement) made whether before or after the commencement of this Act, by virtue of which a tenant would be, directly or indirectly"—
whatever that means—
"deprived of his right to obtain compensation or the grant of a new lease under this Part of this Act, shall be void unless the tribunal, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, is of opinion that the contract was reasonable and, in the case of a contract made after the commencement of this Act, that the consideration for the deprivation of the right was adequate."
Just look at what that does. There may be contracts that have been running for years, which may, directly or indirectly, prevent a tenant obtaining compensation. Every one of those contracts the moment

1087
this Bill passes are made void. That is a rather sweeping thing for a Conservative Government to do.
All these contracts made before the Bill becomes law are made void no matter in what circumstances or for what consideration they were entered into. They are all void, but when the Bill passes a landlord can go to the tribunal and ask to have it declared that they are not void—a very peculiar kind of legislation. The landlord can go to the tribunal and say: "Please declare this not to be void." Just look at the vista of litigation. In every single case where there is anything in the contract that directly or indirectly deprives a tenant of his right to compensation, although the contract may have been made at a time when no such legislation as this could possibly have been contemplated the landlord has to go and prove his case. I do pray your Lordships to look at the direction given to the tribunal. The clause says:
"… unless the tribunal, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, is of opinion that the contract was reasonable …"
and so on. What are the circumstances that can make a contract that was entered into, say twenty years ago, reasonable. The clause gives no indication. We have plenty of law for protecting contracts which are brought about through the contracting parties not being on equal terms, or through a contract being brought about by fraud or coercion, or through parties being unconscionable in certain cases. That is the existing law, but what is a poor Judge to do when he is set to decide what kind of circumstances ten, twenty or thirty years ago make a contract now a reasonable or an unreasonable one? I do not think that such a provision would be found in many Acts of Parliament.
That is the objection to rendering void these past contracts. What does the Bill say in regard to future contracts? It says that any contract which deprives a tenant of his right, directly or indirectly, is void. Here again you may have entered solemnly into a contract and the day after you may have to get a declaration that it is reasonable. Just see what that means. Take two perfectly solvent, able men entering into a contract. Suppose it is Harrod's Stores and the Duke of Westminster, each of them advised by their own surveyors
1088
and solicitors and each perfectly in a position to say that they will or will not enter into a contract. They come together and Harrod's Stores, the party that is to be protected, say: "If you will let us have these premises we are willing to pay such and such a rent and to relieve you from all obligation as regards improvements under this Act. Let us not have any litigation over it." But they cannot do it. At least they can do it on the chance, as a gamble. They can do it on the understanding that they will go into Court the next day and will ask the Court to say whether the contract is reasonable or unreasonable.
I did really think that, when people contracted on terms which they fully understood, without any coercion on one-side or the other and with nothing unconscionable in the contract, it was possible for them to regulate contracts for the transfer or letting or purchase of property in such a way that the contract should be valid. Apparently the Conservative Government think otherwise. They want to break all the past contracts and to prevent from being valid any future contracts, no matter what is the position or the power of the contracting parties, and to add to the existing protection in cases where a contract or lease is unfair the provision that it is to be void unless the parties go before these gentlemen, whose only direction is to have regard to all the circumstances of the case. I know of no worse kind of legislation than to enact that a Judge is to get no directions, that it is to be left to his own sweet will to say what the circumstances of the case are. That is really allowing the Judge or the tribunal to legislate, instead of taking upon ourselves, as we should do if this were a serious method of considering a Bill, to frame some instances which would be some kind of direction to the Judge.
Of course, there is no time to make proper legislation of that kind. I am not an owner of property, except to a very small extent where I happen to live, and, thank heaven, I have no tenants, and I hope that I never shall have any, for I would rather give them the land for nothing. But I submit that this is a very serious precedent and nobody can tell how it will work out. It will make people chary of letting their property. They will hold out and try to sell, and

1089
many men who cannot get capital to buy will thereby be debarred from renting such premises. The moment you begin to interfere with the free exercise of rights between perfectly competent contracting parties there is no end to the mischief that you may do.
Amendment moved—
Leave out clause 9.—(Lord Carson.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, if the real question were whether people who are quite competent should be prevented from contracting with one another, I should agree that there was much to say for the arguments to which we have just listened. But that is not the real question that we are considering in this Bill. Public opinion has said that it is desirable to promote the building and quality of houses by introducing the principle of this Bill, which contains restrictions on what people are to be allowed to do. That is no new principle. It is nothing revolutionary. It is what your Lordships have been doing in this House and in the other House for some time past in regard to agricultural holdings. It is a principle that is familiar to the Common Law of this country. There are restrictions regarding the right of a man to redeem his mortgage, and there are restrictions scattered right through our law which illustrate that, whenever there is a sufficient public interest in restricting freedom of contract, Parliament has always reserved to itself the right to do so, and the Common Law has also contained such restrictions. Accordingly, I feel that we cannot attach any great weight to the proposition that has been made to us.
VISCOUNT SUMNER: My Lords, nothing is so deceptive as to appeal to great principles which underlie Bills when you come to discuss their details in Committee or at a later stage. I say that nothing is more deceptive, but perhaps there is one thing that is more deceptive, and that is to find another principle introduced at this late stage of the Bill, a principle different from that of which we have heard hitherto. I did not know that this Bill was supposed to promote the improvement of houses. I understood that its principle was to prevent the landlord from taking to himself something that he ought not to have, whether it consisted of improvements or the goodwill
1090
attaching to a business. I prefer to confine myself to the principle of which we have heard a good deal in the earlier stages of the Bill. I am loath to criticise closely another clause, because the way in which we have to do it is a very unsatisfactory one and it is brought about, as usual, by the way in which this very complicated Bill, after passing through two or three new incarnations in another place, eventually reaches this House at a time when, not your Lordships only, but the members of the Government are overwhelmed with work and engagements. What we have to do is to present our criticisms, with or without our proposed Amendments, to the Lord Chancellor who, with some occasional and not always audible assistance from the First Commissioner of Works, has to take on his shoulders the burden of dealing with these matters himself and, with whatever assistance he can obtain elsewhere, must pass the whole thing through his mind at a time when he is deeply involved in other duties in this House and elsewhere. Accordingly I always feel compunction in pressing upon him one more set of considerations, especially when, as I am afraid must be the case to-day, one cannot present to the Government what one thinks would be a suitable Amendment, since the criticism is directed to the whole of the clause.
At this stage I have not the least desire to be intransigent about a Bill of this kind. It has introduced a certain scheme of compensation and, so far as I am concerned, I am desirous of seeing legislation finally arrived at which will give a useful character to the scheme. I am further quite prepared to recognise that when the ordinary law of contract between landlord and tenant is subjected on this extensive scale to a series of new rights in the interest of the tenant, one must expect to have some kind of clause against contracting out inserted. It may be usual, or not, but it is unlikely in modern times that such a clause would not be introduced. I do submit, however, that this clause has nearly all the disadvantages that a single clause on such a subject could contain. My noble and learned friend below me dwelt upon the point that it applies to contracts made before the commencement of the Act, as well as after. I do not know whether such contracts are very common,

1091
because I suppose most landlords did not anticipate it would be very likely that such an Act would be introduced, but there are, no doubt, some. I would like to point out the manner in which the clause proposes to deal with these.
If you claim an improvement—if you have a right to claim and have not contracted yourself out—you are nevertheless very carefully hedged round in all directions in Clause 2 as to the conditions under which, and the extent to which, you can claim, and there is a right of appeal, and questions of law can be discussed, and so forth. If you have had the prescience to make a contract that there are not to be any improvements, or, if there are, the tenant is to pay for them himself and not ask for compensation, then what is to happen? Without any hedging about at all, without any restrictions or limitations other than those contained in the words which I drew attention to, you have to go to the tribunal. The presumption is that the contract is void, and if the landlord tries to insist upon it he must go to the tribunal, and the question before the tribunal will be, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, whether the contract was reasonable.
I pause there. Reasonableness is preeminently a question of fact. That is why we are told that reasonableness should always be tried by a jury, because it is thought that they are the best judges of fact. There are no juries in this procedure, and therefore I presume the question of reasonableness would be referred, for report, to a surveyor, and his report would then come before the Judge, whoever he is. The surveyor is not placed under any restrictions at all as to his view of what may be reasonable, nor do I quite see how, when the matter is discussed before the Judge, you can find materials to show it was unreasonable, unless you invite the Judge to have regard to all the circumstances all over again and go into an inquiry on a very considerable scale. I should have thought that the fact that there was a contract made between the parties was the best proof of its reasonableness. At any rate, it was generally considered, in the business with which I am best acquainted, that if the parties made a contract it was not for the Court to criticise. It was considered that as
1092
they had made it, presumably they knew what they were about, and that it was a reasonable contract. It is plain that that is not the light in which this question would go before the tribunal.
Now take the other side of it. In the case of a contract made after the commencement of the Act you have not only to show that the contract was reasonable but that the consideration for deprivation of the right to obtain compensation was adequate. Again, I should have thought that the question of the sufficiency of the consideration was one of the last things that a Court would inquire into. The parties must be deemed to know better than anybody else whether the consideration was adequate; but in this case not only is the adequacy of the consideration to be inquired into, but it is to be in addition to and on the top of an inquiry as to reasonableness. Surely if the consideration is adequate that makes the contract itself reasonable. If a man be paid enough to give up his right to compensation what more does he want? What more could reasonably be required?
What I suspect with regard to the framing of the clause is that it is a monument of good intentions, that it has been framed, no doubt, with a sincere desire to protect the landlord, but that really it does prepare the way for a general inquiry, not merely of an expensive and dilatory kind, but an inquiry which would leave the meaning of what is the contract between the parties to be determined by the particular referee who happened to report on the case. That, I think, in practice would be the natural result, and if it would be, I can hardly suppose that on fuller consideration the Government would wish to keep the clause precisely in its present form. I do not think it would be useful, or perhaps very seemly, for me to try to dictate how the general objections on the whole clause ought to be met, but I do hope that even at this eleventh hour, or perhaps it is a little later than that, there may still be time for something to be done.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: The noble and learned Lord who moved the Amendment raised what occurred to my mind as a very concrete example of the danger of interfering unnecessarily with freedom of contract. A noble Lord opposite has referred to the Agricultural Holdings Act

1093
as a precedent for such legislation as this. What has been the result of the Agricultural Holdings Act, combined with the Small Landholders Act, in Scotland. The result has been to make the business of estate management unworkable. Coupled, I admit, with the burdens upon land, it has been the main incentive to landlords to oblige their tenants to buy their holdings, and that has led to the withdrawal of scores of millions of capital from agriculture, with the result of depreciating the equipment of land, and the further result that the industry of agriculture has been impoverished by the withdrawal of so much capital. I give that example because it entirely supports the fear of the noble Lord, that similar legislation in regard to urban property will render it necessary for the landlord to get quit of his share of the undertaking, and consequently so much less capital will be left for the development of urban property.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble and learned friend Lord Sumner has spoken with great consideration for myself, and I am indebted to him for what he has said. It is true I am not without other duties; but there are 24 hours in the day, and I have been able to give to this Bill and to the Amendments careful thought, so as to be able to deal in this House with points which may arise, with the help, which I greatly value, of my noble friend the First Commissioner of Works. This is a Motion to omit the whole of Clause 9—not to amend it, but to omit it altogether. It is not surprising that the discussion has covered a somewhat wide area, as in the case of the noble Viscount who has just spoken, because it is plain that if this Amendment were adopted the whole of the Bill would practically fall to the ground. This is a Motion to omit what is commonly called the contracting-out clause, and it has been approached from two different points of view. First, it is pointed out that the clause applies to leases, or contracts for leases, made before the commencement of the Act. Up to a point it is plain that must be so. The measure will not take effect for some three months or more, indeed it has been in Parliament for many months now, and by the time that it commences to operate it will have been before the public for about a year. During that interval it may well be that leases
1094
granted have contained a clause excluding the operation of any Statute that may provide for compensation. Is the House prepared to say that that kind of clause shall stand, notwithstanding the provisions of this Bill—that people shall have been at liberty during that interval to nullify any Statute that Parliament might pass? Yet that would be the effect of the omission of this clause.
Apart from that, of course, leases may contain provisions which are contrary to some of the provisions of the earlier clauses of this Bill. If they contain a contract to make an improvement the clause, of course, has no effect, because there is an exception at the very beginning of Clause 9 excepting contracts to make an improvement, and you carefully provide that where a lease contains a contract to make an improvement then the provisions of this clause shall not operate. But, apart from that, there may be other clauses in the lease which, it may be, are contrary to what this Act provides as to compensation or the grant of a new lease. In those cases what we propose to say is that they shall not prevent the operation of this measure unless, when compensation is claimed, the tribunal, whatever it may be, the High Court or the county court, comes to the conclusion that the provision of the contract is a reasonable one, or, in the case of a future contract, there is adequate consideration for the deprivation of the right. That does not mean in every case, as Lord Carson seems to think, that you must go to the tribunal beforehand.
LORD CARSON: No, I did not say so, I said you had to go afterwards.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I misunderstood my noble and learned friend. But the point would only arise on the claim for compensation or for a new lease; then the tribunal would say: "It is true there is something in the lease which is inconsistent with the claim which has arisen, but we think it quite reasonable, and therefore we disallow any claim for compensation." That is not without precedent at all. Take an instance familiar to many of your Lordships, the Workmen's Compensation Acts. Those Acts provide that persons shall not be able to make any contract which would deprive the workmen of the benefit of the Acts. But there is in those Acts a provision that where an employer has a scheme for the

1095
compensation of his workmen in case of accident, then, if that scheme is reasonable, it shall take the place of the Workmen's Compensation Acts. It is rather a similar case in this respect, that it enables private contracts, if reasonable, to be substituted for statutory provisions. That in itself would be a precedent far that part of the clause to which objection has been taken, and, as I venture to think, not reasonably taken. I think I have said enough to show that even as regards tenancies granted before the passing of this Bill this provision is proper and right.
As regards the leases to be hereafter granted, I do not see how anybody can maintain that this clause ought not to operate. If you strike out this clause all that landlords have to do in future is to put at the end of leases: "It is hereby declared that the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, shall not apply to this tenancy," so that the whole thing would fall to the ground. Really, if Parliament is going to permit that, it is no use to legislate at all. I do not believe that anybody here believes that that would be a reasonable thing to allow. The view of Parliament is that in those cases where the landlord is getting the benefit of his tenant's expenditure or his tenant's energy compensation shall be paid. To allow people to contract out of that would be wholly to nullify the Bill. If your Lordships think, after this explanation, I am right in opposing the Amendment—and, indeed, I am quite certain that if this Amendment were carried it would be quite useless to proceed with the Bill—I hope that the House will not assent to it.
LORD ERNLE: My Lords, there is one point in the remarks of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack which I do not quite understand. If this clause were limited to all contracts made since the introduction of the Bill, all contracts, that is to say, which could have been made with reference to this coming piece of legislation, I should entirely agree with him, and be prepared to support him. But what I am afraid of is that under this clause you can rip up contracts made ten or twenty years ago, and, if that is so, then I must say that, with great reluctance, if the noble and learned Lord presses the matter to a Division I shall have to support him.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, I think the Lord Chancellor did not understand what I said in relation to this Amendment. What I said was that under the Bill all these contracts, which "directly or indirectly"—whatever that phrase means—affect the compensation were void—not that you have to go to the Court before the contract, but after the contract. I put the case of Harrod's Stores and the Duke of Westminster being thoroughly advised by surveyors and solicitors, and, if they agreed to contract out of the Act in relation to the improvements, their agreement is void unless they take it into the Court. That has not been controverted. The truth of the matter is that this raises in its most naked form the question of whether free contracts between people, contracting on absolutely equal terms, are to be allowed or not. That is a principle of such vital importance to the whole question of the holding of property in this country that I feel it my duty to press the matter to a Division.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, may I suggest something that might be acceptable to the Lord Chancellor? The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has told your Lordships that the deletion of this clause will have the effect of nullifying the Bill. I venture to suggest, however, that no adequate answer has been given to the contentions of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Sumner and Lord Carson. To rip up old agreements made between perfectly competent persons long before this measure was in contemplation is a very novel procedure and, I would venture to say, a very undesirable one. I would suggest an Amendment to meet the case which perhaps the noble and learned Lord Chancellor would accept. I would suggest, in regard to the words "whether before or after the commencement of this Act" that, if the Lord Chancellor agrees, we should leave out the words "whether before or" and substitute the word "introduction" for the word "commencement". The clause would then read:—
"Any contract (other than a contract to make an improvement) made after the introduction of this Act."
The arguments put forward have been very strong, and the contention of noble and learned Lords ought to be supported by your Lordships. These very old agree-

1097
ments should not be torn up simply because an advantage is being given to tenants. If my noble and learned friend will accept that and the Lord Chancellor agrees, I would move an Amendment to the effect which I have suggested.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am surprised no response is made to that. The only proposal is to delete Clause 9. I must take the opinion of the House upon that proposal. If the noble Earl makes some proposal at a later stage of the Bill it can be considered, but I must find out whether the House approves or not of the Amendment to delete Clause 9.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: Do I understand that the ruling of the Lord
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved, after Clause 9, to insert the following new clause:—
Mortgages of holdings not to be affected.
" . It is hereby declared that nothing in this Part of this Act shall affect the security of any mortgage of a holding to which this Part of this Act applies."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, there is one proposition with which I am sure my noble friend, the Lord Chancellor, will agree—that is, that in legislation you
Chancellor is that it would be out of order for me at this stage to move the Amendment that I am suggesting, supposing that my noble friends were willing to withdraw the Amendment to delete Clause 9? Would the Lord Chancellor rule me out of order in moving that Amendment?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think it is the practice to give Notice of Amendments on Report.
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29, Not-Contents, 35.

CONTENTS.

Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Howe, E.

Ullswater, V.

Iddesleigh, E.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Iveagh, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Cushendun, L.

Argyll, D.

Onslow, E.

Daryngton, L.

Sutherland, D.

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Ernle, L.

Stanhope, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Bath, M.

Lovat, L.

Allendale, V.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Ancaster, E.

Falmouth, V.

Southwark, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Haldane, V.

Thomson, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Peel, V.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D.

Westmeath, E.

Hampton, L.

Harris, L.

Exeter, M.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Hindlip, L.

Falkland, V.

Jessel, L.

Denbigh, E.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Novar, V.

Lamington, L.

Sumner, V.

Lawrence, L.

Eldon, E.

Leconfield, L.

Halsbury, E. [Teller.]

Askwith, L.

Leigh, L.

Midleton, E.

Carson, L. [Teller.]

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Morton, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Redesdale, L.

Northbrook, E.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Sydenham of Combe, L.

Selborne, E.

Faringdon, L.

Wavertree, L.

Wittenham, L.

ought to be quite clear what an Act of Parliament means. The object of my Amendment is to make it clear that a mortgagee not in possession does not bear any of the burdens of the tenant's improvements. I can see a strong argument that the Bill as it is drawn would probably be construed to exclude a mortgagee not in possession; but it is most desirable that there should be no doubt one way or the other. In another place the Home Secretary said in terms that this Bill was not intended to apply to a mortgagee not in possession. It is a very uncertain way of making certain

1099
what the law is to have merely the declaration of an intention. It is better, surely, to have a declaration one way or the other as to whether or not a mortgagee not in possession is to bear the burden of the tenant's improvements. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 29, at end insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I have an Amendment, after Clause 24, which also deals with mortgages, and as the question has now been raised I might say at once what I intended to say on that Amendment. I do not know whether your Lordships will prefer this Amendment of my noble friend, or my Amendment, but I think they are the same. I placed my Amendment on the Paper to ascertain whether mortgages take priority over charges imposed by this Bill. This Bill applies to leases already in existence and liabilities are imposed. There may already be a mortgage. Does the compensation payable have priority over the mortgage? If so, the security is lessened and all mortgages may be called in or the interest raised. It is doubtful if a mortgage in future could be obtained unless it takes priority over future charges.
My Amendment would not put a new mortgage over past tribunal charges, if it was registered. I am aware that the Lord Chancellor in winding up the debate on the Motion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, said this:
"Again, the same noble Lord suggested that the compensation charged would take priority over a mortgage. There, too, I think he was mistaken. There is no suggestion that any charge for compensation can come before anything of the sort."
I quite agree that there is no suggestion of this in this Bill; but the Bill makes no reference to the question, and so it would be best to make it quite clear, so that solicitors, especially in acting for small owners of small shops, should be able to tell their clients and the mortgagees the exact position at once. I should like the Lord Chancellor to make his statement larger and wider so that there may in future be no possible doubt as to where we stand. I beg to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Halsbury.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, my noble friends have raised a very important point—the question as to whether mortgages are affected or the security of mortgages is affected by any of the provisions of this Bill. As my noble friend Lord Dynevor said, there is nothing in the Bill to suggest that they are affected, but he wants it made clear that they are not. May I examine the question of the security of these mortgages from two points of view? The object of the two Amendments taken together—because I think I can deal with them together as my noble friend Lord Dynevor has spoken in support of my noble friend Lord Halsbury—is, of course, to prevent the security of a mortgagee being affected by two things. The first is by the creation of a charge in favour of the landlord after he has paid compensation; and the second is the liability of the landlord to pay compensation.
Taking first of all the case where a landlord has paid compensation, he can, under the First Schedule, obtain a charging order from the Minister of Agriculture, but there is nothing in the Schedule which gives such a charge priority over any mortgage existing at the time, and I am advised that he could not, without express provision, obtain any such priority. Where it is intended that a statutory charge shall take priority over existing incumbrances, a special provision to that effect is invariably inserted. May I refer my noble friends to Section 59 of the Improvement of Land Act, 1854, Section 6, subsection (2) of the Tithe Act, 1918, and Section 32, subsection (1) of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1925? The First Schedule is merely an adaptation of Section 20 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1925, and it never has been suggested, I understand, that the charges under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1925, take priority over existing incumbrances.
Secondly, as to the liability to pay compensation, that is a personal liability of the landlord and is not in any sense a charge on the land and so, of course, cannot affect the mortgage, unless the mortgagee becomes a landlord by reason of becoming mortgagee in possession or of foreclosure. The only means by which a tenant could obtain a charge on the land would be by getting a judgment for compensation against the landlord

1101
and enforcing that judgment by means of a writ of elegit or an equitable execution against the land; but in that case his rights under the writ of elegit or equitable execution takes effect subject to any mortgage existing at the time when the writ or order affecting the land is registered under the Land Charges Act, 1925. That is, the position of the mortgagee is not affected or prejudiced by the Bill. First of all, if an improvement is executed or goodwill created after the mortgage the value of the mortgaged property is ex hypothesi increased by the amount of the compensation payable. But, in the second place, if the mortgage is made after the improvement is executed or the goodwill created then the mortgagee advances the money with knowledge of the existence of the liability. I have taken the two cases and I think I have shown that in neither case is the position of the mortgagee affected by the provisions of the Bill or the charges which might operate under the provisions of the Bill. I submit, therefore, that neither of the Amendments of my noble friends is necessary.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, each stage of this Bill shows the impossibility of considering it properly in this hurried way. As I understand the legal argument of the noble Viscount who has just sat down he says that if we look through seven or eight Statutes we shall find that mortgagees are not affected by this Bill. The House has no time to look to see whether that is so or not. That comes from the way we are conducting our business. Let me put this question to the noble Viscount on the Woolsack. Is there not a provision in this Bill that enables a landlord, instead of paying compensation, to create a tenancy which will compensate for the improvements? That is to be settled by the tribunal. If that is so, surely if the new tenancy is to be of any use to the tenant it must affect the nature of the security. Does not that interfere with the mortgagee? Supposing it became necessary afterwards to put a receiver in, it would inevitably lead to a lower rent in a case where there might be a very narrow margin. Taking the argument of the noble Viscount, that if you go into the various Acts which regulate this matter you will find that nothing in this Bill affects the security of a mortgage on a holding, I cannot
1102
for the life of me understand why you do not say so plainly on the face of the Bill.
What is the objection to it? I do not say that the noble Viscount may not be right. I do not know whether he is right or not. This I do know, that very often things which have been said in the Houses of Parliament as to the meaning of a clause in a Bill have been found when the matter comes before the Courts to be quite wrong. Therefore I cannot understand, if it is true that the security of mortgages is not to be affected by anything in the Bill, why on earth the Government should oppose the Amendment. The matter is a very serious one for mortgagees. The Auctioneers' Institute are very much concerned about what will happen when the Bill passes if mortgagees have a fear of their security being endangered in any way, and they are concerned also about the difficulty of getting people, particularly trustees, to invest money in mortgages on land. Therefore I would respectfully submit to the Government that if the statement of the noble Viscount represents the policy of the Government and the security of mortgages is not to be affected the Amendment might be accepted.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think that my noble friend and I have endeavoured to meet all reasonable criticisms of the Bill, but I do not think this Amendment can reasonably be accepted. It says that—
"… nothing in this Part of this Act shall affect the security of any mortgage of a holding to which this part of this Act applies."
Take the case of a freehold being mortgaged and the mortgagee afterwards foreclosing and taking possession. If this Amendment passes he will hold the land altogether free from this measure. Therefore the tenant runs this chance, that if he has as landlord somebody who does not mortgage he is all right, but if his landlord mortgages he may be all wrong and will not be able to get any compensation at all. It is not treating the tenant at all fairly to make his right to compensation depend on the chance of what his landlord may or may not do. It really is not reasonable to expect us to accept the Amendment and I hope the

1103
House will not adopt it. I quite agree with what my noble friend the First Commissioner of Works has said.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, if the noble Viscount on the Woolsack would give me any hope of favourably considering an Amendment in another form I should be willing to withdraw now and move an Amendment at a later stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If my noble friend will put down an Amendment to be moved on Third Reading I will certainly give it consideration.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Power to sell or grant leases notwithstanding restrictions]:
Amendments moved—
Page 16, line 11, leave out ("and to convey such reversion or grant any such") and insert ("any such reversion or")
Page 16, line 13, after ("thereunder") insert ("and to convey and grant the same")
Page 16, line 14, leave out ("conveyance or")
Page 16, line 15, leave out ("make or")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 17:
Holdings to which Part I. applies.
(2) This Part of this Act shall not apply to any holding let to the tenant during his continuance in any office, appointment or employment, or for the temporary convenience or to meet a temporary necessity of either the landlord or the tenant, provided that any such contract of tenancy made after the commencement of this Act shall be in writing signed by the parties thereto, and shall express the purpose for which the tenancy is created.
(3) For the purposes of this section premises shall not be deemed to be premises used for carrying on thereat a trade or business—

(a) by reason of their being used for the purpose of carrying on thereat any profession;

(b) by reason that the tenant thereof carries on the business of subletting the premises as residential flats, whether or not the provision of meals or any other service for the occupants of the flats is undertaken by the tenant:

Provided that so far as this Part of this Act relates to improvements premises used for carrying on a profession shall be deemed to be premises used for carrying on a trade or business.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), to omit all words after "This Part of this Act shall not apply to any holding let to" down to and including "express", and to insert "a tenant as the holder of any office, appointment or employment, from the landlord, and continuing so long as the tenant holds such office, appointment or employment, but in the case of a tenancy created after the commencement of this Act, only if the contract is in writing and expresses". The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, subsection (2) of Clause 17 was inserted as an Amendment moved by the Earl of Midleton to Clause 16, and I said at the time I accepted the Amendment that it would have to be subject to reconsideration. I think the words I propose now will give effect to the intention of the noble Earl. We have omitted some words which seem to us very difficult to construe, and we have put in some more definite words.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 36, leave out from ("to") to the first ("the") in line 42 and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I quite accept the words proposed by the noble and learned Viscount.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND moved, at the end of subsection (3), to insert: "A profession for the purpose of this section means the habitual and regular practice of a learned or skilled profession as the chief means of livelihood." The noble Duke said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is, I think, sufficiently clear. It is intended to provide some sort of definition of the word "profession". I have no legal knowledge, and for all I know there may be a perfectly definite meaning attaching in law to the word "profession". I am told that is not the case, but in that matter I speak under correction. If there is no such definite meaning it is evident that owners of house property cannot possibly know where they stand under this Bill or what obligations or commitments they may incur, because they cannot know whether a tenant is conducting a profession or not. We have to fall back upon the dictionary definition of the word "profession". According to the New English Dictionary,

1105
which is the greatest authority on the English language, a profession is thus defined:—
"Any calling or occupation by which a person habitually earns his living. Now usually applied to an occupation considered to be socially superior to a trade or handicraft."
It is evident that almost any occupation in the world would come under that heading.
The man who earns his living, let us say, by writing detective novels would be carrying on a profession. Perhaps I shall be told that this is reducing the matter to an absurdity and that such a livelihood cannot possibly be regarded as a profession under this Bill. But let us consider all sorts of callings which would apparently be professions for the purpose of the clause. Let us suppose that somebody had leased premises for the purpose of giving instruction in music, singing, dancing or acting. He is earning a livelihood by his occupation and he is therefore carrying on a profession. Take the case of an artist who is earning his livelihood by painting pictures. He also is carrying on a profession. The lady who has a manicuring establishment is carrying on a profession. The retired Army officer who, in order to supplement his income, takes in candidates for Woolwich or Sandhurst would also be earning his livelihood by his occupation and would be entitled to be considered as carrying on a profession. Those whom I have mentioned are carrying on perfectly genuine and reputable occupations, but there are all sorts of occupations that are more or less quack callings, and those who carry them on would have a perfect right to say that they were carrying on a profession.
Surely the object of adding professions to businesses and trades was that the Bill should apply to those learned and scientific professions which are absolutely essential to any civilised society—to lawyers, solicitors, doctors, dentists, surveyors and so forth. I submit that this definition will at any rate enable all those who are conducting what they would call artistic professions or occupations other than learned or scientific to be excluded from the Bill. I am not necessarily wedded to this particular definition. On the contrary, I am quite prepared to admit that a much better definition might be provided, and I would
1106
only say that if the Lord Chancellor is prepared to consider the possibility of a better definition than that which I have suggested I shall be very happy to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 14, at end insert ("A profession for the purpose of this section means the habitual and regular practice of a learned or skilled profession as the chief means of livelihood").—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
VISCOUNT SUMNER: My Lords, I wish to support the noble Duke's Amendment, and the more so because, having made an endeavour to add to, I will not say to improve, the Bill in Committee, and having been defeated, I confess my error and withdraw it in that form. I recognise that in that form it was unacceptable, but I think it is essential that there should be some attempt at definition, and that the difficulties of definition, which are not inconsiderable, ought not to satisfy us that it is not necessary. The real difficulty is to know why these words were originally put in. If one could be sure what the policy was, it would be very much easier to say what a profession within the scope of that scheme was meant to be. As the matter stands it appears to me that it will in every case be a question of fact whether or not premises are used for carrying on a profession. It will not depend on what the claimant chooses to call himself or to refrain from calling himself. It will be a question of the user of the premises, and then it will be necessary to determine whether the premises are premises used for carrying on a trade or for carrying on a profession or for carrying on neither.
If it had been intended that everything that is not a trade or business should be a profession, it would then be intelligible enough, but I do not think that it is so framed. I do not think that the words in paragraph (a) and the words in the proviso would ever have been chosen if the intention had been that all premises other than those used purely for pernoctation and bringing up your family were to be entitled to the benefit of claims for compensation. It is quite true that a profession is something which is not a trade or business, but I do not think that, on the wording of the clause, a profession is everything that is not a trade or business, and it is in

1107
that gap that a very considerable number of cases would be found which would be the subject of contention.
It is all very well to say, as was said of the General Strike, that you cannot define it, but that you would know it when you saw it; that a professional man is a man who is called a professional. This will not do. The clause surely does not apply to a professional cricketer. Actors always speak of "the profession" as if—and perhaps rightly—there were no other profession that very greatly mattered. But it is not in relation to these colloquial terms that the word is used, and I do not think that, in a clause which is intended to distinguish between those who do and those who do not get the benefit of the first Part of the Act, you should have to rely upon something that is used colloquially, perhaps in several colloquial senses. I refrain from touching upon the special cases that might arise. I think they largely belong to that particular class which the noble Duke mentioned—namely, artists and persons who practice the subordinate arts of healing. I think the person who X-rays you and produces an ambiguous and unattractive picture of what is supposed to be the state of your abdomen is a very good instance. He is a person whom no one, I think, would regard as a tradesman, and I do not think you would call him a business man. But if he belongs to a profession, what profession does he belong to? There are other cases that could be suggested without difficulty, and they amount to quite a considerable number, particularly in large cities.
Accordingly, I feel that, in default of a better, the Amendment of the noble Duke is one that I should cordially support. I recognise, as I gather that he recognises, that it is open to the objection that it is like defining an archdeacon as "an ecclesiastical personage who is charged with archidiaconal functions." But it is not at all uncommon in legal definition to introduce the word defined into the definition, and somehow it is made to work. Until I see something better, I certainly think it would be an improvement to the clause as it stands, upon the plain and simple ground that it would tend to reduce the number of disputes. If your real policy is to allow everybody to claim for improvements and
1108
it was thought that the terms "trade," "business" and "profession," were exhaustive of all occupations, that is a totally different matter; but in that case it should have been said that nobody should be disentitled to the benefit of this Part of the Act by reason of the fact that he did not carry on any trade or business.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should have thought that the intention of the words which are under discussion was fairly evident. The Bill prima facie applies to premises used for trade. It was pointed out that the same difficulty might occur in regard to premises used for professions. Instances will occur to all of us. Take the case of a doctor who wants to add a surgery to the house. Take the case of a schoolmaster who wants to add an extra classroom. Take the case of an artist who wants to add a studio. These are three instances, but they all provide cases where surely it is reasonable that, if it is desired to make an improvement of that kind, and if at the end of the term some value remains to the landlord, the tenant should have compensation for the unexhausted value of the improvement. That is the kind of case for which I apprehend the framers of this clause wish to provide. The professional man has no right in respect of goodwill, for reasons which we all know. The goodwill of a profession is personal goodwill, and is in no sense attaching to the property. That is the general meaning of the clause.
The noble Duke wants to go through the perilous process of defining "profession." He defines it as a profession which must be "learned or skilled." What profession is not learned or skilled? If you have an artist carrying on his profession as an artist, does anyone suggest that he is not skilled. He surely requires a good deal of skill. I do not think the words "learned or skilled" add anything to the word "profession," and I believe that they will raise rather difficult points for determination. Then the noble Duke proposes to provide that the profession must be carried on as the chief means of livelihood. Why is that? Are you to inquire whether the schoolmaster, or the artist, or the doctor has means of his own, on which he partly or perhaps mainly subsists? At the begin-
1109
ning it may be that he gets very little profit from his profession, and he may have to resort to his private income. Are you for that reason to cut him off from compensation if, having found the money for the classroom or the surgery, he leaves it? What sort of inquiry are you to conduct if you look into a man's private means, in order to see which is his chief means of livelihood? It seems to me that that would be not only dangerous, but unfair. The other qualification is that it must be "habitual and regular practice." There I have some sympathy with the noble Duke. I do not think that a studio or a house in which somebody paints a picture now and again ought to come within this clause. I would like to meet the noble Duke there, and if he agrees, and is prepared to withdraw his Amendment, I would move to insert in the proviso in subsection (3) the word "regularly."
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount, and in view of that concession I shall be prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: By leave of the House I will now move, in subsection (3), after the first "premises," to insert the word "regularly."
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 12, after ("premises") insert ("regularly".)—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19:
Provisions as to covenants not to assign, &c., without licence or consent.
19.—(1) In all leases whether made before or after the commencement of this Act containing a covenant condition or agreement against assigning, underletting, charging or parting with the possession of demised premises or any part thereof without licence or consent, such covenant condition or agreement shall, notwithstanding any express provision to the contrary, be deemed to be subject—

(a) to a proviso to the effect that such licence or consent is not to be unreasonably withheld;

(b) and if the lease is for more than forty years, and is made in consideration wholly or partially of the erection, or the substantial improvement, addition or alteration of buildings, and the lessor is
1110
not a Government department or local or public authority, or a statutory or public utility company, to a proviso to the effect that in the case of any assignment, underletting, charging or parting with the possession (whether by the holders of the lease or any under-tenant whether immediate or not) effected more than seven years before the end of the term no consent or licence shall be required, but notice in writing of the transaction shall be given to the lessor within six months after the transaction is effected.

(2) In all leases other than mining leases whether made before or after the commencement of this Act containing a covenant condition or agreement against the making of improvements without licence or consent, such covenant condition or agreement shall be deemed, notwithstanding any express provision to the contrary, to be subject to a proviso that such licence or consent is not to be unreasonably withheld; but this proviso does not preclude the right to require as a condition of such licence or consent the payment of a reasonable sum in respect of any damage to or diminution in the value of the premises or any neighbouring premises belonging to the landlord, and of any legal or other expenses properly incurred in connection with such licence or consent nor, in the case of an improvement which does not add to the letting value of the holding, does it preclude the right to require as a condition of such licence or consent, where such a requirement would be reasonable, an undertaking on the part of the tenant to reinstate the premises in the condition in which they were before the improvement was executed.
(3) In all leases other than mining leases whether made before or after the commencement of this Act containing a covenant condition or agreement against the alteration of the user of the demised premises, without licence or consent, such covenant condition or agreement shall, if the alteration does not involve any structural alteration of the premises, be deemed, notwithstanding any express provision to the contrary, to be subject to a proviso that no fine or sum of money in the nature of a fine, whether by way of increase of rent or otherwise, shall be payable for or in respect of such licence or consent; but this proviso does not preclude the right of the landlord to require payment of a reasonable sum in respect of any damage to or diminution in the value of the premises or any neighbouring premises belonging to him and of any legal or other expenses incurred in connection with such licence or consent.
Where a dispute as to the reasonableness of any such sum has been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, the landlord shall be bound to grant the licence or consent on such terms as the court considers reasonable.
(4) This section shall not apply to leases of agricultural holdings within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, and paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to mining leases.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1) to add to proviso (a), "but this proviso does not preclude the right of the landlord to require payment of a reasonable sum in respect of any legal or other expenses incurred in connection with such licence or consent". The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I have put down this Amendment, which was moved by Lord Harris in Committee, and which I promised to consider.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 40, after ("withheld") insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next two Amendment are intended to give effect to a promise given to Lord Phillimore who in the Committee stage moved an Amendment, and emphasised the view that there was no penalty for failure to give notice of an assignment. The effect of the Amendments will be that a covenant not to assign without consent will be subject to a proviso to the effect that in the case of an assignment effected more than seven years before the end of the term no consent is to be required if notice in writing of the transaction is given to the lessor within six months after the transaction is effected. If therefore there was an assignment and proper notice was not given, there would be a breach of the covenant, and the lessor would be entitled to all the remedies which are open to him for a breach of covenant. I have considered the possibility of a money penalty, and I do not think that that would meet the case, and therefore I propose to make these changes in the Bill.
Amendments moved—
Page 20, line 11, leave out ("but") and insert ("if").
Page 20, line 12, leave out ("shall be") and insert ("is").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD PHILLIMORE: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. His Amendments are in a very much neater form than mine, and I think they will effect what is required.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendments to this clause alter the form of some Amendments made at the request of Lord Sumner. They are only drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 20, line 15, leave out ("other than mining leases")
Page 20, line 36, leave out ("other than mining leases")
Page 21, line 13, leave out ("such terms as the court considers") and insert ("payment of the sum so determined to be")
Page 21, line 17, after ("subsection (1)") insert ("subsection (2) and subsection (3)")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 20 [Apportionment of rents]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, there is a verbal Amendment here.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 30, after ("payment") insert ("or any part thereof.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21:
Provisions as to tribunal.
21.—(1) The tribunal for the purposes of Part I of this Act shall be the county court within the district of which the premises or any part thereof are situated acting under and in accordance with this section:
Provided that—

(a) if before commencing proceedings in the county court the claimant or applicant and all persons affected agree that the claim or application should be heard by the High Court; or

(b) if on an application being made to the High Court within the prescribed time the matter is transferred to the High Court in accordance with and subject to the provisions of section one hundred and twenty-six of the County Courts Act, 1888;

a judge of the High Court without a jury shall, in respect of the matter, be the tribunal for the purposes of Part I of this Act.
(2) Where proceedings are commenced in the county court in respect of any claim or application under Part I of this Act, the matter shall, unless the parties otherwise agree, or it is otherwise prescribed, stand referred for inquiry and report to such one of the panel of referees appointed by the Reference Committee hereinafter mentioned as may be selected by the county court, as if with the consent of the parties the matter had been so referred to him in pursuance of section six of the County Courts Act, 1919.
(5) County court rules may be made for regulating proceedings under this section, and those rules may fix the remuneration of referees and may provide for applying, subject to the necessary adaptations and exceptions, to costs of proceedings in county courts under this section, the provisions of

1113
subsections (1), (2) and (3) of section five of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, relating to costs of proceedings under that Act.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON THE EARL OF MIDLETON moved, in subsection (1), after "The tribunal for the purposes of Part I of the Act shall," to insert "in cases where the total amount claimed is less than five hundred pounds, or where the annual value of the holding the subject of the application or claim, does not exceed one hundred pounds." The noble Earl said: My Lords, you will recollect that in Committee the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sumner, put up a very strong argument to the effect that, if the smaller cases went into the county court, there should be a limitation, and that the access direct to the High Court should be given for the larger cases. I think that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has to some extent admitted the force of this argument. He was very much afraid in Committee that the Court might be overladen with the cases which are to be brought up. To some extent, I think, that difficulty has been met by the concession which was made to Lord Dynevor an hour or two ago. But the Lord Chancellor has on the Paper a proposal which will no doubt be accepted, that, as in the county court so in the High Court, it shall be in the power of the Judge by rules to refer to the panel of referees in the first instance the investigation of these subjects, in order to avoid a trial before all the facts have been ascertained. That, I hope, would very greatly relieve both the High Court and the county court.
That having cleared away to some extent one of the main difficulties, I would really appeal to the noble and learned Viscount to consider whether the security of access to the High Court for the larger cases in the first instance, without the necessity either of agreement or of a motion made in the High Court, should not be given as a question of right. What I think is felt on this subject—and I am afraid that no argument will really shake that feeling—is that the county courts are in these matters of property and compensation extremely diverse in their rulings. It is well known in respect of the Rent Restrictions Acts, which bring in many cases which are very much akin to these cases, that the county
1114
court in one district gives always one class of decision, and the county court in another district gives another totally different class of decision; and really, however necessary it is that the smaller cases (if we accept the Lord Chancellor's view, in which he overruled us in the Committee) should go the county court it is very desirable that these larger cases, or cases which may develop in the course of hearing, should have access to the Supreme Court. They ought not until they actually come to trial to overload the Courts, because the whole of the preliminary work will be done, under the Judge, by the court of referees. The Amendment I am moving, I should add, is substantially that moved by Lord Sumner in Committee.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 4, after ("shall") insert ("in cases where the total amount claimed is less than five hundred pounds, or where the annual value of the holding the subject of the application or claim, does not exceed one hundred pounds").—(The Earl of Midleton.)
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Earl. It really simply is this: Are we primarily to put large cases in the High Court, or are we primarily to put them into the county court? I submit that primarily they should go into the High Court, and only exceptionally in the county court, except where they are willing to go into the county court. I also submit that in all probability in every large case, if there is any consent under paragraph (a), there will be an application under paragraph (b), and that is one extra piece of expense.
VISCOUNT SUMNER: My Lords, I beg to support my noble friend's Amendment. The fear is natural that the High Court may be overloaded with cases, the fear is natural also that the parties may be overloaded with costs, but I would like it to be borne in mind very carefully that there is also a very great danger of overloading the county courts, at any rate the county courts in the populous districts, especially where trade and manufactures are carried on. One ought to recollect that primarily county courts are instituted to be the poor man's courts. There is a constant flow of business, of the ordinary debt-collecting or small dispute character, which takes time, and often, if it is properly tried,

1115
takes a good deal of time, small as the amount is that is in dispute. If the County Court Judges are called upon, as they are called upon almost every Session, to undertake some fresh branch of jurisdiction, there is always a tendency to push on one side this small case work and refer it as much as possible to the registrar, and so make way for what appears to be a larger case which would take more time. It would be a very great pity if the county courts were choked. It would, of course, be possible to appoint more County Court Judges and build more county court buildings, but that is the sort of thing which was suggested as a reason for not sending the matter to the High Court. But if the local tribunals were not able to find time to give full attention to both, and if they were tempted or pressed to give the major part of their attention to this particular work it would have a lamentable result.
No one can tell how many cases there will be; no statistics appear to exist for guidance. The only thing that you can be quite confident about is, I think, that for some considerable time, until all the questions of law that can arise upon this quite complex subject have been authoritatively ruled on, solicitors will in selfdefence—and quite properly, too—recommend the clients who can afford it to endeavour to get questions of law carried as far as may be. I am perfectly certain that the result will be a large number of county court appeals to the Divisional Courts, with, of course, the possibility of a further appeal; whereas, if a case is tried by a Judge of the High Court in the first instance you get direct to the Court of Appeal, and you get the cases coming before the same Lords Justices, whereas, if they only go to Divisional Courts, their composition, with the Court going round the whole bench of Judges, may vary considerably. Time is saved, as the experience of the Workmen's Compensation Acts shows, if the appeals go direct to a tribunal which always has in its mind the exact state to which the different questions have been brought by legal decision.
I think therefore—but I agree it is a matter of speculation—that the balance is in favour of dividing the two classes of case by some line other than that of discretion in each particular case and endeavouring to foster rather than discourage
1116
the determination of them by the High Court in the first instance. When questions of law have been thoroughly settled only questions of fact will remain and there will be less likelihood not merely of appeals but even of any prolonged hearing by the County Court Judge, because if the law has been settled the referee, an intelligent man who follows these things, will say: "Those are the facts; I apply the law; the conclusion is so-and-so and I so report." I therefore hope the Lord Chancellor may be able to see his way—though I recognise the difficulties, because I know the matter has been considered already—to accept the noble Earl's Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment has been supported, as was to be expected, in very cogent and persuasive language, but I am afraid I am not in a position to agree to it. I wall give the House my reasons. It is of very great importance that if possible we should not increase the expense of these applications. We want to make them as inexpensive as possible so long, of course, as justice can be obtained. Consequently I think it is of importance to make the hearing where possible a local hearing, a hearing at or near the place where the question for decision arises, so that the parties can easily attend the court and not have to make the journey to London or incur the further expense of bringing their witnesses with them to London. There are many reasons why in cases of this kind, a local hearing is both more desirable and less expensive. If there is a big sum involved or a big question for decision either party can, under the Bill as it stands, apply for the case to be transferred to the High Court but in many cases, even where a sum exceeding £500 is involved, the parties may not wish to have the transfer made to the High Court.
They may have confidence in the County Court Judge. Many County Court Judges have very great experience and are trusted by all those who come within their jurisdiction. We have a County Court Judge who may be sitting in a great City like Liverpool, or Leeds, or Bristol. Are you to say the case shall not come before him in that county court,

1117
even although both the parties agree that it shall do so? That is the effect of this proposal. On the whole we greatly prefer to leave the Bill as it stands, and that unless the parties agree that they wish to go to the High Court, in which case they will go there, they should commence proceedings in the county court. Then either party may apply to the High Court to transfer the matter from the county court to that Court. My noble friend has spoken about overloading the High Court. There is also, he says, the risk of overloading the county court. The truth is that some county courts have plenty of time for this work; others are more hard pressed and I am often engaged in rearranging circuits so as, if possible, to distribute the work as evenly as may be. In cases where there is less time available we may have to consider this question and, if necessary, do something to grant relief. If much work is thrown upon the county court under this Bill then we shall have to consider the matter.
I have given my best thought to it and I really think the best and wisest course to pursue and the one which I am sure would be most popular with the great bulk of those interested, would be to leave the matter where it is and, in the absence of agreement, make the county court the prima facie tribunal, reserving power in the High Court to do what I am sure it will do in any proper case. I do not know if I have been able to persuade noble Lords, but I feel the best course will be not to press this Amendment.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, there is one point the noble Earl who moved this Amendment brought out, and I am afraid this particular Bill will emphasise it very much indeed. He said, which is unfortunately quite true, that a County Court Judge in one district will take a very different view from a County Court Judge in another district. Obviously and humanly it is likely that that would be so. County Court Judges keep in their own circuits; they do not meet each other with the frequency that the High Court Judges meet together, and there will always be a tendency for one man to take a particular view. After the first few appeals which will settle the law upon the matter, the rest of the decisions will be, as Lord Sumner said, decisions of fact, and for that reason there will be no real appeal to the Divisional Court because the Divisional Court will not review the opinion of the County Court Judge on pure questions of fact unless he has made some mistake in law. The result is you will have a tendency in one district to decide in one way and perhaps, in the next door district, to decide in another way. That surely must be far from satisfactory and, for the reasons that have been given and for that additional reason, I shall support this Amendment.
On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 18.

CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Lawrence, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Leconfield, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Novar, V.

Leigh, L.

Sumner, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Halsbury, E. [Teller.]

Phillimore, L.

Midleton, E.[Teller.]

Askwith, L.

Redesdale, L.

Morton, E.

Dynevor, L.

Wavertree, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Exeter, M.

Stanhope, E.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Beauchamp, E.

Haldane, V.

Cranbrook, E.

Peel, V.

Iddesleigh, E.

Sutherland, D.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Cushendun, L.

Onslow, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Bath, M.

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Lovat, L.

Southwark, L.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in accordance with the Standing Orders, I declare—semper praesumitur pro negante—the Amendment not carried.
Amendment (according to ancient rule) negatived.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the drafting Amendments which stand in my name.
Amendments moved—
Page 22, line 19, leave out ("a judge of")
Page 22, line 19, leave out ("without a jury")
Page 22, line 24, after ("Act") insert ("and are not transferred to the High Court").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "otherwise." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it will be noticed that it is stated in the Definition Clause on page 26, that the expression "prescribed" means prescribed by county court rules. The words in Clause 21 are "otherwise prescribed." There are hundreds of ways of prescribing things. It can be done, for instance, by Order in Council. It seems to me that the word "otherwise" is unnecessary. We have heard a great deal about unnecessary additions to the Bill, and, therefore, I hope that the Lord Chancellor will accept my Amendment and delete this unnecessary word. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 25, leave out ("otherwise").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, my noble friend will see from subsection (2) what the meaning of the subsection is; that is to say, when proceedings are commenced in the county court the matter will stand referred for inquiry and report to one of the panel of referees, and so on. There are only two cases in which it does not so stand. One is when the parties otherwise agree. If they agree it does not happen. The other is when it is otherwise prescribed. As the definition says, it is prescribed by the rules of the county court; that is, in order to exclude from automatic reference to the referees certain minor matters, such, for instance, as the question of the extension of time, and so on. In that case it would really be rather waste of time to send it
1120
to the referee, and it is much better dealt with by the County Court Judge. If the word "otherwise" is left out of the subsection I am afraid the words will not mean anything. It would simply read "or it is prescribed," and I do not quite know what those words would mean. With "otherwise" in there the words mean quite clearly what they are intended to mean, and, surely, it is for the convenience of all parties that in this case the matter should be dealt with at once by the County Court Judge. The word is not superfluous, as my noble friend has suggested it is, and I hope he will agree for the sake of security, lucidity and despatch to leave the word in the subsection.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: It still remains a fact that it could be done under Order in Council. If the noble Viscount will put in some limiting words on Third Reading I should be much obliged.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think it is already quite clear that it must be done under the rules of the county court.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Does the noble Viscount deny that "otherwise prescribed" could mean that it could be done under Order in Council?
VISCOUNT PEEL: It means otherwise than going before the referees.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Then it might say so.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think it does say so.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: "Prescribed" means prescribed by rules of the court and not by Order in Council.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: The words are "otherwise prescribed", and "otherwise" could mean that it could be done under Order in Council, clearly.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Viscount press his Amendment?
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: No.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (5), after the first "section", to insert "and for enabling any party to apply to the county court for directions as to the conduct of a reference under this section". The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is

1121
designed to meet a point raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Phillimore in Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 41, after ("section") insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I had intended to say that I was grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, but I think there are other people who will be still more grateful to your Lordships' House—namely, future landlords and tenants, who by this provision are saved from that almost uncontrolled passion for referees which seems to possess His Majesty's Government. This Amendment puts some check on that inordinate desire. I am quite satisfied in regard to the county court, but I am not quite satisfied with regard to the High Court. I do not altogether like the next Amendment on the Paper, the new subsection, and I may as well say what I think about it. I am not quite sure that it makes sufficient provision for direction, and I would submit to the noble and learned Viscount that he might still consider the possibility of inserting after the words "a judge thereof", which appear at the top of page 8 of the Marshalled List, the words "with any direction which may be deemed necessary" or "may be deemed to be expedient". If that were done, I think, both the High Court and the county court would be covered. As far as I can see that is the proper place to put in the words "any direction that may be deemed expedient". Perhaps an Amendment might be moved on Third Reading.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after subsection (6), to insert as a new subsection:—
"(7) Rules of the Supreme Court may be made regulating proceedings under this Act commenced in or transferred to the High Court and those rules may provide that on the hearing of a summons for directions, the court or a judge thereof may, without any application for the purpose being made by any party, order the matter to be referred for inquiry and report to such one of the said panel of referees as may be selected by the court or a judge thereof; and in any such case the referee so selected shall be deemed to be a special referee within the meaning of section eighty-eight of the Supreme Court of Judicature ("Consolidation) Act, 1925."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment says that
1122
"rules may provide that on the hearing of a summons for directions"—which is always issued—the Judge may without any application order a reference. Then it says that in such cases the referee selected shall be deemed to be a special referee. As at present advised I do not feel disposed to accept the words proposed by the noble and learned Lord, because the only effect would be that after every hearing there would be a discussion before the Judge before the reference was made. I would rather make the reference so far as possible automatic. When once the case is before the special referee application may be made for special directions. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will consider that. At present I prefer this method.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 16, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I am afraid that is exactly what I object to I object to the reference being made automatic. I thought that was the very thing we had intimated we desired should not be done. I want it to be considered, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, said on a previous occasion, that the Judge should settle the issues. I do not mean to say in every case. For myself I think that on the summons for directions the Judge or the Master who gives directions ought to be able in those directions not merely blankly to refer the matter to the referee but to give the referee some directions as to what he wants considered. Otherwise we get the referee let loose on landlords and tenants very much as before. As the noble and learned Viscount knows, I have been extremely engrossed in public duties and I have not had time to refer to the section of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, to which the Amendment refers. What I do want is that on every occasion somebody should think about something more than simply saying: "Which is the referee on the panel? Mr. Smith, let it go to him." I want the Master, if it be a Master, or the Judge, to have in his mind that he may have to give directions in the first instance, not directions later, after the referee has made up his mind, but directions to the referee in the first instance.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR had given Notice to move, after Clause 24, the following new clause:—
Mortgages.
" . No amount payable for compensation under this Act, whether secured by charge or not, shall rank in priority as against any sums or interest secured by a mortgage or other charge on any premises subject to the provisions of this Act, whether such mortgage or charge were created either before or subsequent to the date of the passing of this Act, unless at the date when the mortgage charge were entered into the charge for compensation had been registered."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, after the arrangement come to between the Lord Chancellor and the Earl of Halsbury on the question of mortgages, I will not move this Amendment now, but I will put it down again on Third Reading.
Second Schedule [Part I—Application to Crown and Duchy Land]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 28, line 22, leave out ("one") and insert ("fifteen")
Page 28, line 23, leave out ("1866") and insert ("1927")
—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, may I venture to ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House whether it is proposed to adjourn for a short period? If he will allow me to say so, he seems to have conducted the business to-day in a way singularly disregardful of the convenience of the House. The sitting began at an unusually early hour, and though we were more fortunate than on the last occasion, when some of us did not get our Papers, nevertheless eleven o'clock is an unusual hour to meet. I tried through the usual channels to ascertain what steps the noble Marquess proposed to take with regard to the adjournment, but I was unable to get any information until a short time ago. Those of us who are interested in later Bills have been kept waiting about unable to go away and get that refreshment which is not unusual between 8.30 in the morning and shall I say three o'clock in the afternoon, because we are faced with the prospect of remaining at
1124
any rate until three o'clock. I do not know whether the noble Marquess means to give us any relief or any opportunity of having refreshment before three o'clock.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I have the greatest sympathy with the noble Earl. I have a feeling in a certain part of my anatomy which makes me very sympathetic to him. I am quite agreed that it would be much more convenient if we could adjourn for lunch, but I hope the House will not share the noble Earl's criticism. After all, eleven o'clock is not an unusually early hour. I am quite certain that a man of the noble Earl's energy rises a long time before that and that it does not interfere with his later sleep at all. I do not think that was a very poignant criticism. As regards the remaining business, I am going to make a suggestion to the noble and learned Viscount and to the noble Earl. I do not know whether they will accept it. If we were to postpone the Second Readings of the other Bills on the Paper at this moment we might have difficulty in getting through the other stages of the Bills in time for their consideration in another place in case your Lordships thought fit to amend them, but it is not unusual in your Lordships' House when occasion serves that a sort of Second Reading discussion should take place upon the Motion that the House resolve itself into Committee. I venture to suggest that your Lordships might pass the remaining Bills on the Paper without discussion, it being understood that if you think fit to raise a discussion on the Motion to go into Committee when the Bills are put down, the Government will raise no objection. Indeed they could not raise an objection, because it is your Lordships' right to do so, but we shall look upon that as a reasonable procedure. May I say how very sorry I am to have taken any course this morning which is unwelcome to the noble Earl because I recognise that in all matters relating to the business of the House he is most helpful.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am much obliged to the noble Marquess, but I think he has missed the point of my charge. It was that we were not told what the Government proposed to do. I did not know that we were going to sit

1125
through until it was too late to go away and make preparations in regard to later Bills. I quite recognise that we do sometimes have Second Reading discussions on the Motion to go into Committee, but there is one difficulty connected with the Road Transport Lighting Bill. There will be a number of Amendments put down to that Bill, and it is against the rules of order to put down Amendments before the Second Reading has been carried.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There will be no difficulty about that because the Second Reading will have been carried. The Bill will stand for amendment and Amendments can be put down and will be printed on the Paper in the ordinary way. The only thing is that upon the Motion to go into Committee there can be a general discussion, which will not interfere with other procedure.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I had always understood that it was improper for Amendments to be put down before your Lordships' House had agreed to the Second Reading, but if that is not so—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Second Reading will have been agreed to, if the noble Earl and your Lordships are willing to take the course that I suggest, but there will still be a further step, not allowed in another place but very common in your Lordships' House—namely, a discussion upon the Motion to go into Committee.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, there is not the least difficulty about this course. I have known it to be adopted before, and I hope that the House will assent to it, because it is the only one that suits our convenience.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am afraid that I did not understand the point. I understood that the noble Marquess meant that we should take the Second Readings on another occasion, and that would have caused difficulty, but, in view of what he has said, I have no objection to offer.

MENTAL DEFICIENCY BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (LORD CUSHENDUN): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Cushendun.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROAD TRANSPORT LIGHTING BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SHERIFF COURTS AND LEGAL OFFICERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Duke of Sutherland, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past two o'clock.