HC Deb 11 July 1904 vol 137 cc1279-324

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:—

  1. '(a)To all persons employed in or about the licensed premises in connection with the sale of intoxicating liquors, three months wages or salary.
  2. '(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.
  3. '(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.
  4. '(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. EDWARDS (Radnor)

said 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 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 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. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)

said 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 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. PEASE (Essex, Saffron Walden)

said 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.


Not good will.


said 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 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. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)

said 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 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. ROBSON (South Shields)

said 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.


said there was another Amendment dealing with default of agreement on the Paper.


replied 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 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- 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. CROOKS (Woolwich)

said 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 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 the house was shut up, would find it difficult to turn their hands to anything else.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorganshire, Mid.)

said 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 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 ERESBY (Lincolnshire, Horncastle)

said 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.


said 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 proceedings of this Committee were a perfect farce.


said 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 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. REA (Gloucester)

said the proposal before the House was a substantial Amendment, for it gave a share of the compensation to the licence-holder and to 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.


said 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 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.


said 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 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?


said 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.


said 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 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.


In default of agreement.


said the hon. and learned Gentleman would find, if he looked at the Government Amendments, that he was mistaken.


said 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.


said 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. 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.


asked 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?


thought 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.


said 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.


said 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 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.


asked 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?


said 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.


said 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 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.


Time, Gentlemen, please?


said 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.)

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.
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
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.


said 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. 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. 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.


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 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.


submitted 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.


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.


then 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.)

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
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.
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.)

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)
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)
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, 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 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.)

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.
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.
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.


in moving the adjournment of the House, said the Licensing Bill would be taken this day (Tuesday).

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)

said 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.


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 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 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.


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.


said 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 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 SAMUEL (Yorkshire, Cleveland)

said 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.


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 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. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)

asked 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.


rose to reply.


said the right hon. Gentleman had already exhausted his right to speak.