HC Deb 06 April 1903 vol 120 cc1194-223

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [6th April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."

Which Amendment was— To leave out all the words from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, and add the words 'no measure dealing with licensing reform in Scotland will be satisfactory which fails to include provisions securing direct popular control of the liquor traffic.'"—(Mr. Ure.)

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Debate resumed.


resumed his speech. In his opinion the measure simply touched on the fringe of the subject. The remedy was to be found in dealing with causes instead of results, in order to check intoxication and the profligate expenditure of money. With drink shops more numerous than bread shops, studded all over the country, what results could be expected than intoxication? He regretted to see the large increase of drunkenness among women, in some cases the increase extended to 100 per cent. It was lamentable to see in one part of his constituency the number of young women who were falling into drink. It has become a habit with some of them to club together in order to buy a bottle of whiskey and have a carouse among themselves. These conditions of life were deteriorating the physical, mental, and moral life and qualities of our race. Lord Chief Justice Coleridge had said that if England could be made sober three-fourths of our gaols might be closed, and Col. McHardy, the chairman of the Scottish Prisons Commissioners, had said that what was wanted in Scotland was a cure for excessive drinking, and if Scotland could be rid of its drunkenness it would be the first country on the face of the globe. Why should they not have local veto for Scotland, seeing that Scotland was ripe for it? Why should this terrible condition of affairs exist, demoralising our people and incapacitating them in the fight for life? Lord Milner, in introducing a licensing ordinance for the Transvaal, has given local option, and there a majority of votes can prohibit the sale of liquor in their locality. That was a simple solution of the whole affair. It was a question for the people, and ought to be left to the people. A publican was given his licence for one year on the ground that it was for the public good and because the people required it. Surely, then, it was only right for the people to say whether they did or did not want intoxicating liquor shops. Although by the expenditure of large sums of money on licensed premises their value was increased, they knew how the value of other property often deteriorated where licences were granted. As an instance, among many, an adjoining property fell in value £1,600 because of a licence granted, thereby deteriorating the locality. He had heard the sympathetic remarks of the Lord Advocate with those who felt that the Bill did not go far enough, and he was anxious to see it carried through because it went to promote temperance reform in certain directions. He was delighted to believe that the Lord Advocate would relieve the exempted cities from the ten o'clock rule. When this subject was referred to by the deputation at Edinburgh, the Secretary for Scotland expressed himself as being in favour of an hour being allowed off in the morning instead of at night, but he hoped that the Committee would see its way not only to give an hour off at night but also one in the morning. Then with reference to the proportion of two-thirds justices of the peace to one-third county councillors, he sincerely hoped that the portion of popular control would be so increased that the numbers would be reversed. In some parts of the Bill reference was made to the licensing authority, and in others to the licensing court, but he was glad to learn from Lord Balfour of Burleigh that he did not attach any importance to that change, which was very much a matter of words. Then with reference to the hawking of liquor. He knew for a fact that liquor vans were sent out, and even if the liquor had not been ordered the vanman was supplied with a pass-book containing the names of customers, with a quantity of liquor attached to each name, even although none had been ordered. He hoped the Lord Advocate would consider the proposal that no liquor should be supplied without a signed and dated order. Would it, he wondered, be possible to make the sale of the goodwill of a public house illegal? If that could be done it would certainly prevent disappointment on the part of those who paid large sums of money should they be deprived of their licences. As the Bill was to be referred to a Committee upstairs he would not move the Amendment standing in his name.

SIR ANDREW AGNEW (Edinburgh, S.)

thought there had been so many speeches made on the Bill that little remained to be said. As representing a largo Scottish burgh which had taken a great interest in the measure he wished to say that the feeling of his constituents in favour of the Bill was as unanimous as it had been expressed in the House. He had received a large number of letters, and alterations had been suggested in the Bill, but in no case had disapproval been expressed of the Bill as a whole, and that was a very remarkable circumstance in the case of a licensing Bill. Many of the letters were from licensed grocers, and he was glad to have the assurance of the Lord Advocate that upon this subject the Government had an open mind and would listen to all arguments that might be put before the Committee. He felt that if the Bill were to pass in its present forma serious loss would be inflicted upon a number of respectable tradesmen without any corresponding gain. The only objection that had been raised to the Bill was that it did not go far enough. It certainly did not deal with various matters of a highly controversial character, and to his mind that was a strong thing in its favour. The great merit of the Bill was that it embodied a number of reforms of which all approved, whilst it was approved both by the temperance party and by those engaged in the liquor trade. He sympathised with the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire in the view he took of compensation. That was a subject with which the Government had to deal as soon as possible, but it was not one to be embodied in the present measure. Having regard to the Irish Land Bill and the London Education Bill there was no chance of a licensing measure dealing with compensation and other controversial matters being passed into law this session, but he earnestly hoped that this Bill with its reforms would be placed on the Statute Book.

THE MASTER OF ELIBANK (Edinburgh, Midlothian)

asked the Lord Advocate to consider the provision dealing with Royal Burghs and thought that he might be permitted to say a word or two for his native town of Peebles. The House was doubtless familiar with the old saying, "Peebles for pleasure," but he imagined that this Bill would not convey any great pleasure to the magistrates of that town. Both Selkirk and Peebles, capitals of their respective counties, would have their privileges taken away, whereas a small burgh in Fife, with a population of 7,000 and a valuation of only a little more than one half of that of Selkirk or of Peebles, would become a licensing authority. Peebles, on the other hand, would be governed by the county, which could not be said to have the same close knowledge of the needs and desires of the locality. He proposed to place an Amendment on the Paper dealing with this subject, and he trusted that in due course it would receive favourable attention from the Lord Advocate. In the meantime he welcomed the Bill as a states man like effort to grapple with the drink problem in Scotland.


said he would not have intervened in the debate but for the fact that the Bill was to be sent upstairs to a Committee, and unless one could follow it there he would not even be able to follow the fortunes of Peebles. The question of popular control had occupied the attention of many of them in years gone by and they all knew that there could never be a satisfactory system of control of the liquor traffic without that element, The only reason to be urge in favour of the postponement was that the great increase in value of the licensed trade during the last ten or fifteen years had proved to be a natural incentive for the Trade to safeguard its own interests and had rendered it likely for small popularly elected authorities to be laid open to the influence of the Trade. Beyond that he knew of no reason why even small areas should not control their liquor traffic. In Scandinavia they had a system which worked admirably, and under similar conditions he saw no reason why one on similar lines should not work well in Scotland. There was a great deal of force in the argument that the licensing authority should be formed from a Committee of the Town Councils or the County Councils. He saw no reason for the necessity of retaining the element of justices of the peace, and although he would not attempt to deny that a good licensing body could be formed out of the justices of a county, he recognised that it was the number of that class which reduced the control of the granting of licences to a farce. There was a great majority of opinion in that House in favour of popular election of those entrusted with the control of the liquor traffic, and therefore he naturally preferred Committees of the County Councils or Town Councils to the nominated authorities who would form the major part of the licensing authority under this Bill. Dealing with the reduction of licences he thought the institution of the time limit was by far the most pressing part of the whole licensing question before the House.

Since the Licensing Bill was introduced they had had the remarkable speech of the Prime Minister in answer to the brewers' deputation, and the far more remarkable speech of the Lord Chancellor in another place in dealing with the actions of the justices in England. Admonitions had been addressed to the highest authorities, and the benches of justices in England had been practically directed not to pursue the policy of the reduction of licences. The justices of England had not hitherto been regarded as a peculiarly revolutionary body, and yet it had been thought necessary for the Lord Chancellor to admonish them for defending the public interests, and for the Government to defend the publican. The whole arguments of the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor were directed towards showing the hardships the owners of licences would suffer if any licence were lost to them under this scheme of general reduction, and yet, in spite of those arguments, they had a Bill for Scotland with no provision for the reduction of licences, and no provision for a time limit, which only, under the arguments of the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor, would render that reduction possible. Were there to be no further reductions of licences in Scotland? That appeared to be the only logical alternative. Was the licence, therefore, to become the equivalent to private property? That, at any rate, had never been recognised in Scotland, Therefore the question of having a time limit was necessary if the element of any money compensation was to be brought forward. He failed to see how they could deal with the question of money compensation until they had fixed the time limit. In Lord Peel's Report the limit was made five years. He did not consider that sufficient, and would rather support the suggestion of seven years. He did not know that he should hold up his hands in horror if, as in Mr. Bruce's Bill, it was ten years. They had waited thirty-three years—a generation—since the introduction of Mr. Bruce's Bill in 1871, and he did not think it was possible for another generation to pass away without some more effective means being found to reduce order out of the chaos of the licensing system. The matter of compensation was preeminently a matter for compromise and arrangement. He believed this was a favourable opportunity for making that arrangement. Public opinion was ready for it; the power of the justices was absolute.

With regard to the constitution of the Appeal Courts under the Bill, he wished to point out that they were strong authorities and must have considerable areas. He felt the greatest sympathy for many of the small Royal Burghs, and there was no county so full of them as that in which he resided. He could not, however, but recognise the fact that they were to have a strong authority, and they must be composed of representatives of considerable populations. He did not hesitate to say that he was in favour of even a higher line than that fixed by the Bill, and thought a limit of a 20,000 population would not be too high if they provided for strong authorities by forming committees of town and county councillors. He thought that the number should be rather less than that nominated by the Bill. If they had these strong authorities in large areas and with the security of the time limit, so that there would be no cause of complaint on the part of the Trade against any rapid change of policy on the part of the new authorities, then the Appeal Courts would be abolished. He saw no reason for Appeal Courts. They would certainly simplify the operation of the Bill and remove the most cumbrous part of it if they were to take out the provisions relating to the Appeal Courts. So far as the time allowance, the reduction of licences, and the rendering of the licensing authorities stronger through abolishing the Appeal Courts were concerned, they might all follow the same road, whatever might be their views as to the ultimate arrangement of the licensing authority. For his own part, it was to the elimination of private property in the liquor traffic that they had to look if they were to have a thoroughly sound system of licensing in Scotland. He was encouraged in that view by the provision of the Transvaal law, in which Lord Milner had provided that a locality desiring to control the liquor traffic through a trust company would do so by a petition to the Government. No doubt all of them had made concessions of their opinions in giving their support to the Bill as it stood. He should be very sorry to see the Bill lost, and therefore he should be unable to support such an Amendment as that moved by the hon. Member for Linlithgow. If they were ready to make concessions, it was not because they considered that the Bill was the best, and because they did not lay stress on such points as he had ventured to commend to the attention of the House, but because of their earnest desire to free themselves from the shackles of chaos of their present licensing system, and to make some effective effort to deal with the degradation that it involved upon local and Imperial interests, and the degradation it involved upon the great mass of their people.

MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burgh)

expressed his regret that the right hon. Gentleman, in the favourable opportunity which he now had of dealing with this troublesome licensing question, had not ventured to settle the matter on a permanent basis. In the course of the speech of the Solicitor-General he was amazed to hear the declaration that he did not claim that the Bill would settle the question in Scotland. It was safe to say that in no period of the history of this country had the Government a better opportunity for settling the question satisfactorily to the Scotch people. The appalling figures read out by the hon. Member for Dundee and the hon. Member for Govan showed that the social evil was one which it would be dangerous to the national life of Scotland to leave untouched for any long period. The Government, admitting the evil, and with all the support of their followers and that of the Opposition, had an opportunity of doing anything that was reasonable to solve the question, and yet they said this was a harmless little Bill. From beginning to end there was no real living clause in the Bill. It would not be final; it merely dealt with machinery. So far as it gave control to the people it would be popular, but, unfortunately, the tendency of the Bill was to limit the authority they now had. Was the proposal to take the control of licences out of the hands of Royal Burghs with under 7,000 inhabitants a step in the direction of local control? When Town Councils were elected, the qualifications of the committee of magistrates were often canvassed as to how far they would be prepared to grant or refuse new licences. In many cases that was the dominating feature of the election. The proposal now made would not make that election more democratic. It could not be contended that the magistrates had not discharged their duties with satisfaction to the community. In the small burghs the magistrates represented the highest quality of the citizens. There was no real reason advanced for the change, and the result would be that the power of dealing with licences would be handed over to a body of men, the majority of whom knew nothing of the local requirements. He protested against the provisions on this matter in the Bill, and hoped that the Committee would be able to convince the right hon. Gentleman that there was good ground for removing such provisions. If the Government would take the opinion of Scotland with regard to the Bill he should be perfectly content. The Bill did not go as far as they wished; it merely danced round the question of providing machinery. The test of the measure would be the extent to which the Government recognised the feeling of Scotland. If they did that the Bill would pass in such a condition as would afford some chance of settling the temperance question in Scotland.

MR. BAIRD (Glasgow, Central)

said that although the evil condition of the question was one of long growth, and although it was true that desperate diseases required desperate remedies, in dealing with this particular disease they should act slowly. He sympathised with the hon. Member for Midlothian in regard to the small Royal Burghs, but they must remember that they were not dealing with ancient monuments. The reason why there had been so little debate and so much discussion was because they were all agreed, both inside and outside of the House. One hon. Member had spoken rather hardly of grocers. In his view some of them were amongst the best people in Edinburgh.


asked leave to withdraw his Motion.

Amendment by leave withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

*MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY moved that the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Trade.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc."—(The Lord Advocate.)

SIR ROBERT REID (Dumfries Burghs) moved as an Amendment—that the Bill be referred to a Committee consisting of all the members representing Scottish constituencies, together with fifteen other members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, and that the proceedings of such Committee shall for the purpose of this Bill have the same effect as the proceedings of a Standing Committee on Law or Trade, and shall be conducted under the same procedure and rules. He complained that the Lord Advocate had made the Motion in a very summary fashion, without putting forward any reasons for it. He deprecated the proposal, and would endeavour to show that the course he (Sir Robert Reid) suggested, was much more desirable in the interests of the House. It would certainly show more respect to the Scotch Members who desired to follow the Bill through all its stages. Early in 1894 a proposal was made by the late Government that there should be a Standing Committee consisting of Scotch Members and fifteen other Members, to which all purely Scotch business should be referred. That was discussed and passed, and certain Bills were with great advantage referred to that Committee. Formidable arguments were addressed by the present Prime Minister against that proposal, and it was described as containing the seed of the dissolution of the British Empire, and the breaking up of the United Kingdom. He rather thought that a calmer spirit prevailed now. He had always been, and would remain, a firm and constant supporter of the principle of devolution of business, without which, he felt satisfied, firstly, that the business of the country would not be wisely transacted; secondly, that the interests represented in that House would not be adequately represented; and thirdly, that the feeling of the people who sent them there would not be properly enforced.

His Motion, however, did not deal with those points; it related only to this particular Bill, and it was justified on purely and simply business grounds. The character and complexion of the Bill was that it dealt with a subject vital to the welfare of Scotchmen. The figures quoted in the debate showed that the evil was a frightful one. No one could contest that, and nothing could be more eloquent to prove it than the tone of the debate and the extreme earnestness with which hon. Members on both sides had spoken. No man in the House took a more serious view of the Bill than he did. It dealt with the health, and the permanence of the mental, moral, and physical condition of the people of Scotland. He thought everybody would agree that knowledge and familiarity with the evils themselves, and with the sense and judgment of the people as regarded the way in which those evils ought to be remedied, was almost confined to Scotch Members. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no."] He did not wish to set up that Scotch Members were better than any other hon. Members, but they knew this subject most fully. He did not think that hon. Gentlemen from England and Wales would contend that they were better, or as well, acquainted with the peculiar manner in which these evils pressed upon Scotland, nor with the deep feeling the people had for a remedy. Scotch Members knew the peculiar way in which these evils struck their country. It would not be disputed that the feeling of Scotch constituencies would be better and more faithfully and accurately represented by Scotch Members than by English or Irish Members. Every hon. Member for Scotland had had this subject thoroughly threshed out at the last election, and no hon. Member came to this House from a Scotch constituency without knowing the feeling of his constituents from every point of view upon this subject, or without having given his own opinion upon it. The Standing Committee on Trade contained only ten Scotch Members out of seventy-two. He was aware that there might be fifteen more added by the Committee of Selection. As a matter of fact, there would be some nominations from England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. Did they suppose that Scotland would get half that representation? [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no."] Suppose Scotland got the whole of that representation, that would mean twenty-five out of seventy-two. He appealed to hon. Gentlemen opposite to say if they thought that was right. There was not a Scotch Member in the House who did not take the deepest interest in this Bill, and who did not want to take part in the discussions, in order to satisfy himself and his constituency in reference to it.

His hon. friend had spoken about the small burghs, but he would remind his hon. friend that he at present represented a fraction of a great city which did not exist at the time when some of the small burghs he alluded to returned Members of Parliament. Let at least the small burghs subsist, and be able to exercise the functions they had always enjoyed. On the Standing Committee on Trade they would see hon. Members representing Glasgow, Leeds, and Birmingham sitting together with the representatives of some of the counties of England who knew nothing of Scotland, or of Scottish corporate life and traditions. In 1894, when this point was raised upon the general question of a regular Standing Committee, a great deal was made of the difficulty that the majority of the House would not find its reflex on the Committee. He was sorry to see that a deplorable change had occurred in the balance of the representation. He wished to point out that the presence of the Scotch Members on this Committee would prevent the possibility of the Government losing their much cherished majority. But there was another practical convenience. Supposing they had only twenty-five Scotch Members out of seventy-two. The result would be that the proceedings on report would be protracted. The whole question would have to be reopened by the thirty-seven hon. Members from Scotland who would be compulsorily absent from the Committee, and they were bound to be heard in the House. It was true that they would not be able to speak more than once. He could understand the Government wishing to escape the presence of Scotch Members if they thought for a moment that their presence was likely to retard the passage of the Bill. He did not think any of them were for obstructing Scottish measures, and still less were they likely to do it in regard to a Bill which they all sincerely desired in many features to be added to the Statute Book.

He could not understand what was the object of the right hon. Gentleman in sending this Bill to the Standing Committee on Trade. He moved his resolution as a business proposal for the purpose of dealing with this particular measure in the most satisfactory way to the people of Scotland and to the Government themselves. He wished to make an appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who represented Scotland, for there was nothing dangerous in his proposal, which was purely a mere business one. Hon. Members opposite who represented Scotland would suffer just as much as hon. Members on the opposite side by being excluded from this Committee, and they knew their constituents would be dissatisfied. What reason was there why they should not endeavour to get the Government to give reasonable facilities for discussing this Bill in the same spirit and manner which had been exhibited fully in the course of this debate. If this were done he believed they would be able to contribute, something towards making this measure a substantial reform of a most serious danger to which Scotland was at the present moment exposed. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— To leave out the words 'the Standing Committee on Trade, etc,' and add the words 'a Committee consisting of all the Members representing Scottish constituencies, together with fifteen other Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection."—(Sir. Robert Reid.)

Question proposed "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."


The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite has put this proposition as being something different from what was done in the year 1894, and he is very anxious to assure us that he does not wish to repeat that experiment. The hon. and learned Member in putting forward this Motion has taken particular care to assure us that he himself was always in favour of devolution from this House in every way possible. In this matter my memory is not quite so short, and when I hear these protestations I cannot help remembering how very little support we got from hon. Gentlemen opposite in regard to the Private Legislation Bill which we passed through this House not long ago.


There was no opposition from this side at all.


I know the right hon. Gentleman has very curious views about what is opposition, but perhaps I may say that there was very little help.


The opposition came from the right hon. Gentleman's own friends.


The right hon. Gentleman appears to have forgotten another chapter of the history of this subject. He forgets that the same proposition he has made for the establishment of a general Scotch standing Committee referring a single Bill to Scotch Members was made in the year 1897 by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire in respect of a Public Health Bill.


said he was aware of that question, but the application in that case was not to apply the procedure or effect of a Grand Committee to a Committee that was then selected. It was stated by Mr. Speaker Peel that the proposal was to refer it to a Select Committee, which would involve a further Committee Stage in this House, and upon that the right hon. Gentleman expended a great deal of humour and satire. I make my proposal in such a form that it will have the same effect as the proceedings of a Grand Committee.


The proposition of the hon. and learned Member is precisely the same. Let me come now to the merits of the matter. Why is this measure to be treated differently from any other Bill? Why does the hon. and learned Member say that this is a Bill in which only Scotch Members are interested? I hope they are interested in every other Scotch Bill that is brought before the House, and yet the hon. Member does not go the length of proposing that every other Bill should be referred to a Committee of this kind. The hon. and learned Member forgets the whole principle upon which Standing Committees are formed, and he forgets the very reason why the House parted with the control it otherwise had over a Bill. If we refer a Bill to a Select Committee the House gets back the control because it has to come back through a Committee Stage of the whole House. The only reason that the House consented to give up its control, by saying that a Bill from a Standing Committee or a Grand Committee, should not come back to the Committee Stage, was because those Standing Committees were to be made microcosms of the House. There is not the slightest warrant in the practical experience of the last nine years for any such proposition as this which has now been made. The Public Health Bill was a great deal more technical than this Bill, for we had to deal with the most intricate questions of rating, which I venture to say many Scotch Members are not thoroughly conversant with. There are no such questions dealt with in this measure, and unquestionably any Scotch Member can give his own view. I think on a question of general principle you are more likely to get a sound judgment from a mixed Committee than you are from people whose tails can be particularly twisted. The experience of the last nine years is distinctly against the hon. and learned Member, and his present proposition is entirely subversive of the methods by which this House conducts its business; and it would form a most inconvenient precedent, because I do not know how it can possibly apply to England or to Ireland. By proposing that this Bill shall go to the Standing Committee on Trade, I am suggesting that it should go to the same Committee which disposed of the English Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: The English Members had a representation of about sixty out of seventy-two.] I thought this was a question of exclusiveness, but it now appears to be a sort of "who dares to meddle with me? The precedent now sought to be set up would make business in this House unworkable. It might happen that the Scotch Members on the side of the Government would be in a minority. An hon. Member opposite cheers that statement, but he forgets that if they had applied the position to England hon. Members opposite could not have got a single measure passed in Committee during the whole of the years they were in office, and I am sure that would not have suited them. As a Scotsman I object to being labelled as a sort of by-product of civilisation which cannot be mixed either with Englishmen or Irishmen, and the proposal put before the House is one which would be entirely subversive of the methods by which the affairs of this House must be conducted if we are to proceed according to our rules, and according to the rules under which Standing Committees are formed.

MR. BUCHANAN (Perthshire, E.)

said he thought Scotch Members must have listened with astonishment to some of the arguments put forward by the learned Lord Advocate, particularly when he said that to refer this Bill for consideration to a Committee consisting mainly of Scotch Members would render the business of this House unworkable. Could anything be more preposterous than an argument like that. Various statements had been made by the Lord Advocate, who had accepted the favourable comments made upon his Bill, and stated that he would preserve an open mind upon the various arguments which had been adduced; and although he would not go so far as to accept public opinion upon some points, led them to believe that he kept an open mind for Scottish opinion upon these subjects. The Lord Advocate knew perfectly well that if this Bill was to be anything like a suitable measure, which would be accepted for any length of time as even a partial solution of the questions involved, it must be passed through this House fairly, and with the expressed approval of the Scotch Members in this House. That was the object they had in view—namely, that he should get the fullest expression of opinion that was possible for him to get from the various sections of Scottish opinion in this House. It was to be regretted that the Government would not accept the very moderate proposition put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries. How was the Grand Committee on Trade constituted? It consisted of sixty-eight Members, of whom fifty-eight were English and Irish, who, it was within the common knowledge of the House, took practically no interest whatever in the details of a Scotch Bill. Very few English Members had troubled to listen to their debate that evening; indeed only one had sat throughout it, and he was a somewhat new Member of the House, and the interest in the case of new Members was prone to last a very short time indeed. The Lord Advocate had asked if it were suggested that Englishmen and Irishmen were so stupid that they did not understand the language in which these Scotch Bills were debated. Without going so far as to say that, he must repeat that they had difficulty in understanding conditions which obtained in Scottish districts. The details of this Bill should be discussed by a Committee in which Scottish opinion should have a reasonable chance of prevailing, and not by a Committee the vast majority of the members of which did not care about the subject at all. Suppose fifteen extra Scottish Members were placed on the Committee. They would then have a Scottish element equal to one-fourth of the total membership, and one which constituted only one third of the Scottish representation in the House of Commons. Thus two out of every three Scottish Members would be precluded from taking a substantial part in the debates on the details of that measure. That, he asserted, amounted to depriving the Scottish Members of their constitutional right to express their opinion as part of the governing body which had to determine the details of the Bill.

He would like to point out the importance, in view of the need for shortening the business of the House of the present session, of accepting the proposal of his hon. and learned friend. The debate which had taken place that afternoon had disclosed the fact that the chief points of difference between hon. Members were on matters of detail, and they wanted not merely the opinion of the House as a whole upon important amendments but they also desired to arrive at the opinions of Scotch Members themselves. For instance there was the proposal to take away from Loyal Burghs the power they at present possessed of exercising their magisterial duties as a licensing authority. Were the representatives of these Royal Burghs going to be content with anything less than a decision on that subject from the whole body of Scottish Members? But they could not get a decision of that character from the Grand Committee on Trade and consequently the whole question would have to be redebated by the House itself. Other and equally important points were the constitution of the Court of Appeal and the veto to be given to the Lord Advocate in regard to the making of licensing by-laws. There were details as to which the average Englishman and Irishman cared nothing and consequently if they were to arrive at a decision which would be satisfactory to the Scottish people they must have the votes on them of the whole body of Scottish representatives in that House. That could not be accomplished under the proposal of the Lord Advocate, but it could be secured by accepting the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries.


reminded the hon. Member that a Bill of an almost exactly similar character was sent to the Grand Committee on Trade last year, and on that occasion no objection was raised by English Members to Scottish Members taking a full part in the discussions. He regarded the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries Burghs as an innovation of the most serious character. The underlying principle of the Grand Committees was that they should be constituted on the basis of a microcosm of the whole House, an in his opinion it was extremely undesirable to establish a system of nationalities in regard to these Committees. It such a proposal as was now before the House were admitted in reference to this Bill it would be made on other occasions in regard to other measures, and the result would be that, they would create a great difficulty in connection with the whole subject of Grand Committees. The English Licensing Bill of 1902 was referred to the Grand Committee on Trade, and in his opinion that precedent should be followed in the case of the Scotch Bill. He was perfectly certain it would receive fair treatment at the hands of such a Committee, and he did not think the discussions need be carried on in such a way as to lead to protracted debates.


reminded the hon. Baronet opposite, who had referred to the precedent of last year, that, though there were some Scotch Members on the Grand Committee when the English Licensing Bill was sent up to it last session, there was a predominant majority of English opinion upon it. He could not see any objection to the acceptance of the Amendment. The present Bill was a purely Scotch Bill, and he was at a loss to understand why any English Member, or any Scotchman representing an English constituency, should wish to interfere with it. The only way in which they could get the Bill made satisfactory and acceptable to the Scotch people was to have it threshed out by such a Committee as was suggested by his hon. and learned friend; and he therefore heartily supported his Motion.


agreed with hon. Members opposite as to the want of interest and knowledge with which English Members treated Scottish questions. Only two or three minutes previously an hon. Member near him asked if that was an important Bill. But however much interest they might take in Scottish affairs, he held that hon. Members from Scotland had some reason to dislike the idea of being excluded from the Committee Stage on this Bill. They did not have a great deal of exclusively Scottish legislation brought before the House; and in view of the fact that the Lord Advocate had that afternoon admitted that the Government were prepared to very considerably alter and even remodel the Bill on the Committee Stage, he would be sorry to see any Scottish Member precluded from taking an active part in the debates if he so desired. But he could not see his way to voting for the Amendment. If the Leader of the House said it was impossible for him to accept it, then he would bow to his ruling on this subject; but it seemed to him the Motion might be accepted with the proviso that the addition of other than Scottish Members should be such as to bring the proportion of parties up to that which existed in the House, and that it should not be considered that the Government of the day were pledged by precedent to send Bills of this kind to the Grand Committee Speaking as a representative of a Scottish constituency, and remembering how little of the time of Parliament had been devoted to Scottish affairs during the last two years, he held that this Bill, if not sent to a Scottish Committee, should be considered in Committee of the whole House.


hoped that the speech of the hon. Member would bring some balm to the spirit of the Prime Minister and his colleagues. What an exemplary Member his hon. friend was! Having explained his own opinions with great force, and at considerable length—


I only spoke two or three minutes.


said the hon. Member, having explained his own opinion, put himself most courageously and publicly in the pocket of the Prime Minister, and said he was prepared, notwithstanding his personal views, to bow to the ruling of the right hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister might say O si sic omnia, because there had been on some occasions so little of that spirit in the part of the House which the hon. Gentleman adorned. The proposal in the Motion was a most temperate one, designed for business purposes only, and with no underlying scheme to subvert the established order or gain a party advantage. It was a mere question of ascertaining by a great experiment whether this was a good way of conducting Scottish business. The Grand Committee was spoken of as if it were a part of the ancient constitution of the country, whereas many present Members of the House could remember when the system was first set up. The whole procedure and arrangement of Grand Committees were not yet out of the experimental stage, and it would surely be a good thing, if only as an experiment, to make a trial of this mode of dealing with a Scottish Bill, which excited no party spirit and was essentially a measure in regard to which it was desirable to enlist the knowledge and interest of all Scottish Members. The supporter of the Motion desired that the details of the Bill should be settled by men who knew Scotland, and not by men from Piccadilly and the Strand. It was not only that this Bill was a Scottish Bill, but the system to which it was sought to be applied in Scotland differed materially from the English system; and there was sufficient likeness, and at the same time sufficient difference, to cause considerable confusion in the English mind. For instance much had been said about magistrates and what they did in burghs. English Members would naturally think that they were the same as were known in England as borough magistrates, and would not have the slightest idea that they were bailies—a different sort of animal altogether. They were purely elective functionaries, resting on the will of the people, appointed by the people, and removable by the people. He was amazed to hear the Lord Advocate taunt his hon. and learned friend on the question of devolution, and ask where was his love of devolution at the time of the Private Business Bill. Why, it was the present Opposition who almost forced that Bill on the Government. He himself, before the Lord Advocate was a Member of the House, persuaded Mr. W. H. Smith practically to adopt the system of proceeding by Provisional Orders, and it was only because, when it became known that the tide was setting in that direction, the railway directors and that class of the community exerted their influence, the scheme was abandoned for the time. That was the very proposal the Government finally adopted, so that the Opposition always regarded it as their child, and assisted it in every possible way, the objections and hostile amendments coming from behind the right hon. Gentleman. The Scotch Members had no intention of thwarting the Bill; but they felt that in a matter of this kind very closely affecting the life of the people of Scotland, they might very well, without creating any precedent, make this experiment. He believed the result would be a very much better Bill than would be obtained with a wretched twenty five Scotch Members on the Committee in the face of forty-three strangers and outlanders, who knew nothing about the existing law or the circumstances of the country for which they were legislating.


said he was rather shocked by the epithet he right hon. Gentleman had applied to a traction of his countrymen. After all, a wretched twenty-five Scotch Members—


It is the number that is wretched.


said twenty-five was more than one-third of the whole representation of Scotland, and he was not aware that the English representation on any Committee amounted to a third of the English representation in the House. If it was contended that there must be a majority of Scotch Members on a Committee that dealt with Scotch Bills, the parallel argument was irresistible; but he had never heard it argued that there must be a Welsh majority for a Welsh Bill, or an English majority for an English Bill.


You can put all the Welsh Members in a Committee of that sort. You cannot put more than there are. As to English Members, they are always in a majority on every Committee.


said that Grand Committees must either be formed as they were now or turned into national bodies in which the nationality concerned had a majority. He would not argue which system was right, as he had done that at length on previous occasions, but he would urge the House not to make an experiment in the case of a Bill which was not a party Bill and only applied to Scotland, because it would be sought in the future to apply the precedent to Bills which were party Bills and applied to other parts of the kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman had fallen into a fallacy in supposing that, because this was a non-party Bill, therefore the present was a suitable occasion for altering the rules of the House, and turning the Grand Committees into national assemblies. The reverse was the case. If the general principle could not be adopted for all Bills, controversial and uncontroversial, let them not try it in a case in which it was likely to work well, but a case in which he also thought a Committee from which all Scotch Members were excluded, would work equally well. This was a Bill for the consideration of which a general knowledge of the system under which they all lived was better than knowledge of the difference between English and Scotch law, and he had no doubt that a purely Welsh or Irish Committee would deal very well with it. By his own admission the right hon. Gentleman proposed to start a new experiment. Let them not start it in a case where it would test nothing. How would the experiment help the House to form a judgment as to whether they ought to make a fundamental alteration in the system which had prevailed ever since Grand Committees were established? The right hon. Gentleman observed quite truly that the Grand Committee system was still on its trial, and that it was not a part of the original constitution of those realms; and no Gentleman need consider himself an iconoclast or revolutionary if he thought the system might be modified. But to start an experiment in modification in a Bill which would give no valuable results was surely a very poor and unsatisfactory way of dealing with a constitutional problem. It was true that the feeling of the various nationalities in the House was now less intense than it had been at other times; but could anybody guarantee that this was going to last? The experiment proposed was an experiment with the constitution of the House, and this House had lasted and would last through many revolutions of feeling. It would be a perfectly insane policy to start in connection with a Bill which aroused no party feeling and no particular national sentiment, a system which had to stand the strain, or what might be the overwhelming strain, of both strong party feeling and strong national sentiment. From one observation the right hon. Gentleman made, he appeared to regret that the settlement of any Scotch matter should be left to persons who hailed from Piccadilly and the Strand. Did the right hon. Gentleman and himself hail from Piccadilly and the Strand, or from the Highlands or Lowlands of Scotland? They had both a great deal to say to a great many questions—English, Scotch, Irish, and Welsh. Were they incapable of dealing with these questions? He was unwilling to admit this disability on his own part.


It is a question of constituency more than of birth, of Scottish Members and not of Scotsmen.


said that in that case he was disqualified from dealing with Scotch questions because he represented an English constituency, and the right hon. Gentleman was disqualified from dealing with English questions because he represented a Scotch constituency. That was a serious admission for the right hon. Gentleman to have made, and, if he might speak as his sincere friend and admirer, not one he ought to have made. They were all representatives of individual constituencies, but representatives, not of nationalities, but of those constituencies in a House in which all nationalities were represented. He absolutely refused to accept the view that hon. Gentlemen representing Scotch constituencies could not give an opinion worth having on English, Irish, or Welsh questions. If there had been no Scotch question arising but that of Scotch trout for two years, ought the right hon. Gentleman to have felt himself precluded from discussing anything but Scotch trout for these two years? He regarded the Leader of the Opposition as occupying a great constitutional position wholly irrespective of the fact that he was a Scotchman or represented a Scotch constituency. Let them avoid driving to excess these international divisions. It was most important to have personal and technical knowledge on the subjects which went before the Grand Committees; but there was ample room and verge enough for that technical and personal knowledge on these Grand Committees; and the essence of their system was that it brought to bear on their deliberations not merely personal and technical knowledge, but long experience in the general conduct of public affairs and in dealing with principles which, whether the details were provincial or national, belonged in their particular essence to the general polity of the country. Let them give the fullest representation to Scottish opinion on the Committee, and see that, the Committee had the fullest benefit of Scottish local knowledge; but let them not start a policy which, however innocuous it might prove on the present occasion, could not fail to be a precedent in times to come—possibly stormy times—which would land the House in serious difficulties and serious embarrassments.


said the Prime Minister was quite inaccurate in suggesting that this was a new experiment. The proposal was tried some years ago and worked very well In 1894, he believed, a Committee consisting of the whole of the Scottish Members with fifteen other Members added by the Committee of Selection had referred to it the Local Government Bill and the Fatal Accidents Bill, and the success of the experiment justified its proposal now, when it was desired to enable Scottish opinion to dominate the settlement of a purely Scottish Bill. The right hon. Gentleman asked how other countries were to be dealt with. As to that, so far as the Committee on Trade was concerned, the Scottish Members were ten out of sixty-eight, so that English opinion was absolutely predominant. It was an entirely false argument to say that the proposal should not be accepted in the present case because this Bill was of a non-contentious character. Party measures were not sent to the Standing Committees at all. The only Bills so dealt with were those the principle of which was accepted in the House. He maintained that if ever there was a measure which ought to be sent to a Committee such as was proposed it was the Bill before the House. It was a measure which Scottish Members anxiously desired to improve; and regarding which Scottish Members had received more communications than they had in connection with any other measure during the last eight or ten years. How were they to bring forward suggested Amendments unless the Bill were sent to a Committee? They could not properly amend the Bill at the fag end of the Session, when the Government wanted every minute of the time. The plain truth was that the English Members would be quite content to leave the Bill to the consideration of the Scottish Members. During the afternoon only two English Members were in the House, one a very young Member, the other the Deputy-Speaker, and he was not quite sure that the Deputy-Speaker would have been present were it not for his official position. The Bill affected Scotland only; and the Lord Advocate would admit that in its consideration Scottish opinion would be of very great use. If the Bill were handed over to the Committee which was proposed, there would still be fifteen Members representing other parties in the House. This was not an Imperial question. It was not an English, or an

Irish, or a Welsh question. It was entirely a Scottish question; and in its consideration Scottish opinion ought to predominate.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 121; Noes, 51. (Division List No. 58.)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H. E. (Wigt'n
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire
Anson, Sir William Reynell Flower, Ernest Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Arkwright, John Stanhope Forster, Henry William Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Galloway, William Johnson Mount, William Arthur
Arrol, Sir William Gardner, Ernest Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bate
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Godson, Sir August's Frederick Nicol, Donald Ninian
Bain, Colonel James Robert Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nrn Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Baird, John George Alexander Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc Peel, Hn. Wm. B. Wellesley
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon Percy, Earl
Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Goulding, Edward Alfred Pretyman, Ernest George
Bartley, Sir George C. T. Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury) Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Gretton, John Pym, C. Guy
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Hull, Edward Marshall Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Bignold, Arthur Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Midx Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas, Thomson
Bill, Charles Hare, Thomas Leigh Robertson, H. (Hackney)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Heath, James (Staffs., N. W.) Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Bond, Edward Henderson, Sir Alexander Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Hope, J. F. (Sheffield Brightside Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Jameson, Major J. Eustace Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.
Campbell, Rt Hn J. A. (Glasg.) Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop. Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Keswick, William Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm. Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.
Chamberlain, Rt Hon J. (Birm Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Stroyan, John
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc Lawson, John Grant Sturt, Hn. Humphry Napier
Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Clive, Captain Percy A. Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Thornton, Percy M.
Cochrane, Hon. Thos H. A. E. Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. Valentia, Viscount
Corbett, T. L. (Down North) Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.) Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Lowe, Francis William Welby, Lt-Col A. O. K. (Taunton
Cranborne, Viscount Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Crossley, Sir Savile Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.)
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Macdona, John Cumming Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Dalkeith, Earl of Maconochie, A. W. Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Davenport, William Bromley M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Dickson, Charles Scott M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.
Durning, Lawrence, Sir Edwin M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—Sir
Dyke, Rt. Hon Sir William Hart Majendie, James A. H. Alexander, Acland-Hood.
Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward Malcolm, Ian and Mr. Anstruther.
Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Man'r Manners, Lord Cecil
Asher, Alexander Harmsworth, R. Leicester Runciman, Walter
Brigg, John Hayne, Rt.. Hon Charles Seale- Russell, T. W.
Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh) Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Kearley, Hudson E. Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)
Caldwell, James Layland-Barratt, Francis Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Leng, Sir John Shipman, Dr. John G.
Causton, Richard Knight Levy, Maurice Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark Lough, Thomas Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants
Crombie, John William Lundon, W. Ure, Alexander
Dalziel, James Henry MacVeagh, Jeremiah Wallace, Robert
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose Wason, E. (Clackmannan)
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)
Duncan, J. Hastings Rickett, J. Compton Weir, James Galloway
Dunn, Sir William Rigg, Richard White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Elibank, Master of Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorqan) Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith Roe, Sir Thomas Herbert, Gladstone and
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Rose, Charles Day Mr. William M'Arthur.

The House having decided against the proposal we made, I shall advise my friends to vote against the Motion to refer the Bill to the Standing Committee on Trade. I prefer a Committee of the whole House as, judging by our experience to-day, we will have a large

number of Scottish Members and very few English Members. That is a state of things in which the Bill can be best discussed.

Original Question put.

House divided:—Ayes, 121; Noes, 52. (Division List No. 59.)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Manners, Lord Cecil
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E. (Wigt'n
Anson, Sir William Reynell Flower, Ernest Maxwell, W. J. H. (Damfriesshire
Arkwright, John Stanhope Forster, Henry William Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Arnold-Forster Hugh O. Galloway, William Johnson Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Arrol, Sir William Gardner, Ernest Mount, William Arthur
Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute
Bain, Colonel James Robert Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nrn Nicol, Donald Ninian
Baird, John George Alexander Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon Percy, Earl
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Goulding, Edward Alfred Pretyman, Ernest George
Bartley, Sir George C. T. Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury) Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Gretton, John Pym, C. Guy
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Hall, Edward Marshall Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Bignold, Arthur Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Midx Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson
Bill, Charles Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm. Robertson, H. (Hackney)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Hare, Thomas Leigh Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Bond, Edward Heath, James (Staff S., N. W.) Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Henderson, Sir Alexander Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)
Campbell, Rt Hn J. A. (Glasg.) Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop. Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Keswick, William Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm. Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.
Chamberlain, Rt Hon J. (Birm Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Stroyan, John
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc Lawson, John Grant Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Clive, Captain Percy A. Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Thornton, Percy M.
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Leveson-Gower, Fredk, N. S. Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.) Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. Valentia, Viscount
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S) Welby, Lt-Col A. C. E. (Taunton
Cranborne, Viscount Lowe, Francis William Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Crossley, Sir Savile Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Wilson, A. Stanley (York E. R.)
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth) Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Dalkeith, Earl of Macdona, John Cumming Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart
Davenport, William Bromley Maconochie, A. W. Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Dickson, Charles Scott M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W. TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire) Sir Alexander Acland-
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Majendie, James A. H. Hood and Air. Anstruther.
Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Man'r Malcolm, Ian
Asher, Alexander Dunn, Sir William Lundon, W.
Brigg, John Elibank, Master of Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh) Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan) MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose
Caldwell, James Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Harmsworth, R. Leicester Rickett, J. Compton
Causton, Richard Knight Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- Rigg, Richard
Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Crombie, John William Kearley, Hudson E. Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Dalziel, James Henry Layland-Barratt, Francis Roe, Sir Thomas
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Leng, Sir John Rose, Charles Day
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Levy, Maurice Runciman, Walter
Duncan, J. Hastings Lough, Thomas Russell, T. W.
Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland) Ure, Alexander Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford) Wallace, Robert
Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.) Wason, E. (Clackmannan) TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Shipman, Dr. John G. Wason John Cathcart (Orkney Mr. Herbert Gladstone
Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) Weir, James Galloway and Mr. William M'Arthur
Spencer, Rt. Hn C. M. (Northants White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Bill read the third time, and passed.

Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.