Commons Sitting of 11 July 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Buxton Urban District Council Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Bill [Lords]; Scotch Education Department Provisional Order Confirmation (Edinburgh) Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.
  Barrow-in-Furness Corporation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Liverpool and Wigan Churches Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  Llanelly Harbour Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; a clause added; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  Loch Leven Water Power Bill. As amended, considered. Ordered, That
  1182
  Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.
  Tynemouth Corporation Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Bridlington Corporation Bill [Lords]; Bristol Tramways (Extensions) Bill [Lords]; Lord Tredegar's Supplemental Estate Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Manchester Corporation (General Powers) Bill [Lords]; Manchester Corporation Tramways Bill [Lords]; Scaris-brick Estate (Amendment) Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Arbroath Corporation Water Order Confirmation Bill; Dunfermline District Water Order Confirmation Bill; Glasgow Corporation (Police) Order Confirmation Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill, Read the third time, and passed.

  LONDON PORT AND DOCKS BILL (BY ORDER.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  LORD ALWYNE COMPTONmoved that the Order for the Second Reading of the London Port and Docks Bill be discharged and the Bill withdrawn. He said he did so on behalf of the promoters and as a Director of the London and India Docks Company. In 1902 the Government introduced a Bill called the Port of London Bill, which was promoted to purchase the dock companies' undertakings. Since then that Bill had passed through alternate periods of slumber and wakefulness till at last, wearied out, it had fallen asleep altogether. They who represented the trade of the Port of London had always disapproved of the principles on which that Bill was founded, and for that reason they promoted their own private Bill,

  1183
  which they considered carried out better the intentions of the Royal Commission. The President of the Board of Trade constantly told them that the Government Bill was not to be dropped, and for that reason they had postponed, from time to time, their own Bill and gave him all the assistance in their power to pass the Government Bill. They felt they had a grievance in this matter, because they had incurred a great deal of expenditure, on behalf of his company particularly, and also because their Bill, having been postponed so often, had now to be withdrawn. Neither this nor any other Government should interfere directly with trade, as procrastination in this matter had caused a great deal of dislocation of trade.
  Order discharged. Bill withdrawn.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Great Eastern Railway Bill; North-Western Electricity and Power Gas Bill, with Amendments.
  Amendments to—Clyde Valley Electrical Power Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to continue and amend The Light Railways Act, 1896." [Light Railways Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under The Tramways Act, 1870, relating to Altrincham Urban District Council Tramways, Calverley Urban District Council Tramways, Crompton Urban District Council Tram ways, Plymouth Corporation Tramways, Rochdale Corporation Tramway, Royton Urban District Council Tramways, and Wardle Urban District Council Tramway." [Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under The Gas and Waterworks Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Bradfield Water, Cholderton and District Water, Elham Valley Water, Frimley and Farnborough District Water,
  1184
  and North Sunderland Waterworks." [Water Orders Confimation Bill [Lords.]
  Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 265.]
  Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 266.]

PETITIONS.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Aberkenfig; Aley Green; Atherstone; Attleborough (two); Barnes; Bedminster; Buckie; Burton on Trent; Chilvers Colon; Daw-ley; Desford; Drlghlington; East Holywell; Edinburgh (four); Flitwick; Forest Hill; Frenchay; Gaddesden Row; Glasgow; Hartshill (two); Hawes; Hebron; Hoyland Common; Hoyland Nether; Ilford; Lowerhouse; Maidstone; Mickleover; Mylor; Newcastle on Tyne; Notting Hill; Nuneaton (three); Peck-ham; Peckham Rye; Pentonville; Reading (four); Redcar; Richmond; Snape; Stalybridge: Studham; Thor-naby on Tees; Totterdown; Ventnor; Wentworth; Wootton Wawen; and York; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY TRADING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from the Royal, Parliamentary, and Police Burghs of Scotland; and Scottish Sabbath Protection Association; to lie upon the Table.
  VALUATION BILL.
  Petition from Aberayron, for alteration, to lie upon the Table.
  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS ACT, 1897.
  Petition from Rochester, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COUNTY COURTS (PLAINTS AND SITTINGS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 30th June; Mr. Cochrane]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 246.]
  POST OFFICE (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL PARCEL POST).
  Copy presented, of the Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post Amendment (No. 9) Warrant 1904, dated 21st June, 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 7th July, 1904, declaring that Thomas Caller, skilled labourer, Royal Laboratory, War Office, was appointed without a Civil Service certificate through inadvertence on the part of the head of his Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  WHALING AND WHALE-CURING (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Report of a Departmental Committee appointed by the Secretary for Scotland to inquire into the new Whale and Whale-curing Industry on the coast of Scotland and in the adjacent waters. Vol. II. Minutes of Evidence and Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Regulations of the Board of Education, dated 11th July, 1904, providing for grants on account of the Education of Defective and Epileptic Children, and prescribing Conditions to be fulfilled by Certified Schools and Classes for such Children [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  AFRICA (No. 8, 1904)
  Copy presented, of Correspondence relating to the Resignation of Sir Charles Eliot and to the Concession to the East Africa Syndicate [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3209 to 3212 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  FISHERIES (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland on the Sea and Inland Fisheries of Ireland for 1903. Part. I. General Report [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, transferring to the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Lowestoft the powers conferred upon the East Anglian Light Railways Company by The East Anglian Light Railways Order, 1902, and amending that Order (Lowestoft Corporation (East Anglian Transfer) Light Railways Order, 1904) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the city of Ripon and in the rural distict of Ripon, in the West Riding of the county of York (Ripon and District Light Railways Order, 1904) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, amending the Leek, Caldon Low, and Hartington Light Railways Order, 1898 (Leek, Caldon Low, and Hartington Light Railways (Extension of Time, etc.) Order, 1904) [by Command]; to lie upon I the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway from Witney, in the county of Oxford, to Andoversford, in the county of Gloucester (Witney, Burford, and Andoversford, Light Railway Order, 1904) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the county of Essex, in the borough of Southend-on-Sea and the I urban district of Shoeburyness (Southend-on-Sea and District Light Railways (Extensions) Order, 1904) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Lunacy. Copy of Appendix to the fifty-eighth Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy to the Lord Chancellor [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 247.]
QUESTION'S AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Civil Service Retirement Regulations.
  MR. YOXALL (Nottingham, W.): To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Minute of 30th July, 1903, as to retirement at the age of sixty-five, is still operative; if so, whether my Lords are Bill of opinion that in the case of civil servants on smaller salaries every consideration consistent with the efficiency of the service should be shown; and whether the recent application of the Registrar-General of England for an extension in the case of John M. Millner, an abstractor, has been dealt with in accordance with this clause of the Treasury Minute.
  (Answered by MR. Victor Cavendish.) The paragraph referred to was not intended to be of general application, but to meet a limited class of cases of hardship which arose immediately on the passing of the Order in Council of 29th November, 1898, and which are now not likely to recur.

  Return of Parish Charities (Scotland).
  MR. HALDANE: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether lie will have the Return of Parish Charities (Scotland), dated 19th April, 1894, brought down to date, and state therein the number of beneficiaries among whom these charities were distributed during the year 1903, and the administrative changes, if any, which have been effected under the first four sub-sections of Section 30 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, since it came into operation.
  (Answered by MR. A. Graham Murray.) I am prepared to grant the Return desired by the hon. Member. The exact form which it should take will require
  1188
  consideration, and when this has been adjusted I shall communicate with him.

  Teaching of Hygiene in Scotch Schools.
  SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the Scottish Education Department has received a statement from any members of the medical profession, who, in view of the serious physical and moral conditions of degeneracy and disease resulting from the neglect and infraction of the elementary laws of hygiene, desire the Board of Education to consider whether it would be possible to include in the curricula, both of elementary and secondary schools, such teaching as may lead the young to appreciate the value of healthful physical conditions; and whether he will state the intentions of the Department with regard to this representation.
  (Answered by MR. A. Graham Murray.) No representation answering to the description of the hon. Member has been received by the Scotch Education Department. But the subject has been frequently brought before the Department, and is now occupying their attention. I cannot commit the Department to any particular course of action in reply to a Question.

  Increase in Number of Aged Poor in Poorhouses in Scotland.
  MR. BLACK: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the large increase which has, during the last thirty years, taken place in the proportion of aged poor who are inmates of poorhouses in Scotland as compared with those receiving outdoor relief; whether he has any official information showing that this increase is due to a change of policy, involving aged persons being compelled in greater numbers to go into the poor-house without the alternative of outdoor relief being offered them; and, if so, will he revert to the former practice of permitting the aged poor to receive relief in their own homes in all cases where they can so arrange.
  (Answered by MR. A. Graham Murray.) I am imformed by the Local Government Board that they are not in a position to

  1189
  confirm the statement of the hon. Member in regard to relief of the aged poor. There has been no change of policy on the part of the Board in the direction indicated.

  Meal Reliefs in the General Post Office.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that counter clerks stationed at the chief office, London, who commence duty at 6 a.m. and 6.45 a.m. are compelled to take their meal reliefs at 10 a.m. and 10.30 a.m.; that they are prevented by the rules from leaving the building to obtain food, although the official refreshment branch is not open during these hours; and, if so, whether he will inquire into the subject with a view to making an alteration in the meal reliefs.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.)The arrangement to which the hon. Member refers was made at the request of the men themselves. A few days ago they asked for an alteration, and I find that their wishes have already been met. It would therefore appear that the information supplied to the hon. Member, and on which he based his Question, conveyed an entirely erroneous impression.

  Structural Alterations at Roscrea Post Office—Claim of MR. Acres.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will explain why payment of £24 claimed byMR. Acres, late postmaster, Roscrea, county Tipperary, for structural alterations made by him in the post office there, is refused, whilst he was paid £46 for fittings for said post office supplied at the same time; whether he is aware that these structural alterations include the letter receiver and certain woodwork inside the office; that the Department offered MR. Acres 2s. per month as long as they required the use of the property, and refused to allow MR. Acres in January, 1903, to remove this property; and whether, seeing that they are still in use in the post office, will payment of MR. Acres' claim of £24 be made j to him.
  1190
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.)The office fittings were bought by the Department because they can be removed elsewhere, or disposed of when no longer required where they are. With regard to structural alterations the case is different. The premises, including the letter box, woodwork, and other fixtures referred to, were taken as they now stand by the present postmaster, who refused to allow the removal of the fixtures; and the rent includes interest on the amount expended on structural alterations. The precise amount included in the rent for this purpose is 2s. per month; but I understand that MR. Acres refused to accept this portion of the rent.

  Promotion of a Learner in Portadown Post Office.
  MR. WOOD; (Down, E.): To ask the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that a learner with less than a year's service at Portadown has been given charge of the receipt of mails, and deals exclusively with the registered letter work, whilst clerks of many years service are placed in subordinate positions; and, if so, whether, in view of the official evidence given before the Bradford Commission, he will inquire into the matter.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am having inquiry made, and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  Teaching of Hygiene in Schools.
  SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education, whether the Board has received a statement from many members of the medical profession who, in view of the serious physical and moral conditions of degeneracy and disease resulting from the neglect and infraction of the elementary laws of hygiene, desire the Board of Education to consider whether it would be possible to include in the curricula, both of elementary and secondary schools, such teaching as may lead the young to appreciate the value of healthful physical conditions; and whether he will state the intentions of the Board with regard to the representation.

  1191
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.)The President of the Board received this afternoon a very influential deputation, introduced by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire, who presented a petition signed by over 14,000 members of the medical profession. In reply the President expressed his hearty sympathy with the objects which the deputation had put before him, and detailed the steps which have been, and are being, taken to attain those objects in the training of teachers and other directions.

  Status and Pay of Naval Schoolmasters.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if a circular concerning the conditions of recent promotions of naval schoolmasters to be head schoolmasters and head schoolmasters to be chief schoolmasters is to be promulgated; and, if so, when; whether any improvements as to pay, pension, widows' pension, and warrant rank are to be made; and whether it is proposed to improve the status and pay of the naval schoolmasters technically so-called.
  (Answered by MR. Pretyman.) A circular letter to the Fleet on the subject of chief and head schoolmasters has been prepared and will be issued shortly. It will contain full particulars of the new commissioned rank of chief schoolmaster. As regards the existing warrant rank of head schoolmaster the number of officers has been increased, their status raised, and the scale of widows' pensions improved. Instructional allowances also have been attached to certain appointments open to officers of this grade. Full particulars of those changes will be included in the forthcoming circular letter.

  Substitution of Schools for Training Ships.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is proposed to discontinue the training of boys for the Royal Navy on board ship at Portsmouth, and substitute training schools ashore elsewhere.
  (Answered by MR. Pretyman.) The "St. Vincent" being still serviceable there is no present intention to discontinue training on board this ship.

  Chinese Labour for the Transvaal—Prohibition by the Chinese Authorities at Canton.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state whether the Chinese authorities in the province of Canton prohibited the further recruitment of labourers for the Transvaal for the reason that the recent Anglo-Chinese Convention was being rendered nugatory through the shipment of labourers from the British port of Hong-kong instead of from a Chinese treaty port, as provided in that Convention; and, if not, what was the reason for this prohibition.
  (Answered by MR. Secretary Lyttelton.) I have no information with regard to the Viceroy's motives.

  Powers granted for Electric Power Supply to Districts, Return.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Return respecting proceedings under Acts granting powers for the supply of electric power to districts, to which he assented on the 8th February last, may be expected to be in the possession of the House.
  (Answered by MR. Gerald Balfour.) The Return is ready, and will be presented immediately.

  Infantile Mortality.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the rate of infantile mortality in many populous districts, he will issue a circular to boards of guardians in the large towns, calling attention to the facts connected with infantile mortality, and pointing out that no difficulty should be made to discourage poor people from applying for early medical aid when they or their children are exposed to danger from epidemic diseases.
  (Answered by MR. Walter Long.) I am advised that the high rate of infantile mortality in large towns is to a considerable extent due to improper feeding, and is by no means confined to children of the pauper class. I am not aware

  1193
  that difficulties are made to discourage poor people, who would be proper recipients of relief, from applying for early medical aid in the circumstances referred to in the Question, but if the hon. Member is aware of cases of the kind, and will furnish me with particulars of them, I shall be happy to make inquiry with regard to them. At present there does not seem to me to be sufficient ground for issuing a circular of the kind suggested.

  Position of Debenture Holders of Irish Loan Fund Banks.
  DR. THOMPSON (Monashan, N.): To ask MR. Chancellor of the Exchequer, if his attention has been called to the treatment of the debenture holders of the Irish Loan Fund Banks; is he aware that these depositors were guaranteed against loss by His Majesty's Government, and that notwithstanding they have been paid no interest for years and that their capital cannot now be recovered; that this state of things was produced by the carelessness of a Government Department in Dublin Castle, by the Loan Fund Board of Ireland, and of its Secretary; and if, in view of these circumstances, he is prepared to refund the money thus lost by these debenture holders.
  (Answered by MR. Wyndham.)The Question is based on an entire misconception of the facts. The Government has never guaranteed depositors in the Loan Fund Banks against loss. It has been frequently pointed out that the Government accepts no responsibility whatever for any losses that may have been incurred by depositors, and that the Executive exercises no control over the proceedings of the Board or the individual societies working in connection with that Board. The reply to the Question is consequently in the negative. The Bill now before the House is intended to facilitate the collection of money due to the societies, and should it become law the position of debenture holders of insolvent societies will be materially improved.

  The Irish Estates Commissioners.
  DR. THOMPSON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of
  1194
  Ireland if his attention has been called to the amount of work in the office of the Estates Commissioners, and that, not with-standing, the Commissioners have issued directions to their inspectors that in estimating the value of non-judicial rents they are to carefully inspect and tabulate in detail the different farms, noting all the improvements; and, if so, whether he will consider the desirability of allowing an inspector to inspect the estate as a whole and furnish his report without entering so much into minute particulars.
  (Answered by MR. Wyndham.)The Estates Commissioners have not issued any instructions of the character mentioned in the Question.

  Irish Poor Law Medical Officers' Superannuation Bill.
  DR. THOMPSON: To ask the Chief I Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Irish Poor Law Medical Officers' Superannuation Bill has the support of nearly the whole body of Irish Members; and, if so, considering the importance of this Bill, he will consent to make it a Government measure and pass it into law this session.
  (Answered by MR. Wyndham.) No, sir; I am not aware that the fact is as stated. I have more than once expressed the opinion that I should be glad to see a Bill become law that was designed to effect a settlement of the question of superannuation upon a basis fair and equitable and acceptable to all parties proposed to be affected. But the Bill before the House would not attain these objects. In my correspondence with the Poor Law Association I suggested the reconstruction of the measure upon a basis that would stand the test of actuarial criticism. Until this has been done the Government cannot consider the question of providing facilities for the passage of the Bill.

  Erection of Labourers Cottage for William Carroll in the Cashel Rural District.
  MR. CONDON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a labourer named William Carroll

  1195
  applied to the Cashel Rural District Council for a labourer's cottage and plot; that his representation was passed by the council and also passed at the inquiry held by the Local Government inspector; that no opposition was offered at the inquiry; that an arbitrator was appointed and his award made; that when all this had been done an objection was made by a MR. Hemphill on the ground that he was not served with the statutory notice; and whether, seeing that no steps have since been taken to build the cottage, and in view of the size of the hut in which this man and his family are living, the Local Government Board will take steps to have the cottage erected.
  (Answered by MR. Wyndham.)The facts are as stated. The Local Government Board is not, however, empowered to take steps to have the cottage erected in view of mistake made by the district council in the service of the requisite notices on the persons interested in the plot. It is a matter for the council to consider whether it might not be able to come to terms with the owner and occupier for the taking of the site, or of an alternative site on their lands.

  The Sherlock Estate, County Cork.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN Cork (County, E.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the tenants on the Sherlock Estate, Ballyrobin, Cloyne, county Cork, which is at present in the Land Judge's Court, will be afforded an opportunity of purchasing their holdings.

  Enfield Lock.

  Birmingham.

  Number.

  Price.

  Number.

  Price.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1889–90

  31,238

  5

  5

  0½

  4,395

  5

  18

  4

  1890–91

  92,127

  3

  11

  10¼

  26,957

  3

  14

  5

  1891–2

  42,407

  3

  11

  0

  25,837

  3

  9

  2

  1892–3

  35,240

  3

  14

  6½

  13,633

  3

  17

  4¼

  1893–4

  32,945

  3

  10

  4

  15,870

  3

  14

  9

  The number made by the London Small Arms Company in the same period was 75,000 and the price rifle for the first
  (Answered by MR. Wyndham.)It is necessary to communicate with the solicitor having carriage of the proceedings for the sale of this estate, and I would ask the hon. Member to postpone the Question till Thursday next.

  Manufacture of Rifles in Government and Private Factories.
  MR. SHACKLETON: To ask the Secretary of State for War what number of the service rifles, Lee-Metford and Lee-Enfield, were made at the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield, during the years 1889–1890, 1890–1891, 1891–2, 1892–3, 1893–4; what was the cost per rifle each year; what number of Lee-Metford and Lee-Enfield rifles were made at the Royal Small Arms Factory, Birmingham, during the same period, and what was the cost per rifle for each year; what was the number of these rifles made at the London Small Arms Factory, Old Ford, during the same period, and what was the cost per rifle each year respectively; and will he state if the cost of establishment, depreciation of plant and machinery, are included in the cost of the rifle at Enfield, whether wages at Enfield are higher than at any other small arms factory, and whether a large amount of sub-contracting exists at the present time at the private firms, resulting in the employment of a number of men by sub-contractors at low wages.
  (Answered by MR. Secretary Arnold-Forster.)The number of service rifles made at Enfield and Birmingham for the years in question, and their cost, were as follows:—
  half of the contract was £5 10s., and for the second half £4 18s., The cost of establishment and depreciation of plant
  and machinery are included in the cost of the rifle at Enfield. As regards wages at Enfield, when the difference of rates of wages in different districts and of the scheme of manufacturing in each factory are taken into consideration, the run of wages for rifle work is not higher than at Sparkbrook, but, if anything, it may be said to be rather lower. The rate of wages paid by private firms is not known. There is no sub-contracting at the present time of which the War Department is aware.

  Officers warned for Removal from Salisbury.
  SIR WALTER PALMER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether any officer or any member of the staff attached to or belonging to the division at Salisbury has received official notice to be read} to leave Salisbury this year; and, if so, whether such notice is definite, or merely precautionary.
  (Answered by MR. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Notice of prospective removal, to take place on the 30th September, was given; but, as it appeared probable that inconvenience and expense might be caused by the shortness of the notice, the move has been postponed until the 31st December.

  Promotion in the Royal Army Medical Corps.
  DR. THOMPSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the dissatisfaction existing amongst the officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps at the recent promotions, whereby twelve senior officers were passed over in favour of a younger officer of less distinguished service than some of those whose claims were rejected; and if, in future, he will direct the Advisory Board to give their reasons for their selections and communicate them if requested to the officers passed over.
  (Answered by MR. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The Secretary of State is not aware of the dissatisfaction amongst the officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps alleged in the Question. Promotions are made by selection and after careful inquiry by the Advisory and Selection Boards. The standard upon which the
  1198
  Advisory Board bases its recommendations is that of positive merit, and suitability for the Administrative Medical Staff of the Army. It would not appear desirable that reasons for supersession should be communicated to the officers affected.

  Tenders for Meat for Ballykinlor Camp.
  MR. WOOD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that tenders were asked for the supply of butcher's meat for the camp at Ballykinlor from the 1st June to the 1st December, 1904, he will say who were the parties who tendered for same, and the prices at which they tendered, and explain why the lowest tender was not accepted.
  (Answered by MR. Secretary Arnold-Forster.)The General Officer Commanding the 9th Division sent out the tenders referred to and is authorised to accept or decline all such tenders.

  Disturbances amongst Chinese Labourers at Tientsin.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now give an account of a conflict in Tientsin between two batches of Chinese indentured labourers awaiting embarkation for the Transvaal mines, under the provisions of the Chinese Labour Ordinance, the casualties already reported being three Chinamen killed and twenty wounded; and whether, having regard to the fact that the combatants at Tientsin were natives of North China and South China between whom a deadly feud exists, any provision has been made to prevent similar collisions during the voyage to South Africa and in the mines; if he has received a telegraphic report of this occurrence, why has he not communicated that report to the House of Commons; if he has not received such report, what steps does he intend to take with reference to the delay.
  (Answered by MR. Secretary Lyttelton.)—I received a telegram from the Transvaal Government Agent at Tientsin on 22nd June, stating that the deaths occurred as a result of a street brawl on a large scale which originated between two

  1199
  bodies of Chinese emigrants living in different quarters of the town, and that there was no reason to apprehend that there will be trouble on the ships; that the contending parties would be carried on different ships; and that a despatch will follow by mail. I expected the hon. Member by repeating his Question as he has now done to enable me to give the information to the House.

  Salaries and Fees of Law Officers of the Crown—Opportunity for Discussion.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.): To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether in view of the fact that no discussion was permitted in the session of 1903 on the salaries and fees of the Law Officers of the Crown, and having regard to the fact that the amendment to the law regarding the publication of false balance-sheets promised by the Prime Minister on the 19th February, 1903, is indefinitely postponed, he will undertake that full opportunity will be given during the present session of Parliament for discussing the salaries and fees paid to the Law Officers of the Crown amounting to £32,990 7s.
  (Answered by MR. A. J. Balfour.)In view of important Estimates which have not yet been before the Committee of Supply, I can give no pledge to put down the Vote mentioned by the hon. Member. I may remind him that the False Statements (Companies) Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 25th February of this year in pursuance of the undertaking given by the Government. It is, however, evident from the Notices on the Paper that the Bill cannot be regarded as uncontroversial.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    H.M.S. "Centurion"—Defective Gun Sights.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, can he state what is the prize-firing record last received of H.M.S. "Centurion," and whether the Board of Admiralty consider it to be satisfactory; have the Admiralty received any report from Admiral Sir Cyprian Bridge, as
    1200
    Commander-in-Chief on the China Station, to the effect that H.M.S. "Centurion" was unfit to go into action by reason of her defective gun sights; and can he say what steps have since been taken to remedy the defects, and when the Admiralty expect that H.M.S. "Centurion" will be fit to go into action.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): The prize-firing records are confidential; but it may be stated that the "Centurion's" firing was not as good as on a former occasion referred to in my reply to the hon. Member for Caithness on i8tn April.† That reply covers all the points raised in this Question.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The latter part of my Question is not covered by that Answer.
    MR. PRETYMAN: The Admiralty do not admit that the "Centurion" is not fit to go into action.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Have any steps been taken to remedy the defects?
    MR. PRETYMAN: It was stated on a former occasion that improvements and alterations are constantly being made in the sighting and fittings, and when a ship is on a foreign station it is impossible to say at a given moment whether her sights have been altered.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the "Centurion" fit to go into action?
    MR. PRETYMAN: Yes, Sir.

    H.M.S. "Prince of Wales"—Sight Fittings.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, in view of the fact that the sight fittings of H.M.S. "Prince of Wales" are not what would be supplied now, will he state what sight fittings would be supplied now; and has any decision been arrived at as regards the best form of sights and sight fittings either for turret guns or for 6 inch guns.
    † See (4) Debates, cxxxiii., 359.
    MR. PRETYMAN: The details asked for in the first part of the Question cannot be given in reply to a Parliamentary Question. A decision has been arrived at as to what is at present regarded as the best form of sights for turrets and 6-inch guns, but there is no such thing as finality in this matter.

    Alteration on Ships of War—King's Regulations.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty are the ship's artificers of H.M.S. "Prince of Wales" engaged in fitting cross connections to the ship's 6-inch gun sights and in fitting large range discs; and, in view of Art. 1319 of the King's Regulations, prescribing that proposals for alterations and additions shall be made by letter, were any such proposals made by letter before the alterations were carried out.
    MR. PRETYMAN: They may be doing so; inquiry can be made if desired. Article 1319 of the King's Regulations does not refer to such alterations as these, but to large alterations that are proposed to be made by a dockyard, and consequently require special approval.
    In reply to a further Question, MR. PRETYMAN said the commanders of ships were encouraged to carry out these smaller alterations themselves, and a letter was not necessary in such a case as this.

    Transvaal Labour Ordinance.
    MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will cable to Lord Milner and ascertain whether the Law Officers of the Transvaal Government construe the Chinese Ordinance as permitting Chinese labourers to do mining work formerly performed by white miners; also, if Chinese labourers are to-day employed at the Comet Mine as overseers, and if they are under the direction and supervision of white gangers; and, if so, are these Chinese overseers additional and supplemental hands to the staff of the mines, seeing that Kaffir overseers or gangers have never been employed in the Transvaal mines except under white miners.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): It does not seem to me to be desirable or necessary to telegraph as proposed by the hon. Member. The terms of the Ordinance appear to me to be plain in confining these labourers to unskilled labour, which is defined as that usually performed in the mines by natives. I am not informed as to the exact arrangements which have been made in the Comet Mine, but I will inquire.

    The Chinese Exclusion Bill in Cape Colony.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the assent of I the Crown, withheld from the Chinese I Exclusion Bill by the Governor of Cape Colony for the consideration of the Colonial Office, has yet been given; and to what is the delay in giving that assent due, if it has not yet been given, having regard to the presence in this country of the Governor of Cape Colony,
    MR. LYTTELTON: No, Sir; there is nothing unusual in the delay It is usual to sanction reserved Bills by Order in Council, and, as I informed the hon. Member a week ago, the authenticated copy of the law only reached me on the 2nd instant.

    Desertions from the Coolie Camp in Johannesburg.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any official information showing that two colonial coolies imported to the Rand under the Chinese Labour Ordinance have deserted from the New Comet Mine, Johannesburg, and were captured on Wednesday last at Pretoria, having tramped thither from Johannesburg; can he say whether they were escorted to Johannesburg by military or by police, and were they handcuffed; what was the reason for their desertion, and what will be the punishment accorded to them; and whether there is any explanation of the circumstance that they have, within a few days of entrance on their work as indentured labourers, thus deserted from it.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I have no information on the subject.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman use the cable? Is he aware that there is a telegraph to arrival at South Africa?
    MR. LYTTELTON: Yes, Sir, I am quite aware that there is a telegraph, but I do not consider it necessary to employ it.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I also beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has sent a despatch by the last mail to Lord Milner calling his attention to the fact that these two coolies had escaped from this mine, and inquiring how they escaped and how they were brought back?
    MR. LYTTELTONsaid he had not written to Lord Milner.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware it is reported that a large number of Chinese coolies have escaped?
    MR. SPEAKER: A Question must not be based on reports.

    Great Britain and Tibet—Chinese Eights.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what is our precise position towards China in regard to Tibet; is Tibet an independent kingdom or is it a portion of the Chinese Empire; has the representative of China in Tibet full powers from his Government to enter into a treaty with us; and, if so, would this treaty be valid before being ratified by the Chinese Government in Pekin; or have we—assuming Tibet to be a dependency of China—obtained any assurance from the Chinese authorities that if we sign a treaty with Tibet such treaty would be binding on China.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): For information regarding the status of Tibet I must refer the hon. Member to the Blue-book. The negotiations will be conducted jointly with the Chinese Amban and the Tibetan repre-
    1204
    sentatives. The Chinese Government has been kept duly apprised of the action of His Majesty's Government in Tibet, and the Chinese Amban at Lhasa expressed to Colonel Younghusband, on his arrival at Gyangtse, his readiness to negotiate.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Are we at war with China or not?
    MR. BRODRICK: I think that Question has been repeatedly answered. It does not arise on this Question so far as I can gather.

    Assistant Military Secretary for Indian Affairs.
    CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state when the appointment of Assistant Military Secretary for Indian Affairs is likely to be filled up.
    MR. BRODRICK: The appointment in question has been abolished.

    Regent of Zanzibar.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that a deputation from Zanzibar recently came to England to complain of the proceedings of the Regent, he will state if the Regent is now at Zanzibar or on leave of absence; and, if not, will he say with whom has the Government been in correspondence regarding the matters complained of by the Envoy.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): The Regent is at Zanzibar. I have already stated that His Majesty's Government has been in communication with the Sultan and with the Regent.

    Stoppage of British Mail Steamers by Russian Warships.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any inquiry has been made as to the circumstances under which a British mail steamer was recently stopped in the Red Sea by a Russian man-of-war; whether the man-of-war issued from and

    1205
    returned to neutral ports; whether there is reason to believe that she had coaled in a neutral port since having coaled in a Russian port; and whether any protest has been made either to any neutral Power or to the Russian Government on the subject.
    EARL PERCY: His Majesty's Government have received no information of the stoppage of any British mail steamer recently in the Red Sea. In February last two steamers of the Peninsular and Oriental Company and one of the Indian Steam Navigation Company were stopped by the Russian squadron in the Red Sea, and in two cases the vessel was boarded and its papers examined, but in each case after a very short detention it was allowed to proceed. There was nothing in these cases which would have justified any protest on the part of His Majesty's Government.

    Rule of the Road at Sea—Board of Trade Warning.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, have the Board of Trade issued a notice or warning to merchant ships to the effect that when meeting vessels of His Majesty's Fleetthey should keep out of the way of such vessels; if so, will he state its date and terms; does the notice practically suspend and supersede on such an occasion the ordinary rule of the road at sea as between ship and ship; does it apply to foreign as well as to British merchant ships; and do the Board of Trade propose to adhere to or withdraw such notice.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): (1) In April, 1897, the Board of Trade issued a notice to shipowners and masters calling attention to the danger to all concerned which is caused by single vessels approaching a squadron of warships so closely as to involve risk of collision, or attempting to pass ahead of, or through, or to break the line of, such squadrons. Mariners were warned that on such occasions it would be in the interests of safety for single ships to adopt timely measures to keep out of the way of, and avoid passing through, a squadron. This notice was re-issued in July, 1900, with reference to
    1206
    the judgments delivered in the Court of Appeal in the "Sanspareil" case. (2) The notice is advisory only and does not suspend or supersede the rule of the road at sea. (3) It was not addressed to owners or masters of foreign ships; and (4) as a present advised I am not prepared to withdraw it.

    Stony Stratford Postmastership—War Services Rewarded.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will explain why a candidate was appointed to the post-mastership of Stony Stratford who had only eighteen years service, seeing that other candidates applied with considerably over twenty years approved service; and whether, in view of the weekly notice in the Post Office Circular that outside influence should not be employed in seeking appointments, he will state whether any recommendations other than official were considered in this case, and what steps he proposes to take.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): The postmaster was appointed by me because I considered him the most suitable of the candidates. He was not only strongly recommended by his official superiors, but he had also rendered special service in South Africa during the War. He was mentioned in despatches for continuous and marked good service, and his name was officially brought to the Postmaster-General's notice in 1902 by Lord Kitchener's orders. No outside or unofficial recommendations we e brought before me or considered.
    MR. NANNETTIinquired if it were not against the rules for civil servants to receive testimonials from distinguished individuals outside.
    LORD STANLEY: It is nothing against a man that he should receive such a testimonial as this officer did from Lord Kitchener.

    Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Home

    1207
    Department what is the cause of the unusual delay in the publication of the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. COCHRANE, Ayrshire, N.): I explained, in answer to a Question of the right hon. Baronet on the same subject last March, † the special circumstances which made it impossble to promise this year's Report at so early a date as last year's. Every effort, however, has been made to expedite the printing of the Report, and I understand that copies will be delivered on Friday next.

    Alien Pauper Lunatics and Convicts.
    SIR WALTER GREENE (Bury St. Edmunds): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state how many pauper alien lunatics are known to be at present maintained at public expense within the Metropolitan area, and whether there has been any, and what, increase in the number of such persons during the last five years; and whether he can state how many alien convicts are at the present time confined in convict prisons, and whether he can state the number of aliens who were during the year 1903 confined in local prisons.
    MR. COCHRANE: Inquiry is being made as regards the pauper alien lunatics, and if the information desired can be obtained it will be communicated to the hon. Member. The number of aliens in convict prisons on 23rd April, 1904, was; 182. The number confined in local prisons on conviction during the year ended 31st March, 1903, was, 3,449. These are the latest dates for which information is available; and it is impossible to obtain fresh statistics without an exanrnation c f the prison records, which would involve considerable time and labour.

    Agricultural Profits in Great Britain.
    MR. EUGENE WASON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the Board of Agriculture, whether he can state approximately the
    † See (4) Debates, cxxxiv., 618.
    1208
    annual profit made by proprietors farming their own land, tenant farmers, and holders of allotments in Great Britain during the year ending 3lst March last.
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: I regret that we are not in possession of information which would enable the Board even approximately to estimate the annual profit made by the various classes of occupiers of agricultural land to which the hon. Member refers.

    Ordnance Survey Department Discipline.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the; Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that a temporary civil assistant in the Ordnance Survey Department has been reduced by the sum of 3d. per day by the divisional officer for visiting, without permission, his wife, who was dangerously ill; and whether, under the circumstances, he will take the case into his consideration, and restore to this man his position and pay.
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: Inquiries into the case mentioned have be in instituted, but the information necessary to enable me to reply to the Question is not yet available. Perhaps the hon. Member would put it down again in a day or two's time.

    Admiralry Courtyard, Whitehall.
    GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether his attention has been called to the wooden or plaster shutters which have bee a placed behind the open work of the architectural screen which connects the gateway leading into the Admiralty Courtyard, Whitehall; and whether he cold propose to the First Commissioner of Works to remove these shutters and allow the whole screen to be seen and appreciated.
    LORD BALCARRES:: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. It appears that the wooden shutters referred to have been in existence for many years. The First Commissioner is considering the possibility of removing them.

    Rathmines Register.
    MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask MR. Attorney-General for Ireland if he has now received the police report relative to the tampering with the requisition forms in the Rathmines polling district of South Dublin; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): The police have not as yet been able to establish the identity of the persons who collected and tampered with these forms, but they are pursuing their inquiries. I am informed that the town clerk has already taken steps to counter act the attempt to falsify the register, and that the correct names of the voters will be inserted in the lists.

    Kingstown and Dalkey Voters Lists.
    MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask MR. Attorney-General for Ireland if his attention has been called to complaints from the Kingstown and Dalkey polling districts of South Dublin as to the tampering with the voters' requisition forms by the agents of a certain organisation; and whether, if a list of these agents, together with a list of such forms altered by them without authority, is placed before him, he will direct a prosecution to take place; and whether he proposes to take any, and, if so, what action to secure that these inaccuracies should be corrected, and the persons entitled, and these only, placed on the supplemental list.
    MR. ATKINSON: My attention has been called to the matter. The town clerks of Kingstown and Dalkey state that no complaints have been made to them on the subject, and the latter gentleman further states that he is certain that no forms were tampered with in his district. I shall be thankful, however, to the hon. Member for any information he may be good enough to furnish me with, calculated to aid the police in the inquiries they are now making on the subject.
    MR. MOONEY: I will supply the right hon. Gentleman with information.

    Transfer of Powers from Irish Harbour Authorities to County Councils.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will introduce a short Bill this session giving the Irish Local Government Board power, by Provisional Order, to transfer to a county council any of the powers, duties, and liabilities of any harbour commissioners or trustees (except the commissioners of Royal harbours) in cases where such a transfer is agreed to both by the county council and by the trustees or Commissioners.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): I stated on the 1st inst. that further legislation is unnecessary.† In the case of Courtown Harbour, to which I understand the Question is intended to refer, I am informed that, inasmuch as it is administered by a public body, the transfer of its powers to the county council can be effected by Provisional Order under the 20th Section of the Act of 1898. The Local Government Board would be prepared to make a Provisional Order forthwith and without local inquiry upon receiving a formal resolution to that effect from the county council and the written consent of the harbour trustees to the proposed transfer.

    Fisheries on South-East Coast of Ireland.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is in a position to state the result of his inquiries into the condition of the fishing industry on the south-east coast of Ireland, and what he proposes to do for the assistance of that industry.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Question has reference to the application of Section 11 of the Marine Works Act to the maintenance of fishery piers in non-congested districts. The matter is still engaging consideration, and I am not yet in a position to make any statement in respect to it.

    Dr. Starkie and Irish Intermediate Schools.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the
    † See page 318

    1211
    Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if Dr. Starkie, the Resident Commissioner of National Education in Ireland, was authorised to accompany Messrs. Dale and Stevens on their visits to Irish intermediate schools.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Dr. Starkie is one of the Commissioners of Intermediate Education. He accompanied Messrs. Dale and Stevens at their request.

    Derrygoolan Shooting Rights.
    MR. KILBRIDE (Kildare. S.): On behalf the hon. Member for East Galway, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state at whose request the police accompanied strangers on the lands of Derrygoolan in 1902 and 1903 when these strangers were attempting to shoot over the tenants' farms, held from year to year for a great number of years; and if these tenants requisition the services of the police on the 12th August next to assist them in preventing persons shooting their game without permission their request will be complied with, and a sufficient police force be supplied to prevent a breach of the law.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The police, so far as I am aware, received no request and no orders to attend. They had reason to apprehend a breach of the peace and attended to prevent serious violence. It is their duty to prevent violence; but not to prejudice the case of either of the parties claiming the same right. Such claims can Only be determined by process of law, that is by one or other of the parties suing either for trespass or for technical assault.
    MR. KILBRIDE: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that in the case of a tenant from year to year he has as much right to the game as any landlord in this House has to the game on his estate.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The whole thing depends on the nature of the occupation, and that can only be determined in a Court of Law.
    MR. KILBRIDE: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that they are tenants from year to year?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. FLAVIN: How was it the police attended without a request.
    MR. WYNDHAM: They apprehended that there was going to be a row.

    Moy Nationalist Demonstration.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether facilities will be given to contingents attending the Nationalist demonstration at Moy, county Tyrone, on 15th August to proceed by the road leading from Trew and Moy Station.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed by the authorities locally responsible that a Nationalist procession through the district in question, which is almost exclusively Orange, would be calculated to endanger the preservation of the peace and would, in all probability, lead to rioting and serious disturbance. Such processions have always hitherto proceeded by the route from Dungannon and Annaghmore, and the Government is unable to entertain any arrangement which contemplates a departure from the route which has been safely followed in former years.
    MR. MACVEAGH: How did the local authorities arrive at the conclusion that this is an Orange district in view of the fact that there are only two Orangemen in the whole neighbourhood. Why is not the procession to be allowed to take this route?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! That Question has been answered.

    Irish Land Purchase—Granville Knox Estate, County Mayo.
    MR. O'DOWD (Sligo, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received from the Ballina District Council a memorial signed by the tenantry of the Granville H. Knox Estate, Crossmolina, county Mayo, which is announced to be sold by public auction in Ballina, on the 13th inst., by order of Judge Ross; and, if so, will he state the circumstances of this sale, and

    1213
    say whether, as this estate contains waste land suitable for the enlargement of small holdings, steps will be taken to give effect to the prayer of memorialists by having this untenanted land purchased for the purpose of enlarging the uneconomic holdings on the untenanted portions proposed to be sold.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The sale by auction has been adjourned by the Landudge to enable the Estates Commissioners to determine whether they will make an offer for the lands.

    Labourers Acts—Cost of Providing Additional Land.
    MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will cause inquiries to be made of all the clerks of rural district councils in whose districts additional half-acres have been already provided under the Labourers Acts, so as to obtain from each rural district an estimate of the average cost of providing an additional half acre, specifying price of land, cost of fencing, legal expenses, and general expenses.
    MR. WYNDHAM: An effort will be made to procure this information. But it will, understand, be very troublesome to collect and will impose much additional labour upon clerks of rural district councils.

    Evicted Tenants in County Galway.
    MR. KILBRIDE: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Galway, beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of evicted tenants in the county of Galway who have applied to the Estates Commissioners for reinstatement; how many have been restored; and what has been done either to reinstate the remainder or put them into new holdings.
    MR. WYNDHAM: 281 applications have been received. Forty-one have been referred to inspectors to report on. None have as yet been reinstated.
    MR. KILBRIDE: Have any untenanted lands been purchased in county Galway?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I should like to have notice of that Question, if it is desired be press it; but may say have little to add to the statement made on this subject last Friday.†

    Warren's Court Estate, County Cork.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the offer for sale of the Warren's Court Estate, at Kilmurray, county Cork, under the Land Act of 1903, he will state the terms asked by the landlord, and whether they have been agreed to by the tenantsf; have any representations been received by the Estates Commissioners from Denis Murphy, an evicted tenant; and, if so, whether, seeing that the present occupant of the evicted holding, a man named Kingston, has expressed his willingness to leave it on payment of a fair compensation, the Estates Commissioners will use their good offices towards the reinstatement of the evicted tenant, seeing that both the landlord and his agent are willing to agree to it provided the present occupant can be got to leave.
    MR. WYNDHAM: No application has been made to the Estates Commissioners in the case of the Warren Estate. An application for reinstatement has been received from Denis Murphy.

    Salters' Company's Trust in Magherafelt.
    MR. OSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in 1899 the Salters' Company, of London, conveyed to certain trustees in Magherafelt, county Derry, the old Courthouse and bridewell, the markets, and certain other property, to hold in trust for the town of Magherafelt upon certain conditions; and that, apart from an annual payment of £120 to two local schools and the handing over £100 to the Magherafelt Gas Company, no other disbursements have been made by the trustees; and whether, in view of the desire of the inhabitants that the money in the hands of the trustees should be spent for the benefit and improvement of the town, a local inquiry will be
    † See page 113.

    1215
    ordered in order to ascertain the conditions under which the trust was made over, its present value, and the best means of securing that it shall be administered for the benefit and according to the wish of the people of Magherafelt.
    MR. WYNDHAM: As far as I have been able to ascertain, the Salters' Company assigned certain property to trustees to be used for certain purposes. This trust has been faithfully carried out. I have no power whatever to institute such an inquiry as suggested, or to compel owners of property to dedicate it to purposes other than those to which they desire to devote it.

    Wicklow Canteen Licence—Action of Mr. Shanks.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has considered the action of Mr. James Shanks in signing a licence certificate for a canteen situated in the county Wicklow, Mr. Shanks not being a magistrate for that county, and the local magistrates having refused to grant the licence on the ground that the canteen had been conducted in a disorderly manner; and whether he can now state what decision the Lord Chancellor has come to in regard to Mr. Shanks' action.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am in communication with the Lord Chancellor in this matter, and will ask the hon. Member to repeat the Question on Wednesday.

    Proselytising Practices in Kinsale—Complaint against Commander Salwey.
    MR. CREAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that E. Salwey, Commander R.N., Divisional Office, Kin-sale, who lately distributed tracts at the Cork Post Office, is constantly engaged in this and other proselytising practices in the town and district of Kinsale; and, in view of the fact that the annual training of the Naval Reserve, mainly composed of Catholic fishermen and sailors, is under his command, he will have him immediately removed from the district.
    MR. PRETYMAN: This matter has already engaged the attention of the Rear-Admiral Commanding at Queens-town, and the Board of Admiralty are awaiting his report.

    Phoenix Park, Dublin—Traders' Vans.
    MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the action of the Board of Works in Ireland in refusing traders permission to send their vans through the Phoenix Park, Dublin, for the purpose of delivering goods to customers within the Park; whether he is aware that within the last few weeks a trader named Mr. Henry Baggot has been refused such permission, although he furnished, in reply to a demand from the Board, the names of the customers within the ambit of the Park whom he habitually supplied with goods; and, if so, will he say what was the reason for so treating him; and who is responsible for the regulations in virtue of which such restraints are put on trade and business.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.): Yes, Sir. I am aware of the circumstances. It is necessary in order to preserve the amenity of the Phoenix Park as a place of public enjoyment to restrict its use by carts, vans, and business vehicles as far as possible. But passes are granted to tradesmen and others who can show that their business requires it. The Board of Works are satisfied that the business of Mr. Baggot in the Park is not of such a character as to justify the grant of a pass.
    MR. CLANCY: Are we to understand that the right of a driver to go through the Park depends on the Board of Works being satisfied as to the number of his customers?
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: Yes, Sir. The Board of Works have to take that into consideration.

    Harcourt Road, Dublin—Sub-Postmaster's Salary.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General why the increase of

    1217
    salary which accrued to the town sub-postmaster of Harcourt Road, Dublin, in May, 1902, was withheld.
    LORD STANLEY: I find that in 1902, owing to the salary of the Harcourt Street Post Office having been inadvertently entered on a return relating to the Harcourt Road Office, an increase of £4 4s. a year then due for salary at the latter was unfortunately withheld. I have given instructions for the matter to be at once adjusted.

    The Cut, Mountmellick, Queen's County
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the road known as the Cut, near Clonaslee, Mountmellick, Queen's county has, by order of the military authorities, been closed, thereby causing loss to the residents in the removal of peat fuel from the adjoining bogs; and, if so, will he say whether, before this step was taken, the provisions of the Military Lands Act, 1892, were complied with, and will he give the particulars of what was done, the notices served, the reports received, the persons from whom they were received; and whether steps will be taken to ensure that these people shall not be inconvenienced in securing fuel at the only season in which it is possible for them to do so.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT,): The road in question is not closed. It was closed for five days while firing took place in the vicinity. No complaints were received, but as soon as it became known that traffic might be interfered with, the road was re-opened and arrangements were made by which firing could take place without interfering with the road. It is regretted that through an error the provisions of the Military Lands Act were not complied with.

    Longford Infirmary Committee and Military Patients
    SIR CARNE RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the action of the Longford Infirmary Committee at their last
    1218
    quarterly meeting, when the officer commanding, having requested that emergency cases should be treated there owing to the military hospital being closed, was refused, on the ground that the cases might be those of Englishmen, and also that no decent farmer could be in the same ward with a soldier; and, if so, what provision has been made for such cases of accident and emergency as may occur among the troops there quartered.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: The attention of the Secretary of State was first drawn to the matter by this Question. As the military hospital at Long ford is fully equipped with a civil practitioner in charge, no question arises as regards the adequate treatment of any emergency or other cases. The alleged gratuitous insult to the British soldier by the Long ford Infirmary Committee would hardly, therefore, appear to deserve further consideration.

    The State and the Unemployed.
    MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will make a statement before the recess, to the House, as to what action he proposes to take, if any, with regard to advising the various Departments of the Stale during the recess to deal efficiently with the unemployed, which are an increasing number in the United Kingdom.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Before my right hon. friend answers this Question, may I ask him if he has considered the influence on the state of affairs indicated in the Question of the hon. Member for Woolwich, as to the increasing number of unemployed m the United Kingdom, of free competing imports without reciprocity, and the unrestricted immigration of destitute aliens?
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): Without travelling over the wide field suggested by my hon. and gallant friend, I may say, in answer to the hon. Gentleman opposite, that this question is constantly under the consideration of the Local Government Board, and the hon. Member may be

    1219
    quite sure that there will be no neglect of it on the part of His Majesty's Government.
    MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that thousands of white men now unemployed in London would be prepared to go to work in the Transvaal mines if they were guaranteed 10s. a day?

    Thames Barrage Scheme and National Foreshore Reclamation.
    MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will appoint a Departmental Committee to consider the practicability of the Thames barrage scheme, and also the advisability of formulating a scheme of national foreshore reclamation, with a view of providing useful work for the unemployed.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The two proposals referred to in this Question do not appear to be very closely allied, and in any case I am advised that neither scheme seems at present to present features which would justify the appointment of a Departmental Committee.
    MR. CROOKS: Then we are not even to have an inquiry whether they would or not?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Gentleman will admit that there must be a strong prima facie case for putting the officials of a Department to the labour of such an inquiry, and I rather gather that that prima facie case has not been made out.

    The Coaling of Belligerent Warships at English Coaling Stations.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, have His Majesty's Government considered the conditions that should be attached to granting permission, during war, to belligerent men-of-war for coaling in coaling stations of His Majesty's dominions within or beyond the seas; and have they especially considered the necessity for requiring, as a condition precedent to granting such permission, a satisfactory engagement that any belligerent man-of-war allowed to be supplied with sufficient coal to carry her to the
    1220
    nearest port of her own nation will in fact proceed to that port direct, and will not use the coal supplied for proceeding elsewhere, in order to carry on operations of war against the other belligerent.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This question has engaged the attention of the Government, and directions have been given for carrying out the condition to which my hon. friend refers in the last lines of his Question.

    The Licensing Bill.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state what provisions the Government propose to insert in the Licensing Bill providing that adequate penalties shall be imposed on those publicans who do not provide reasonable refreshment for the public, and also for those who do not comply with the reasonable requirements of the magistrates.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Amendments on the Paper he will see that both his points are met by those standing in the name of the Solicitor-General.

    The Aliens Bill.
    MR. FORDE RIDLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if his attention has been called to the Report of the Standing Committee on the Aliens Bill, and to the decision of the Committee that it is useless in view of the large number of Amendments put down against the Bill, to proceed further with its consideration during the present session; and if he will undertake to reintroduce it early next session.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: From what I can hear of the proceedings in Committee upon this Bill, it received treatment which would make it absolutely impossible to carry it into law during the course of the present session. I understand that the average rate of progress was two lines in a day. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Three lines in six days;"] I beg pardon: three lines in six days, or half a line a day. I have not made the arithmetical calculation as to the length of time it would have taken in Grand

    1221
    Committee had the same rate of progress been maintained on all the clauses of the Bill; but I think it will be obvious that the Committee had absolutely no choice, in the face of the treatment which the Bill received, but to take the course they actually did take. My hon. friend asks me for a pledge that the Government will reintroduce the Bill early next session. We shall certainly attempt to deal with this subject early next session; but of course it would be quite impossible for me to go beyond the general terms of that pledge and to give any detailed pledge on the subject.
    MAJOR EVANS-GORDONasked if they might take it that it was the definite intention of the Government to reintroduce the Bill next session.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sorry I was not clearly heard by my hon. friend. The Government do propose to introduce a Bill on this subject early next session.
    MR. PEEL (Manchester, S.)asked the right hon. Gentleman a Question of which he had given private notice, whether, in view of the fact that a small body of obstructives [Cries of "Order"]—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! A Question of that sort should be brought to the Table, so that it may be seen whether its terms are in order before it is put on the Paper.
    MR. PEEL: With your permission," Sir, I will put it in other terms, and ask whether, in view of the fact that a small number of hon. Members ["Oh"], by repeating each other's arguments at continually increasing length ["Order"]—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Those terms would not be permitted, and the Question does not arise.

    Redistribution Bill.
    SIR WALTER GREENE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now state if there is any likelihood of a Redistribution Bill being brought in next session.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think, perhaps, I have already gone as far as I
    1222
    should go in sketching out the King's Speech for next session, and I should be unwilling to go further. But my hon. friend is well aware that this is a subject which has engaged, and is engaging, the most anxious attention of His Majesty's Government.
    MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be a considerable redistribution of Tory seats at the next general election?

    The Port of London Bill.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS:: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, for the convenience of the large interests involved, he will now say definitely when the Port of London Bill will be taken, or whether it may be considered abandoned, and, in that case, when its discharge from the Order-book will be moved.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think the prospects of this Bill are at all favourable. I understand that a great deal of opposition has been aroused on the subject, and it would be quite impossible, in the face of any serious opposition, to carry the Bill in the present state of public business. But I cannot make any further declaration on the subject at present.
    MR. PEEL: May I ask whether, in view of the paramount necessity for setting up some authority to control the Port of London, and in view of the great interests in favour of such a measure, the right hon. Gentleman will undertake, as far as he can, of course subject to other matters, to introduce substantially the same measure early next year.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I confess that I view the position of this Bill with great regret, a Bill which I cannot help thinking is important not only from a Metropolitan, but even from a national point of view. But if, as is the case, the j representatives of the Metropolis do not take that view, it is not easy to deal with the Bill. Moreover, the Bill is not an ordinary public Bill, but a hybrid Bill, I which requires notices to be given involving great expense and difficulties above the ordinary.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman specify more particularly from what quarter the opposition to this Bill has come, and can the Motion for the discharge of the Bill be put down in such a way as to give the House an opportunity of discussing the reasons why the Bill has been withdrawn?
    MR. LOUGH: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the opposition to the Bill comes from Metropolitan Members.
    MR. A. J. BALROUR: Yes, Sir, I do. I think the request of the hon. Member for Poplar goes beyond ordinary precedent. If hon. Gentlemen desire to discuss Government Bills both when they are introduced and when they are discharged, the difficulties of carrying on public business will be greatly increased.

    The Licensing Bill—Clauses 3 and 4.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked Mr. Speaker whether the charges and payments imposed by Clauses 3 and 4, as they stood and as they were proposed to be amended by the Government, ought not to be considered first by a Money Committee before the House could take cognisance of them.
    MR. SPEAKER: I have looked into this question, and have come to the conclusion that it is not a case in which a Money Committee is required.

    Colonial Office Vote.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now say definitely when the Colonial Office Vote will be taken.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot promise on what Thursday the Colonial Vote will be taken. It may be Thursday week or Thursday fortnight. It will largely depend on the view taken by hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the topics it is most desirable to discuss in Committee of Supply.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The general feeling on this side of the House is to have this discussion, if possible, as soon as may be
    1224
    after the Papers are in the hands of Members.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that any representation of that kind from him must and ought necessarily to carry great weight with the Government.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any statement to make as to business?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope my right hon. friend the Secretary for War will be able to make his statement on Thursday. On Friday we propose to take the Second Reading of the Defaulting Authorities Bill.

NEW BILL.
  POST OFFICE BILL.
  "To amend the Post Office Acts with respect to cumulative commissions on money orders and the use of embossed and impressed stamps," presented by Lord Stanley; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 268].

LICENSING BILL [2ND ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 2:—
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONmoved an Amendment to limit the compensation proposed in the Bill to

1225
small houses, under £50 annual value, with the object of moving subsequently, as a consequential Amendment, that "In all other cases the compensation shall be calculated in like manner, except that for the purpose of this calculation the licence shall be assumed to be chargeable with a duty of Excise equal to five times the duty now payable." He explained that his object was to discriminate between the licences of small and large houses. Licensed houses under £50 in annual value were charged with a licence duty of, roughly, 50 per cent, of that annual value. In the case of a house valued at £10 the duty was 60 per cent. At the other end of the scale a house with an annual value of £700 was charged a duty representing 8½ per cent., and a house valued at £2,000 paid less than 3 per cent. If charged at the same rate as the smaller houses, these larger houses would pay £350 and £1,000 respectively in licence duty, and even then they would pay a great deal less than the value of the monopoly which the State had conferred upon them. How did the Home Secretary justify the proposal in the Bill? Did he contend that the licensees had a vested interest in the maintenance of the present scale of licence duties, or did he maintain that a duty of 3 per cent, was sufficiently high? If not, then he should accept the Amendment, which would redress to some extent the injustice of the inequality that now prevailed. For the first time the House, and to some extent the country, had realised that a great monopoly value brought into existence by the State was being handed over to private persons. That had gone on for twenty-five years, but it would not go on for ever. It would be in the power of a new Parliament to say that this monopoly value would be taken by the State by means of an increase in the licence duties. If a future Chancellor of the Exchequer should increase these duties to ten times their present amount then all licences in existence after
the passing of such a Budget would have, for the purposes of compensation, one-tenth of the value they possessed before. But the licences that had already been extinguished would have been compensated on the scale provided by the Bill. An anomaly would thus be created which would be held up as a grievance; and this was the time for anticipating such a grievance. He ventured to think that his proposal afforded the most satisfactory method of dealing with it.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 27, at the beginning, to insert the words 'In the case of premises having an annual value, taken as for the purposes of the publican's licence duty, under fifty pounds.'" (Mr. Edmund Robertson.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CARSON,)declined to follow the hon. Member into his argument upon vested interest. The Committee had already passed the first clause providing that compensation was to be paid. In his opinion the Amendment was impossible. It proposed that a licence-holder should be compensated, not for a loss which he had really sustained having regard to the existing law, but upon the assumption that at some future time the amount of his licenc3 duty would be five times as great as it was now. There was an inequality in the amount paid in licence duties. The Government had attempted in some degree to remedy that inequality by charging a higher proportion upon houses valued at over £50 than upon houses under that amount for the compensation fund. That was the proper and, indeed, the only possible way of dealing with the question.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 133; Noes, 254. (Division List No. 217.)

AYES.

Abraham, William(Cork, N.E.)

Black, Alexander William

Burt, Thomas

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Blake, Edward

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Allen, Charles P.

Boland, John

Caldwell, James

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Cameron, Robert

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Bell, Richard

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Channing, Francis Allston

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Holland, Sir William Henry

Priestley, Arthzur

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hutchinson, Dr. ChatlesFredk.

Rea, Russell

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Reddy, M.

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Crombie, John William

Joicey, Sir James

Rickett, J. Compton

Crooks, William

Jones, Davia Brynmor(Swansea

Rose, Charles Day

Cullinan, J.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Runciman, Walter

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Russell, T. W.

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Delany, William

Kilbride, Denis

Schwann, Charles E.

Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Galw'y

Langley, Batty

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Sheehy, David

Donelan, Captain A.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Douglas, Charles N. (Lanark)

Leese, Sir JosephF.(Accrington

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Duncan, J. Hastings

Leng, Sir John

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Edwards, Frank

Levy, Maurice

Stevenson, Francis S.

Ellice, Capt. EC(S. Andrw'sBghs

Lloyd-George, David

Sullivan, Donal

Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

Lough, Thomas

Tennant, Harold John

Emmott, Alfred

Lundon, W.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Lyell, Charles Henry

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Evans, SirFrancisH.(Maidstone

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Tomkinson, James

Evans, Samuel T.(Glamorgan)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Trevelyan, Charles Philip

Earquharson, Dr. Robert

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Wallace, Robert

Fenwick, Charles

M'Crae, George

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

M'Kenna, Reginald

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Flynn, James Christopher

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

White, George (Norfolk)

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

Markham, Arthur Basil

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

Grant, Corrie

Morley,Rt. Hon. John (Montrose

Whitley, I. H. (Halifax)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E.(Berwick)

Murphy, John

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

Wilson, Henry J. (York. W.R.)

Hain, Edward

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N

Wood, James

Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

O'Malley, William

Yoxall, James Henry

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

O'Shee, James John

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Paulton, James Mellor

Mr. Edmund Robertson and

Higham, John Sharpe

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Mr. Herbert Lewis.

Hobhouse, C. E. H.(Bristol, E.)

Price, Robert John

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bull, William James

Dickson, Charles Scott

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Burke, E. Haviland-

Digby, John K.D. Wingfield

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J.A. (Glasgow

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Arrol, Sir William

Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ.

Dixon-Hartlana, SirFredDixon

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Doogan P. C.

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Doughty, George

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Baird, John George Alexander

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.A(Worc.

Duke, Henry Edward

Balcarres, Lord

Chapman, Edward

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Baldwin, Alfred

Charrington, Spencer

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (Maneh'r

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Fardel], Sir T. George

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Coates, Edward Feetham

Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

Balfour, Rt. HnGerald W(Leeds

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Fison, Frederick William

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.

Fitzroy, Hon. EdwardAlgernon

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Bignold, Arthur

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Bigwood, James

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Flower, Sir Ernest

Bill, Charles

Crean, Eugene

Forster, Henry William

Bingham, Lord

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S.W.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Galloway, William Johnson

Bond, Edward

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Garfit, William

Bowles, Lt.-Col. H.F(Middlesex)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

Davenport, William Bromley

Gordon, Maj. Evans-(T'r Hmlets

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby

1228

1229

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Lucas ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Rutherford, John (Lamashire)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Macdona, John dimming

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Graham, Henry Robert

Maeonochie, A. W.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Greene, SirE. W.( B'rySt. Edm'ds

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinbur'h, W

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Manners, Lord Cecil

Samuel, Sir Harry S.(Limehouse

Grenfell, William Henry

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.E.

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Gretton, John

Maxwell, Rt. HnSirH. E. (Wigt'n

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Groves, James Grimble

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Sharpe, William Edward,T.

Gunter, Sir Robert

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Moon, Edward Robert Paey

Spear, John Ward

Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th)

Morpeth, Viscount

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Morrell, George Herbert

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

Morrison, James Archibald

Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset)

Heath, James (Staffords. N.W-

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

Heaton, John Henniker

Mount, William Arthur

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Helder, Augustus

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Stock, James Henry

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham(Bute

Stroyan, John

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'd Univ.

Hobhouse, RtHn, H(Somers't, E

Myers, William Henry

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Hogg, Lindsay

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Thompson, Dr. E C(Monagh'n, N

Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Horner, Frederick William

Nicholson, William Graham

Thornton, Percy M.

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Hoult, Joseph

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Houston, Robert Paterson

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Tuff, Charles

Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Howard, J. (Midd.,Tottenham)

O'Dowd, John

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Valentia, Viscount

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Vincent, Col. Sir C.E H(Sheffield

Hunt, Rowland

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Pemberton, John S. G.

Walker, Col. William Hall

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

Percy, Earl

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Pierpoint, Robert

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Webb, Colonel William George

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Welby, Lt. Col. A.C.E. (Taunton)

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

Plummer, Walter R.

Welby, Sir CharlesG. E. (Notts.)

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Pretyman, Ernest George

Whiteley, H. (Ashton una. Lyne

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Purvis, Robert

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Lawson, John Grant(Yorks. N.R

Pym, C. Guy

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Raseh, Sir Frederic Carne

Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks.)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Reid, James (Greenock)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Long, Rt. HmWalter (Bristol, S)

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Young, Samuel

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Younger, William

Lowe, Francis William

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Robinson. Brooke

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Round, Rt. Hon. James

and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTHmoved to insert after "where"—the first word of Clause 2—the words "within fourteen years after the passing of this Act," and he explained that if that Amendment were carried he proposed to move—as a consequential Amendment— to insert at the end of the first subsection of the clause, "And after the fourteen years have expired there shall
1230
be paid as compensation to the persons interested in the licensed premises such a sum as shall be equal to the total payments which shall have been made during the said fourteen years in respect of the charges imposed on such premises under Section 3, Sub-section 1, of this Act." This raised the question of a time limit in a sense different from the time limit raised on Clause 1. The Amendments certainly proposed to limit the time

1231
during which the full value of the licence was to be paid by way of compensation; but, after the period of fourteen years, compensation was still to go on in a limited form. His object was to limit the whole amount of compensation which would be paid under the Bill, rather than to raise the vexed question of a time limit, although he did raise a time limit incidentally. There was a strong opinion, shared by many inside and outside the House, that the compensation proposed to be given under the Bill was excessive and unjustifiable. It was unjustifiable because he thought that the circumstances of the case as they stood at present had not been considered sufficiently by the Government. What he feared from the practical point of view was that if the present scale of compensation was maintained the reduction of licences in the future would be very much curtailed.
As far as he could judge the position of the fund—although it was difficult to I form an opinion on it, and he had hoped the Government would give their calculation as to how many licences would be refused in a given time—as far as he I could judge, if the full amount of compensation was to be paid, the reduction of licensed houses for the next twenty years would be very small indeed. He was a supporter of the Bill, and especially of the compensation clauses, because he believed they would have an effect on the licensing justices which would induce and assist them to reduce the number of licensed houses to a greater degree than they had done hitherto. He thought there was a case for compensation in equity, if not in justice, when there was the disturbance which there would be if a large number of licences were withdrawn within a limited period— there was a case in equity owing to the disturbance of the natural expectation which the trade had formed, rightly or wrongly, that there would be a renewal of licences except for misconduct. In these circumstances he thought if the natural expectation were violently and suddenly disturbed, although it had no foundation in law, it was a case for equitable consideration. But these grounds, it appeared to him, did not at all justify the extreme measure for compensation in perpetuity provided
1232
by the Bill. There was no case of vested interest—no case of perpetuity of tenure. The discretion of the justices was absolute. That, he understood, was admitted by the Government, and, if so, he held that it ought to be the starting point and the basis on which equitable consideration might be founded in providing compensation for those disposessed But the Bill appeared to ignore these considerations altogether. It did not appear to proceed on the considerations he had put before the Committee. If there was an absolute vested interest, if there was undeniable perpetuity of tenure, and if the licensing justices had no discretion at all, he could not conceive that there should be a larger measure of compensation given under the circumstances. As the facts did not coincide with that view it was evident that there might very legitimately be some limitation of the| full value compensation which was offered by the Bill in perpetuity. That scale of compensation, he held, was excessive and uncalled for.
His own opinion, and he thought it was also the opinion of a large number, was that ample time notice and pecuniary compensation for licences withdrawn while the time notice was running would fully meet the case. It had been said that a time notice had already been given—that licence-holders had had a time notice for a great number of years. Therefore it might be that the time notice, and compensation during the period of that time notice, might meet the case. But inasmuch as it was hoped and expected that there would be a much larger reduction in the number of licensed houses than had hitherto taken place on the ground simply that they were not required, he thought there was a case for a time limit beyond that which existed at present under the decision in "Sharpe v. Wakefield." Thus he was quite prepared to support a further time notice in this Bill with full compensation up to the expiry of the time. He himself thought that was generous treatment. It was all that could be expected and he wondered that the Government had not taken some line of that sort in framing the Bill. It must be remembered also that during the period while the time notice was running, and while

1233
redundant licences were being withdrawn, the trade would receive additional compensation in the way of the additional value given to the licences which were left. In the circumstances he thought that fourteen years of full value compensation was ample, but he would not quarrel very much over a longer period. He thought, however, the proposal he made was treating the trade with very great generosity in the circumstances in which they were placed.
Now he came to the main point of his Amendment. He thought there was considerable force in the objection taken in the earlier debates on the time limit question when it was contended that it was not fair for the trade to be compelled by the Bill to contribute to the compensation fund and after a certain period to be excluded from all the benefit of compensation. He thought there was an answer to the objection, but he would not trouble the Committee with it, because he had come to the conclusion that it was an objection that ought to be fairly met. He had endeavoured to do so by the second part of his Amendment which provided for stopping the full value compensation at the end of fourteen years. In addition to that, he thought they ought not to lay hold of the contributions towards the compensation fund which had been given by the trade for houses which after fourteen years might have their licences withdrawn, and, therefore, he thought it was only fair in the case of houses whose licences were withdrawn after the fourteen years period that there should be repayment of the contributions that had been made by them. He did not know whether he had made the point clear. He was trying to meet the objection raised, and also trying to do what he thought was most important, that was, to reduce the amount of compensation to be paid under the Bill, because he was convinced that the amount of compensation provided would not reduce licensed houses to the extent public opinion desired and which almost every man desired to see. There were only two ways of doing it. One was to increase the charges in the schedule. He should be glad to hear whether the Government were prepared to increase these charges. If the compensation to
1234
be paid was to remain the same, and if the compensation was to hold out, then the charges in the schedule must be increased. If the Government did not do that, the other way was by reducing the compensation paid. As the Amendment gave full compensation for fourteen years he thought the repayment of the contributions would meet the case. He was inclined to think that if the alternative were put to them, whether they would have the schedule charges increased or a limit to full compensation after fourteen years, the trade would choose the arrangement he proposed.
He would only say in conclusion that this was an attempted compromise between two contending parties. He was afraid that it might share the fate of nearly all compromises of pleasing nobody. At any rate, anxious as he was to see this Bill passed because he believed there was a good deal of temperance reform in it, they must, if possible, try to erect a golden bridge between the two views which were held with regard to the time limit or no time limit. He would appeal to the Government not to ignore the very strong opinion which was held and expressed outside this House on the subject, and in quarters, where it could not be said there were extreme temperance advocates. He thought he might call them moderate temperance reformers, although he understood that they were not thought much of in the House. He believed there was a large body of people in the country not identified with the temperance movement at all, who, considering that the proposals in the Bill, if passed, would so revolutionise the position of the trade, and so completely change the tenure of licences for all future years, were not favourable to even getting under these conditions the advantages which they saw under the Bill. If the Government could not see their way to accept the solution he ventured to put before them for their consideration, he hoped that they would, at any rate, endeavour, before the Bill passed, to make some proposal which would meet, to some extent, the very strong opinion which was felt inside and outside the House, and which came from quarters entitled to consideration and respect. He felt convinced that if the Government could see their way to make some conciliatory

1235
proposal in this direction, they would not only ensure the passing of the Bill, but, what was quite as important, make it more acceptable to the people of the country. He did not think there was great danger of the Government doing much harm to the trade by accepting the Amendment. He thought he might even appeal to the representatives of the trade in the House, that having made such a good bargain already, they might for their comfort and happiness afterwards very well consider whether they might not, in some way or other, give back a little of what it appeared was going to be given to them. If they did so he thought they would be rewarded afterwards. The Bill would be more heartily accepted by the people of this country if the Government adopted the Amendment, or something in the direction he had indicated, while it would not do a great deal of harm to the trade. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 27, after the word 'Where,' to insert the words 'within fourteen years after the pasting of this Act.' "—(Sir William Houldsicorth.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. SBELYsaid that on a point of order, might he ask whether this Amendment would rule out of order the Amendment standing in his name on p. 24, dividing up and providing for limiting the compensation?
THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Member had better raise the point at a later stage, and in the meantime he would consider it.
SIR ROBERT REIDthought this was the most important Amendment put down since the Bill had been presented to the House. It was rightly described by the right hon. Baronet as an honest compromise honestly proposed. He himself went a good deal further than the right hon. Gentleman, but he believed that the Bill would be far better, or rather less bad, if this proposal were accepted. He recognised that it contained a great deal that was valuable, and he should heartily
1236
support it if the Committee were obliged to divide upon the question— which he hoped would not be the case. They were discussing the clauses of this Bill under conditions which made it a duty to compress as much as possible all that they had to say on this important subject, but he thought it was most desirable in reference to this measure that there should be some time hereafter at which the nation should be at liberty to resume its right to deal with the extremely difficult question of licensing according to its own best judgment and discretion. Now, it was admitted that the trade was an extremely dangerous trade, however carefully conducted. What the Bill, as it stood, proposed to enact was that existing licences should be enjoyed by the licensees in perpetuity, subject to being bought out at their full value. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the terms of purchase were such that they made any great reduction impossible; but, in addition to that, they were such as to fasten finally and for ever the existing system of the licensing laws on this country. To his mind that was a most important consideration They would fasten definitely and inalienably the present system of licensing laws for all time unless they were to pay an enormous sum in order to cover a change. It was said £125,000,000, but he thought it would be a great deal more.
It seemed to him that they ought to ask themselves this question, "Is it desirable, in the public interest, that the existing system of licensing laws should be perpetuated in such a way that it could not be dealt with by succeeding generations?" The system was based on private enterprise—upon an unrestricted right to make private profit by the use of a State monopoly—concentrated in the hands of a comparatively small number of persons and companies. The disadvantages of the system had been fully admitted on all hands. The Prime Minister himself said that it was regrettable that this system had been allowed to grow up in the form of a monopoly without something having been paid to the State for that monopoly. Without looking at it from a moral point of view, it was unfortunate that a licensing

1237
system should have been allowed to grow up which for private profit undoubtedly encouraged excessive drinking; which was socially dangerous; which led to the sale of drink of an injurious character, and to the displacement of non-alcoholic drink; which resulted in unsatisfactory police supervision and to a few cases of corruption in connection with police supervision. There had also grown up an extremely powerful trade organisation which naturally was opposed to any change which might affect their vested interests. There was, he thought, reason to apprehend that these effects would be inflamed instead of being mitigated by the passing of this Bill. But be that so, or be it not, it was at all events fair that they or their children should at some future time be able to alter the whole of the existing licensing system. He would not enter into the various methods by which that could be accomplished. Suffice it to say that it might be thought that this trade was not a proper subject for private profit earning, because it pushed the sale of drink to the detriment of social welfare, and because it was unfair fir the State to bestow a monopoly on private persons or companies. This much was perfectly clear that they, or their posterity, probably in progressive times, would desire to alter a system which had been proved to be disastrous in the public interest.
This Amendment provided one method by which the public could, at a date hereafter, reassert its rights on possible terms. Was it just to those who were at present licensed? He was not going to apply a standard of justice which commended itself to his own mind, but would approach it from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman. He assumed that there was what was called a moral right to compensation on behalf of the trade. But what was the nature and scope of the existing rights of the licensees and also the custom and practice of the magisterial benches in this matter? The position of the licensees at the present moment was that they had a good expectation, not resting on any legal title, but resting upon the general practice of the licensing justices, that if they conducted their houses well their licences would be renewed. Now, he held that they had already had considerable time notice
1238
that that was not the case—certainlysince the decision in "Sharpe v. Wakefield." But there had never been any real doubt, even before that judgment, on the subject at all. Again, it was not the case that the practice to renew licences had been uniform. In the Brewers' Almanac for 1904 there was a statement of the number of licences of which renewals were refused in the nine years preceding 1903 In these nine years 1,337 licences were refused renewal solely on the ground that they were not required in the public interest, and without any compensation. Many others were refused on mixed grounds—that they were not required, that the premises were structurally defective, or that the licensee was neglectful in the conduct of the house. He did not wish to magnify the effect of these figures; but he wanted to point out that it was impossible to say that there had been a uniform and constant custom of renewing licences on good behaviour. There had been a good expectation, and nothing more. There had not been, in practice, certainty of renewal any more than there had been in law a right. That was the real position, fairly stated. Now, if they were going to deal with these licences, if they were going to take them away on a large scale—he doubted if that would be the effect of the Bill—if they were going to bestow compensation on the dispossessed licensees, it was to be remembered that there were other persons to be considered. If they gave more than a fair compensation for a good expectation they would be unjust to the public.
How was that expectation to be appraised? The right hon. Baronet proposed to give in addition to the absolute legal close time fourteen years notice. He agreed that there should be a close time during which it should not be lawful to refuse to renew a licence without compensation. "Close time" was perhaps not a very happy expression; but he meant a period during which a man could not be shot at Fourteen years would be ample for that purpose. They were asked to look at the question from the point of view of equity to the licence-holder; but they should also regard it from the point of view of equity to the community. The community had

1239
bestowed a great gift on the licence-holders, and had refrained from imposing new taxation on them. In America licensees had to pay ten times the amount that was paid in this country; and it was the immunity from taxation that created the monopoly value. Further, there had been four or five Acts during the last thirty years which had immensely enhanced the value of those licences. It was one of the laws of monopoly that the more you restricted it the more valuable it became. Licences had been restricted, they had been reduced in number, and that increased the value of the remaining licences. They, therefore, had a right to regard the question from the point of view of the origin of the licences, and ask fairly whether property of that character should be regarded as if it were freehold property. He thought that if the Amendment were accepted the Bill would be immensely improved and strengthened. Certainly one of his greatest objections to the measure would be removed. Something in the nature of a compromise should be arrived at. If the Bill were passed into law in the face of an extremely strong body of hostile opinion outside the House, by no means confined to members of one particular Party, it could not be regarded as a final settlement. It would be only human nature to endeavour to repeal the Act; and that would produce a condition of chaos which would be extremely unpleasant. The instinct and the inclination of the people of this country were not to unduly disturb legislation which had been passed; but no such feeling could possibly be entertained in connection with this Bill if a compromise were not arrived at. Speaking for himself, a great deal of his hostility to the Bill would be removed if the Amendment were accepted. He did not think it was the best possible Amendment, but it was an honest attempt at a compromise; and for his part he would be gratified if the Government would accept it.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OP THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)said he thought that everybody would agree that the two speeches to which the Committee had listened, whether convincing or not,
1240
were at all events models of temperate statement. Not only had the Amendment been put before the Committee in a most persuasive manner, but he was perfectly ready to admit that there was a great body of public opinion outside that House, not identified with Party, with extreme temperance views, or with the trade, and quite detached from considerations that perhaps weighed with Party politicians, who would gladly see some change made in the Bill in the direction now suggested. It was with profound reluctance, therefore, that he had to say again that he was really quite unable to follow the logic of the proposals now before them. Of the objects he entirely approved; the methods of advocating those objects had his heartiest sympathy; but when he came to the hard reasons which lay at the root of those suggestions he confessed that he was still unpersuaded. There was a certain inconsistency running through many of the speeches he had heard from the opposite side of the House which was not absent from the speech of the last hon. Gentleman who addressed them. In the earlier part of his speech the hon. and learned Gentleman said they were perpetually riveting round the necks of reformers a system which they would desire to alter at some more or less remote date. But the learned Gentleman went on to say in a different part of his speech what really amounted to the whole thing being reversed next year or three years hence. He quite agreed that such reversals had been unfortunate in the past, and probably would be in the future, but that was a very different proposal from telling them that the House had, by that Bill, entered into an obligation of honour to the licence-holders which made it absolutely impossible for it ever to reverse the decision come to.
SIR ROBERT REID: What I meant was that this Act, so long as it remains an Act, does not create an obligation of honour, but of law. It is quire consistent with that, that any of us who think we are not fairly treated may do our best to get the Act of Parliament repealed.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that was really what he tried to convey to the Committee. It was impossible to talk of a Bill which could be reversed next year

1241
or the year after, whenever hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office, as perpetually riveting on the necks of reformers in this country some unreversible order. He did not think the House ought to, or would, repeal this Bill, but it was not under the circumstances an unrepealable law. There were many cases, such as if Parliament were to pass an Act cutting us adrift from all our colonies, where from the nature of the change no repeal would be possible, but this was not one of them. Whether it would be equitable to reverse it depended on the system which was to be substituted for it, and as he did not know what that system was, even in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite, he would not argue about it.
Let them consider whether, if they came to the root of the matter, there really was anything which ought to induce them to accept the Amendment. He could show very strong temperance ground why the Amendment should not be adopted, but there was nothing in the Bill to prevent some future generation, when it was agreed upon any scheme, from being able to bring that scheme into operation, and it could do that, of course, as it could deal with licences now, either honestly or dishonestly. They could either do it by treating the equitable claim of the licence-holder equitably, or they could do it by treating the equitable claim of the licence-holder inequitably, and there was nothing, in his judgment, in this Bill which made it more difficult to do this. He really did not wish to go back on old debates, but the root principle of the Bill was compulsory insurance out of the pockets of the trade. Hon. Gentlemen opposite might say it was not paid out of the pockets of the trade, but if they did so they would have to admit that it was impossible for the trade to pay anything towards this object. After all, they could only raise this money by some form of taxation of licences; and, if the taxation of licences did not carry with it the fact that the trade paid that taxation, it was impossible, from the nature of the case, that the trade under any circumstances or by any arrangement could pay it out of their own pockets. He thought he was justified in saying that it was compulsory insurance paid out of the pockets of the trade.
1242
The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and he thought his hon. friend, took the view that, if the trade were obliged to pay this compensation for fourteen years, and for fourteen years were pre vented from being evicted, except with compensation, they had all the compensation that ought to be allowed to them. His hon. friend went further than that in his Amendment, while the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite suggested that at the end of a period which he called, but miscalled, a close time, the community would be in absolutely free possession of all existing licences, not merely legally, but equitably and righteously, and they might be able to adopt any plan they liked for the future. He traversed that statement altogether. If they chose to give a really close time—say, for the sake of argument, fourteen years—and if they chose to say that no licences were to be withdrawn for fourteen years, of course that would be an immense compensation to the trade. That would be a close time in reality as well as in name, because during that time every licence-holder would be protected from having his licence taken away, he would be able to insure himself so that at the end of fourteen years he would not be injured, and he would not be asked in the meanwhile to pay to the insurance fund of which his hon. friend spoke. But until they made the close time a reality he could not admit that it was in any sense a substitute for the plan they had proposed in the Bill. And supposing they did carry it out, did they think the magistrates or those who had got to administer the Act would feel themselves the a in a better position to deal with excessive licences than they felt now? He could not think they would. They would find themselves face to face then, as they did now, with men who under the existing law had been required to spend very large sums of money upon their premises, who had got the expectation of which the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke, and who had been taxed for all these years on their property. They would be face to face with precisely the same class of hardship which, as they knew, in every part of the country hampered the discretion of the ordinary magisterial bench.
In these circumstances it appeared to him that they would be doing away with

1243
one of the great merits of this Bill without substituting anything really good in its place. If they chose to start a sinking fund out of public money, no doubt they would be able to buy up all the licences in the country He did not advise them to do it, but, if they did, a very small sacrifice on the part of the public would enable them completely, at a given time in the future, to reverse, if it were thought worth while to reverse, the present system of giving licences. But he ventured to say that it really was not wise to mar this scheme because they thought that at some date in the future they would have discovered and be agreed upon some quite different scheme which, when they had discovered and were agreed upon, they would be able quite honestly to impose upon the licence-holder if they compensated him and dishonestly if they refused to compensate him. He wanted a great and immediate reduction of licences, and that great and immediate reduction could only be obtained on the one condition that the local authority was able, where it thought fit, to borrow a large sum of money upon the security of this taxation. But the immediate and great benefits which he, at all events, hoped from this Bill would be altogether diminished if they restricted the number of years in which the capital and sinking fund were to be borrowed and repaid.
SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTHsaid he did not propose to limit the charges. What he was limiting was the amount of compensation paid out of the compensation fund. He expected the capitalisation would go on, and the levy would continue. Therefore he saved the compensation fund.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it was perfectly true that his hon. friend would save the compensation fund if he compelled the trade to go on insuring their licences long after the insurance had ceased to be effective. If he compelled the trade, after the fourteen years were up, to pay as much for insurance as they paid before, but to get nothing for it, then his hon. friend would save the compensation fund, but surely at the same time he would be committing something very near to a great injustice upon the licence-holder, and he could not believe that, on
1244
reflection, that was a proposal he would seriously advocate. The Amendment was not required in the interests of new experiments. Those new experiments could be tried when the country was agreed upon them. He saw no beginning at. the present time of any such agreement, and, considering how fierce were the passions which the temperance controversy aroused, he had little hope of seeing men all equally earnestly desirous agreeing upon what they considered a wise and sound plan of temperance reform. If the time should come when such an agreement was arrived at, there was not a comma in this Bill which would put the smallest obstacle in the way of some future Prime Minister, more happily situated than he was, carrying out some great scheme of temperance reform which would conciliate all sides and all opinions, and really bring to an end this long, and, he feared, unending controversy.
MR. WHITTAKER (Yorkshire, W.R.,)assured the Prime Minister that when this subject came to be dealt with in another Parliament it would be the wish of all on that side of the House to deal with it honestly, but what would then be honest depended very largely upon what was done now. If the trade were given rights and position which it did not at present possess, it would be necessary to do much more to be honest than was now necessary. This Bill was more than just to the trade; an excessive amount of compensation was being given for an excessive period, and what was more than justice to the trade was less than justice to the public. The analogy which had been urged with regard to assurance was somewhat false. There were such things as temporary assurances. Fire and accident assurances were effected for a period of years, but if no fire or accident occurred there was no return other than the security enjoyed during the period. People did not expect to get their money back at the end of the time. There were also temporary assurances against death. It was true the ordinary form of assurance was against death whenever it occurred, but the premium then was much higher. Under the present proposal the premium was low, the assurance was a temporary one to cover the risk of loss of licence

1245
during a given period, and there was no validity whatever in the contention that the sums paid should be repaid at the end of the period. What was required was equitable consideration. Temperance reformers desired, and it was in their interest, to treat the trade fairly. The more extreme they were and the more licences they desired to see abolished, the more it was in their interest to treat the trade fairly and equitably, because they could not get rid of licences without persuading the public of the necessity, and it would be much more difficult to do that if there was any sense of hardship or unfairness connected with it. Their complaint against the Bill was that it went beyond all that was equitable and reasonable, that it gave excessive compensation for an excessive period, and was therefore unjust to the public.
With regard to the provision of compensation the business-like way of proceeding would be to take out a temporary assurance against the loss of the licence —and that was what the Bill provided. But at the end of the period the public should be at liberty to deal with the licences as they wished, and that practically meant that the value of the licences should cease at the end of the period. The proper means of meeting that contingency was for the owner and occupier to set up a sinking fund to cover the possible loss. The extra profit which the reduction in licences would bring to the remaining houses would be ample to provide a sufficient sinking fund for that purpose. The Prime Minister had suggested that fourteen years was too short a period. Personally he had never been disposed to insist upon a hard-and-fast line as to time; so long as full freedom was given to the justices and the public to carry out any reform they desired, he was not particular as to the number of years. If ample time were given, a sinking fund could very easily be set up, and the licence-holder would suffer no loss whatever. The contention that if the period were limited to fourteen years the sum raised would be too small to secure anything like an adequate reduction implied that the Prime Minister contemplated the borrowing of money for more than fourteen years, because unless money was borrowed on the
1246
security of the levy for more than fourteen years, there would be precisely the same reduction during the fourteen years as if there were no limit. It was a serious thing if the Government intended to allow borrowing for anything like that period. It would mean that during the time that all the levy was allocated in advance, practically all control over the liquor trade would be lost. The one thing that gave the authorities any control over the trade was the power to refuse the renewal of licences; that power was being limited by the necessity of paying compensation, but if the compensation fund were allocated for fourteen years it would disappear altogether. Personally, he objected altogether to the idea of borrowing. It was perfectly true that in one year sufficient money could not be raised to secure an adequate reduction of licences, but there was no reason why the levy should not be spread over a considerable number of years without borrowing. As a matter of fact, there ought not to be any limit to the levy, and personally he would be prepared to assent to the fund being increased by special levies on beer and spirits. The mover of the Amendment put the case very forcibly when he said that at present there was no vested interest or perpetual tenure, and the magistrates had full power. Under this Bill the position of the licence-holder would be altogether altered to the disadvantage of the public.
In regard to a time limit of some sort, he thought the old Church leases were on all fours with these licences, and that the precedent set in their case was an extremely valuable one. For 100 or 200 years it had been the custom for the Church to grant its leases illegally. The statutes forbade leases except for twenty-one years in possession, and forty years for mining and building, but the Church was in the habit of granting renewals on the payment of fines. Many Committees of both Houses of Parliament sat and endeavoured to provide means of getting rid of the difficulty, because the leases became enormously valuable properties. A Committee of the House of Lords in 1851 reported that for 200 years these leases had been illegally granted. They

1247
were made the subject not only of mortgage but of settlement and devise with limitations to children and their posterity. Legacy duty had been paid for years to the Government on the expectancy of renewal, and the Court of? Chancery, in settling marriage settlements, had made these twenty-one year leases the subject of settlement and devise, with limitations extending to grand-children and great-grand-children. That showed how these leases had been regarded a d dealt with by the law. There was a case in Paddington where it was decided to allow the land to be built upon, and Parliament allotted two-thirds of the value to the tenant and one-third to the Church, thus recognising the enormous interest the leaseholder had in that property. In 1860 Parliament dealt with these leases and handed them over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and provided that no lease should be renewed after 1884, and those which expired before 1884 should only be extended to that year, and that was practically imposing a time limit. These leases were granted in violation of the law and became valuable property, and this House dealt with them in the same way as it was now suggested that these licences should be dealt with, because they brought in the element of a time limit as the basis of an equitable settlement.
The Amendments put down within the last few days to Clause 4 suggested the desirability of accepting some such Amendment as this. The basis of the new licences was to be a time limit not exceeding seven years, which was deemed sufficient to recoup the licence-holder for his investment. The present Amendment suggested fourteen years for the old licences. If seven years was enough for the new licences, surely fourteen years would be ample for the old ones. When the right hon. Gentleman dealt with a similar proposal to this upon a former occasion he made much of the insecurity of the tenure, and he said if they had anything like a time limit the holder of the licence would become very careless, and all sorts of evil would result. At that time he (the hon. Member) ventured to point out to the Prime Minister that security of tenure had proved to be the source of a great deal of mismanage
1248
ment in the worst class of houses. As it was now proposed that the new licences should terminate at the end of seven years, it would have been very curious if the Prime Minister had repeated his old argument. Therefore they might dismiss that argument as having no bearing on the case now. It was important to remember that the proposal for the new licences meant that a large additional value would be given to the existing licences. This new proposal practically meant that no new licence was ever to be issued again upon the same conditions as the present ones. That placed existing licences in an exceptional position, and gave them an increased market value. Now they were being deprived of the power to deal freely with them. That proposal would give the present licences an extraordinary market value; and this point ought to be taken into consideration in connection with the time limit which had been suggested. Surely this Bill ought to provide some opportunity at some time or other of getting the whole of the licences upon the new revised system. There ought to be some period fixed when the revised licensing system would come into force, and that was a strong argument against establishing a system of perpetuity in licences.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he wished to say a few words in support of his hon. friend's Amendment. What they were discussing was really the amount of compensation which ought to be paid. The hon. Member for Manchester said the amount fixed by the Bill was too great and it was quite evident that that was the opinion of the general public, because since this j Bill had been introduced, as he had stated upon a former occasion, there had been an extraordinary rise in the value of shares in all the great brewery companies on the Stock Exchange. The hon. Baronet the Member for Peckham had stated that this rise was only an example I of the general rise of securities which had I taken place in recent times. That was I not so because he had received letters from directors and shareholders in great brewery companies saying that it was a fact that the introduction of this Bill had increased the value of their shares

1249
by giving a security of tenure where there had been no security of tenure before. When an insecure tenure was turned into a secure one it did raise the value of the property and to that extent in this case it did an injustice to the public. He agreed that the Amendment which the Government had proposed to Clause 4 entirely altered this question of a time limit, and it was exactly what he himself had put down on the Paper as an Amendment with regard to new licences. New licsnces were to have a seven years run, and at the end of that time the licensing authority was to have the most perfect freedom to make the best they could of the licence and renew it to someone else at an increased rental. All that was proposed in this case was to purchase from the existing licence holders the right to place them on the same footing as all new licence-holders. If they did not accept some kind of time limit they would have two classes of licences. The old licences would become extremely valuable under this Bill. They had heard a great deal about the pre-1869 beerhouses, but they were now setting up pre-1904 beerhouses. The Prime Minister said that this Bill was no obstacle to future licensing reform. Everyone knew what an obstacle the pre-1869 beerhouses had been, and it was not at all certain that the pre-1904 beerhouses would not prove just as great an obstacle to temperance reform as the pre-1869 beerhouses had done.
The principle of this Amendment was a very simple one and he could not under stand the inability of the First Lord of the Treasury to accept it. He recognised that in past times a very valuable monopoly which really was the property of the public was, under the law, given to the licence-holders. It ought to have been sold to them as it was going to be in the future. The law did not allow that and the justices who granted a licence had no alternative but to make a very valuable present of public property to somebody or other. It was recognised as a sort of expectation which had grown up and which they ought not to absolutely confiscate but which ought to be purchased from the holder at a reasonable value. The whole question was, what was the proper compensation to pay the existing licence-
1250
holders for giving up the monopoly which they now enjoyed? He did not pretend to say whether it ought to be enjoyment for a period of fourteen or twenty-one years, but clearly it ought to be for some definite term of years. The licence-holder at present had no legal right to a renewal of his licence. It was only an expectation, but they were now giving him a right to renewal unless he was compensated for the full value of the licence taken from him. The proposal of the hon. Baronet the Member for North-west Manchester was that during a period of fourteen years no licence should be taken away unless compensation was given to the holder. It was said that this was a compulsory insurance by the publicans out of their own funds. He thought that a great deal too much had been made of that point by the supporters of this Bill. There was no reason whatever why a fund for public purposes should not be raised by increasing the licensing tax, and if the State chose to increase the licensin tax for the purposes of compensation, it was really giving the publicans compensation out of public funds. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] It was giving the publicans compensation out of funds which might be raised by Parliament and devoted to public purposes. Nothing in the world was easier than the making of a calculation of the amount required to give compensatlon for fourteen years and no longer. The actuary of any insurance company would at once calculate the amount that would have to be paid for fourteen years and no longer. The Solicitor-General had asked what they were going to do at the end of fourteen years. The answer was that at the end of fourteen years the licence-holder would have no further right to a, renewal of the licence. The question was, is it a fair and reasonable bargain to the holders of existing licences to give them fourteen years secure tenure in exchange for the precarious tenure which the/ now have? His opinion was that it was fair and he thought the general opinion certainly was that the perpetual tenure given them by the Government in this Bid was too much, as the rise in brewery shares incontestably showed.
There was one point of the Bill which had never been properly explained, and that; was the words in the clause which provided

1251
that the compensation was to be "calculated as if this Act had not passed." This expression might have a sinister meaning for the licence-holders. It might mean that the compensation was to be calculated as if the tenure was the present precarious annual tenure and not the I erpetual right to their licences which the publicans thought they were getting and which evidently the investors on the Stock Exchange thought they were getting. Was there any trap in these words, "calculated as if this Act had not passed," to catch the holders of existing licences? It might turn out that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-west Manchester was really more advantageous to the holders of licences than the terms of the Bill. The publicans ought to be careful that they were getting the boon they expected. He could quite understand that for the next year or two it would be very easy for an experienced valuer to say in a case of compensation that if the Act of 1904 had not been passed the holder of this licence would have had a precarious annual tenure, that he would have been liable to lose his licence at the discretion of brewster sessions, and that, therefore, he would not value it at more than five or six years purchase. That was very much less than the fourteen years proposed by the Amendment, and which the Member for North-west Manchester, was willing to concede to the existing licenee-holders. But his difficulty about the words was in regard to what would happen twenty or thirty years hence, and what a value: would then do if called upon to estimate the value of a licensed house "as if this Act had not passed." How would the valuer set about his work? He should like the Solicitor-General, or the hon. Memberfor the Stretford Division, who had experience in these valuation questions, or in the absence of these learned Gentlemen, the Home Secretary, to say definitely, first of all, how the value of a licence was to be estimated immediately after the Act was passed, and how the value was to be estimated twenty or thirty years afterwards. It would be a very great mistake if the trade allowed themselves to be contented with provisions which would not give them the protection they expected, and which would expose them
1252
to the risk of this particular Act being tampered with and altered by legislation in a future Parliament by people who might think that this Bill had not received due deliberation when passing through the House.
Sir EDWARD GREYsaid that as the Home Secretary had not risen to answer the light hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University as to the meaning of the words "calculated as if this Act had not passed," he should like to press the point, because it was a matter of the greatest importance. Both the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-west Manchester and the Prime Minister spoke as supporters of the Bill, but it was plain from their speeches that in opinion they were worlds apart. The mover of the Amendment had complained that the Bill ignored the three main facts. It ignored that there was now no vested interest, and no perpetuity of tenure, and it ignored the fact that the discretion of the justices was absolute in the matter of refusing to renew licences. He did not profess to be able to reconcile the speech of the Prime Minister and that of the right hon. Member for North-west Manchester. But the ignoring of these facts in the Prime Minister's speech and in the Bill itself was a very considerable part of the case against the Bill. The Bill, moreover, was going to abolish the notice or warning to the trade, which the mover of the Amendment said existed already. The right hon. the Member for North-west Manchester said that moderate temperance reformers ware not treated too well in the House. He admitted that he spoke rather slightingly the other day, not of the right hon. Gentleman, but of the class to which he belonged as being people who expressed their opinions but would not enforce them. While the speech of the right hon. Member for north-west Manchester was sound and satisfactory, he could not refrain from asking what was going to happen if the Amendment was rejected. The true type of a moderate man was the right hon. and learned Member for Dumfries who had made, as the Prime Minister himself admitted, a most moderate speech, in which the right hon. and

1253
learned Gentleman said that if this Amendment were carried, it would considerably modify his opinion in regard to the Bill. But if it was rejected by the Government, he remained an inveterate opponent of the Bill. Was the opinion of a moderate temperance reformer to be enforced? Would the right hon. Gentleman become an inveterate opponent of the Bill if the Amendment? was rejected? That was the only way in which to enforce the opinion of moderate temperance reformers; but if the Amendment was not accepted then all the expressions of opinion about temperance reform by the right hon. Gentleman were absolutely useless. They would count for nothing unless the right hon. Gentleman changed his action from support of the Bill into hostility.
He maintained that the Bill placed private before public interest in this matter. Temperance reformers wanted freedom to reduce licences, to change to a better system in carrying on the liquor trade, and to increase the licence duties. When was that time going to come? The answer of the Government as embodied in the Bill was "Never," and this was the reason of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. The Prime Minister said that future projects of temperance reform would not be prejudiced. The Bill, however, was being construed by the trade as giving them a title. If no Amendment of this kind was accepted, then, though he admitted that at present there was a claim for equitable consideration on behalf of the trade, he said that the Bill was going to transform the claim, not in equity, but in law. By doing this it was going to weaken very much the claim in equity; and if the Amendment was rejected, whatever the Bill might do in law, it was not attaching equity to what it did. Though it might be giving something in law, it was not only giving nothing, but removing something of the equitable consideration which many opponents of the measure felt to be due. That was why he joined in the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman who put this Amendment forward as an honest compromise. But the right hon. Gentleman also uttered a note of warning. He asked the trade to remember how good a bargain they were making at the present time—he supposed
1254
with the present Government—and to consider whether by being reasonable in accepting some Amendment of this kind they would not make themselves more comfortable in the hereafter. Even if the Amendment were accepted, he did not say that it would be regarded as absolutely satisfactory by all sections of temperance reformers, but it would do a good deal to weaken the resentment with which the Bill was being received. The Amendment, indeed, touched the very essence of the controversy, for it dealt with the question whether it was possible to turn the Bill into something which might be a measure of temperance reform, or whether it would not be a permanent barrier to temperance reform.
MR CRIPPSsaid that the hon. Baronet opposite and others had argued as if the Bill provided something in the nature of excessive compensation to the trade or the owners of public-houses. But if they were to have anything in the nature of compensation at all, he contended that they could not have it in a more moderate or restricted form than in the Bill—if the measure was really understood. It had been argued that whan license premises were taken for the purpose of public improvements two kinds of compensation were in force. There was a trading compensation and a compensation for a diminution in the value of the premises themselves. As a rule the trade compensation was the larger figure of the two; but in the Bill there was no trade compensation of any kind. They were looking at the difference in the value of the premises as licensed or unlicensed, and this did not bring into consideration what was known as trade compensation at all. He also contended that most absurd estimates had been published as to the price which would be paid by way of compensation under the Bill. All these estimates had been based on a misapprehension because those who had formulated them had not studied what the proposals of the Government were in the Bill. If compensation meant indemnity, as it did, it was only fair to take into consideration all the special conditions in each case, and nothing could be more unfair than to bring in a number of years which in some cases would be too many and in others too few.

1255
They had to consider what was the chance of the renewal of a licence, if this Bill had not been passed. There were certain public-houses where the number of years purchase would be exceedingly small, because, having regard to the conditions, there was a great chance of the licences not being renewed. On the other hand, in the case of well-conducted public-houses, which were not likely to be interfered with, a much larger number of years purchase would be given; because if compensation meant indemnity all the special conditions in each particular case should be taken into consideration. In such circumstances, could anything be more unfair than to bring in a number of years which in some cases would give too much compensation, and in other cases would penalse properly conducted licensed houses. A larger measure of compensation would be given to the worst public-houses, and a smaller measure to the best conducted houses. Could any system of compensation which professed to be fair and equitable be worse than that? It could not be contended that the Bill would give a freehold or a permanent tenure. He would oppose that to the utmost, because it would give the licence-holder something to which he was not entitled. He would not give the licence-holder any greater interest than he had at present; and he could not imagine any member of the legal profession reading the Bill in any other sense.
If land were taken by a railway company it was valued for the purposes of compensation as it was, not as it would be when utilised by the railway company. Under this Bill, it was also expressly provided that the compensation should be assessed as if the Act had not been passed, and as if no increased security had been given. He thought it was of extreme importance that the question of compensation should be really understood and appreciated. There was no practical difficulty in the matter. After all, it was a case of insurance; and he could not understand the argument that it would be impossible in the future to put additional taxation on the property because of the insurance. The compensation was not in any sense a public tax; and, although he would demur to it at present, still if, in the future, additional taxation were thought to be fair, having regard to similar burdens
1256
on other classes, the present Bill would not prevent it. The word monopoly had been used. A railway company very often obtained from Parliament a very valuable monopoly. If, afterwards, it was found that the monopoly turned out to be more profitable than had been expected, was that any reason why the State should tax off the whole of the surplus profit. A principle of that kind would destroy all interest in statutory property. Having given a statutory expectation, the State could not annex the profits if the expectation turned out to be profitable. The Bill would not give the trade any greater right than it at present possessed; but, having regard to established expectation, they were entitled to have a fair measure of compensation assuming they conducted their business in a proper manner. He was not prepared to introduce a time limit, which, during its duration, would make any alteration of the law impossible. The Act might work well or badly. He believed it would work well; but if it worked badly it would be impossible during the period of the time limit to alter the law, however badly the Act might be operating. In that respect, he joined issue with the right hon. Baronet.
SIR EDWARD GREYsaid his argument was that Parliament always had the right.
MR. CRIPPSsaid it would not have the right during the period of the time limit. That was why he objected to the Amendment. He did not want Parliament to be fettered in the event of the Act not working properly. He believed that J the compensation to be provided would be sufficient without a time limit to reduce the number of public-houses by a third; and thereby effect a most desirable temperance reform.
MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)said the subjects which were dealt with by the hon. and learned Member for Stretford were intricate subjects and dealt with in an intricate way but they seemed to him to be rather remote from the Amendment of the hon. Member for Manchester. The First Lord of the Treasury could only defend this Bill by assuming facts that did not exist and ignoring facts that did.

1257
The right hon. Gentleman commenced by assuming that the licence-holder had a perpetuity of tenure and therefore had a bona fide right to compensation and he was obliged to ignore what appeared to him to be a far more material part of the case, namely, that the licence-holder, or the brewer behind him, by this Bill would not only receive compensation but be put into a better position than before by reason of the fact that there would be less competition. It was under these circumstances that they failed to find any argument in the statements of the First Lord of the Treasury against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Manchester. He did, however, welcome one deliverance of the right hon. Gentleman which was also apparent in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Stretford. Both were much impressed with the objects of temperance reform. They denied that any difficulty would be placed in the way of temperance reform because the power of Parliament to further temperance reform would remain the same as though this Bill had not passed. The hon. Member for Stretford could not possibly understand how matters could be made worse by this Bill because the powers of Parliament remained and the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord refused to admit any argument adduced against this Bill in respect of the difficulty it put in the way of temperance reform. If a compromise like this was refused it was quite clear they were thrown back to a position in which this Bill had no moral force at all. That was the position forced upon them. They objected to the Bill, and felt that they could not do better than to give due notice that they noted what was said by the right hon. Gentleman that he did not think it would make any difference in the future. It would be, then, all the easier to induce some future Parliament to bring about those reforms which they thought were necessary before but which would be doubly necessary now.
MR. HENEY HOBHOUSEsaid the ingenious speech of the hon. Member for Stretford had shown very clearly that it was most desirable that this clause should be throughly discussed before it passed into law and that some explanation should be
1258
given by the Government as to the exact way in which it was to work. The learned Solicitor-General might be able to explain to the Committee the exact principle upon which the Inland Revenue would value, and how they were likely to value, licensed houses under this Bill. He feared the debate would have little practical result, but as he had a kindred Amendment upon the Paper he felt constrained to add a few words. His Amendment contained what was properly called a time limit, and he had always thought that justice rather than generosity should guide the amount of compensation and that it should be for a limited period and on a sliding scale. J What was in his mind was that there should be a period when the public would be free to introduce a better licensing law. It was generally admitted that licence-holders now had only an equitable claim,: but this Bill, if passed into law in its present shape, would give them a vested interest of a perpetual character and future Parliaments when they desired to interfere with those vested interests would always have this Bill held up to them in the future as giving a legal and moral claim to the licence-holder, a claim which he did not now possess. He therefore contended that, if this Amendment was not accepted, an impediment would be thrown in the way of preserving to the public the right of licensing public-houses. All that was required was to see that justice was done. There was no reason for being generous to the trade. The Government were tying the hands of the public authorities in the future. The result, no doubt, might be the closing of considerable numbers of useless and pernicious public-houses now, but they must not entirely sacrifice the future to the present, and they might well be content with a smaller sum of money than was contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman rather than adopt a policy which, though it might have striking results at present, would put the licensing authorities in great difficulty, tie their hands at no very distant date, and be a bar to all further progress. They might fairly look forward to the time when more would be demanded in the way of temperance reform than was now demanded and therefore they ought to see that this compensation fund

1259
should be an assistance and not a hindrance. At present he was not satisfied that the Inland Revenue would be able to arrive at what was the moral and equitable value of a licensed house before the passing of this Bill, and he therefore appealed to the Solicitor-General to throw some light on this matter, and make it clear, in order that the Committee might know how far it was going.
MR. TOMKINSONExpressed the opinion that this Amendment went to the heart of the whole question. It had been pointed out by the hon. Member who mm ed the Amendment, and still more forcibly by the hon. Member for Blackpool on the Second Reading of the Bill, that by providing a compensation fund they would at any rate liberate the hands of the licensing justices and free them from the natural reluctance they now felt to take away a licence without compensating the holder. He might be allowed to remind the Committee of some figures where the action of the magistrates in reducing licences to the great benefit of the community had taken place. This had taken place in districts where the evil had been forced upon the attention of the magistrates. In Liverpool 350 licences had been taken away in thirteen years, with the result that the arrests for drunkenness had decreased from 16,000 to 4,000. They had been able to dispense with the services of 100 policemen, and the moral condition of that town had been wonderfully improved in spite of the large and growing population. In Blackburn the number of licences had been reduced in fifteen years from 600 to 417, while the proceedings against licensees had diminished from thirty-nine to seven, and the arrests for drunkenness and disorder from 989 to 624 per annum.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is now dealing with the general question. I must ask him to confine his remarks to the Amendment before the Committee.
MR. TOMKINSONsaid he was endeavouring to show that some time limit ought to be imposed, and that the compensation fund would be altogether
1260
inadequate to effect even such a reduction as had been made under existing circumstances. In Winchester there was one licence to every 150 people. The licensing magistrates gave the brewers one year in which to submit a plan for reduction. They agreed to surrender fifty licences without any compensation, but after the speech of the Prime Minister they withdrew the offer, and now every one of those licences would have to be paid for on the basis of this Bill. He submitted that, unless a time limit were imposed, the efforts of temperance reformers for more than fifty years would be frustrated, and the trammels of the drink traffic more firmly fixed upon the backs of the people.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid that if, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Somersetshire had stated, it was essential that this clause should be fully discussed in order that the Committee might know where they stood, with regard to the principle of compensation, it was a pity the whole afternoon should have been spent in discussing a question which had already been debated for two days and voted upon by the Committee. With regaid to the words "calculated as if this Act had not passed," the right hon. Gentleman had asked how anybody would be able to calculate, some years hence, the value of a business at the time this Bill passed, taking into consideration the conduct and everything else connected with the person carrying it on. The words had no application at all to the valuation in that sense. It was contended that the Bill would give a permanent or, at all events a statutory term to the licensee. The words meant that in the valuation no such permanency should be taken into account; but, that, when the Commissioners came to fix the value of licence or the value of premises for the purposes of the clause, they should consider the value having regard to the fact that the renewal of the licence was subject to the absolute discretion of the magistrates, and that the holder of the licence had only just such a tenure as he at present possessed. If there was any doubt as to the exact meaning of the words, he was prepared to insert "as if the licence were subject to the same conditions of renewal as were

1261
applicable immediately before the passing of this Act," or he would consider any other form of words that might be submitted before the Report stage. He hoped the Committee would now come to a decision on the question as there were a number of other Amendments which he would be glad to hear discussed.
AN HON. MEMBER: Then why do you not extend the time?
MR. MARKHAMsaid the meaning of the clause had not yet been made perfectly clear. If no agreement were come to and the matter went to arbitration, the question would be left to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, who based their valuations on the takings of the houses.
SIR EDWARD CARSON: That is not so.
MR. MARKHAMsaid he was basing his remarks on the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dumfries, and he would be glad to know upon what other basis than that of the takings of the house the Commissioners could arrive at a value. He should not support the Amendment, because he failed to see how anybody could vote for it who was opposed altogether to the principle of compensation.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 209; Noes, 250. (Division List No. 218.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Hobhouse, C.E.H. (Bristol, E.)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Delany, William

Hobhouse Rt. Hn H. (Somers't,

Allen, Charles P.

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay(Galway

Holland, Sir William Henry

Ambrose, Robert

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fred

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Donelan, Captain A.

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Baird, John George Alexander

Doogan, P. C.

Jacoby, James Alfred

Barlow, John Emmott

Douglas, Charles M.(Lanark)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Duncan, J. Hastings

Joicey, Sir James

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Dunn, Sir William

Jones David Brynmor(Swansea

Beaumont, Wentworth C.B.

Edwards, Frank

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Bell, Richard

Ellice, CaptEC(S. Andrsw's Bgh

Joyce, Michael

Benn, John Williams

Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Black, Alexander William

Emmott, Alfred

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Blake, Edward

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Evans, SirFrancisH.(Maidstone

Kilbride, Denis

Boland, John

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Lambton Hon. Frederick Wm.

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Langley, Batty

Bousfield, William Robert

Fenwick, Charles

Law, Hugh Alex, (Donegal, W.)

Broadhurst, Henry

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Brown, George M.(Edinburgh)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Leese, SirJoseph F.(Accrington

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Flynn, James Christopher

Leng, Sir John

Burke, E. Haviland

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Levy, Maurice

Burt, Thomas

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lewis, John Herbert

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

Lloyd-George, David

Caldwell, James

Furness, Sir Christopher

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Cameron, Robert

Gladstone Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn

Lough, Thomas

Campbell Rt. Hn. J.A.(Glasgow

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Lundon, W.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.

Grant, Corrie

Lyell, Charles Henry

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Grey, Rt. Hn. SirE. (Berwick)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Cawley, Frederick

Griffith, Ellis J.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Channing, Francis Allston

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Hain, Edward

M'Crae, George

Clancy, John Joseph

Harcourt, LewisV.(Rossendale

M'Fadden, Edward

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Harcourt, RtHnSirW(Monm'th

M'Kean, John

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Harwood, George

M'Kenna, Reginald

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Cremer, William Randal

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Crombie, John William

Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

Maxwell W.J.H.(Dumfriesshire

Crooks, William

Helme, Norval Watson

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Cullinan, J.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Higham, John Sharpe

Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

Moulton, John Fletcher

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Murphy, John

Robson, William Snowdon

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Newnes, Sir George

Runciman, Walter

Thomas, David Afred(Merthyr)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Russell, T. W.

Tomkinson, James

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

O'Brien, James F.X.(Cork)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

Schwann, Charles E.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan,

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

O'Connor James(Wicklow, W.)

Shaw-Stewart, Sir H (Renfrew)

White, George (Norfolk)

O'Dowd, John

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N

Sheehy, David

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

O'Shee, James John

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Paulton, James Mellor

Slack, John Bamford

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Smith, H C(North'mb, Tyneside

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Pemberton, John S. G.

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Perks, Robert William

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Soares, Ernest J.

Wilson, HenryJ. (York, W.R.)

Price, Robert John

Spear, John Ward

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Priestley, Arthur

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

Rea, Russell

Stewart, Sir MarkJ. M'Taggart

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Reddy, M.

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Woodhouse, SirJ. T.(Huddersfid

Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries

Strachey, Sir Edward

Yoxall, James Henry.

Rickett, J. Compton

Sullivan, Donal

Rigg, Richard

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

William Houldsworth and

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Tennant, Harold John

Mr. Tritton.

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Chapman, Edward

Gordon, Maj. Evans-(T'rH'mlets

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Charrington, Spencer

Gore, Hon S.F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Coates, Edward Feetham

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Arrol, Sir William

Coddington, Sir William

Graham, Henry Robert

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon Sir H.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Greene, SirEW(B'rySEdm'nds

Austin, Sir John

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

Bagot, Capt. JoscelineFitzRoy

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Crean, Eugene

Gretton, John

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Balcarres, Lord

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Groves, James Grimble

Baldwin, Alfred

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Gunter, Sir Robert

Balfour,Rt. Hon A. J.(Manch'r

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hall, Edward Marshall

Balfour, Capt, C. B. (Hornsey)

Davenport, William Bromley

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Balfour, RtHn GeraldW(Leeds)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Hambro, Charles Eric

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd

Banbury, Sir FrederickGeorge

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Dixon-Hartland, Sir FredDixon

Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th)

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Dorington, Rt. Hon. SirJohnE.

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Doughty, George

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Hayden, John Patrick

Bignold, Arthur

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.

Bigwood, James

Duke, Henry Edward

Helder, Augustus

Bill, Charles

Dyke Rt. Hon. SirWilliamHart

Henderson, SirA.(Stafford, W.)

Bingham, Lord

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Bond, Edward

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Bowles, Lt.-ColH. F. (Middlesex

Fardell, Sir T. George

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ.(Manchr

Hogg, Lindsay

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Horner, Frederick William

Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Hoult, Joseph

Bull, William James

Fisher, William Hayes

Houston, Robert Paterson

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Fison, Frederick William

Howard John(KentFaversham

Butcher, John George

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Hozier, Hon James HenryCecil

Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Hunt, Rowland

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Flower, Sir Ernest

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Forster, Henry William

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Foster, Philip S(Warwick, S.W.

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Garfit, William

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W(Salop

Chamberlain, RtHonJ(Birm.

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Keswick, William

Chamberlain, Rt HnJA(Worc.

Gordon, HnJ. E. (Elgin& Nairn)

King, Sir Henry Seymour

1264

1265

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford East)

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Lawson, JohnGrant(Yorks. NR

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Spencer, Sir E. (W.Bromwich)

Lee, ArthurH(Hants. Fareham

Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington

Stanley, HonArthur (Ormskirk

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Peel, HnWm. Robert Wellesley

Stanley, EdwardJas(Somerset)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Percy, Earl

Stanley, Rt Hon Lord (Lancs.)

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Pierpoint, Robert

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Stroyan, John

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(BristolS

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Talbot, Lord E. (Chicester)

Lowe, Francis William

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'd Univ

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Pretyman, Ernest George

Thompson, DrEC (Monagh'n, N

Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Thornton, Percy M.

Lucas, Reginald J.)Porstmouth

Purvis, Robert

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Pym, C. Guy

Tuff, Charles

Macdona, John Cumming

Randies, John S.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Maconochie, A. W.

Rankin, Sir James

Valentia, Viscount

M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Vincent, Col. SirC. E.H (Sheffield

Manners, Lord Cecil

Ratcliff, R. F.

Walker, Col. William Hall

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Reid, James (Greenock)

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Maxwell, RtHn SirHE(Wigt'n

Richards, Henry Charles

Webb, Colonel William George

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H.M.

Ridley, Hon M W (Stalybridge

Welby, Lt.-ColACE (Taunton)

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Ritchie, Rt.Hon. ChasThomson

Welby, Sir CharlesGE(Notts.)

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Wharton, Rt. Hon. JohnLloyd

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Whiteley, H(Ashton und. Lyne

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Robinson, Brooke

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Morgan, DavidJ.(Walthamstow

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Morpeth, Viscount

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Morrell, George Herbert

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Wilson-Todd, SirWH (Yorks.)

Morrison, James Archibald

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Wortley, Rt. H'n. C. B. Stuart

Mount, William Arthur

Rutherford, W. W.(Liverpool)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Murray, RtHnAGraham(Bute

Samuel, SirHarryS(Limehouse

Young, Samuel

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Younger, William

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Myers, William Henry

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Nicholson, William Graham

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

MR. BLACKsaid the Amendment which stood in his name on the Paper would, he hoped, not be considered as marring the Bill, because it was in entire accordance with its principle, and provided that where a licence was forfeited for public purposes the compensation should be paid by the trade. Unless this Amendment was inserted in the Bill, the net result would be that public improvements would be greatly hindered, because undoubtedly the result of the measure would be to very largely increase the amount of compensation which, but for the Amendment, would be required to be paid by the public authority if the licence were forfeited for any purpose of public improvement or utility. In several respects the monopoly value of the licence would be enhanced by the passing of this measure. First of all there would be an increased value vested in the licence by legitimate
1266
increase, in consequence of the payment of contributions and diminution in other licences under this Act. First of all there would be fixity of tenure proposed by this measure which was estimated to increase the value by three or four times. Then there was the increase in value which accrued by increased population, and non-granting of new licences, but there would also be increases in monopoly value which might be termed illegitimate. There would also be the increment through forfeiture of other licences by non-observance of the terms of the licence granted. Further there would be the withdrawal of reasonable pressure brought to bear on licence-holders by the licensing authorities. For instance, he was informed that out of forty-six licences withdrawn in Glasgow by the operation of the public authority, only four received any compensation, because the magistrates were

1267
enabled by the reasonable pressure they I brought to bear on the licence-holders to dispense with the licences without compensation. If a public authority in any future time required to suppress licences, they would require, according to the proposals of the Bill, to pay the increased monopoly value of those licences. He further submitted the Amendment was reasonable because in making a public grant of a monopoly to a trade—as they did in this case—it was reasonable that they should do so subject to the public uses. The obligation to pay compensation on the part of the trade was stronger in this case than where a licence was taken away on the ground of non-requirement, because in the case he was figuring the licence which had been removed would be a valuable licence, and not one which was not required. The result would consequently be that the trade—unless the Amendment were accepted—would get the full increment in the shape of largely increased trade without any payment on its part. The Government were between two masters, one being the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham—who really made the suggestion to which his Amendment gave effect—and the other the brewing interest. It would be interesting to see which master the Government would serve.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 28, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'or where licensed premises are required for purposes of public utility or improvement."—(Mr. Black.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOE THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's)said the clause only applied to licences taken away for a particular purpose. What the hon. Member proposed was that if it was necessary to take a licence away for the purposes of a public improvement, it should come under the provisions of this Bill. Surely that was entirely reversing the practice which now prevailed, which was that if property was taken away for the purposes of public improvements compensation should be given under the
1268
Lands Clauses Act. He could not see why if a house was taken away, and the licence forfeited for the purposes of a public improvement, compensation should come out of the fund provided for by this Bill.
MR. BLACKsaid that in deference to the opinion expressed by his hon. friends around him he did not propose to divide the House. He asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. SEELYmoved an Amendment defining the amount of compensation to be paid to different persons who were interested in a licensed house. Under the proposals of the Government that was left to be decided by quarter sessions. It would be felt by many persons, and very largely by those who were interested in these houses, that it would be an advantage if the House were to define the amounts that were to be paid to the different persons concerned, both because the question was one of very great importance, and also because the compensation under the Bill was for an act of a public kind different in character from the usual acts for which compensation was paid. If an ordinary property was taken for a railway or a public improvement the persons dispossessed, although debarred from carrying on their business at a particular place, were not prevented from commencing again in a neighbouring place. But under the Bill if a public-house was closed there would be no opportunity for a man, once dispossessed of his licence, carrying on business in a neighbouring street because the very intention of the Act was to diminish the number of licences. Therefore the publican was subjected to a kind of inconvenience and loss which the ordinary person whose business was taken away in consequence of a public improvement was not generally subjected to. It was consequently necessary to carefully define the particular amounts which were to be paid and the manner in which it was proposed to distribute them.
First of all, he proposed that those who were employed in or about licensed premises should be paid three months

1269
wages or salary. This was to meet the case of tenants, managers, and other persons employed in these houses who, if there was a general reduction of licences as the Prime Minister suggested, would be seriously injured in consequence of the difficulty of obtaining employment in their own business. Then he proposed that the occupier of the premises, i.e., the tenant, should have a sum equal to two years profits, calculated on the average of the last five years and also the difference between the value of the stock and fittings in the premises as valued between the ingoing and outgoing tenant. He also proposed to give to the licence-holder a definite right, which he did not feel at all certain he would have under the Bill, of compensation for the loss of his stock. There were many licence-holders the greater part of whose capital was invested in the stock and fittings of their respective houses, and if their licences were taken away, they would be injured by being obliged to sell, and further by the fact that a reduction in the number of houses would lead to a corresponding reduction in the demand for stock. He did not see anything in the Bill to enable quarter sessions to make an allowance of that kind to the occupier, and it was therefore well to insert a definite proposal in the Bill. Then he proposed that the owner of the premises should have the cost of any structural alteration necessary to adapt the premises to other uses than the sale of intoxicating liquors; and further, that up to 1914 there should be paid in addition to the compensation mentioned to the owner of the premises a sum equal to the average annual profits as above, multiplied by the number of years unexpired between the date of the refusal of the licence and 31st December, 1914.
The Prime Minister had stated that he could not understand the argument in favour of the time limit; but the right hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that the feeling in favour of it was strong in the country and that there must be some basis for some arrangement of that kind. The proposal which he made would, he believed, meet the difficulty, and be just to the publican, while it would not cause any injustice
1270
to others concerned in the trade. What was at the bottom of the feeling was that the value of a licensed house was altogether different from the value of other businesses. The goodwill of an ordinary business was due to the energy and good management of the owner or to the particular position of the house, but the goodwill of a licensed house had, in addition, a value due to the monopoly given to it by the State. That was worth twelve or thirteen years purchase, while the ordinary goodwill of an ordinary business was worth only two or three years purchase. Everyone acknowledged that the growth of the monopoly value had been a misfortune and a mistake and it would be far better if the country could obtain that value for itself. What he proposed was that they should give an absolute right to the owner of a licensed house, till 1914, that no licence should be granted within a certain distance of his house and that during those ten years he would continue to have his monopoly value. If they did that they could at the end of that time quite reasonably and justly treat his licence as a new one, put it on the seven years system proposed for new licences, and obtain the monopoly for the public generally, instead of for individual owners. He was not bound to the terms of the distribution of the compensation embodied in his Amendment, and only put them forward as a basis for compromise. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page I, line 28, to leave out from from the word 'Act' to the end of Sub-section (1), and insert the words 'the following sums shall be paid as compensation to the persons concerned.

'(a) To all persons employed in or about the licensed premises in conection with the Sale of intoxicating liquors, three months wages or salary;

'(b) To the occupier of the said premises, a sum equal to two years profits calculated on the average of the last rive years, and also the difference between the value of the stock and fittings in the premises, as valued between an ingoing and outgoing tenant and their value for removal and sale;

'(c) To the owner of the said premises, the cost of any structural alterations necessary to adapt the premises to other uses than the sale of intoxicating liquors, such amount not to exceed two years annual value;

'(d) If the renewal be refused before the thirty-first day of December, 1914, then there

1271
shall be paid in addition to compensation as above to the owner of the said premises a sum equal to the average annual profits calculated as above multiplied by the number of years unexpired between the date of the refusal of the licence and the thirty-first day of December, 1914.'"—(Mr. Seely.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'a sum' stand part of the clause."
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid it was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment. Grave injustice would be done if the compensation was distributed on the basis proposed. The occupier of the premises was to get exactly the same amount of compensation, whether he was merely the manager or the holder of the substantial interest of a lease. It was perfectly evident that that could not be just. All the owner was to get was the sum necessary to structurally alter the premises for the carrying on of another business, without relieving him of the covenants into which he might have entered by reason of the premises being licensed. That really was no compensation at all. The hon. Gentleman had asked him whether the holder of the licence would be allowed for fittings under the scheme of compensation proposed in the Amendment of the Home Secretary. It was a little out of place to discuss that proposal now, but as they might not come to that Amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.] Everybody knew that the Amendment might not be reached.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs): So did the Government when they framed the guillotine.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid that if the Amendment were not reached, it would be due to the protracted discussions on the first clause of the Bill. But his answer to the question was that the whole question of the loss sustained by the holder by reason of his being deprived of his licence would be taken into account.
MR. ASQUITHsaid that this was the proper occasion, and the only occasion, for the discussion of the important question as to how the compensation money was to be distributed among the various persons entitled to
1272
share in it. The Solicitor-General had referred to the Home Secretary's Amendment ten pages lower down, and had reproached them for occupying time on other Amendments. But the useful discussions that afternoon had been initiated by Members sitting on the Government Benches. Therefore it was not judicious for the Solicitor-General to have raised such an issue. This was the only opportunity that would be available for placing what was a real grievance before the House and the country. The very fact that the Home Secretary had put down an Amendment, which would never be reached for discussion, showed that the Bill as it stood was inequitable, or at least did not provide an equitable solution of the problem of the distribution of the compensation. It was quite clear that as the Bill was framed the only person who would receive anything, in the vast majority of cases, would be the brewer, and not the person actually engaged in the business. The Government had awakened to the fact that their proposal would not bear examination, or might have unpleasant results outside, and so they had tardily put down an Amendment, in the name of the Home Secretary, which proposed to add at the end of Sub-section 2—
"Having regard in the case of the licence-holder not only to his legal interest in the premises but also to his conduct and to the length of time during which the has been the holder of the licence, and the holder of a licence shall (notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary) in no case receive a less amount than lie would be entitled to as tenant for a year, or from year to year, of the licensed premises."
He had not the least notion how a valuer was going to work in order to find out what was the amount to which a man was entitled as tenant for a year or from year to year, which was a totally different thing, but in some way or other, by some oblique process of reasoning, his conduct was to come into question in determining the true scale of remuneration. He could only say, as a practical man, that the wording of the section was too obscure to be worthy of any consideration.
They, therefore, came back to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Lincoln. He could not pledge himself to support all the proposals of the

1273
hon. Member's Amendment, but he hoped that it might become a substantive question in order that the Committee might be enabled to deal with the whole question of the distribution of the compensation fund. But there were one or two features about the Amendment which deserved the sympathetic consideration of the House. In the first place it singled out as deserving of a share, at any rate, in the fund not merely the owner and occupier, but the persons employed in the business and who obtained their livelihood by a continuance of the licence. For his part he could not regard any scheme of compensation as satisfying the necessities of the case which left unprovided for those persons who were pursuing a perfectly honourable calling and who found their means of livelihood suddenly put an end to through the operation of the Bill. He hoped, therefore, that the Committee would affirm that the employés of the licence-holder had an equitable title to a share in the fund. The hon. Member then distinguished between the case of the owner and the occupier. It was absolutely essential, if justice was to be done in this matter, that the occupier should have a first charge on the fund. It was not the great brewers that would suffer from the suppression of licences; on the contrary, in many instances they would positively gain from their reduction. On the other hand, the individual publican, whatever be his legal status, whether tenant, manager, agent, or trader by commission, was the man actually carrying on the business and was the first person to suffer if it was suppressed. Both in respect of the occupier and the owner the Amendment of the hon. Member proposed to limit the amount of compensation on a rational and satisfactory basis. But the Go eminent having put down an Amendment in a place of the Paper where it would never be reached, which it was impossible to construe and difficult to understand, and the hon. Member having at this stage put down in plain language a proposition which everyone could follow, this was the appropriate moment to discuss the whole question.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid that the right hon. Gentleman apparently desired
1274
to discuss the whole question now. But it should be observed that the whole question had not been gone into by the mover of the Amendment. Personally he had not the least objection at the first moment to discuss the subject in its entirety, for he thought that the right hon. Gentleman would acquit him of any desire to shirk the discussion of any point that might arise on the Bill.
MR. ASQUITHpointed out that the Government was appealing to the Committee to discuss the question under conditions which made it impossible to do so adequately.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid that the moment the right hon. Gentleman was disposed to issue a challenge on the issue he should be prepared to deal with the question. The right hon. Gentleman, moreover, was absolutely wrong when he said that after some hesitation the Government had at length put down the Amendment giving a portion of the compensation fund to the manager. On the first day in Committee he stated that the opinion of the Government was that any holder of a licence, manager or otherwise, was a person interested in the licensed premises; and when the hon. Member for Leeds challenged that opinion he had stated that if it were not so he was prepared to put down an Amendment to make the point perfectly clear. The Government were now told that in putting this Amendment on the Paper, they had placed it there with some ulterior motive, and because they had been driven to do so by persons who were largely interested in public-houses. Such a view came very well from those who had constituted themselves the champions of these managers, from those who had in the first instance tried to destroy all their interests, who had tried to make the various persons interested strangle each other. This new-born enthusiasm for the persons who were engaged in the public-house business was as amusing as it was amazing. The Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman had ridiculed ran as follows —
"Having regard in the case of the licence holder not only to his legal interest in the premises but also to his conduct and to the length of time during which he has been the

1275
holder of the licence, and the holder of a licence shall (notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary) in no case receive a less amount than he would be entitled to as tenant for a year, or from year to year, of the licensed premises."
Those words, which seemed to be strangely unfamiliar to the right hon. Gentleman, were taken from the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, which contained a special provision for persons holding a tenancy from year to year. As a matter of practice many tenants of licensed houses held an agreement for three months; some were managers, and some were weekly, some monthly, and some three or six monthly tenants. Although these agreements were short, they had continued in many cases for a considerable time. The Government had therefore said that it was fair in these cases, although the terms of agreement were short, for the holder of the licence to get at least the share of the compensation which a tenant from year to year would get. It was an advantage to make it clear that the person who held a weekly, monthly, or three-monthly tenure should receive an amount of compensation measured at least according to the same scale as if he held a tenancy durable from year to year. That was a very great benefit to these men. He saw no difficulty in having regard "not only to his legal interest in the premises, but also to his conduct and to the length of time during which he had been the holder of the licence." The man who held on a short agreement, continued year after year and renewed from time to time, had the same kind of equitable expectation as the owner of the house had in relation to the licence for which compensation was being set up under the Bill. That being so, just as the claim to compensation was set up in consequence of the equitable expectation that the owner had, so this man who had been in that employment under a short agreement, ought to have his right recognised by quarter sessions. And why should the light hon. Gentleman throw ridicule upon the consideration of his conduct? Was it not well that the man who had conducted a house well should get more compensation?
MR. EMMOTT: But why should the brewer get less under those circumstances?
SIR EDWARD CARSONreplied that it was a matter of extreme importance to the brewer that the premises should be well conducted, otherwise he might lose the licence altogether. The Government endeavoured to put a premium upon the good conduct of the house, believing that the person who was in possession should have that inducement to carry on the premises properly. The bad conduct of a house might deprive the owner of a great deal of compensation, and it was not an unfair provision that if the licensee had conducted it well he should receive a larger amount of compensation. They had endeavoured to put a premium upon the good conduct of the house, and to do what was just and equitable as between the different parties.
MR. J. H. LEWISsaid the Solicitor-General Stated that he had dealt with all the main points raised during the discussion. But in the course of the two speeches he had delivered he had not made the slightest allusion to that part of the Amendment which provided that compensation should be paid—
"(a) To all persons employed in or about the licensed premises in connection with the sale of intoxicating liquors, three months wages or salary."
He knew the case of a brewer who had received in licences from the public a monopoly value to the extent of £100,000, and they were now asked to compensate him to the fullest possible extent for any licence taken away for public purposes. The persons employed in those licensed premises had as great a moral right to share in the compensation fund as the brewer. The Prime Minister asked them to consider the broad equities of this case. He thought this Bill stood on very narrow grounds if it excluded from its equities all those persons employed in connection with licensed premises, many of whom had spent practically the whole of their lives, working long hours. The broad equities of the case demanded that those people should receive that fair treatment which the Bill did not give them. The Solicitor-General said it was impossible to accept this Amendment because the whole Bill was based upon depreciation of property. He commended that statement to the notice of the Committee, because they had always

1277
been told that there were great questions of morality involved. Now the reason given was depreciation of property, and personal claims were entirely ignored. He wished to draw the Solicitor-General's attention to an Amendment on page 35 in the name of the Home Secretary which was as follows—
"In page 2, line 10, at end, to insert the words 'having regard in the case of the licence-holder not only to his legal interest in the premises but also to his conduct and to the length of time during which he has been the holder of the licence, and the holder of a licence-shall (notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary) in no case receive a less amount than he would be entitled to as tenant for a year, or from year to year of the licensed premises.'"
He could quite understand that a licence-holder under very short notice was going under this Amendment to receive not less than twelve months compensation, but what he wished to know was whether a tenant who might be entitled to a longer period than one year could contract himself out of this Amendment in respect of that longer period? If he could contract himself out of it then the position was that a man under a week's notice who had been there for only a few weeks or months was entitled to exactly the same compensation as the man who had been there for twenty or twenty-five years and whose conduct was irreproachable. Was it possible for the latter individual to contract himself out of his rights or, in the words of the parable of the vineyard, was the man who had worked one hour entitled to one penny and the man who had worked twelve hours only entitled to the same amount?
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid there I were many considerations which hung together in regard to this matter. He did not know whether, for instance, the hon. Member meant to say that no lessee was to be allowed to contract himself out; if so, that was the intention of the Government. It was absurd to lay down that a man who was going to take a lease of his premises should not enter into any contract he pleased. The men they had to protect were those men who had short tenancies who were really in the nature of employees or managers and not lessees at all. They had proposed an enactment that, notwithstanding
1278
any contract entered into, they were to get at least one year's compensation.
MR. J. H. LEWISsaid the reply of the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly clear and they now knew that these men who had been tenants of licensed premises for a very long period of years were to be free to contract themselves out of the benefits of this clause.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid they had no such power, as there was no compulsion put upon those men.
MR. J. H. LEWISsaid he was refer-ring to agreements made between landlord and tenant.
SIR EDWARD CARSON: Agreements for how long?
MR. J. H. LEWISsaid he meant from year to year. In future, in every case of agreements made between landlord and tenant, there would be a provision contracting them out of the interest they had in the licence. They were proposing to give to the man who had been in the house a few weeks the same compensation as the respectable and responsible tenant of irreproachable character, who had been in the business for twenty-five or thirty years. What equity was there in that? He had an Amendment on the Paper which he ventured to think met this case fully. It was on page 27—
"In page 2, line 2, after the word 'shall' to insert the words 'after making equitable provision for the licence-holder and the persons usually employed in or about the licensed premises.'"
He asked the Government whether that was not a fair and equitable way of dealing with this question. When the meaning of the Government Amendment was fully realised, the people of this country would be more amazed than ever at the extraordinary inconsistencies of the Bill which they were now, under unfair limitations of time, endeavouring to discuss.
And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  LICENSING BILL [2ND ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 2:—
  Amendment again proposed,
  "In page 1, line 28, to leave out from the word 'Act,' to the end of Sub-section (1), and insert the words 'the following sums shall lie paid as compensation to the persons concerned:—

  '(a)To all persons employed in or about the licensed premises in connection with the sale of intoxicating liquors, three months wages or salary.

  '(b) To the occupier of the said premises, a sum equal to two years profits calculated on the average of the last five years, and also the difference between the value of the stock and fittings in the premises, as valued between an ingoing and outgoing tenant and their value for removal and sale.

  '(c) To the owner of the said premises, the cost of any structural alterations necessary to adapt the premises to other uses than the sale of intoxicating liquors, such amount not to exceed two years annual value.

  '(d) If the renewal be refused before the thirty-first day of December, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, then there shall he paid in addition to compensation as above to the owner of the said premises a sum equal to the average annual profits, calculated as above multiplied by the number of years unexpired between the date of the refusal of the licence and the thirty-first day of December one thousand nine hundred and fourteen.'"—(Mr. Seely.)

  Question again proposed, "That the words 'a sum' stand part of the clause."
  MR. EDWARDSsaid the Solicitor-General had been twitting the right hon. and learned Member for Fife with his new-found enthusiasm for the trade. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to be jealous of his right hon. friend's criticisms, as if he were poaching on his preserves, and wished to convey to the House the idea that "Codlin was the friend and not Short." It was time that his right hon. friend did show some enthusiasm, and he (Mr. Edwards) apprehended he was showing an enthusiasm which they all felt, and that was enthusiasm for justice, and inasmuch
  1280
  as he said the Bill did not do justice he protested against it, and supported the Amendment with enthusiasm, because it would do justice to a particular section of the trade. They had discussed the question of the amount to be given, and the time within which such compensation should be granted. Now the question was to whom should this compensation be paid? He himself thought there could be but one real act of justice, and that was to let compensation go in the direction proposed by the Amendment. He knew that brewers had great expectations under this Bill, but it would be fair that these expectations to some extent should be lessened. The publicans ought to have a larger share of compensation than the Bill proposed. Practically it gave most compensation to the brewers. That was an injustice, because they took most of the profits. They took profits as manufacturers, and also on the sale of beer, but the publican had only one. The tenant, according to the Bill was to find the compensation money, and under these circumstances the least they could do was to give him a proper and fair compensation when he was dispossessed of his licence. The theory was that the more licences there were reduced the more was the value of the remaining houses increased. If that were so, the more would they be increasing the brewers' profits by reducing the houses. He had received a letter from a tenant who felt his position very keenly. He wrote—
  "The Government Licensing Bill appears to me to be a brewers' Bill and nothing more. It appears to be for their benefit solely, and leaves; the unfortunate tenant to look after himself. If I read the Bill aright, the tenant is to find the money for the purchase of a licence, and if someone in the House of Commons would find what benefit the tenant would get from his outlay, he would confer a benefit upon many licence-holders."
  It was said that the tied houses numbered about 80 per cent, in the country. If that were so it was a serious matter, because a large number of tenants would get no compensation. That fact made him anxious to support the Amendment. There were in three small towns in his own county forty-six public-houses. Half of them were tied houses, and, therefore, 50 per cent, of the tenants would not, under this Bill, get substantial

  1281
  justice, unless the Amendment were agreed to. The hon. Member for Flint Boroughs had referred to the fact that the brewers might get the tenants to contract out the benefits of the Bill as regarded compensation. They knew enough to imagine what the position of that tenant would be who refused to agree to what the owner or brewer wanted him to do. His position would not be a pleasant one.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he regarded with great interest the Amendment of the hon. Member for Lincoln which, amongst other things, suggested that the employees should receive three months salary, for the reason that he had himself put down an Amendment, the object of which was to include in the persons to receive compensation the employees. He need not labour the point. The calling was an arduous and exacting one, honourably carried out, and the employees were almost always overworked and frequently underpaid. He had listened to the Solicitor-General, who had made two speeches, which he said completely covered all the points of the Amendment and the speeches made in regard to it; but it was rather significant that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention one word about the employees. There was a grim significance about that omission which ought not to be lost on the working classes. The Government at the last general election posed as the friend of the working classes. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham, speaking on the 19th September, 1900, in the middle of the election, asked to whom the working classes of this country owed all the legislation which benefited their condition, and said they would find it was the Unionist Party at the election; and that statement appeared in an exaggerated form in every Tory pamphlet. That being so, he was entitled to ask now what the Government were going to do with regard to the employees. On this occasion deeds and not words were wanted. The Solicitor-General was good enough to say that the basis of compensation in each case was the depreciation of property. The employee's property was his labour, which was not only depreciated but wiped out of existence when the house
  1282
  was shut up. The working classes of this country were very happy-go-lucky and looked to their own interests last of all, but he believed the limit of human endurance had been reached, and that the working classes of this country, when the opportunity, now long denied, was given to them, would mete out to the Government the treatment the Government were now meting out to them.
  MR. J. A. PEASEsaid the excuse put forward by the Government for this Bill was that it would reduce the number of licences. The Committee knew from the speeches delivered in the country and on behalf of the Bill, such as the speech of the hon. Member for Ripon on the Second Reading, that the reason why licences had not been reduced up to the present was not because of any particular hardship from the point of view of the brewers but from the point of view of the tenant. Over and over again they had been told that it was the tenant who ought to be compensated, and it was because of the gross hardships inflicted on the tenant that the magistrates had not taken advantage of their power to reduce licences under the existing law. This Billnow almost entire y sacrificed the tenant and handed over the compensation to the brewer landlord. The licensee was a person selected for his good character and his knowledge of the business: and if he were dispossessed he would have great difficulty in following another calling at the moment. Therefore if he was to be dismissed he should receive a large compensation under this Bill. The Solicitor-General had said that under this Bill he would receive compensation. That was not plain from the Bill; but, even if it were so, the compensation to be received by him seemed to be most inadequate. He ought to receive not only compensation for goodwill but for everything he put into the business.
  SIR EDWARD CARSON: Not good will.
  MR. J. A. PEASEsaid he was certainly under the impression that the Home Secretary said that the man should be compensated for his goodwill, and the right hon. Gentleman instanced the case

  1283
  of a popular cricketer who took a house and drew together a large custom, and s lid he should certainly be compensated for his goodwill. He thought the Government were bound to secure to the tenant this goodwill in the event of his being dispossessed. In the debate on the Second Beading of the Bill, the Colonial Secretary said he was in favour of compensation being paid on similar lines to that paid under the Compensation for Accidents Act. In a case of this kind he thought they were justified in giving compensation to the publican who was dispossessed of his licence through no fault of his own. The Colonial Secretary said under the Compensation Act three years salary would be paid to the representatives of a man who through accident was disabled. His Amendment which appeared on the Notice Paper suggested two years salary to the dispossessed tenant. The belated proposal of the Government would only give one year, and nothing to the dispossessed staff whatever. His complaint against the Government was that they had looked after the interest of the brewer instead of looking after the interest of the publican and his staff. He should like to see an Amendment introduced which would give to the staff not less than three months salary. In many cases six months salary would be more suitable. He did not suppose that in this case the Committee would hear any speeches from the hon. Member for Salford or the hon. Member for South Derbyshire. They knew very well that the Government had voiced their views in the debate. Hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House who had supported the principle of compensation would vote in favour of this Amendment with a great deal of pleasure, believing that it was due to the workers connected with the trade.
  MR. BOUSFIELDsaid there was a provision included in sub-clause (a) which was really the logical sequence of the Amendment the Home Secretary had put down. He asked the Government to reconsider at some future stage the question raised by the Amendment in order to see whether they could not make this concession on behalf of the employees. This case differed from the
  1284
  ordinary compensation case. In the case of a grocer's shop taken for public purposes a person employed in the shop might be subject to a month's notice, and it would be absurd to give him three months compensation for disturbance. The grocer could remove elsewhere and open a shop and continue to give employment to the shop man, but a publican whose licence was not renewed could not do that. The employees of the publican were thrown on the market as unemployed, and he thought their case might receive a little consideration from the Government. He suggested that they should consider the question between now and the Report stage.
  MR. ROBSONsaid he desired to express his agreement with the arguments used on the Opposition side of the House on the question of compensation, but they did not in any way overstate the importance of the Amendment. The Amendment put down by the Government was a perfectly futile one. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Lincoln would at least secure some share of the compensation fund not only to the barman but also to the publican. The Amendment put down by the Government would not secure more than a nominal share of the fund to the publican, because the Government Amendment only operated in default of agreement. The Government Amendment was that if the parties agreed to a sum by way of compensation then that should be the sum awarded by quarter sessions. What did that mean? It meant the right of contracting out.
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid there was another Amendment dealing with default of agreement on the Paper.
  MR. ROBSONreplied that that was the Amendment he was going to deal with. On page 31 there was an Amendment striking out the words "in default of agreement," and substituting other words. He would undertake to say that that Amendment was merely one of drafting except in the particular that the agreement to be arrived at by the parties was to be subject to the approval of quarter sessions. He rather imagined

  1285
  quarter sessions would be apt to take the view of the Solicitor-General and say that where the publican and the brewer had come to an agreement under which the amount of compensation was to be paid to the publican it should be nothing more than nominal. They were free contracting patties; they were not Chinese labourers. [An HON. MEMBER: They might be.] Quarter sessions would say, "What is there in the Bill to compel us to interfere with a free and voluntary contract entered into to reduce the amount of compensation to a mere nominal sum?" There was nothing in the Government Amendment to prevent it. That being so, one had the right to test the situation by the general argument used by the Solicitor-General in favour of the Bill.
  The Law Officer of the Crown was all for free contract when they were trying to secure a share of compensation for the barman. What was a licence itself but a free contract for a year? A licence was a permission given by authority to the publican to open his public-house for a year, and he was expected to fulfil his obligation for that licence. It was a contract between him and the authorities. Why was the free contract to be set aside? The claim of the licence-holder was founded upon a legitimate expectation of renewal of the licence. That was the foundation for the equity on which the Bill was based. But what about the barman? It was true that the barman might be in receipt of a weekly wage, but had he not a legitimate expectation. It was impossible when they left the sphere of free contract, as they did in the Bill, to distinguish logically and legitimately between landlord, tenant, and barman. Once they came to this element of expectation as the groundwork for statutory compensation, there was not any one of these three parties who was not equally entitled to be considered along with the other. Could it be said that they were being considered equally? The barman was omitted altogether, and the publican was having the substantiality of his position put at the mercy of an agreement. Were there any kind of limits except the approval of quarter sessions to that agree-
  1286
  ment? None. They knew what that would amount to. The Solicitor-General said that where a man had been a long time in the service, and had shown good conduct, that ought to be taken into consideration by quarter sessions. But what was there to prevent the landlord from giving notice as soon as he thought that compensation was likely to come into the question. There was nothing to prevent him from changing his barman or tenant, and quarter sessions had no power go into that Therefore the power of quarter sessions was a sham. It was one of those illusory provisions of which this Government was so fond in all their measures—intended not for actual working, but for election meetings.
  MR. CROOKSsaid the Government had not made it, clear what they intended to do to help these men, though throughout the debate sympathy had been expressed with them. There was an Amendment stating in legal language what was to be done, but the people who would have to deal with these matters would fail to understand what the Solicitor-General really wanted to do. Workmen had had a large experience of Acts of Parliament passed in their interest, but when it came to interpretation they got several learned gentlemen arguing different ways. Several hours had been spent lately in arguing whether a well 200 feet deep was a building thirty feet high. Could they not put into the Bill something in ordinary or "garden" language by which a man could understand whether he was to get compensation or not? When the Solicitor-General was cross-examining the mover of the Amendment, how was any small man to understand if he was to get compensation under this Bill? He himself could put it into White chapel-English, but the average man did not possess a cultivated intelligence, and he had heard many things in the House which he did not profess to understand. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the sole interest of the Government was, by this Bill, to promote the well-being of the community; that it was a great temperance measure; that it was going to shut up many nuisances; that, if two houses out of five were shut, it would be an advantage to

  1287
  the other three in the trade; and that the Bill was to be a great reform. But when they abolished vestries and school boards it was put in the Bill that every man who lost his situation was to be adequately compensated. Of course, that was an arrangement for the professional class, but it was quite different in the case of the average working man. It was all right in the case of a man that could be dubbed "John Brown, Esquire." He himself had been dubbed "Esquire"; but it was not very good stuff to feed children on—not very fattening or comforting.
  He wanted to ask Gentlemen in the House who were really interested in the Bill in a general way—not personally or financially inteiested—whether they would persuade the Government to frame a clause to give compensation to these poor men. They said to these poor men, "Believe me, we are with you; and we want to give you compensation." Sympathy was very cheap, but it ought not to be beyond the wit of the Government to frame a clause to give compensation to these poor men. If the licence-holder was simply the servant of a brewery or distillery company and never went into the house, the business being conducted by a manager, the former would not expect to get anything, and the latter would not have a legal claim. Would the Government insert a clause providing that, where there were no persons financially interested in the licence, there should be a corresponding reduction in the amount of compensation to be awarded for that particular house. He knew scores of publicans who would not get a penny under this Bill, not even if the Home Secretary's Amendment was carried. He contended that this Bill would be a positive injury to the manager or licence-holder, and that it would not effect the reforms which it was claimed it would effect unless a good many of the Amendments on the Paper were adopted. But in an hour hon. Members would be ordered out of the House as in licensed premises by someone getting up and saying, "Time, please." That was the way they were now doing the nation's business. He pleaded in the interests of these poor men and barmaids in the tied houses who were the slaves of the brewers, and who, when
  1288
  the house was shut up, would find it difficult to turn their hands to anything else.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that a whole evening of Parliamentary time would not be more than adequate to discuss this Amendment. The Committee had not had before them a full explanation of the proposals of the Government in regard to the distribution of the amount of compensation. The basis for claiming compensation under the Bill was that the person must be interested in the licensed premises. Whatever words might be added at the end of Sub-section 2 would be governed by the consideration that the foundation of the title to compensation was interest in the licensed premises. Regard ought to be had, not merely to the persons interested in the premises, but to those interested in the trade conducted on the premises. In the first place there were those who were employed on the premises. It was quite clear that they were not interested in the licensed premises. In the next place there was the occupier of the premises, who was not always the licence-holder, and he would not be entitled to any compensation under the Bill. The classes whose interests were most carefully and minutely safeguarded by the Bill were the owners of the premises, the lessees, or the mortgagees. Unless the Amendment was adopted, the other classes he had referred to would suffer hardship, and receive no compensation. In many cases the occupier would get nothing under the Bill. The licence-holder was often not the occupier at all, but the nominee or secretary of a brewery company. Under the suggested Amendment of the Home Secretary compensation was to be given, "having regard in the case of the licence-holder not only to his legal interest in the premises, etc." Now in such a case the occupier had no legal interest in the premises at all, while the licence-holder had his salary from the brewery company. He observed that the activity of hon. Gentlemen opposite increased as the time when the guillotine was to drop approached. He only wished to point out that the words proposed by the Government would be entirely futile to carry out the object they said they had in

  1289
  view. The persons who would suffer most if a licence were not renewed were not the brewers, or even the licence-holders, but the persons who were employed. He thought, therefore, that the Government should adopt some such Amendment as had been proposed.
  LORD WILLOUGHBY DB ERESBYsaid he was personally somewhat disappointed that the Committee had not heard from the Government that they were prepared to introduce an Amendment which would give effect, in part, to the Amendment moved by his hon. friend. He had always held that, when anything was taken away for the public good, the person from whom it was taken should receive adequate compensation. If it were conceded that the number of public-houses should be reduced, then everyone who suffered by such reduction should be compensated. That view was now entertained by hon. Gentlemen opposite; and he was very glad that they had been converted to it. He hoped that when they were in office they would bear in mind the precept they had laid down in connection with the Amendment. He would strongly urge on the Government the desirability of taking into consideration the employees of public-houses that might be suppressed. He fully realised that the brewers would have to pay a large sum towards compensation; he believed it was the brewer, and not the publican, who would pay; and, therefore, the brewer would naturally have the first claim to the compensation. But, at the same time, it would be just, it would ease the passage of the Bill, if it were arranged that the employees should receive a share of the compensation. It might be said that it would be ridiculous to compensate a man who might only have been engaged a week; but, even in that case, he might have had to move his furniture and incur expense; and he should therefore be compensated. Employees in public-houses would not be able to secure other employment at a moment's notice; and, perhaps in a single day, a large number of barmaids and barmen would be thrown out of employment. Therefore, he sincerely trusted that the employees would receive compensation.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he had always thought that the Conservative Party would have reason to repent of the principles on which this Bill was based. The fifty minutes still remaining were inadequate for the discussion even of this Amendment. Expectation had been made the ground for compensation, and now they had a multitude of people coming forward to share in this compensation. According to the Bill, all the compensation belonged solely to the owner of the house, who in most cases was the brewer, for whose benefit the Bill was introduced. Now the Government had put down an Amendment to provide that the tenant should have compensation. The next class put forward, and by no means the last—he did not see why the commercial traveller who called at the house was not equally entitled to compensation—the next class was the servants, the batmen and barmaids. He saw no reason why they should not be compensated. The Bill left it uncertain whether the profits were to be bought and paid for or not, and whether the profits were to be merely the profits of the retail business on the premises or were to include the brewers profits. The Government's proposed Amendment did not settle these points. The Bill provided that the compensation was to be calculated as if the Bill had not become law. That was the language appropriate to what was known as the "sterilisation" clause, but how was it applicable to a Bill to be operative ten, twenty, forty, fifty, sixty, seventy years hence? It was drawing language from one statute and placing it in a Bill without any real, adequate appreciation of what its effect was on that Bill. The Solicitor-General had offered to make an Amendment, of which he approved, to the effect that the premises hereafter should be valued upon the footing that the tenure was as precarious as it was to-day. But how was that to be estimated? What would be the case twenty years hence? There might be a public house which was now worth £2,000 a year which would be worth £5,000 a year twenty years hence. The Government had taken language wholly inappropriate and put in a provision which was wholly unmeaning. He would not spend any further time on the clause. The fact was, the

  1291
  proceedings of this Committee were a perfect farce.
  MR. SEELYsaid he desired to thank those hon. Members who had supported his Amendment. He was not a member of the legal profession, and he did not claim that the wording of his Amendment was absolutely accurate. When the Solicitor-General pointed out that he had not provided in his Amendment for the case of an occupier with a long lease the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly accurate, and words would have to be inserted to secure that object. He should like to point out that his proposal was not intended as a hostile Amendment, but it was intended purely to provide an alternative system to the one which the Government had adopted. The fact that since he had put down his Amendment the Government had put down an Amendment on the same point was sufficient to show that there was a demand for the proposal he had made and some justification for it. Several hon. Members had suggested alternative proposals, but he preferred the general principle of his own proposal to any of the others. He should like to point out that the grave fault in the Amendment put down by the Home Secretary was that if a brewer had a good tenant he would be fined for it. Suppose a brewer had a house worth £5,000, and he had a tenant with a good character—that tenant might receive £1,000 and the brewer £4,000. If the brewer had a tenant with a bad character, in the case he had mentioned the tenant would get £100 and the brewer £4.900. Therefore the man with a good tenant would get considerably less than the man with a bad tenant. That was a fatal objection to the proposal made by the Government which practically left the different people concerned to quarrel amongst themselves as to how this money was to be divided. He thought his proposal was the best one, because it settled how much compensation each person concerned was to receive.
  With regard to the remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries he had said very truly that this Amendment might be divided into two parts, firstly, how to
  1292
  divide the compensation; and secondly, the question of the amount. In regard to the question as to how the compensation should be divided he was prepared to accept any Amendments which were reasonable, but he thought that the principle which he had adopted, namely, that of giving so much to the person employed, so much to the person in occupation, and so much to the owner, was a reasonable and wise principle, and one which he should be glad to see adopted. As was pointed out by the noble Lord the Member for Horncastle, the Prime Minister proposed that a considerable number of houses should be abolished, and under those circumstances a large number of persons might be thrown out of employment. He should be glad if the Government could make some arrangement to compensate those persons. As to the amount of compensation he acknowledged that the question had been fully discussed upon the subject of the time limit, and that point had already been decided by the Committee. His idea in putting down this Amendment was to make the whole principle more complete and to secure that the various persons concerned should receive compensation for any kind of interest they might have in a house which was closed. He wished the occupier to be compensated for his interest and the owner compensated as the ordinary owner and also for his further interest as the owner of a monopoly, which, quite unintentionally, the State had given to him. He did not bind himself to the particular form in which his Amendment was drawn, and he could quite imagine that some other form of words might be better. He thought it would be a wise arrangement for the Government to make if they adopted some proposal by which these different interests were divided and provided for. He should be glad if the Government could see their way either to adopt or amend his Amendment, or, at any rate, give them some assurance that they would adopt the principle it contained.
  MR. REAsaid the proposal before the House was a substantial Amendment, for it gave a share of the compensation to the licence-holder and to

  1293
  all who had an interest in the premises. Hon. Members on both sides of the House had expressed themselves in favour of giving compensation to these people. There was an alternative before the Committee in the shape of three Amendments put own on the Paper in the name of the Home Secretary. It appeared to him that those three Amendments taken together did not with any certainty give any share of compensation to the persons he had alluded to. The first Amendment was on page 31, and it applied to the fixing of the whole sum of compensation which had to be paid for the withdrawal of a licence, and it had no relation whatever to the division of the compensation. The second of the three Amendments to which he alluded, which would be found on page 33, did include the holder of the licence among those persons amongst whom the compensation was to be divided, but it did not say how the compensation was to be divided. The third Amendment he alluded to was on page 35, and it gave an instruction to quarter sessions as to what they were to bear in mind in dividing the compensation, but this only applied to those cases which came before quarter sessions, and the only cases which quarter sessions had anything to say to were the cases in which no agreements existed. It appeared to him that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Lincoln did definitely give a share of the compensation to the holder of the licence and to those employed in the public-house, whilst the three Amend merits of the Home Secretary taken together did not secure any such compensation for the persons he had mentioned. He preferred, for these reasons, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Lincoln to the three Amendments put forward by the Home Secretary, and he should heartily vote for it.
  MR. EMMOTTsaid it was clear, not only that the discussion in so limited a time of Clauses 2 and 3 was a sorry farce, but that the Bill as originally drawn gave everything to the brewer. The Home Secretary's Amendment, giving a small share to the licence-holder, although it might have been foreshadowed by the Solicitor-General about June 9th, was not put down for
  1294
  a month and not till the closure by compartment was carried. It was an insult to the House to put down sweeping Amendments at so late a stage, when the Committee could not discuss them. The Government up to now had not told them whether they meant to do anything for the employé or not. Did the Government recognise that claim? The Committee had the right to an answer. It had been pointed out that if the tenant got more the owner must get less. The Solicitor-General had said that it was to the interest of the owner that the tenant should be a good one and remain long in the house, and so the value of the house would be raised. But why was it, if that were true, that the transfer of tied houses was three or four times as numerous as of other houses? It was because some of the owners preferred a frequent change of tenants, thinking that every new tenant brought new custom without losing much of the old and also because of the iniquitous character of many tied-house agreements. And what did the value of the house depend on in the long run? On the amount of drink sold. He wished to point out to the Solicitor-General that the statement he made that it was to the interest of the tied-house owner to keep his tenant as long as possible was not borne out by facts. He could produce very many instances in which complaint had been made not of the character of the man but because he had not sold enough drink. That was what the tied-house owner looked to, and everybody who knew anything at all about this question knew that. Although he acknowledged the good intentions of this Amendment put forward by the Government he felt most strongly that the effect of the Bill would be to render still shorter the tenure of these tenants, and make it worse than it had been in the past.
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid he had already spoken at considerable length upon this Amendment, but he desired to reply to some of the observations which had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries and other hon. Members. The hon and learned Member for Dumfries seemed to think

  1295
  that it was something novel to give compensation for the taking away of a licence, and he had stated that compensation hitherto had only been given when legal right was taken away, and that now they were giving it for an expectation. Did the hon. and learned Member say that if licensed premises had been taken away under the Lands Clauses Act, or for any purpose different from the question of renewal, no compensation would be given?
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid a public authority buying public-house property had no right to interfere with the licence; if they took away the expectation of another person they must pay for it. But it was a very different thing when those who granted a licence upon an annual tenure claimed to exercise their legal right to discontinue it.
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement was that compensation had never hitherto been paid for a mere expectation. When licensed premises were taken under the conditions he had stated, they did not value the licence merely as a licence for one year. It might be valued as a licence for twenty-five years, and, even in the case of a reversion with an outstanding lease of twenty-five years, the Courts had held that the mere expectancy of the reversioner that the licence would be renewed from year to year was a matter for compensation. It was the foundation of the argument that they could not with any justice have two systems of legal right running side by side—one under which they deprived a man of what he possessed without a shilling, and the other under which they recognised to the fullest extent the legal expectancy that he had. Hon. Gentlemen were in favour of giving the employé, as contradistinguished from those interested in the licensed premises, some compensation. Had such a principle ever been admitted before? Even when a private individual or a company was authorised to take licensed premises compulsorily, and ordered to pay full compensation, the employés did not get a shilling. What was estimated was the depreciation of property, and that was the whole basis and foundation of the Bill. That might
  1296
  be right or it might be wrong, but what they said was that if a licence was taken away the compensation payable ought to be the difference between the value of the premises with the licence and their value without it. Any other system would be absolutely inconsistent with every principle of compensation when property was taken away for a public purpose which had ever teen approved by Parliament. The Government Amendments, he submitted, went to the fullest extent to which the principle of compensation had ever gone. They really went further in including managers who were licence-holders. It was said that the bulk of the compensation would go to the owners, who, in many cases, were the brewers. He totally and absolutely denied it. That matter was left in the discretion of quarter sessions just as much as the question of what was to be given to the lessee.
  MR. ROBSON: In default of agreement.
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman would find, if he looked at the Government Amendments, that he was mistaken.
  MR. ROBSONsaid that when it came to the distribution of the compensation fund quarter sessions had no jurisdiction except in default of agreement. Quarter sessions were entitled and bound to approve any agreement which fixed the amount of the compensation as between the persons interested in the premises. When they came to fixing the precise proportion in which each person should receive it, then quarter sessions had no jurisdiction except in default of agreement. Therefore, it all depended on the agreement.
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman was mixing up, two things. As regarded the amount of compensation to be fixed, no agreement between the parties would fix that without the confirmation of quarter sessions. When they came to the distribution of the money it was left to quarter sessions to determine the amount. [Mr. ROBSON: In default of agreement.]—The hon.

  1297
  and learned Gentleman was quite mistaken. The clause said that the amount was to be divided amongst the persons interested "in such shaves as may be settled by agreement, or, in default of agreement, determined by quarter sessions." The Government Amendment proposed to leave out "in default of agreement," so that he was absolutely right in saying that the whole question of what the owner was to get was to be determined by quarter sessions. Quarter sessions, in addition to assessing the value of the legal interest of the holder of the licence, who would either be the lessee or the manager, had also to take into consideration the conduct of the holder and the length of time he had been in possession. He submitted that the Government in thus framing their proposal were taking care, not only of the tenant, but of the manager who in many cases might be only a simple employé It had been asked why they did not do the same in regard to the other employés. His answer was that they looked upon the man who held the licence, and who was under pains and penalties for the proper conduct of the premises, as the person who ought to receive the compensation when the licence he held was taken away.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSasked what happened to the occupier of the premises when he was not the licence-holder and when the licence was in the name of the secretary to a brewery company?
  SIR EDWARD CARSONthought that very often the transfer of a licence to the secretary of a company was only done whilst a new manager or tenant was being found.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that what he wished to know was, in case the occupier was not the licence-holder, would the licence-holder get the compensation and the occupier get nothing.
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid that would certainly be so. He had already explained that the licensing magistrates who had to deal with the licence-holder put pains and penalties upon him, and for that reason the licence-holder ought to be compensated if the licence was taken away. The hon. Member for
  1298
  Lincoln had said that if an owner happened to have had a bad tenant he would come out of it better than if ha had had a good tenant. The Government thought that every encouragement ought to be given to the tenant who conducted his premises in a satisfactory way, and therefore they said that he should be compensated at a higher rate than the tenant who did not conduct his premises in a proper manner. Was it true, as was said by the hon. Member for Lincoln, that the owner would suffer by this proposal? The Government contended that he would not. If a place Was badly conducted there was the danger of having convictions endorsed upon the licence, and anyone about to purchase a public-house in the market would look at the register in order to see whether convictions had been recorded, because if the licence had been previously endorsed there would be the danger that the whole licence might be taken away upon another conviction, and the whole value of the licensed premises might thereby be lost. He claimed that under this Bill the owner of the premises was interested in encouraging; the licensee to conduct his premises properly.
  MR. SEELYasked if the right hon. Gentleman really meant to say that if there had been a new man put in the premises during the last six months the compensation would not be less than it would be to an old tenant?
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid the proposal applied to his conduct as well as to the length of time. The Government wished to encourage good tenants to conduct the premises well for a length of time. He thought that the more the Amendment the Government had put upon the Paper was examined the more would it be seen to meet the justice of the case.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the guillotine was working impartially. On Thursday last it was the British citizen's head that was cut off. To-night the publican's head was going to roll into the basket. The Solicitor-General had tried to explain that under this Amendment the publican was going to get his

  1299
  fair share of the compensation, but it was not the share promised by the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary, in his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, said the goodwill of a house, and the trade done, often depended very largely upon the popularity of the licensee, and he mentioned the case of the professional cricketer who he thought ought to have a considerable share of the amount awarded. What share was he going to get? According to the theory of the Government,—and he hoped the publicans would notice it—the publicans would find that their compensation had been decreased by limiting the debates. After four or five days discussion they had been given one year's purchase, and probably with a few more days they would have got two or three years. The publican was now to get one year out of fifteen. That was the old cricketer's "considerable share." It seemed to him that the old cricketer was to hold the wicket but the brewer was to get the gate-money. Although they had only been able to discuss this Amendment
  very briefly they had at any rate made it clear that this was purely an electioneering Bill and simply a brewers' Bill. It was not the old cricketer who supplied the electioneering funds, but the great brewery syndicates, and it was for them and them alone that they were giving this compensation.
  MR. CROOKS: Time, Gentlemen, please?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the Chairman was going to press the button, and he would therefore sit down.
  And, it being Eleven of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 5th July, to put the Question on the Amendment, already proposed from the Chair.
  Question put, "That the words 'a sum' stand part of the clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 285; Noes, 181. (Division List No. 219.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. SirWilliam Hart

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Fergusson, RtHn. SirJ.(Manc'r)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, RtHonSir H.

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn JA(Wore.)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Austin, Sir John

  Chapman, Edward

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Bagot, Gapt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Charrington, Spencer

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Fison, Frederick William

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Baird, John George Alexander.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Fitzroy, Hon. EdwardAlgern'n

  Balcarres, Lord

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Balfour, Rt. Hon A J(Manch'r)

  Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C.R.

  Forster, Henry William

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Foster, PhilipS. (Warwick. S.W.)

  Balfour, RtHn GeraldW(Leeds

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Balfour, Kenneth R(Christch.

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Gardner, Ernest

  Banbury, Sir FrederickGeorge

  Crean, Eugene

  Garfit, William

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton)

  Gordon, Hn. J E(Elgin& Nairn)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Saville

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

  Bignold, Arthur

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Line.)

  Bigwood, James

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Bingham, Lord

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Bond, Edward

  Denny, Colonel

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Greene, SirEW(B'rySEdm'nds

  Bowles, Lt.-ColHF(Middlesex)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Dixon-Hartland, SirFredDixon

  Gretton, John

  Bull, William James

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnE

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Doughty, George

  Groves, James Grimble

  Butcher, John George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Campbell, J.H.M.(DublinUniv.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Carlile, William Walter

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Hardy, Laurence (KentAshf'rd)

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Maxwell, Rt HnSirHE(Wigt'n)

  Samuel, SirHarryS(Limehouse

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'h

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Milner, Rt Hon. SirFrederick G.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Heath, Arthur Howard( Hanley)

  Milvain, Thomas

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.)

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Helder, Augustus

  Montagu, Hon. J.Scott(Hants)

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Smith, H.C(North'mbTyneside

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Morgan, DavidJ(Walthamstow)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Spear, John Ward

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Spencer, Sir E.(W. Bromwich)

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Stanley, HonArthur (Ormskirk

  Hoult, Joseph

  Mount, William Arthur

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham)

  Murray, RtHnAGraham(Bute)

  Stock, James Henry

  Hozier, Hon. JamesHenryCecil

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. JG(OxfordUniv.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Thompson, Dr. E.C(Monagh'n, N

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Nolan, Col. John P (Galway, N.)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Kennaway, Rt. HonSir.John H

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Tillett, Louis John

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T( Denbigh)

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Keswick, William

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Tuff, Charles

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Pease, Herbert Pike( Darlington)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Peel, Hn. Wm. RobertWellesley

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Percy, Earl

  Vincent, Col. SirCEH(Sheffield)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Lawson, JohnGrant(Yorks. NR

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Lee, ArthurH. (Hants., Fareham

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Welby, Lt. CobA. C.E.(Taunton)

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Welby, SirCharlesG.E. (Notts.)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Randles, John S.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Long, Col. Charles W(Evesham

  Rankin, Sir James

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Long Rt Hn Walter(BristoLS)

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

  Lloyd, Archie Kirkman

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Wilson-Todd, SirW. H. (Yorks.)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Ridley, Hon. MW.(Stalybridge)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Ridley, S. Forde( BethnalGreen)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Lyttelton, Rt, Hon Alfred

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Young, Samuel

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Younger, William

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis(EdinburghW)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Rutherford, W.W. (Liverpool)

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Bell, Richard

  Burt, Thomas

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Benn, John Williams

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Allen, Charles P.

  Black, Alexander William

  Caldwell, James

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Boland, John

  Cameron, Robert

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. HerbertHenry

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Brigg, John

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Cawley, Frederick

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  1302

  1303

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Reid, SirR. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Reckitt, J. Compton

  Cremer, William Randal

  Joicey, Sir James

  Rigg, Richard

  Crombie, John William

  Jones DavidBrynmor(Swansea)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Crooks, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Joyce, Michael

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Cullinan, J.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Rose, Charles Day

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan,W

  Runciman, Walter

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Russell, T. W.

  Delany, William

  Kitson, Sir James.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Langley, Batty

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Shackleton, David James

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Leng, Sir John

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Edwards, Frank

  Levy, Maurice

  Sheehy, David

  Ellice, CaptE. C(SAndrew'sBghs

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Slack, John Bamford

  Emmott, Alfred

  Lough, Thomas

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Brans Sir Francis H(Maidstn

  Lundon, W.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Crae, George

  Sullivan, Donal

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Tennant, Harold John

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (DerbyCo.)

  Morgan, J.Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Tomkinson, James

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Toulmin, George

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Murphy, John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn

  Newnes, Sir George

  Wallace, Robert

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Norman, Henry

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. SirE.(Berwick)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

  Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  O'Doherty, William

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Malley, William

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Harcourt, LewisV.(Rossendale)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Harwood, George

  O'Shee, James John

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Perks, Robert William

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Price, Robert John

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huadersfd

  Hobhouse RtHnH(Somers't E)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Yoxall, James Henry.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Rea, Russell

  Hutchison, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Reckitt, Harold James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Roddy, M.

  Charles Seely and Mr. Warner.

  Question, "That the Amendment be made," put, and agreed to.

  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he wished to move that the vote of the hon. Member for Widnes recorded in the last division be disallowed, on the ground that he had direct pecuniary interest in the subject-matter upon which his vote was given. The effect of the Amendment, if carried, would have diminished the amount of compensation to go to the owner upon a licence being withdrawn. The servants on the licensed premises would have had their share of the compensation fund to the extent of three months wages or salary, and the occupier of the premises as his share would have had a sum equal to two years profits. The hon.
  1304
  Member for Widnes had a direct pecuniary interest, inasmuch as he was the owner of a considerable number of tied houses in Liverpool and other parts of Lancashire. He selected the hon. Member's vote for the Motion not from any personal motive. He did not want the hon. Gentleman or the House to believe that this was a personal attack, but he made the Motion to assert a very important principle. This was a question which ought to be left to the House to decide. He would quote the ruling of the Speaker on 30th April, 1901, given after the Prime Minister had endeavoured to draw a distinction between public and private Bills.

  1305
  It was not a question of order, it was for the House on each occasion to weigh the; advantages and decide. On 11th March, 1892, a Motion was made to disallow the votes of three Members in connection with the Mombasa Railway on the ground of pecuniary interest, and on that occasion the Prime Minister said the principle laid down by the Chair was that no Member should give a vote if his interest was of a direct and personal kind, but that principle must be interpreted by the particular occasion on which the House was called upon to apply it. A Committee sat in 1896 to consider this question, and Mr. Speaker Peel and the present Mr. Speaker declared it important that the House should decide on each particular case. He submitted that this was distinctly a case where it ought to be left to the House to decide. He disclaimed any intention of imputing any corrupt motive. He moved that the vote be disallowed.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I have very little to add to what I said the other night on the same matter. The hon. Member has practically raised the same point. I based myself on that occasion upon what is the latest pronouncement I can find from the Chair, a pronouncement made in 1898, and it arose on the Local Government (Ireland) Bill, 1898, on Report, Clause 42. That Bill provided for the payment of the landlord's share of the rates out of public money, whereupon an hon. Member raised the same point as the hon. Member has raised to-night, Mr. Speaker being in the Chair; and Mr. Speaker then said what I read out the other night, but for greater lucidity I will read it again—
  "The rule of the House is well understood that there must be a direct pecuniary interest of a private and particular, and not of a public and general nature, and where the question before the House is of a public and general nature, and incidentally involves the pecuniary interests of a class which includes Members of this House, they are not prevented by the rules of the House from voting. In the present case no question of privilege arises."
  I can only use exactly the same expressions. Mr. Speaker ruled on that occasion, and did not leave the decision to the House, and I think I am bound to follow his precedent and to rule the same way in this case. What I understand to
  1306
  be the rule is really this — that if an hon. Member has a direct personal pecuniary interest or advantage which he or one or two of his fellows may derive from the passage of a particular Bill he is not entitled to vote upon it. For instance, if a Government proposed a Bill for acquiring property for the purpose of manœuvres on Salisbury Plain or for the establishment of docks in a particular port, then, if an hon. Member happened to be the individual whose land would be taken for that purpose — either for the purpose of manœuvres or docks — it is quite char that he would have a direct personal pecuniary interet in that Bill passing; but if he was simply one of a class, whether brewers, or solicitors, or landlords, or tenants, or shipowners, or any other class, then the vote would not be disallowed.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsubmitted that this was a different case from the Irish case. That was a Bill, not to give a pecuniary advantage to the landlords, but to establish local government in Ireland, though incidentally something was done to benefit the landlords. But this was a Bill—[MINISTERIAL cries of "Chair."] This was a totally different Bill. It was avowed by the Government that this was a Bill to establish compensation, and that was the main and chief object of the Bill. The Chairman had stated that Mr. Speaker's ruling in 1898 was the latest, but the latest ruling was given by Mr. Speaker in 1901.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that I have nothing to add to what I have already said. The hon. Member has not convinced me that I was wrong on the previous occasion.
  THE CHAIRMANthen proceeded successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given, and on every Question necessary to dispose of the allotted business to be concluded on the 2nd allotted day.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 4, to leave out the words 'in default of agreement,' and insert the words 'if an amount is agreed upon by the persons appearing to quarter sessions to be interested in the licensed premises and is approved by quarter sessions, be that amount, and in default of such agreement and approval shall.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 8, after the word 'premises,' to insert the words 'including the holder of the licence.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 9, to leave out from the word 'be,' to the word 'determined,' in line 10."—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 10, at the end, to insert the words 'having regard in the case of the licence-holder not only to his legal interest in the premises but also to his conduct and to the length of time during which he has been the holder of the licence, and the holder of a licence shall (notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary) in no case receive a less amount than he would be entitled to as tenant for a year, or from year to year, of the licensed premises.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
  Question put, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 280; Noes 174. (Division List No. 220.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton)

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Hardy, Laurence) Kent, Ashford

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. SirH.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Austin, Sir John

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Balcarres, Lord

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Heath, James (Staffords.N.W.)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir FredDixon

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manch'r.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Helder, Augustus

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnE.

  Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. GeraldW(Leeds

  Doughty, George

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. SirWilliamHart

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hoult, Joseph

  Bignold, Arthur

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Bigwood, James

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Howard, John (Kent, Favershm

  Bingham, Lord

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Hudson, George Biekersteth

  Bond, Edward

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Bowles, Lt. -Col. H.F( Middlesex)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Fison, Frederick William

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex.)

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Bull, William James

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Butcher, John George

  Forster, Henry William

  Keswick, William

  Campbell, J.H.M.(DublinUniv.)

  Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S.W.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Carlile, William Walter

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Garfit, William

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gordon, Hn. J.E.(Elgin& Nairn)

  Lawson, JohnGrant(Yorks. N. R

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich.)

  Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rH'mlets

  Lee, ArthurH. (Hants., Fareham

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J A (Worc.)

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Chapman, Edward

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Charrington, Spencer

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Graham, Henry Robers

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Greene, SirE. W.( B'rySEdm'nds

  Long, Col. CharlesW.(Evesham)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E.

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewbury)

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (BristolS.

  Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C.R.

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Lowe, Francis William

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Gretton, John

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Crean, Eugene

  Groves, James Grimble

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Lucas, Reginald J(Portsmouth)

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Percy, Earl

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Stock, James Henry

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf dUniv.

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Thompson, Dr. E. C. (Monagh' nN

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Pym, C. Guy

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Randles, John S.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Tillett, Louis John

  Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir HE(Wigt'n)

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wrn. Edw. M.

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Tuff, Charles

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Milvain, Thomas

  Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green

  Valentia, Viscount

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Vincent, Col. SirC E H(Sheffield)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Morgan, DavidJ. (Walthamstow

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E (Taunton)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Mount, William Arthur

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Whiteley, H.(Ashtonund. Lyne

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray

  Samuel, Sir HarryS (Limehouse)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham(Bute

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H. (Yorks.)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  young, Samuel

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Smith, H.C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Younger, William

  O' Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Spear, John Ward

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cremer, William Randal

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Crombie, John William

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Asquith, Rt. Hon Herbert Henry

  Crooks, William

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E.(Berwick)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Cullinan, J.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Benn, John Williams

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

  Black, Alexander William

  Delany, William

  Harwood, George

  Boland, John

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Brigg, John

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Edwards, Frank

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Ellice, Capt. E C (SAndrw'sBghs

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Burt, Thomas

  Emmott, Alfred

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Caldwell, James

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Cameron, Robert

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Joicey, Sir James

  Campbell- Bannerman, Sir H.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Cawley, Frederick

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith )

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Joyce, Michael

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Kearley, Hudson F.

  1310

  1311

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  O'Malley, William

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Shee, James John

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Kitson, Sir Tames

  Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Langley, Batty

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Perks, Robert William

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Price, Robert John

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

  Leese, SirJoseph F.(Accrington

  Priestley, Arthur

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Leng, Sir John

  Rea, Russell

  Tomkinson, James

  Levy, Maurice

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Toulmin, George

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Reddy, M.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lloyd-George, David

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Wallace, Robert

  Lough, Thomas

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Lundon, W.

  Rigg, Richard

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Robson, William Snowdon

  White, Luke(York, E.R.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Rose, Charles Day

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.

  M'Crae, George

  Runciman, Walter

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Russell, T. W.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Scott, Chas. Prestwick (Leigh)

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T(Huddersf"d

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Shackleton, David James

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Murphy, John

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Newnes, Sir George

  Sheehy, David

  Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

  Norman, Henry

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  William M'Arthur.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Slack, John Bamford

  O'Doherty, William

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Question, "That the Amendment be made," put, and agreed to.

  Clause 3:—
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 11, to leave out the word 'may,' and insert the words 'shall in each year, unless they certify to the Secretary of State that it is unnecessary to do so in any year.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 12, after the word 'all,' to insert the word 'existing.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
  Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 280; Noes, 156. (Division List No. 221.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bull, William James

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Arrol, Sir William

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Butcher, John George

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Campbell, J.H.M (Dublin Univ.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Austin, Sir John

  Carlile, William Walter

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Balcarres, Lord

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.A. (Worc.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r

  Chapman, Edward

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Doughty, George

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W.(Leeds

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C.R.

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ. (Manc'r

  Bigwood, James

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Bingham, Lord

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Bond, Edward

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Crean, Eugene

  Fison, Frederick William

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H.F. (Middlesex

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham,

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Forster, Henry William

  Lowe, Francis William

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S.W.

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Garfit, William

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Gibbs, A. G. H.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn,

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Samuel, Sir Harry S.(Limehouse

  Gordon, Maj.-Evans (T'rH'mlets

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Graham, Henry Robert

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Sharve, William Edward T.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Greene, Sir E.W. (B'rySEdm'nds

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. E.

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H.E (Wigt'n

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Smith, H.C. (North'mbTyneside

  Gretton, John

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanark.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Spear, John Ward

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Milvain, Thomas

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas E.

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Stanley, Edwd. Jas. (Somerset)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.,

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Harris, F. Leverton, (Tynem'th

  Morgan, David J(Walthamstow

  Stock, James Henry

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G. (Oxf'dUniv.

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Heath, James (Staffords.,N.W.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Thompson, Dr. EC (Monagh'n, N

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Helder, Augustus

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Tuff, Charles

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hoult, Joseph

  Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H. (Sheffield

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Hozier, Hon. James HenryCecil

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E. (Taunton

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Welby, Sir Charles G.E. (Notts.,

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Percy, Earl

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop,

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Keswick, William

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H. (Yorks.)

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Pym, C. Guy

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Randles, John S.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool,

  Rankin, Sir James

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. NR

  Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne

  Young, Samuel

  Lee, ArthurH. (Hants., Fareham

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Younger, William

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Ridley, S.Forde (Bethnal Green

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Allen, Charles P.

  Asquith Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  1314

  1315

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Perks, Robert William

  Benn, John Williams

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Price, Robert John

  Black, Alexander William

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Rea, Russell

  Boland, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Reddy, M.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Brigg, John

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Rigg, Richard

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Rose, Charles Day

  Burt, Thomas

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Runciman, Walter

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Joicey, Sir James

  Russell, T. W.

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Cameron, Robert

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Shackleton, David James

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark,

  Kilbride, Denis

  Sheehy, David

  Cremer, William Randal

  Kitson, Sir James

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Crombie, John William

  Langley, Batty

  Slack, John Bamford

  Crooks, William

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Cullman, J.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Leng, Sir John

  Sullivan, Donal

  Delany, William

  Levy, Maurice

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Lough, Thomas

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Lundon, W.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Tomkinson, James

  Edwards, Frank

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Toulmin, George

  Ellice, Capt. EC (S.Andrw'sBghs

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Wallace, Robert

  Emmott, Alfred

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Evans, Sir Francis H.(Maidstone

  M'Crae, George

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Murphy, John

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Newnes, Sir George

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T. (Hudd'rsfi'd

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Norman, Henry

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

  Whittaker and Mr. Theodore

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Malley, William

  Taylor.

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Harwood, George

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Question, "That the Amendment be made," put, and agreed to.

  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 13, to leave out the words 'granted or.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 16, at the beginning, to insert the word 'First.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 24, to leave out Sub-section (3), and insert the words, '(3) Such deductions from rent as are set out in the Second Schedule to this Act may, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, be made by any licence-holder who pays a charge under this section,
  1316
  and also by any person from whose rent a deduction is made in respect of the payment of such a charge.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, lines 33 and 34, to leave out the words 'or in respect of special payments for new licences.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 41, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'and such expenses of the justices of the licensing district incurred under

  1317
  this Act as quarter sessions may allow.'"— (Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 7, at the end, to add the wards, 'Quarter sessions shall in each year make such returns to the Secretary of State with respect to their own action, and that of the justices of licensing districts, under this
  Act, as the Secretary of State may require.'"—(Mr. Solicitor-General.)
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill"
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 266; Noes, 160. (Division List, No. 222.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Doogan, P. C.

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Doughty, George

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Doxford, Sir William Theoaore

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Keswick, William

  Austin, Sir John

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks. N.R.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Lee, ArthurH. (Hants. Fareham

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Forster, Henry William

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Foster, Philips. (Warwick. S.W.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Long, Col. CharlesW. (Evesham

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Garfit, William

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Bigwood, James

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Bingham, Lord

  Gordon, Hon. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'rH'mlets

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Bond, Edward

  Gore, Hon. S.F. Ormsby-(Line.)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H.F.(Middlesex

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Lyttleton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Greene, SirEW (B'ryS. Edm'nds

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Bull, William James

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  M'Iver, SirLewis (Edinburgh, W

  Butcher, John George

  Grenfell, William Henry

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Campbell, J.H.M (Dublin Univ.

  Gretton, John

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Carlile, William Walter

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hon. W.F.

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Maxwell, Rt. Hn. SirH. E (Wigt'n

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.A. (Worc

  Hardy Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Chapman, Edward

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Milvain, Thomas

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C.R.

  Helder, Augustus

  Morgan, DavidJ. (Walthamstow

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Crean, Eugene

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Mount, William Arthur

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Davenport, W. Bromley

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield

  Hunt, Rowland

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Dixon-Haitland, SirFred Dixon

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  O'Brien, P. J (Tipperary, N.)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Tuff, Charles

  O'Dowd, John

  Samuel, Sir HarryS.(Limehouse

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H. (Sheffield

  Percy, Earl

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Welby, Lt.-Col A.C.E. (Taunton

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Smith, H.C. North'mb. Tyneside

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Randles, John S.

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Rankin, Sir James

  Spear, John Ward

  Whitmore, CharlesA lgernon

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset)

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

  Ridley, Hon. M.W. (Stalybridge

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

  Wilson-Todd, SirWH (York.)

  Ridley, S. Forde (BethnalGreen

  Stewart, SirMark J. M'Taggart

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Stock, James Henry

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Robinson, Brooke

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Young, Samuel

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G. (Oxf'd Univ

  Younger, William

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Thompson, Dr. EC (Monagh'n, N

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Alexander Aclana-Hood and

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  NOES

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Ellice, Capt. E C (S. Andrw'sBghs

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Allen, Charles P.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Leng, Sir John

  Aston, Thomas Gair

  Evans, Sir Francis H.(Maidstone

  Levy, Maurice

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lough, Thomas

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Lundon, W.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Benn, John Williams

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Black, Alexander William

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Crae, George

  Boland, John

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Bolton, Thomas Boiling

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Brigg, John

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Burt, Thomas

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

  Murphy, John

  Caldwell, James

  Harwood, George

  Newnes, Sir George

  Cameron, Robert

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Norman, Henry

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

  Cawley, Frederick

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Malley, William

  Channing, Francis Allstone

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Perks, Robert William

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Price, Robert John

  Cremer, William Randal

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rea, Russell

  Crombie, John William

  Joicey, Sir James

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Crooks, William

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Reddy, M.

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Cullinan, J.

  Joyce, Michael

  Rigg, Richard

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Davies, M.Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Delany, William

  Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rose, Charles Day

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Kitson, Sir James

  Russell, T. W.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Langley, Batty

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Edwards, Frank

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  1320

  1321

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Shackleton, David James

  Tennant, Harold John

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Sheehy, David

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Wilson, Henry J.(York, W. R.)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Tomkinson, James

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Slack, John Bamford

  Toulmin, George

  Woodhouse, SirJT (Huddersfi'd

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wason, JohnCathcart (Orkney)

  Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  White, George (Norfolk)

  William M'Arthur

  Sullivan, Donal

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Question put, and agreed to.

  And, it being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF the TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD,),in moving the adjournment of the House, said the Licensing Bill would be taken this day (Tuesday).
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he could not make out exactly where the Licensing Bill came on the Order Paper. He presumed that some opportunity would be given of the House considering the question.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: Perhaps the hon. Member will raise the question to-morrow.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House do now adjourn."—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.) said he wished to call attention to the escape of two indentured Chinese labourers from Johannesburg to Pretoria and their capture in the latter place. When he referred to this matter upon a previous occasion the Colonial MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.) said he wished to call attention to the escape of two indentured Chinese labourers from Johannesburg to Pretoria and their capture in the latter place. When he referred to this matter upon a previous occasion the Colonial Secretary said that he had no information in regard to the imprisonment of these men. Naturally upon all questions affecting personal liberty Irishmen sympathised with the victims of oppression, and he wished to draw attention to the way the right hon. Gentleman had acted in this matter. On Friday last he asked the Colonial Secretary whether he had received the information which was conveyed to the public in a Reuter's telegram, stating that two of these Chinese labourers had escaped from the compounds at the mines, and had managed to get from Johannesburg to Pretoria, which was a distance of forty miles. Upon this point he did not think the
  1322
  Colonial Secretary had treated the House respectfully, because hon. Members were anxious to have the fullest information in regard to the administration of this Ordinance in South Africa. The right hon. Gentleman replied to him, stating that he would not telegraph, but he promised to communicate with Lord Milner by despatch. He had not telegraphed, and therefore it was the right hon. Gentleman's duty to have sent a despatch to Lord Milner by the mail which left for South Africa at two o'clock on Saturday. But there was something far worse connected with this mater, and they had only to look at this Ordinance itself in order to see the very stringent conditions under which these Chinese laboured.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will not be in order in discussing that question, because there is a notice on the Paper in regard to that subject. He will not be out of order in asking for further information in answer to his questions about telegraphing.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that having regard to the heavy penalties to which these men were liable for escaping, he thought he would be justified in calling attention to those sections of the Ordinance under which they would be liable to punishment. These men were liable to a fine of £10, or one month's imprisonment, for escaping. Then there was the question of the liability of the Englishmen or Boers in Pretoria who had had any dealings with these escaped men. These two Chinamen wore found at Pretoria, begging for work, and the men who gave them work were liable to a fine of £500 or two years imprisonment. These poor Chinamen could not have tramped forty miles, they must have gone by train and they must have been "harboured" by some persons, and the persons who harboured them were liable to a fine of £300, or two years imprisonment. Having

  1323
  regard to the awful penalties to which these Chinamen were subjected and the heavy penalties for harbouring them, he thought it was a matter which ought to be brought clearly before the notice of the House, because the House of Commons was responsible for the passing of this Ordinance. He thought they wore entitled to the fullest information, and the Minister who endeavoured to conceal and keep from the House information in regard to the atrocities now being enacted, more especially when it had been said that Lo d Milner did not care twopence for persons 6,000 miles away, was not treating the House of Commons with respect. The Colonial Secretary ought not to be simply the conduit pipe of Lord Milner, and he ought not to be allowed to treat the House of Commons with contempt. The institution of slavery in South Africa was an abominable thing.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid this was not a case of two coolies only, but it was much worse than that. According to the reports, some fifteen coolies had escaped and were seeking work in Pietoria and elsewhere. They had no means of judging whether these reports were true or not, but they had reached this country through well known agencies. He thought these facts justified them in asking that inquiries should be made from Lord Milner. It had been stated that some of these coolies had been arrested and brought before the magistrates, but they did not know whether they had been punished, or sent back to work, or whether they had been sent back to China. They had no information as to whether any persons had been arrested and charged under the Ordinance with harbouring escaped Chinamen. In view of the very great public interest taken in this matter throughout the country, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would inform the House that he would either write or telegraph to Lord Milner for information upon the subject.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,)said he thought it was undesirable constantly to harass with telegrams men who were already burdened with an excess of work. He thought that if he wrote in the ordinary course to Lord Milner and obtained the information desired that was all that
  1324
  could reasonably be demanded on the present occasion. For many years indentured labourers under Ordinances sanctioned by hon. Members opposite had been liable to penalties for desertion. That a few Chinamen out of more than a thousand had been said to have escaped was not sufficient ground, in his judgment, for telegraphing to Lord Milner or seeking information through other thin the ordinary channels.
  MR. H. J. WILSON (Yorkshire, W.R., Holmfirth)complained that the manner in which the Colonial Secretary had answered questions on the subject was scarcely that which the House had a right to expect. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to have treated the House as well as his. hon. friend with something like contempt.
  MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.)suggested that the Colonial Secretary should urge Lord Milner to have all these Chinamen sent from whence they came, and if he would insist upon proper wages being paid and provide the money for their passage he was sure plenty of white labour for the mines could be found in London.
  MR. CREMERasked whether the Colonial Secretary could state the exact number of Chinese who had made their escape. Was it two, seventeen or nineteen? Several conflicting statements had been made in regard to the number who had deserted.
  MR. LYTTELTONrose to reply.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid the right hon. Gentleman had already exhausted his right to speak.

INDIAN ARMY UNIFORMS.
Address for "Return of all changes in the regulations affecting the dress and equipment of officers in the Indian Army since November, 1902, showing, where possible, the approximate cost of the changes in each rank to the Officers concerned."—(Sir Seymour King.)

COUNTY OF SUFFOLK BILL.
Mr. Stuart-Wortley, Sir Cuthbert Quilter, and Mr. Goddard were nominated members of the Select Committee on the County of Suffolk Bill.—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
Adjourned at twenty minutes before One o'clock.