COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 17 June 1890 vol 345 cc1202-42

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.

Clause 1.

(7.48.) THE CHAIRMAN

I desire to point out that owing to an accident the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Waddy), which stood first on the Paper last night, has been placed on the Paper for this evening in its wrong place, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) having been put in the first position. Therefore it is necessary to take the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brigg first, although that of the hon. Member for Sunderland will come on for discussion at the same time, inasmuch as they both involve the question of giving the County Councils the option of varying the use of the money which the Bill proposes to place at their disposal from the purpose stated in the Bill. If that question be decided in the negative on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brigg, the hon. Member for Sunderland's Amendment must fall with it. The second Amendment of the hon. Member for Sunderland, and that of the hon. Member for the Launceston Division (Mr. C. Acland) belong more properly to a later clause. The Amendment of the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd-George) is out of order, the question having been practically decided last night. Some other Amendments to the 1st clause relate to later clauses, and therefore will be out of order on the first. I would, however, add that although the Amendments of the hon. Members for Brigg and Sunderland are in order, a good deal of the ground they take up has already been covered by the Debate on the Amendment for Rotherham. The main point to be discussed is whether the money provided by the Bill should or should not be given exclusively for the purchase of licences, and much of that ground has already been covered by previous debate.

(7.50.) MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

Am I to understand that if it be decided on, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brigg, that there should be no option, my Amendment falls to the ground? Would it not, then, be competent to me to move a third use of the money as a subsequent Amendment? At present the Bill proposes to give the County Councils £350,000 for a certain purpose, £350,000 more for another purpose, and the residue for their own purposes. Will it not be competent to me to move that a further sum of £50,000 or £100,000 should be applied for the purpose of extending the amount of 1d. in the £1, which is at present allowed for the adoption of free libraries?

THE CHAIRMAN

If the residue be sufficient to cover the amount so to be allocated the hon. Member might no doubt make that proposal.

(7.51.) MR. WADDY (Lincolnshire, Brigg)

I rise, Sir, to move the Amendment I have placed on the Paper, namely, at the end of line 19 of Clause 1, page 1, to insert the following words:— Or if the County Councils shall so determine, any part of the said sum of £350,000 may be applied in England in relief of the School Board rates, or of the fees payable by or on behalf of the children in elementary Schools aided by the State in such proportion as the County Councils may determine. I have listened with attention to the observations which you, Sir, have made as to how far this is, and how far it is not, a reasonable Amendment, and how far the principle of my Amendment has been anticipated by the discussion which has already taken place. I shall endeavour, as closely as I possibly can, to follow the course which you. Sir, have indicated, and to say as little as possible on that portion of the question which has already been covered. But it will be impossible for me entirely to avoid touching on matters that have already been referred to, for this reason: that we on this side of the House—at all events, the majority of us, some of us expressing our views and others not expressing them in consequence of a certain pact that we have made—the majority of us, I say, probably consider that the whole thing from beginning to end is as bad as bad can be. But I will not pursue this point any further; it is settled and done with; and at present we are in this position: that the sum of £350,000 which is provided for by this Bill is to be taken and allotted, either for the benefit of the public houses, or in some other way, according to one or other of the Amendments upon the Paper. I am sincere in what I have to say with regard to the Government. I asked a question of the leader of the House a short time ago which he would not answer. I did not ask that question disrespectfully, but for the purpose of ascertaining when it was that, in his own mind, he anticipated we should probably rise. The right hon. Gentleman did not answer that question because, no doubt, it was a very difficult question to answer at that time, but now I want to suggest to my right hon. Friend opposite, the President of the Local Government Board, that, after all, the course I am about to propose to him may save the Government an enormous amount of time and labour should they be disposed to adopt it. They are at the present moment committed to a Bill which I truly believe in their own inmost hearts they are very sorry they ever touched, and thereby they are committed to the fighting of principles which they do not like. The differences which have already manifested themselves among the Government supporters on the opposite Benches may be taken as strongly indicative of the views of their own Party; and I put it to the Government, is it not possible that they may take a weapon even from our side of the House? If they were to accept this Amendment it would get them clear of all the difficulty, or of a great portion of the difficulty, which still remains. And I will tell you why, apart from the ridiculous position of the Aldermen on the County Councils, the country generally would, undoubtedly, have perfect confidence in the way which those bodies would administer the powers and duties conferred upon them by this Bill. It may be that in some model districts where there are not too many public houses there would be little need of the exercise of the purchasing power, while there may be many other districts in which the state of things is so bad that a number of those houses ought to be immediately extinguished. What in those cases are the County Councils to do? Each of these bodies is entitled to its proper share of this £350,000, but the major portion of them do not want the money for public house purposes, and are unable to apply it to any other source that would be of real advantage What, then, are they to do? In the division which I have the honour to represent the County Council, although largely composed of the Conservatives of North Lincolnshire, has already actually passed a vote opposed to the carrying out of this Bill. Why then, I ask, are they on the one hand to lose the benefit of the application of this money to purposes of which they approve, and why, on the other hand, should they be compelled to devote it to purposes of which they disapprove? Well, Sir, my Amendment gives the Government the opportunity of saying, "Here is a certain amount of money to be devoted to some purpose;" and I say to the Government, "Do not fasten yourselves so absolutely to the chariots of the big brewers. Give yourselves some opportunity of taking a better course. Give your friends some chance of acting in accordance with their own views." We ask the Government to say that these bodies shall not be compelled to apply the money, as it is not really needed; to say that they are not going to select particular places or to make any particular choice, but that they propose to leave the choice generally to the County Councils, who know best what is most wanted. We ask you, in point of fact, to say that, having created these bodies, having been the means of calling them into existence, you will give them the opportunity of saying to what purpose this money shall be applied, although there can be no objection to the imposition of some kind of limitation, such as, say, for instance, the money shall not be allowed to be used for the purpose of public parks or objects of amusement and recreation, but that it shall be applied to some good and useful purpose. It is for this reason that we ask you to accept this Amendment. The objects I have mentioned will probably, not all of them, commend themselves to hon. Members on this side of the House. I say, however, the Amendment is as good as, under the circumstances, I can undertake to make it, and I ask the Committee to accept it on that principle. I propose that this money shall be given partly in relief of the children's pence. I know perfectly well there are several Members on this, side of the House who will say I am simply anticipating free, or rather assisted, education. Some Members will say, "Give all the money to the rates," and others will say, "Do not give any of it to the rates." It is just possible there may be found off the Government Bench a few who think it had better be given to the public houses. With regard to the children's pence, I think the Government had better accept the Amendment. I think they had better not let it be said at the next General Election—which may be adjourned for some time, but which, sooner or later, will come down upon, them as surely as fate or death—that when there was a choice in this House between giving the money to drink and giving it to the children, if the County Council desired it, they said, "We will have the drink, the whole drink, and nothing but the drink." I advise them to put away this cup from their lips. The cry they are preparing against themselves by opposing this Amendment will do them great harm, and a perfectly legitimate instinct of self-preservation may induce them to say that, on the whole, they think they had better accept an Amendment like this. The Amendment, if adopted, will not hinder the County Council from laying out the whole of the money, if they like, on public houses. There is nothing whatever in the Amendment which calls upon them to divide the £350,000 into three equal parts and to give one to each purpose mentioned. If the County Council find when they get the money that the best way of expending it, and the most useful for morality and for the people generally, is to buy up licences, there is nothing in my Amendment to hinder them from using it in that way. By accepting this Amendment, all the Government do is to say that the County Council knows better than they do, having local knowledge, how the money may best be spent in their own locality, and being able to deal with the question intelligently, honestly, and fairly. If they refuse this Amendment, it amounts to this: that they are prepared to say to the whole of the County Councils of this country, "We do not believe either in your honesty or your intelligence." I apprehend that will be a very strong thing to say. No doubt, if there has been some previous arrangement which ties the Government to their own proposal in spite of everything, they will have to carry this ridiculous Bill as it stands. We offer them the opportunity of giving the County Councils power to spend on the public houses every single farthing they will get if they think it wise. If the County Councils say they do not want the money for this purpose, why should Gentlemen opposite say that money which is not wanted for public houses should, nevertheless, go to public houses? Supposing that the County Councils say that they do not want this money for enfranchising', or extinguishing, or purchasing, or compensating the licencee of public houses, what follows? Why, we propose that the County Councils, who, it may be presumed, know the wants of their districts, should be entitled to hand the money over in relief of children's pence to people who are absolutely unable to find the money for the education of their children. If there is one thing standing in the way of education in this country and making it unpopular, it is the, perhaps, necessary and inevitable harshness with which the law has to be administered now and then with regard to the poorest of the poor. We are told by a distinguished person in this country that he has a notion of introducing as soon as he can, before his term of office expires—and I am afraid, under the circumstances, he will have to be very quick—something in the nature of free education or assisted education. That will be a bold stroke when it is done, and you must remember that when you have given that stroke you can never retract. You will be taking a leap in the dark of a very serious character, involving an enormous expenditure of money. See, then, what an opportunity this proposal of mine offers you for making an experiment without taking this serious leap in the dark. The opportunity is one that you ought to be extremely glad to avail yourselves of. You can here make an experiment—a small one—in the direction of paying school pence and freeing or assisting education, which will serve to give you experience. The more I consider this pro-proposal of mine the more am I impressed with the fact that I am the greatest benefactor the Government have ever had. I come to them with my hands full of gifts, and nothing but what theologians call "obstinate impenitence" induces them to refuse these gifts. We heard from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board last night, in opposition to the views enunciated by the hon. Member for Rotherham, his objection to the application of the principle of subvention to anything but a public house. It is said, "The amount you propose to give to education is too small to be of any use." Well, that is a very dangerous proposition to set up, because if it is a very small amount to contribute to children's pence, it is a much smaller amount to give for the purchase of publican's licences. If it is inadequate for the purpose of sending a few children to school, it is very much more inadequate for dealing with the quantity of licences you propose to deal with—so inadequate, in fact, as to lead to the pretty general belief that your true object is not to pass a practical and useful measure for the purchase of licences, but to lay down a principle which will be binding on us and on yourselves. The principle of the Amendment is already in the Bill itself, because, under the 2nd clause, £40,000 is to be, applied in relief of school fees in Scotland, and in the 3rd clause a portion of Ireland's share of the duties is to be paid to the Commissioners of National Education. If such, an application of the money is good for Scotland and Ireland, surely it is good for England. Why should these distinctions be drawn between the one country and the other? I maintain that this country is not a bit better educated than are Scotland and Ireland; why, then, are you going to subsidise Scotland and Ireland and leave England out in the cold? There has been some talk about money coming from spirits going to spirits; but there is a distinct fallacy in that argument, for money coming from spirits goes to the payment of education in Scotland and Ireland, and I submit that, having acknowledged that principle in the case of those countries, you are bound to acknowledge it in the case of England. If not, you must make out a case for the exception, which, as yet, you have not attempted to do. The measure, as a matter of fact, is purely a patchwork one. Its main object is to give something to the public house keepers, but it has a fringe designed to conceal that object, which is of the most illogical character. If you will not give the whole of this money to education, divide it between the publicans and the children, but do not let it go forth that the one thing dear to your heart is the adequate payment of the public house keeper. Last night the President of the Local Government Board said he objected to giving away money for any other purpose because we have already passed a Resolution indicating that the money is all to be devoted to one object. But there are alternative objects before the Committee; and is it to be said that, whenever alternative proposals are put forward in a measure and the House chooses the first of these, it shall not be competent to go on to the second and propose as a compromise that both objects shall be secured? The only other objection to my proposal is one which it does not lie in the mouths of the Government to make. The President of the Local Government Board last night stated distinctly that there is an objection to handing over this money to a National Council—as was proposed in the case of the Principality of Wales—as distinguished from a Local Authority. His righteous soul revolted against anything that might seem even distantly to savour of Home Rule. I do not think it reasonable, but I can understand the right hon. Gentleman's objection. It is true the Government have not given us National Councils for Ireland, Wales, or Scotland, but there is one thing they have done: they have given us County Councils, and have told us that those bodies are admirably well adapted for dealing with these matters. When the Government first brought in the Local Government Bill, under which the County Councils are now operating throughout the length and breadth of the land, they themselves declared with great effusion and earnestness that this licensing question of all others was the one the County Councils were fittest to deal with, and it does not lie in their mouths to object to conferring the powers I propose on these Councils. We know why they backed out of their original proposal, as they did out of the Wheel and Van Tax and out of their proposals as to sugar; but we say to them, "You have now an opportunity of doing to a limited and tentative extent that which you were anxious to do in 1888. Give to the County Councils—your own offspring, the children of your own bringing up—the very duties and responsibilities which your leading men in 1888 declared that It was a right and proper thing to entrust them with." This proposal is not unreasonable and not illogical. I offer the Government the opportunity of doing this in the interests of temperance. If there is one thing more than another which conduces to temperance, it is a good, sound education; therefore, I claim that my Amendment is in the interest of education, and that such being the case, it should commend itself to the Government. It will please us, as it will be something like a rift in the cloud, and will give us an opportunity of escaping from the consequences of a Bill which, between ourselves, is an abomination. It will be very much to the benefit of the people—which is a thing you care more about than pleasing us. It will be in favour of the County Councils as showing your confidence in them, and, lastly—and this is the strongest reason, of all—it will be in favour of yourselves. If this be carried I verily believe that it will disarm the opposition to the Bill from this side of the House almost entirely. I, for one, should be prepared to say that, bad as the Bill is, I would listen to the pathetic appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the House, who not only urges, but entreats us not to oppose a measure which we believe to be horrible. By accepting my Amendment the Government will take from us the opportunity of saying what we undoubtedly shall say throughout the country in the absence of such an Amendment, namely, that when in the stress of their difficulties we offered them fairly and openly this opportunity of saving themselves from getting entirely in the hands of the publicans and of enabling the County Councils to do something useful with this money, they declined to allow it to be spent usefully, or on any thing which would war with the interests of their pets—the publicans. I do not look at this matter from a Party point of view, although I declare that from such an aspect I wish you would refuse this Amendment, because, in that case, the gain to us would be very great. Already the rift between ourselves and some of our friends who used to work with us earnestly and energetically in times gone by is beginning to close. Already in that section of our Party which has left us there is another rift beginning to manifest itself more and more clearly. Already the consequences of this absolutely insane attempt at legislation has been that you have been flooded with Petitions to an extent almost unparalleled. When you have an opportunity of escaping from your folly you will not seize it. It will be batter for us as a Party if you persevere with your Bill, if you continue to bring back to our standard right through the length and breadth of the land, hundreds and thousands of men who voted against us at the last Election, but who will never do so again as long as this Bill is not only fathered, but is pushed through by main force, although the force is becoming less and less main force with every Division. You will do to us as a Party more good by pressing forward this Bill than we can do for ourselves by anything we can devise. It will be in vain for you to talk of obstruction. The country will sanction, and will be delighted with any amount of legitimate obstruction which we can put in the way of the passing of this measure, and we shall put such obstruction in the Bill's way. Behind all your bravado we know what your intelligence teaches you, and I ask you, for your own sake as well as for the sake of the country, to accept this Amendment while there is time.

Amendment proposed,

In page 1, line 19, after the word "mentioned," to insert the words "or if the county councils shall so determine, any part of the said sum of £350,000 may he applied in England in relief of the School Board rates, or of the fees payable by or on behalf of the children in elementary schools aided by the State in such proportion as the county councils may determine."—(Mr. Waddy.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'or if the county councils shall so determine' be there inserted."

(9.5.) THE SECRETARY OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG, Wilts,) Devizes

The proposal of the hon. Member for the Brigg Division is one on behalf of which a great deal might be said on its merits, but the Committee is not now concerned in discussing free or assisted education on its merits. The hon. Gentleman has given the Committee his views on the present condition of the working classes in reference to the cost of the education of their children, and has suggested to the Government that it would be desirable if a portion of this fund could be devoted to purposes of assisting education in the country. Well, the Committee is aware of the fact that announcements have already been made in reference to the question of assisted or free education, and I venture to submit to the hon. Gentleman that his proposal will not go any considerable distance towards, relieving the working classes from the difficulties under which they labour in this respect. But I do not propose to discuss the question of free education now. Whether it be good or bad, I look forward to the opportunity Parliament will have of considering the question upon adequate and definite proposals. But I would suggest to opponents of these clauses who are fond of making references to the increasing difficulties of the Government in connection with this measure—statements easily made in regard to this or any other measure—that they should consider their own position. I have a very shrewd suspicion that hon. Gentlemen opposite are getting into far greater difficulties themselves, because, in their extreme desire to attack the Bill, they approach it from so many different points that it is impossible for them to be united, expect in a general spirit of hostility to the Bill. One of the chief arguments advanced against the measure is that the sum of money proposed is ludicrously insufficient for the purpose of extinguishing licences. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) gave us last night the result of some interesting calculations he had made, by which he arrived at the exact sums which he said would be distributed to various districts. But this money is to be spread over the whole country; there is no special share to town or village, forming an unit in the whole area over which the sum is to be distributed. But the contention is, that the money we propose for the purpose is ludicrously insufficient, and, therefore, our proposal ought not to be entertained by Parliament. Well, but surely it is 10 times more insufficient for the purposes the hon. Member for the Brigg Division has recommended. He does not even propose that the whole sum of £360,000 should be devoted to the subject of his Amendment. Even if Parliament were to accept the hon. Member's proposal, and the County Councils were to act upon it, what would be the practical result? In certain parts of the country, in a very limited number of cases, there would be assisted or free education, while everywhere else the present system would prevail. I therefore submit, in the first place, that the money is inadequate for the purposes of the hon. Member, and, in the second place, even were the hon. Member's proposal accepted, it would do very little good for the cause he has at heart, namely, free education. The good it would do would make no real mark on the difficulties; it would only accentuate those difficulties in a great many districts by the relief afforded in a very limited number of cases. The hon. Gentleman said the Government had already proposed to devote a certain portion of this money to assisted education in Scotland; but the hon. Gentleman will remember that distinction has already been made in the case of Scotland in the Local Government proposals passed by the House dealing with Scotland. Everybody knows the conditions of education in Scotland differ from those which exist in this country, and the proposals in the Bill with regard to Scotland make no greater distinction between this country and Scotland than already exists. Does any hon. Member who supports this Amendment ask us to believe that the proposal is really made in the interest of the Bill? ["No."] I am glad to have that admission; it is what I expected and desired. Undoubtedly, the desire of hon. Members opposite is to wreck this Bill. ["No; to improve it."]

SIR W. LAWSON (Cumberland, Cockermouth)

Only the Compensation Clauses.

MR. LONG

Of course, I mean to wreck the licensing clauses. We are justified in the belief that the Amendment is directed to the wreckage of those clauses rather than to the improvement of the measure. Our desire is not in that direction. In the course of his speech the hon. and learned Member for Brigg spoke of the want of intelligence on the part of members of the Government; but if our intelligence is to be estimated by our acceptance or non-acceptance of this Amendment, I am afraid we must continue under his displeasure, and be liable to the description he has given. The proposal contained in the Amendment would only have a very partial effect, and would serve no particular end. The money available is totally inadequate to secure the object aimed at by the hon. Member for Brigg. Without saying a word against the principle of freeing the poorer classes from the burden of school fees I must, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, oppose this Amendment, because it is directed against the Bill, and because, if adopted, it would not effect the object which it pretends to have in view.

(9.10.) MR. STOREY

The hon. Gentleman has indulged in the usual "Pecksniffian" statement that occupants of the Front Bench opposite are burning with anxiety to secure the advantages of education to the poorer people of this country.

MR. LONG

I said I had no desire to contest in any way the sentiments expressed as to the advancement of education.

MR. STOREY

Now, I am disposed to test these allegations. Are the Government really anxious for the cause of education or not? Here is a chance—here is a sum of money which is now at the disposal of the Government, or may be, and the Government have the alternative of providing a fund for the endowment of public houses, or of employing the money, or part of it, as my hon. Friend proposes, for the payment of school fees of poor children in our large towns. The hon. Gentleman says the amount of money in question being ludicrously insufficient, as we allege, to endow public houses——

MR. LONG

No.

MR. STOREY

The hon. Gentleman surely does not remember what he said. That the amount of money being, as we allege, ludicrously insufficient for the endowment of public houses—for the purpose proposed in this Bill—therefore, it is much more insufficient for the purpose of providing for the fees of poor children.

MR. LONG

The hon. Member attributes to me a form of words I did not use. I said an argument used by hon. Gentlemen opposite was that our proposal ought not to be accepted, because the money was inadequate for the purpose; and I said that if hon. Members made that a ground of objection to our proposal, then much more did such an objection apply to the proposal in the Amendment. I did not adopt the suggestion that the amount of money is ludicrously insufficient for the purpose we propose.

MR. STOREY

Quite so; the hon. Gentleman said the inadequacy was greater in regard to this Amendment. On that I wish to meet the hon. Gentleman with figures. Although the £350,000 will be inadequate for the object the Bill proposes, it would be fairly adequate for the purpose suggested in the Amendment. For instance, the amount to be allocated to the town of Sunderland would be about £1,200 a year, and this, though ludicrously inadequate for the purpose of buying up public houses, would pay the school fees, of 1,500 children out of the 12,000 children in Board schools—a number which fairly represents the proportion whose parents require assistance^ in this matter. So, I say, this sum, paltry as it is, would break the back of the practical difficulty we have in Sunderland, a difficulty, we feel most keenly in bad times, and which is present even in good times. It is a most unpleasant thing for poor parents to go before the School Board, in some instances to go before the Board of Guardians, to plead for exemption from the payment of their children's school fees. All the answer we can give them when they complain is, "It is the law; we have no other method by which you can get relief." But here is a method. The Government have the money in their pouch, and to our request the only answer they will give is that the amount is ludicrously inadequate. I show you an instance in which the amount is not insufficient, and it is my belief that the amount placed at the disposal of County Councils, throughout England would be adequate, in many instances, for the purpose we have in view. Let me ask hon. Gentlemen to look at this matter from the point of view and position of a northern artisan. What would be the idea among his fellows if such a man, having an increase in his wages barely sufficient for the maintenance of his family, devoted that increase to such extravagances as that class fall into, instead of devoting it to improving the food and condition of his wife and family? He would be censured for his folly and want of thrift. Yet the Govern- ment, with this money at their disposal, insist that it shall be used in a manner that is universally condemned by the working classes. It is to be used in utter defiance of the opinion of all the people concerned. I will not go so far as to prophecy what any particular County Council may do; but I will say, from my knowledge of feeling in the North, and I think other Members will confirm me, that, generally speaking, County Councils will not use this money which is to be forced upon them for purposes such as the Bill indicates. The Government have public money at their disposal, and worthy objects on which to employ it. They know that the object to which they propose to apply it is one with which the County Councils in large districts will have nothing to do, and yet they try deliberately to force on Parliament the employment of the money in this particular direction. For my part, I have been taught ever since I was young that when you get a surplus of money you ought to spend it wisely and worthily, and for the best objects. We do not regard the Government object as a good object, and we consider the alternative objects suggested in this Amendment as more valuable. So much for the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Brigg. You, Sir, were good enough to tell me that the particular Amendment which I have suggested was one that must fall with the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I confess I do not quite see why that should be so; but one must not compete with masters of legions, and I, therefore, accept the ruling which, doubtless, in good time you will give. But I hope I shall be in order in explaining that the Amendment I wished to propose was not in antagonism to that of my hon. Friend—it was rather supplementary. It sought to provide that, if the County Councils so determined, the money might be employed for the establishment and maintenance of free libraries and museums. As an argument against the Amendment of my hon. Friend, it might be urged that the County Councils have at present nothing to do with education, although we hope that shortly those duties will be entrusted to them. But it cannot be denied that the County Councils have the right—and the sole right—to deal with the question of museums and libraries. I apprehend there is no Member in this House who would not be willing to see a free library in every town and in every village, and a public museum in all the large centres of population. What prevents that end being attained at the present time is not the lack of willingness on the part of the people, but a lack of funds at their disposal. It may be alleged that on numerous occasions in the past the ratepayers of towns have, on a poll, decided against the establishment of a free library. I confess with shame and sorrow that that has sometimes been the case, and, that being so, I think it is incumbent on Parliament to do what it can to' improve the mind of the people on this subject. Still, considerable progress has been made in this matter. I hold in my hand a Return made as long ago as February, 1885, which shows that at that time there were no fewer than 99 places in England where free libraries had been established. Since that date there has been a very large increase in the number of places in which they have been established, and, probably, there are in England at the present time more than twice 99. In Scotland, in 1885, there were only 11 places in which there were free libraries, and in Ireland only four or five, but doubtless in the two sister islands there has also been a considerable improvement. How does the law stand as to the money which the Municipal Authorities may employ for free libraries. They are limited to expending 1d. in the £ on the rateable value. I never could see why the Legislature should have-imposed such a limit, and I think that as the Government have so much superfluous time and energy at their disposal they might utilise it in removing that limit. At present, as I have said, municipalities can only spend 1d. in the £1.

MR. POWELL WILLIAMS (Birmingham, S.)

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I may point out that the sum has been altered in some cases, and notably in the case of Birmingham.

MR. STOREY

I was just going to reinforce my argument by drawing attention to the case of Birmingham. It is a fact that a few years ago Birmingham, and several other municipalities, by special local Acts, extended the limit of a 1d. rate, and many others would have been, no doubt, as likely to do so had not my right hon. Friend, who is nothing if not extremely accurate in his dealings with the Committee charged with such matters—I mean the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton—induced them to agree with him that none of the Committees dealing with private Acts should in future give to municipalities any power exceeding the powers of a general Act of Parliament. Now, what is the case in Sunderland, which I have the honour to represent in this House I Sunderland, which was one of the first towns in the country to adopt the Free Libraries Act, is considerably hampered by that limit of Id., and can-Dot buy the more expensive books they think necessary. A penny in the £1 there produces £1,700 a year. We built out of the rates a very handsome library building, and, after paying the interest on the Sinking Fund and other charges, we are seriously crippled. Our people read the books with avidity, and if the Government would only give us the money they are now going to so vilely misuse we would show what a progressive Radical town in the North can do. The Town Council if Sunderland will not apply 1d. of this money to the purposes of buying up public houses, which they have another way of getting rid of, and the result will be that the Government will be putting this money by in a stocking, and it will be used for no beneficial purpose whatever. We know quite well that we are not discussing this matter for the sake of argument. We do not expect to be argued with. We do not want to be argued with. We know exactly what is being meted out to us. We may argue and we may convince the consciences of hon. Members opposite, but we know that, by-and-by, they will vote us down. For my part, I give the Government fair notice that we shall continue to oppose this Bill. I call the action of the majority in voting us down without argument, brutally un-Parliamentary. By discussion you may take the words of the complaint and condemnation out of our mouths. But you sit still. You listen to what we say; you may think in your hearts that what we say is right, but you add—you supporters of the Ministry add—"We must vote with the Government." If you treat us in this way, I give you fair notice, you shall never get a vote until you compel the Division by the power vested in the Chair. And then, of course, we shall be twitted with obstruction.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order!

MR. STOREY

If we are twitted with obstruction on these grounds, I shall frankly reply that I have obstructed in this matter, and that I will obstruct. When I once make up my mind, and state a thing, hon. Members know I generally mean it. I have obstructed this Bill, and I will obstruct it by every means in my power, and the Front Opposite Bench have nothing to do with this action of mine.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The hon. Member must address himself to the Amendment.

MR. STOREY

The proposal of this Amendment is to secure the spending of this money for the education of poor children, instead of for the endowment of public houses, and I was complaining that the Government had not argued this matter. This question was not before the country at the last General Election; it was not even mentioned in the Queen's Speech. So far as we know, the great body of the people are opposed to it, and I think it is the duty of independent Members like myself to force matters until the Government are compelled to go back to the constituencies whom they are so deceiving.

(9.50.) MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

I have no doubt that the hon. Member who has just delivered a speech, characterised by no great delicacy of language, has passed much time in, but has not derived much improvement from, free libraries and museums. In the town I represent may be found one of the best institutions of the kind in the North of England. I wish the hon. Gentleman would have delivered such a speech as we have just heard before an audience of the working' men of that town. I do not think it would have been well received.

MR. STOREY

I will come whenever the hon. Member invites me.

MR. POWELL

If his own political friends will invite him I will do my best to secure for him a fair hearing. He has complained of the inadequacy of the sum at present devoted to the maintenance of free libraries. Now, we have in Wigan a splendid library, the first collection of books being the result of private beneficence. The building in which it is stored was a gift, and yet, notwithstanding that double munificence, the amount of 1d. in the £1 was found to be inadequate; last year, therefore, the borough came to Parliament and the limit was extended to 2d. This is being done by other boroughs year after year, and it is a duty which the Police and Sanitary Committee is frequently called on to perform. Now, there is a Bill before the House, introduced by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London, which has for its object the extension of the limit; and I should like to know what assistance the hon. Member opposite has given in its promotion. Has he used his influence with any of his friends to prevent its progress being objected to after midnight? So long as he remains passive in that matter I think we are entitled to interpret his views on this Amendment in the light of his conduct in regard to that Bill. I wish to see the Bill of my right hon. Friend carried. I wish to see free libraries established throughout the length and breadth of the country. Great progress has been made in the past, and I hope still greater progress will be made in the future. This seems to me to be a dilatory Amendment. It is devised for the purpose, I will not say of wasting time, but of consuming time. I do not think the cause either of free or of assisted education would be strengthened by the adoption of this Amendment. Such a course would have the effect of throwing local funds into confusion. Hon. Mem- bers have said that the County Councils in Wales, and in the North of England, will not use this money for the extinction of licensed houses. No prophecy could be more uncertain, and I believe that if the Bill becomes law its provisions will gradually be put in force throughout the country, and that the cause of temperance will be advanced. Much has been said in the course of this Debate on the subject of free and assisted education, but it appears to me that hon. Members opposite only become energetic on this matter when the Government are seeking to push forward their Bills. Now, Sir, I think the House would do well to allow the Prime Minister to develop the scheme he has already shadowed forth. It is only reasonable that, having suggested a scheme on this subject, he should be allowed to give form to it. I do not understand whether the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite is intended to be specifically in the interests of the rates, or of the children, or of the schools; whereas every person who is dealing with the question of education ought to say distinctly and definitely what he proposes to do when he is asking Parliament to devote money for educational purposes, letting us know clearly whether it is in relief of rates, for the benefit of the children, or for the advantage of the schools, as forming part of a great educational institution. Unless you set clearly before your minds the objects for which the money is to be granted, your scheme must be vague, shadowy, and unreal, and must necessarily fail. In regard to the question of rates, no tiling can be more calculated to stir up strife than to give County Councils the power of applying public money in aid of the rates for educational purposes, especially where there are two systems of education, which have been, and are, the cause of much difference of opinion. I am sure it is in the interests of education that the two systems should exist, side by side, and that there should be a wholesome rivalry, without which the voluntary schools must perish. But here we have a scheme to enable County Councils to apply money entirely for the School Board schools, without any corresponding aid to the voluntary schools. This is the first time that such a proposal has been made. To adopt such a system would be to inflict great wrong on the voluntary schools, and would be strongly resented by those who have hitherto laboured in the cause of education. It was only the other day there was a chorus of applause from every part of the House in favour of the action of my right hon. Friend the President of the Council, who was then said to be an enlightened man and a pioneer in advancing the cause of education. Now, however, this chorus is at an end, and we are being condemned, as we have been before, for neglect and apathy in regard to the education of the country. Nevertheless, in the course of this controversy we on this side of the House have ever been the first to endeavour to advance the cause of popular education, and I believe we are in the front now. We shall certainly not be deterred from the course we are taking on this subject by the kind of obstacles which are raised by this Amendment. We regard the question of education as our own, we are proud of the work we have done in past days, when we were leading the way in this matter, and knowing all this, and being conscious of our present sincerity, we shall not be deterred from opposing a proposition which we believe to be inopportune in its initiation, uncertain in its results, and calculated rather to hinder than to advance the great work of education.

(10.5.) SIR W. HARCOURT (Derby)

I do not rise to speak at any length on this subject, but I think the House ought clearly to understand the issue raised by this Amendment. The last speaker has made the singular appeal that we should leave this question of education in the hands of the Prime Minister, in consequence of the speech he made five years ago. Well, we all know that when a person takes out a patent the rule is that he ought to give the public the benefit of it, or not be allowed to maintain his patent-right. Considering that the speech made at Newport by Lord Salisbury was made as long ago as 1885, and that nothing has yet come of it, we may, perhaps, be forgiven if we infringe the patent-right of the Prime Minister, and suggest that we can now take out a patent-right for ourselves. The House has, undoubtedly, but contrary to our opinion, determined that a portion of the money or the whole sum provided by the Bill shall, if the County Councils think fit, be applied to the purchase of public houses; but we assert, and I do not think hon. or right hon. Gentlemen opposite will deny the assertion, that a great number of the County Councils will not use the money for such a purpose. You know that the London County Council would not so use it, and that no County Council in Wales will apply it in this way. I think you may also assume that no County Council in Scotland will so apply it, and I may take it, on high authority, that the County Council of Derby will not so use it. Indeed, I doubt whether you will find anyone in this House, if you were to poll the assembly, who would say that he thinks the County Council of the district to which he belongs would use the money for such a purpose. I do not know whether, even in the wilds of Wiltshire and the neighbourhood of Stonehenge, where there are very few public houses, the County Council would be disposed to apply the money in this manner. And I doubt whether, even in the district of the Under Secretary (Mr. Long), where the squires and brewers govern the country, they would give the power to use the money for this purpose. All, however, I ask you to admit is, that there are a considerable number of County Councils who would not apply the money for the purpose intended by this Bill. Therefore, I ask, can there be anything more reasonable than that you should give an alternative to those County Councils who do not like your proposal? Is it rational to say to those bodies, "Here is a sum of money. You shall use it for this purpose. If you do not approve of that purpose you shall not use it at all?" I ask the right hon. Gentleman, the author of the County Councils, is it rational to treat County Councils in this way? Why, Sir, it is treating them with contempt; it is saying to them, "You are no judges of the interests of the community of which you have charge. We have determined what you shall do; we dictate to you a public policy, and if you do not adopt it the money we offer you shall lie idle." Now, the hon. Member for Brigg proposes to say to these bodies, "Here is so much money, we will authorise you to devote it, if you think fit, to the interests of the brewers and the publicans, but you may also devote it to another purpose, should you desire to do so." I have read a good many of the speeches made in the country by the Under Secretary to the Local Government Board, and I may say of him that a more thorough, going publicans' and brewers' man I do not know. I think he is a sincerely convinced publicans' man; in fact, a more upright and downright or outright liquor man I cannot imagine. No doubt he is so from profound moral conviction, and, from the language lie holds, his belief in good liquor is the foundation of all his speeches. Therefore, I read this Bill a good deal more with the mind of the Under Secretary than with that of the President of the Local Government Board. But I cannot help thinking that this Bill would enable the publican minded man to have it all his own way. What I say is, let the education minded man have his chance. Well, Sir, I want to make it quite clear to the Committee what the issue is on what we are about to vote. The Committee is going to vote on the one side for the public houses, and on the other side for the village schools. That is the point at issue. We demand for the County Councils that they, at least, shall have the opportunity of applying this money to educational purposes, if they think fit. I appeal—not to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; he is what I should call a vested-interest-minded man; ho judges of these great moral questions, as we have already been told in witty language, by the Standard of Consols—I am appealing to the President of the Local Government Board, who looks at things from a rather more common sense point of view, who appreciates the fact that there is a Party in this country who prefer the interests of education to the vested interests of the publicans. I ask him whether he will not afford his own children, the County Councils, their own choice between education and liquor. We do not insist on education There are some people who think education is dangerous and mischievous. I believe that in Wiltshire they think it takes children away from the plough and raises wages. These are views which I know are still held in the more enlightened and Conservative parts of the country. But there are places where these views are not held—where the population is large, and the people prefer education. All we now ask is that the County Councils shall be allowed to make their choice. I do not wish to detain the Committee any longer. I am quite ready that the vote shall be registered, and that the country shall understand that it is between the public house and the village school.

(10.16.) THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,) St. George's, Hanover Square

I am not going to follow the right hon. Gentleman through the whole of his speech. I wish, in one or two sentences, to point out the utter hollowness of the right hon. Gentleman's contention. The right hon. Gentleman has before him the declaration of the Government that next Session—[Opposition cries of "Oh!" and "Next Session!"] The Government and their supporters have listened patiently to the rigmarole of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby; they have even allowed him to use most insulting expressions; and the moment there is to be a reply, hon. Members opposite, who are so temperate, cannot control themselves. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Government are pledged to introduce a measure next Session [Opposition cries of "Oh!" and "Next Session!"] I am surprised that it is impossible to conduct an argument with any degree of regularity. The Government are pledged to bring in a measure next year with regard to assisted education, by which fees in elementary schools will be paid; and now the right hon. Gentleman wishes to set up the plea that it is a question between the village school and the public house. The right hon. Gentleman never thought of the village school or of any department of education before the Government introduced the proposals now under consideration. Education is not one of the specialties of the right hon. Gentleman. The village school will be provided for next Session, but the Government welcome the declaration which has been made, because we see that the Party opposite are about to pledge themselves to give £350,000 of public money to elementary schools aided by the State. The Government welcome this declaration, made for the first time by the Liberal Party, of a desire to devote this money to all schools aided by the State, for the Amendment contains no distinction between denominational schools and other schools. The hon. Member for the Brigg Division, in his eagerness to attack the Government and establish a bogus contrast between the public house and the school, has blundered into an Amendment by which he and his Dissenting friends, who are pledged up to the hilt not to give a farthing to denominational schools, propose to give £350,000 to all State-aided schools. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, in their keen desire to prove the wickedness of the Bill, are accepting a principle which they have denounced for years. There will be an interesting Division. Hon. Members on this side of the House will vote for the application of the money to the diminution of public houses—a principle which has been advocated by the Liberal Party generally. On the other hand, hon. Gentlemen opposite will vote for the application of the money to the relief of school fees, which the Government have promised to remit next year; and they will vote for an Amendment embodying a principle which all those Dissenting bodies who have condemned this Bill have protested against with equal emphasis and loudness.

(10.25.) MR. J. MORLEY (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)

The right hon. Gentleman finds fault with my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, and says, forsooth, that we are now for the first time showing our zeal for free schools. Yes; but my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, in 1885, strongly and widely advocated free schools at the moment when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was fighting his election at Edinburgh expressly on the ground of his inveterate hostility to free schools. And yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer taunts my right hon. Friend with inconsistency, forgetting his own attitude on this very question! I was amused to see the Pharisaic air with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked the Committee how it was they had any doubts as to the views of the. Government, because they had pledged, themselves. The House has had a pretty good example to-night of the value of the Government's pledges. They have, been pledged for four years to Local Government for Ireland, and yet that measure is put off, certainly till 1892. What security is there that next year, as in the present year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not interpolate into the Government programme some measure which is not in the Queen's Speech, and which neither the House nor the country, still less the right hon. Gentleman's followers, expected or desired. No, Sir, we shall certainly vote for the proposal of my right hon. Friend. We shall vote for it without the slightest compunction or idea that we are losing any boon which Her Majesty's Government now find it convenient to offer, but which, judging from the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman himself upon the question, we can have very little confidence will be carried out on the lines we pursue.

(10.28.) MR. WINTERBOTHAM (Gloucester, Cirencester)

I protest against the Chancellor of the Exchequer's presumption that we are committing ourselves, by the words of this Amendment, to anything like what he pretends. We are merely voting for a principle which is already established in Scotland. However, speaking for myself, I would rather every shilling of this money went into the parsons' pocket than go to the purchase of public houses. On the old motto, "Of two evils choose the least." We think that we are choosing the lesser of two evils. But the words of the Amendment are clear enough. We desire by it to entrust popularly-elected Bodies, namely, the County Councils, with the distribution of this money for the purposes of elementary education. Well, we have no hesitation at all. The vote is between this money going for beer or books, and I am going to vote for books. I rise for a specific object, and I will say it in as few words as I can, and without giving unnecessary offence. Are yon hon. Members going to vote for "beer" with your hands perfectly clean, and are you satisfied that you ought to vote at all on this matter? On Petty Sessional Benches, when there are questions of licensing, members who are connected with the brewing trade leave the Bench. I ask the Government whether they are prepared to tell the House how many hon. Gentlemen on the opposite Benches have their hands steeped in this trade? I have received letters from the west country, on the strength of which I ask for this Return. A letter from a constituent of one of the occupants of the Government Bench says that that Member is interested in a brewery to the extent of £35,000, and is the owner besides of public houses. I hold in my hand another letter from a constituent of a Cabinet Minister, saying that that right hon. Gentleman is a trustee or a director of a largo company owning 153 tied houses. Then I challenge the hon. Member for Wigan to say that he has no interest in public houses.

MR. P. S. POWELL

If the hon. Member is referring to me, I may say that, as far as I am the owner of houses of that kind, I have always kept them under my own control.

MR. WINTERBOTHAM

All I desire to say is whether hon. Members who are interested in property of this kind ought not to act on the same principle as Magistrates, who, when they are personally interested in a question brought before them, leave the Bench. And I do not hesitate to give my own opinion that hon. Members opposite whom this legislation will benefit pecuniarily ought to refrain from voting, and that if they did, this unhappy Bill would be quickly defeated.

(10.32.) MR. WADUY

I should not have said a word in reply if it had not been for the ill-advised attack made on mo by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, with his usual candour, read only the half of the Amendment, and represented it as the whole. Having done that, the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to refer to me as one among a number of Dissenters who are now committed to proposals which they have never hitherto accepted. With an ignorance that belongs, I suppose, to Chancellors of the Exchequer with regard to matters of this kind—although they are omniscient with regard to matters of another kind—he says that the religious body to which I belong passed a certain Resolution. I beg to tell him that the religious body to which I belong never resolved in the direction the right hon. Gentleman indicates, but resolved exactly the opposite. He is entirely wrong in his facts, and is entirely wrong in the conclusions he draws from them. The only other observation the right hon. Gentleman made upon which I wish to make a remark was that we should not pass this Amendment, because the Government are pledged to produce a certain Bill hereafter. In reply to that, I would say that, although the Government may have pledged themselves to introduce a Bill, from our experience of their pledges we have no right to expect that they will fulfil their promise, unless it relates to a measure for the benefit of someone from whom they have a reasonable expectation of receiving votes. They will get no votes from poor children who would be benefitted by free education, therefore we must not be too sanguine of a redemption of their pledges in this regard. We should put no more faith in the pledges of the Government than we do in their power as prophets, when they foretell where they will be or what power they will be exercising next year.

(10.36.) MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)

We have had some very interesting arguments from the other side of the House as to why we should vote in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Brigg Division. We first had an interesting speech from the hon. Member for Wigan, who showed his great zeal for free libraries by refusing to do anything to help them, because, forsooth, a certain Bill that he is interested in has met the fate that many of our Private Bills have met on account of the 12 o'clock Rule. And then he objects to any of this money going to relieve him of the necessity of passing the Bill, which he is anxious to see placed on the Statute Book. Then we were accused by the hon. Member of new-born zeal in favour of free or assisted education. He said he had not heard much about the matter, but if he will make inquiries he will find that early in the Session an interesting discussion took place on free education, initiated by the hon. Member for Rother-ham, on an Amendment to the Address, when the whole of this side of the House went into the Lobby in favour of free education. And the hon. Member also knows that hon. Members on this side! of the House have freely expressed an opinion in favour of this money being devoted to purposes of education, instead of being frittered away in the manner proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is, I may say, a very strong opinion outside the House that; many of the Members opposite who vote in favour of the Government proposals have some very distinct reason for the zeal they exhibit. No doubt the Bill is in favour of the great brewers, and I think that the observations of the hon. Member for the Circencester Division require some answer. I find that a newspaper which represents the brewing interest, amongst other things of a like nature, referring to a new issue of Bass & Co's stock, £910,000 in 5 per cent, debentures, offered to the public at a premium of £12 for every £100, says— We suppose it will be used like the last debenture issue, that is, in in extension of the London and tied trade. The wisdom of this admits of no argument, and its result is seen in the enormous increase of this trade for the last 12 months. That is the sort of thing you are doing, that is what hon. Members mean when they talk about protecting "the poor publican's widow and orphans—" building up enormous profits for these large Brewery Companies. It is simply a matter of greasing the fat sow over again in the person of the great brewers. I could almost wish that the Government would pursue its course, because I am firmly convinced it is a course most objectionable to the majority of the people of the country. There will be a time when the people will have an opportunity of pronouncing upon the policy of the Government, and, for our part, we hope that that opportunity will be given as speedily as possible. I have great pleasure in supporting any Amendment which will devote this money to a legitimate and useful purpose, and I believe sincerely that if the Government accept the alternative of this Amendment it will not wreck their Bill, but will prove beneficial to them and to the people at large.

(10.45.) MR. JAMES ELLIS (Leicestershire, Bosworth)

I can speak as to the vast amount of good which can be effected by the utilisation of small amounts of money in our rural districts. I know a case in which £100 a year was left to be spent for the benefit of a village, and where the legacy has been productive of a vast amount of benefit to the locality. But the money to be given to the localities under this Bill is worth absolutely nothing. It is said that there is only one "bottomless pit," but I know of two others in addition to the one ordinarily referred to, and they are war and drink. I hold the latter to be the worst of the two, and I submit that in subsidising it, as is now proposed, infinite harm will result. Your money will be worse than thrown away; whereas, if spent in the manner suggested in the Amendment, it will be productive of a vast amount of good in almost every direction.

(10.46.) Mr. RITCHIE

rose in his place and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Question be now put."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

(10 47.) MR. STOREY (sitting with his hat on)

I wish, Mr. Courtney, to ask for your ruling on a point of order: whether a gentleman charged publicly in this House, and sitting on the Front Bench, with having a pecuniary interest in this question should be allowed to vote? I beg to point out that I was prevented from rising to a point of order by the President of the Local Government Board prematurely moving the Closure to end the discussion.

(10.48.) THE CHAIRMAN

It is not a point of order on which I can pronounce. I am unable to ascertain the accuracy or inaccuracy of the statements made.

(10.48.) MR. STOREY

May I point out that the hon. Member for Wigan distinctly said he was the owner of a public house? And I find that under Sections 211 and 212, as I read them, if he had been in a Town Council he would not have been allowed to vote.

(11.0.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 230; Noes 201.—(Div. List, No. 142.)

(11.10.) Question put accordingly.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 209; Noes 248.—(Div. List, No. 143.)

(11.20.) MR. STOREY

I rise, Sir, to move that you report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. I do so for the purpose of having the Speaker in the Chair, so that the House may at once be able to consider and inquire into the allegations which were made by an hon. Member on this side of the House (Mr. Winterbotham) during the Debate, and which have been left absolutely unanswered by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen whose conduct was impugned. The allegation of my hon. Friend was that a Member of the Cabinet was directly interested in the liquor traffic, and that another hon. Member (Mr. Long) on the Government Bench, who is conducting the Bill, was also directly interested in it, and that, notwithstanding that, they continued to vote for this Bill. [Ministerial cries of "Whitbread" and "Stansfeld."]

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order.

MR. STOREY

Now, Mr. Courtney, how absurd an interruption surely is. When I made that assertion, hon. Members opposite called out the name of a brewer on this side of the House, but has that brewer voted for his own interest? Hon. Members on our side of the House who are interested in this traffic have either voted against your Bill, or they have had the decency to stay away. The Standing Order to which I direct the attention of the House reads as follows:— No Member is entitled to vote upon any question in which he has a direct pecuniary interest, and the vote of any Member so interested will be disallowed. And then Standing Order, No. 212, is as follows:— By Resolution, 27th June. 1844 (Instruction to the Middle Level Drainage Bill Committee), the Rule of this House, relating to the vote upon any question in the House, of a Member having an interest in the matter upon which the vote is given, applies likewise to any vote of a Member so interested in a Committee. The question I have to ask——

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! I have had some doubt as to whether this is a point which should be considered with Mr. Speaker in the Chair—Mr. Speaker has no knowledge of what goes on in Committee—and I have found a reference to an express case. If the matter is considered at all it should be considered by the Committee itself. It would, therefore, be out of order to move to report Progress, in order that this question should be considered with the Speaker in the Chair.

MR. STOREY

Then I shall simply repeat my Motion, that you do now report Progress, in order that we may consider the question in Committee.

THE CHAIRMAN

If I reported Progress the Committee would at once be separated. That is not the appropriate Motion. The Motion, if a Motion is to be made, must be that the vote of such and such a person be disallowed on account of his having a direct pecuniary interest.

(11.24.) MR. STOREY

Then I will go to the root of the question, and move that the vote of the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade (Sir M. Hicks Beach) be disallowed, that the vote of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Long) be also disallowed, and that the vote of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. E. S. Powell), who informed the House that he is the owner of public houses, shall also be disallowed.

(11.25.) THE CHAIRMAN

Now that the subject has assumed a definite shape, I think I may give an opinion from the Chair. There is authority which expressly bears upon it. The Motion for disallowing the vote which a Member has given in a Division must be made on the ground that that Member has a direct pecuniary interest in the vote. It must be made, as it has been laid down by a predecessor of my own in the Chair, on the ground that the Member has a private pecuniary interest, and one not relating to a question of public policy. I think, on that ground alone, it would be incompetent to make such a Motion as has been made; but, looking at the fact that the action of the County Councils, in respect of the extinction of licences, is not an action forced upon them, but, as has been said, in many cases County Councils would not act upon it at all, the interest which any Member could take in the action of a County Council hereafter is so contingent and so foreign to the direct pecuniary interest contemplated by the Order that I think the Motion is not in order.

(11.27.) THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,) Bristol, W.

As the hon. Member thought fit to mention my name, I should like to ask him on what authority he did so? I desire to say I have not a single share in any Brewery Company, but that I am the owner of a single village public house which brings me in £20 a year.

MR. STOREY

again rose, and was greeted with loud cries of "Withdraw."

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! If the hon. Gentleman has any observation to make no doubt the Committee will be glad to hear him, but it is evident the discussion could not be continued.

(11.28.) MR. STOREY

The observation I wish to make is this. I singled out the name of the Member of the Cabinet because I understood—[Cries of "Order!" and "Withdraw!"]—I will take my own time. Of course, there is no doubt about the name. It is that of my hon. Friend who made the statement in the House, and no doubt he will speak for himself. As far as I am concerned I say at once frankly that I withdraw what I said, and frankly apologise to the right hon. Gentleman; and I shall only be glad, for the credit of this House and for the sake of decency, if I can have the same opportunity with regard to the hon. Gentleman whom I also mentioned.

(11.29.) MR. WINTERBOTHAM

I ask the kind indulgence of the House in a matter of personal explanation. I hold in my hand a letter which I had with me when I made my speech. I stated then that I had a letter from a gentleman of repute—[Cries of "Name!"]—charging a Cabinet Minister—["Name!"] I am first of all going to tell the House, if hon. Members will allow me, what the letter states. I decline, without the consent of the writer, to give the name; but I shall be happy to show it to any gentleman on the Front Bench as a proof of bona fides. Having stated what the charge is I shall accept gladly the word of either of those two gentlemen that the statement is not true, and will apologise willingly for having brought their names before the House. The first charge is, that the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last "is a Director or Trustee, or both, of the firm of Messrs. Agg-Gardner & Co., brewers, Cheltenham." My correspondent mentions the name Sir M. Hicks Beach. The next charge is——[Ministerial cries of "Charge!" J I beg pardon; I withdraw the word. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Charge?"]

THE CHAIRMAN

Hon. Gentlemen will be good enough to allow the hon. Member to proceed.

MR. WINTERBOTHAM

I withdraw the word, and I substitute the word statement. [VOICES: "Allegations."] The second statement refers to my hon. Friend the Under Secretary to the Local Government Board, and it states that he has a considerable pecuniary interest in the firm of Messrs. Robert Long & Co., brewers, Marlborough. I again repeat that I will show this letter to any hon. Gentleman opposite who would like to see it; but I do not think it would be right for me, nor, I think, would hon. Gentlemen opposite wish me, to mention the writer's name without his consent; and I repeat that if my correspondent is in error I shall gladly accept the word of either of those two hon. Gentlemen, and shall gladly apologise for having brought their names before the House.

SIR M. HICKS BEACH

With reference to the statement just made, I have to say that when my hon. Friend, whom I have known for many years, the Member for Cheltenham, converted his brewery into a Limited Company lie asked me, as a personal favour, to become a Trustee. I did so; I am a Trustee for the shareholders of that Company. Yet, if the County Council bought up every public house belonging to that Company, not one single penny would go into my pocket.

MR. LONG

As far as I understand the assertion of my hon. Friend opposite, it is that I am a partner or interested in the concern of Messrs. Robert Long & Co., of Marlborough. Robert Long, of Marlborough, is my brother; I naturally am extremely interested in him. I am desirous to see my brother's affairs prosper, and to assist him in any way I can; but I am not a partner nor a shareholder, nor am I in any way interested in the concern.

MR. RITCHIE

I think it right, as an allegation was made in the course of the Debate that my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board was more responsible for this Bill than myself, and as his name has been mentioned in connection with this matter, to say that my hon. Friend had no part whatever either in the inception or in the preparation of this Bill, and was not aware either of the Bill or the propositions in the Bill until it was printed.

MR. WINTERBOTHAM

I willingly apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for being the cause of his name being brought before the House. At the same time, I desire to point out that my correspondent said "a Trustee or Director, or both," and therefore there is no inaccuracy in my correspondent. If there is any blame it belongs to me. I am sorry [Interruption and crias of "Order!"]; but I am bound also to point out that the statement of my correspondent as regards the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Lo al Government Board was not that he was a partner at all, but that he had a pecuniary interest in the firm of Robert Long and Co. However, I understand him to deny that he has any pecuniary interest in the firm.

MR. LONG

I do not know, of course, how far terms may be strained. I am extremely anxious not to mislead or to be misunderstood. I can assure the House that I feel very acutely the uncomfortable position in which I have been placed by this allegation. There is a matter that did not occur to me, and I think I am justified in saying that when my hon. Friend opposite made reference to this matter to me in the House the other day, I understood him then to say that his information was in the direction that I had a large pecuniary interest in a brewery concern. This I denied, and I think my hon. Friend will bear me out that I then told him I wished it were true, that I should be very glad if it were, and that nobody would rejoice more than I should, and I told him it was true that I was a shareholder in a Brewery Company, and did not refer to this matter of my brother, because I did not know it was referred to at all. I have no pecuniary interest in it at all. All I have done to my brother I have done to other members of my family; I have lent him some money. I suppose this is not the first time transactions have passed I between relatives of that kind I think it necessary and right to state this, because it might be said afterwards that I had an interest in having lent money to my brother in his concern. All I can say is that that is the extent of my interest. I have now put the House in possession of the whole information.

(11.40.) MR. H. H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

The Amendment I have to propose is to provide that the residue of the English share of the Local Taxation Duties should be distributed Among the several counties and county boroughs in proportion to the amounts which the Commissioners of Inland Revenue shall certify to have been received by them in the then last preceding financial year on account of licences granted by them in respect of on-licences of premises in such counties and county boroughs. I think the Committee would be in a false position if we attempted to discuss this Amendment this evening. The President of the Local Government Board laid upon the Table of the House last night a most important Return showing how the sums appropriated to Local Taxation account were distributed in the last financial year, and that Return is now in the printer's hands. It is impossible to discuss the Amendment until we have this Return before us; and, therefore, I venture to suggest not that the clause should be postponed, that would be a foolish suggestion, but that the words after "fund" should be omitted, in order that the words "hereinafter provided" may be inserted; so that when we have had the opportunity of studying this Return and checking it, a subsequent clause can be brought up to regulate the principle on which this money should be distributed.

MR. ROWNTREE (Scarborough)

In order that the question of boroughs may not be prejudiced I would ask that the words be inserted after the word "distributed."

Amendment proposed, to leave out all the words after the word "distributed," in page 1, line 20, to end of clause, and to add the words "as hereinafter provided" inserted.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, "That Clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

(11.45.) MR. STOREY

I desire to move that the clause be left out of the Bill. I do so for several reasons, some general and some specific in their nature. I do so, first of all, on the general ground that the Government received from the country at the General Election no authority to deal with this question. They are creating a precedent and establishing a principle which, though the pecuniary dimensions of the present measure may be slight, will ultimately involve the country against its will in a large expenditure of money. Besides, the country has not even had a few months in which to consider this important question. If the Bill is considered of such extreme importance, surely the Government might have done the House the honour of mentioning it in the Queen's Speech; but for the first time in the history of recent Parliaments it is found that, whereas the Speech from the Throne mentioned several important measures, in this case the attention of the House is forcibly directed to a question which has not been mentioned therein, and the other important measures which have been mentioned are set aside. I believe that the people of the country, by an enormous majority, are dead against this measure; and I deny the moral right of this Government to force such a Bill through the House of Commons in face of the expressions of public opinion against it. We do know something of public opinion on the subject, for this is not the first time the Government have proposed some such measure as this, not the first time the Government have tried to benefit their friend the publicans. A similar attempt was made in 1888, and we know how public opinion went then. Public opinion, so far as we have had opportunity to judge, has not changed. We see this in the Press, in public meetings, in Petitions to this House. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has told us that people who have signed these Petitions do not understand the precise points of the question as to which they sign the Petition; and, if I mistake not, he, or one of the right hon Gentleman's colleagues, said this in reference to the great Wesleyan Body.

MR. RITCHIE

I do not think I ever referred to Petitions. What I did refer to was the passing of resolutions, and it was on the terms of these resolutions I made the statement.

MR. STOREY

I have looked through a considerable number of Petitions, and, in my judgment, the gentlemen who prepare and sign them understand precisely the points upon which they appeal to the House. The Primitive Methodists, for example, recently held a meeting at Sunderland, and discussed the Bill. They sent a Memorial to Parliament representing 190,000 members, more than a quarter of a million of adherents, and 1,000 ministers, protesting against the proposals of the Government to pay takes for withdrawing licences from public houses. That Petition seems to be very much to the point. ["No."] Not to the point?

MR. RITCHIE

No.

MR. STOREY

The Bill does not pay public money for the withdrawal of licences I Well, I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman means to trip me up on some purely technical term——

MR. RITCHIE

No; I have no wish to do that. I only want to make myself understood. The hon. Gentleman will observe the expression "compensation for licences withdrawn." I only want to be understood. I do not mean a merely technical objection—the expression seems to imply that a licence being refused, compensation would be given, whereas when licences are withdrawn by the Licensing Authority the publicans have no title to compensation or any payment under the Bill.

MR. STOREY

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right; mine was not the proper way of putting it, but I have made reference to the resolution I was referring to, and I find that the Primitive Methodists in this resolution, which I find represents the opinion of some 195,000 members, and 580,000 adherents, protest against the Payment of public money for the extinction of licences which are only granted for a year, believing, as we do, that to create a property in licences is unjust to the tax payers. Here, then, it is evident there is no misapprehension of the proposals in the Bill. Indeed, it is not easy to deceive the people of this country on public questions of this character. You may do it for a week, I have known a Government do it for a month, but the natural shrewdness of the people soon discovers the truth. The right hon. Gentleman tried to make out a case in opposition to our statements of the result of public meetings, and gave instances of votes being carried at public meetings-in favour of the Government proposals. He referred to Gates head, a borough I know pretty well—and let me say of Gates head, as of other towns, that I should not be surprised if votes were carried at public meetings in favour of the Government, knowing, as I do, the conditions that obtain in large towns, and the number of persons interested in the licensed victuallers' trade. We, the opponents of this Bill, engage the largest hall in the town, and invite free attendance without tickets; naturally, the trade is interested. But what are the methods employed by the drink traffic to get a vote in favonr of the Bill? In Sunderland, for instance, when a public meeting was called by the Mayor, a circular was issued among the licenced victuallers, saying— Being a member of the trade, your presence, with four or ^five other friends, is most particularly needed … You will have no difficulty in inducing four or five, or even more, of your customers and friends, to accompany you and vote for your just claim to compensation. That is the great meeting to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and at which the Times and other newspapers stated that opinion was pretty evenly divided, whereas the Mayor declared that the resolution against the Bill had been carried by a large majority.

It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.