§ 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:—
§ 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 1280 as he said the Bill did not do justice he protested against it, and supported the Amendment with enthusiasm, because it would do justice to a particular section of the trade. They had discussed the question of the amount to be given, and the time within which such compensation should be granted. Now the question was to whom should this compensation be paid? He himself thought there could be but one real act of justice, and that was to let compensation go in the direction proposed by the Amendment. He knew that brewers had great expectations under this Bill, but it would be fair that these expectations to some extent should be lessened. The publicans ought to have a larger share of compensation than the Bill proposed. Practically it gave most compensation to the brewers. That was an injustice, because they took most of the profits. They took profits as manufacturers, and also on the sale of beer, but the publican had only one. The tenant, according to the Bill was to find the compensation money, and under these circumstances the least they could do was to give him a proper and fair compensation when he was dispossessed of his licence. The theory was that the more licences there were reduced the more was the value of the remaining houses increased. If that were so, the more would they be increasing the brewers' profits by reducing the houses. He had received a letter from a tenant who felt his position very keenly. He wrote—
The Government Licensing Bill appears to me to be a brewers' Bill and nothing more. It appears to be for their benefit solely, and leaves; the unfortunate tenant to look after himself. If I read the Bill aright, the tenant is to find the money for the purchase of a licence, and if someone in the House of Commons would find what benefit the tenant would get from his outlay, he would confer a benefit upon many licence-holders.It was said that the tied houses numbered about 80 per cent, in the country. If that were so it was a serious matter, because a large number of tenants would get no compensation. That fact made him anxious to support the Amendment. There were in three small towns in his own county forty-six public-houses. Half of them were tied houses, and, therefore, 50 per cent, of the tenants would not, under this Bill, get substantial 1281 justice, unless the Amendment were agreed to. The hon. Member for Flint Boroughs had referred to the fact that the brewers might get the tenants to contract out the benefits of the Bill as regarded compensation. They knew enough to imagine what the position of that tenant would be who refused to agree to what the owner or brewer wanted him to do. His position would not be a pleasant one.
§ DR. 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 1282 was shut up. The working classes of this country were very happy-go-lucky and looked to their own interests last of all, but he believed the limit of human endurance had been reached, and that the working classes of this country, when the opportunity, now long denied, was given to them, would mete out to the Government the treatment the Government were now meting out to them.
§ MR. J. A. 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.
§ SIR EDWARD CARSONNot good will.
§ MR. J. A. PEASEsaid he was certainly under the impression that the Home Secretary said that the man should be compensated for his goodwill, and the right hon. Gentleman instanced the case 1283 of a popular cricketer who took a house and drew together a large custom, and s lid he should certainly be compensated for his goodwill. He thought the Government were bound to secure to the tenant this goodwill in the event of his being dispossessed. In the debate on the Second Beading of the Bill, the Colonial Secretary said he was in favour of compensation being paid on similar lines to that paid under the Compensation for Accidents Act. In a case of this kind he thought they were justified in giving compensation to the publican who was dispossessed of his licence through no fault of his own. The Colonial Secretary said under the Compensation Act three years salary would be paid to the representatives of a man who through accident was disabled. His Amendment which appeared on the Notice Paper suggested two years salary to the dispossessed tenant. The belated proposal of the Government would only give one year, and nothing to the dispossessed staff whatever. His complaint against the Government was that they had looked after the interest of the brewer instead of looking after the interest of the publican and his staff. He should like to see an Amendment introduced which would give to the staff not less than three months salary. In many cases six months salary would be more suitable. He did not suppose that in this case the Committee would hear any speeches from the hon. Member for Salford or the hon. Member for South Derbyshire. They knew very well that the Government had voiced their views in the debate. Hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House who had supported the principle of compensation would vote in favour of this Amendment with a great deal of pleasure, believing that it was due to the workers connected with the trade.
§ MR. 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 1284 ordinary compensation case. In the case of a grocer's shop taken for public purposes a person employed in the shop might be subject to a month's notice, and it would be absurd to give him three months compensation for disturbance. The grocer could remove elsewhere and open a shop and continue to give employment to the shop man, but a publican whose licence was not renewed could not do that. The employees of the publican were thrown on the market as unemployed, and he thought their case might receive a little consideration from the Government. He suggested that they should consider the question between now and the Report stage.
§ MR. 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.
§ SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid there was another Amendment dealing with default of agreement on the Paper.
§ MR. ROBSONreplied that that was the Amendment he was going to deal with. On page 31 there was an Amendment striking out the words "in default of agreement," and substituting other words. He would undertake to say that that Amendment was merely one of drafting except in the particular that the agreement to be arrived at by the parties was to be subject to the approval of quarter sessions. He rather imagined 1285 quarter sessions would be apt to take the view of the Solicitor-General and say that where the publican and the brewer had come to an agreement under which the amount of compensation was to be paid to the publican it should be nothing more than nominal. They were free contracting patties; they were not Chinese labourers. [An HON. MEMBER: They might be.] Quarter sessions would say, "What is there in the Bill to compel us to interfere with a free and voluntary contract entered into to reduce the amount of compensation to a mere nominal sum?" There was nothing in the Government Amendment to prevent it. That being so, one had the right to test the situation by the general argument used by the Solicitor-General in favour of the Bill.
The Law Officer of the Crown was all for free contract when they were trying to secure a share of compensation for the barman. What was a licence itself but a free contract for a year? A licence was a permission given by authority to the publican to open his public-house for a year, and he was expected to fulfil his obligation for that licence. It was a contract between him and the authorities. Why was the free contract to be set aside? The claim of the licence-holder was founded upon a legitimate expectation of renewal of the licence. That was the foundation for the equity on which the Bill was based. But what about the barman? It was true that the barman might be in receipt of a weekly wage, but had he not a legitimate expectation. It was impossible when they left the sphere of free contract, as they did in the Bill, to distinguish logically and legitimately between landlord, tenant, and barman. Once they came to this element of expectation as the groundwork for statutory compensation, there was not any one of these three parties who was not equally entitled to be considered along with the other. Could it be said that they were being considered equally? The barman was omitted altogether, and the publican was having the substantiality of his position put at the mercy of an agreement. Were there any kind of limits except the approval of quarter sessions to that agree- 1286 ment? None. They knew what that would amount to. The Solicitor-General said that where a man had been a long time in the service, and had shown good conduct, that ought to be taken into consideration by quarter sessions. But what was there to prevent the landlord from giving notice as soon as he thought that compensation was likely to come into the question. There was nothing to prevent him from changing his barman or tenant, and quarter sessions had no power go into that Therefore the power of quarter sessions was a sham. It was one of those illusory provisions of which this Government was so fond in all their measures—intended not for actual working, but for election meetings.
§ MR. 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 1287 the other three in the trade; and that the Bill was to be a great reform. But when they abolished vestries and school boards it was put in the Bill that every man who lost his situation was to be adequately compensated. Of course, that was an arrangement for the professional class, but it was quite different in the case of the average working man. It was all right in the case of a man that could be dubbed "John Brown, Esquire." He himself had been dubbed "Esquire"; but it was not very good stuff to feed children on—not very fattening or comforting.
He wanted to ask Gentlemen in the House who were really interested in the Bill in a general way—not personally or financially inteiested—whether they would persuade the Government to frame a clause to give compensation to these poor men. They said to these poor men, "Believe me, we are with you; and we want to give you compensation." Sympathy was very cheap, but it ought not to be beyond the wit of the Government to frame a clause to give compensation to these poor men. If the licence-holder was simply the servant of a brewery or distillery company and never went into the house, the business being conducted by a manager, the former would not expect to get anything, and the latter would not have a legal claim. Would the Government insert a clause providing that, where there were no persons financially interested in the licence, there should be a corresponding reduction in the amount of compensation to be awarded for that particular house. He knew scores of publicans who would not get a penny under this Bill, not even if the Home Secretary's Amendment was carried. He contended that this Bill would be a positive injury to the manager or licence-holder, and that it would not effect the reforms which it was claimed it would effect unless a good many of the Amendments on the Paper were adopted. But in an hour hon. Members would be ordered out of the House as in licensed premises by someone getting up and saying, "Time, please." That was the way they were now doing the nation's business. He pleaded in the interests of these poor men and barmaids in the tied houses who were the slaves of the brewers, and who, when 1288 the house was shut up, would find it difficult to turn their hands to anything else.
§ MR. SAMUEL 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 1289 view. The persons who would suffer most if a licence were not renewed were not the brewers, or even the licence-holders, but the persons who were employed. He thought, therefore, that the Government should adopt some such Amendment as had been proposed.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DB 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.
§ SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he had always thought that the Conservative Party would have reason to repent of the principles on which this Bill was based. The fifty minutes still remaining were inadequate for the discussion even of this Amendment. Expectation had been made the ground for compensation, and now they had a multitude of people coming forward to share in this compensation. According to the Bill, all the compensation belonged solely to the owner of the house, who in most cases was the brewer, for whose benefit the Bill was introduced. Now the Government had put down an Amendment to provide that the tenant should have compensation. The next class put forward, and by no means the last—he did not see why the commercial traveller who called at the house was not equally entitled to compensation—the next class was the servants, the batmen and barmaids. He saw no reason why they should not be compensated. The Bill left it uncertain whether the profits were to be bought and paid for or not, and whether the profits were to be merely the profits of the retail business on the premises or were to include the brewers profits. The Government's proposed Amendment did not settle these points. The Bill provided that the compensation was to be calculated as if the Bill had not become law. That was the language appropriate to what was known as the "sterilisation" clause, but how was it applicable to a Bill to be operative ten, twenty, forty, fifty, sixty, seventy years hence? It was drawing language from one statute and placing it in a Bill without any real, adequate appreciation of what its effect was on that Bill. The Solicitor-General had offered to make an Amendment, of which he approved, to the effect that the premises hereafter should be valued upon the footing that the tenure was as precarious as it was to-day. But how was that to be estimated? What would be the case twenty years hence? There might be a public house which was now worth £2,000 a year which would be worth £5,000 a year twenty years hence. The Government had taken language wholly inappropriate and put in a provision which was wholly unmeaning. He would not spend any further time on the clause. The fact was, the 1291 proceedings of this Committee were a perfect farce.
MR. SEELYsaid he desired to thank those hon. Members who had supported his Amendment. He was not a member of the legal profession, and he did not claim that the wording of his Amendment was absolutely accurate. When the Solicitor-General pointed out that he had not provided in his Amendment for the case of an occupier with a long lease the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly accurate, and words would have to be inserted to secure that object. He should like to point out that his proposal was not intended as a hostile Amendment, but it was intended purely to provide an alternative system to the one which the Government had adopted. The fact that since he had put down his Amendment the Government had put down an Amendment on the same point was sufficient to show that there was a demand for the proposal he had made and some justification for it. Several hon. Members had suggested alternative proposals, but he preferred the general principle of his own proposal to any of the others. He should like to point out that the grave fault in the Amendment put down by the Home Secretary was that if a brewer had a good tenant he would be fined for it. Suppose a brewer had a house worth £5,000, and he had a tenant with a good character—that tenant might receive £1,000 and the brewer £4,000. If the brewer had a tenant with a bad character, in the case he had mentioned the tenant would get £100 and the brewer £4.900. Therefore the man with a good tenant would get considerably less than the man with a bad tenant. That was a fatal objection to the proposal made by the Government which practically left the different people concerned to quarrel amongst themselves as to how this money was to be divided. He thought his proposal was the best one, because it settled how much compensation each person concerned was to receive.
With regard to the remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries he had said very truly that this Amendment might be divided into two parts, firstly, how to 1292 divide the compensation; and secondly, the question of the amount. In regard to the question as to how the compensation should be divided he was prepared to accept any Amendments which were reasonable, but he thought that the principle which he had adopted, namely, that of giving so much to the person employed, so much to the person in occupation, and so much to the owner, was a reasonable and wise principle, and one which he should be glad to see adopted. As was pointed out by the noble Lord the Member for Horncastle, the Prime Minister proposed that a considerable number of houses should be abolished, and under those circumstances a large number of persons might be thrown out of employment. He should be glad if the Government could make some arrangement to compensate those persons. As to the amount of compensation he acknowledged that the question had been fully discussed upon the subject of the time limit, and that point had already been decided by the Committee. His idea in putting down this Amendment was to make the whole principle more complete and to secure that the various persons concerned should receive compensation for any kind of interest they might have in a house which was closed. He wished the occupier to be compensated for his interest and the owner compensated as the ordinary owner and also for his further interest as the owner of a monopoly, which, quite unintentionally, the State had given to him. He did not bind himself to the particular form in which his Amendment was drawn, and he could quite imagine that some other form of words might be better. He thought it would be a wise arrangement for the Government to make if they adopted some proposal by which these different interests were divided and provided for. He should be glad if the Government could see their way either to adopt or amend his Amendment, or, at any rate, give them some assurance that they would adopt the principle it contained.
§ MR. 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 1293 all who had an interest in the premises. Hon. Members on both sides of the House had expressed themselves in favour of giving compensation to these people. There was an alternative before the Committee in the shape of three Amendments put own on the Paper in the name of the Home Secretary. It appeared to him that those three Amendments taken together did not with any certainty give any share of compensation to the persons he had alluded to. The first Amendment was on page 31, and it applied to the fixing of the whole sum of compensation which had to be paid for the withdrawal of a licence, and it had no relation whatever to the division of the compensation. The second of the three Amendments to which he alluded, which would be found on page 33, did include the holder of the licence among those persons amongst whom the compensation was to be divided, but it did not say how the compensation was to be divided. The third Amendment he alluded to was on page 35, and it gave an instruction to quarter sessions as to what they were to bear in mind in dividing the compensation, but this only applied to those cases which came before quarter sessions, and the only cases which quarter sessions had anything to say to were the cases in which no agreements existed. It appeared to him that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Lincoln did definitely give a share of the compensation to the holder of the licence and to those employed in the public-house, whilst the three Amend merits of the Home Secretary taken together did not secure any such compensation for the persons he had mentioned. He preferred, for these reasons, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Lincoln to the three Amendments put forward by the Home Secretary, and he should heartily vote for it.
§ MR. EMMOTTsaid it was clear, not only that the discussion in so limited a time of Clauses 2 and 3 was a sorry farce, but that the Bill as originally drawn gave everything to the brewer. The Home Secretary's Amendment, giving a small share to the licence-holder, although it might have been foreshadowed by the Solicitor-General about June 9th, was not put down for 1294 a month and not till the closure by compartment was carried. It was an insult to the House to put down sweeping Amendments at so late a stage, when the Committee could not discuss them. The Government up to now had not told them whether they meant to do anything for the employé or not. Did the Government recognise that claim? The Committee had the right to an answer. It had been pointed out that if the tenant got more the owner must get less. The Solicitor-General had said that it was to the interest of the owner that the tenant should be a good one and remain long in the house, and so the value of the house would be raised. But why was it, if that were true, that the transfer of tied houses was three or four times as numerous as of other houses? It was because some of the owners preferred a frequent change of tenants, thinking that every new tenant brought new custom without losing much of the old and also because of the iniquitous character of many tied-house agreements. And what did the value of the house depend on in the long run? On the amount of drink sold. He wished to point out to the Solicitor-General that the statement he made that it was to the interest of the tied-house owner to keep his tenant as long as possible was not borne out by facts. He could produce very many instances in which complaint had been made not of the character of the man but because he had not sold enough drink. That was what the tied-house owner looked to, and everybody who knew anything at all about this question knew that. Although he acknowledged the good intentions of this Amendment put forward by the Government he felt most strongly that the effect of the Bill would be to render still shorter the tenure of these tenants, and make it worse than it had been in the past.
§ SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid he had already spoken at considerable length upon this Amendment, but he desired to reply to some of the observations which had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries and other hon. Members. The hon and learned Member for Dumfries seemed to think 1295 that it was something novel to give compensation for the taking away of a licence, and he had stated that compensation hitherto had only been given when legal right was taken away, and that now they were giving it for an expectation. Did the hon. and learned Member say that if licensed premises had been taken away under the Lands Clauses Act, or for any purpose different from the question of renewal, no compensation would be given?
§ SIR ROBERT REIDsaid a public authority buying public-house property had no right to interfere with the licence; if they took away the expectation of another person they must pay for it. But it was a very different thing when those who granted a licence upon an annual tenure claimed to exercise their legal right to discontinue it.
§ SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement was that compensation had never hitherto been paid for a mere expectation. When licensed premises were taken under the conditions he had stated, they did not value the licence merely as a licence for one year. It might be valued as a licence for twenty-five years, and, even in the case of a reversion with an outstanding lease of twenty-five years, the Courts had held that the mere expectancy of the reversioner that the licence would be renewed from year to year was a matter for compensation. It was the foundation of the argument that they could not with any justice have two systems of legal right running side by side—one under which they deprived a man of what he possessed without a shilling, and the other under which they recognised to the fullest extent the legal expectancy that he had. Hon. Gentlemen were in favour of giving the employé, as contradistinguished from those interested in the licensed premises, some compensation. Had such a principle ever been admitted before? Even when a private individual or a company was authorised to take licensed premises compulsorily, and ordered to pay full compensation, the employés did not get a shilling. What was estimated was the depreciation of property, and that was the whole basis and foundation of the Bill. That might 1296 be right or it might be wrong, but what they said was that if a licence was taken away the compensation payable ought to be the difference between the value of the premises with the licence and their value without it. Any other system would be absolutely inconsistent with every principle of compensation when property was taken away for a public purpose which had ever teen approved by Parliament. The Government Amendments, he submitted, went to the fullest extent to which the principle of compensation had ever gone. They really went further in including managers who were licence-holders. It was said that the bulk of the compensation would go to the owners, who, in many cases, were the brewers. He totally and absolutely denied it. That matter was left in the discretion of quarter sessions just as much as the question of what was to be given to the lessee.
§ MR. ROBSONIn default of agreement.
§ SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman would find, if he looked at the Government Amendments, that he was mistaken.
§ MR. ROBSONsaid that when it came to the distribution of the compensation fund quarter sessions had no jurisdiction except in default of agreement. Quarter sessions were entitled and bound to approve any agreement which fixed the amount of the compensation as between the persons interested in the premises. When they came to fixing the precise proportion in which each person should receive it, then quarter sessions had no jurisdiction except in default of agreement. Therefore, it all depended on the agreement.
§ SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman was mixing up, two things. As regarded the amount of compensation to be fixed, no agreement between the parties would fix that without the confirmation of quarter sessions. When they came to the distribution of the money it was left to quarter sessions to determine the amount. [Mr. ROBSON: In default of agreement.]—The hon. 1297 and learned Gentleman was quite mistaken. The clause said that the amount was to be divided amongst the persons interested "in such shaves as may be settled by agreement, or, in default of agreement, determined by quarter sessions." The Government Amendment proposed to leave out "in default of agreement," so that he was absolutely right in saying that the whole question of what the owner was to get was to be determined by quarter sessions. Quarter sessions, in addition to assessing the value of the legal interest of the holder of the licence, who would either be the lessee or the manager, had also to take into consideration the conduct of the holder and the length of time he had been in possession. He submitted that the Government in thus framing their proposal were taking care, not only of the tenant, but of the manager who in many cases might be only a simple employé It had been asked why they did not do the same in regard to the other employés. His answer was that they looked upon the man who held the licence, and who was under pains and penalties for the proper conduct of the premises, as the person who ought to receive the compensation when the licence he held was taken away.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANSasked what happened to the occupier of the premises when he was not the licence-holder and when the licence was in the name of the secretary to a brewery company?
§ SIR EDWARD CARSONthought that very often the transfer of a licence to the secretary of a company was only done whilst a new manager or tenant was being found.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that what he wished to know was, in case the occupier was not the licence-holder, would the licence-holder get the compensation and the occupier get nothing.
§ SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid that would certainly be so. He had already explained that the licensing magistrates who had to deal with the licence-holder put pains and penalties upon him, and for that reason the licence-holder ought to be compensated if the licence was taken away. The hon. Member for 1298 Lincoln had said that if an owner happened to have had a bad tenant he would come out of it better than if ha had had a good tenant. The Government thought that every encouragement ought to be given to the tenant who conducted his premises in a satisfactory way, and therefore they said that he should be compensated at a higher rate than the tenant who did not conduct his premises in a proper manner. Was it true, as was said by the hon. Member for Lincoln, that the owner would suffer by this proposal? The Government contended that he would not. If a place Was badly conducted there was the danger of having convictions endorsed upon the licence, and anyone about to purchase a public-house in the market would look at the register in order to see whether convictions had been recorded, because if the licence had been previously endorsed there would be the danger that the whole licence might be taken away upon another conviction, and the whole value of the licensed premises might thereby be lost. He claimed that under this Bill the owner of the premises was interested in encouraging; the licensee to conduct his premises properly.
MR. SEELYasked if the right hon. Gentleman really meant to say that if there had been a new man put in the premises during the last six months the compensation would not be less than it would be to an old tenant?
§ SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid the proposal applied to his conduct as well as to the length of time. The Government wished to encourage good tenants to conduct the premises well for a length of time. He thought that the more the Amendment the Government had put upon the Paper was examined the more would it be seen to meet the justice of the case.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the guillotine was working impartially. On Thursday last it was the British citizen's head that was cut off. To-night the publican's head was going to roll into the basket. The Solicitor-General had tried to explain that under this Amendment the publican was going to get his 1299 fair share of the compensation, but it was not the share promised by the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary, in his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, said the goodwill of a house, and the trade done, often depended very largely upon the popularity of the licensee, and he mentioned the case of the professional cricketer who he thought ought to have a considerable share of the amount awarded. What share was he going to get? According to the theory of the Government,—and he hoped the publicans would notice it—the publicans would find that their compensation had been decreased by limiting the debates. After four or five days discussion they had been given one year's purchase, and probably with a few more days they would have got two or three years. The publican was now to get one year out of fifteen. That was the old cricketer's "considerable share." It seemed to him that the old cricketer was to hold the wicket but the brewer was to get the gate-money. Although they had only been able to discuss this Amendment
§ very briefly they had at any rate made it clear that this was purely an electioneering Bill and simply a brewers' Bill. It was not the old cricketer who supplied the electioneering funds, but the great brewery syndicates, and it was for them and them alone that they were giving this compensation.
§ MR. CROOKSTime, Gentlemen, please?
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the Chairman was going to press the button, and he would therefore sit down.
And, it being Eleven of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 5th July, to put the Question on the Amendment, already proposed from the Chair.
§ Question put, "That the words 'a sum' stand part of the clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 285; Noes, 181. (Division List No. 219.)
1303| AYES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Dyke, Rt. Hon. SirWilliam Hart |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire) | Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Cayzer, Sir Charles William | Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) |
| Arrol, Sir William | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Fardell, Sir T. George |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Fergusson, RtHn. SirJ.(Manc'r) |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, RtHonSir H. | Chamberlain, Rt Hn JA(Wore.) | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. |
| Austin, Sir John | Chapman, Edward | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne |
| Bagot, Gapt. Josceline FitzRoy | Charrington, Spencer | Fisher, William Hayes |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Clancy, John Joseph | Fison, Frederick William |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Clare, Octavius Leigh | FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- |
| Baird, John George Alexander. | Clive, Captain Percy A. | Fitzroy, Hon. EdwardAlgern'n |
| Balcarres, Lord | Coates, Edward Feetham | Flannery, Sir Fortescue |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Flower, Sir Ernest |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon A J(Manch'r) | Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C.R. | Forster, Henry William |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Foster, PhilipS. (Warwick. S.W.) |
| Balfour, RtHn GeraldW(Leeds | Compton, Lord Alwyne | Galloway, William Johnson |
| Balfour, Kenneth R(Christch. | Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas | Gardner, Ernest |
| Banbury, Sir FrederickGeorge | Crean, Eugene | Garfit, William |
| Bartley, Sir George C. T. | Cripps, Charles Alfred | Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton) | Gordon, Hn. J E(Elgin& Nairn) |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Saville | Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets |
| Bignold, Arthur | Cust, Henry John C. | Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Line.) |
| Bigwood, James | Dalkeith, Earl of | Goschen, Hon. George Joachim |
| Bingham, Lord | Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Goulding, Edward Alfred |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Davenport, William Bromley- | Graham, Henry Robert |
| Bond, Edward | Denny, Colonel | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Dickinson, Robert Edmond | Greene, SirEW(B'rySEdm'nds |
| Bowles, Lt.-ColHF(Middlesex) | Dickson, Charles Scott | Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- | Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs) |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Grenfell, William Henry |
| Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.) | Dixon-Hartland, SirFredDixon | Gretton, John |
| Bull, William James | Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnE | Greville, Hon. Ronald |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Doughty, George | Groves, James Grimble |
| Butcher, John George | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Hall, Edward Marshall |
| Campbell, J.H.M.(DublinUniv. | Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. |
| Carlile, William Walter | Duke, Henry Edward | Hambro, Charles Eric |
| Hardy, Laurence (KentAshf'rd) | Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F. | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander |
| Hare, Thomas Leigh | Maxwell, Rt HnSirHE(Wigt'n) | Samuel, SirHarryS(Limehouse |
| Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'h | Melville, Beresford Valentine | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Haslett, Sir James Horner | Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Seton-Karr, Sir Henry |
| Hay, Hon. Claude George | Milner, Rt Hon. SirFrederick G. | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Heath, Arthur Howard( Hanley) | Milvain, Thomas | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.) | Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Simeon, Sir Barrington |
| Heaton, John Henniker | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | Skewes-Cox, Thomas |
| Helder, Augustus | Montagu, Hon. J.Scott(Hants) | Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East) |
| Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W. | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy | Smith, H.C(North'mbTyneside |
| Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. | Morgan, DavidJ(Walthamstow) | Smith, James Parker (Lanarks. |
| Hickman, Sir Alfred | Morpeth, Viscount | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Hoare, Sir Samuel | Morrell, George Herbert | Spear, John Ward |
| Hogg, Lindsay | Morrison, James Archibald | Spencer, Sir E.(W. Bromwich) |
| Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside | Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer | Stanley, HonArthur (Ormskirk |
| Hoult, Joseph | Mount, William Arthur | Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset |
| Houston, Robert Paterson | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.) |
| Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham) | Muntz, Sir Philip A. | Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart |
| Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham) | Murray, RtHnAGraham(Bute) | Stock, James Henry |
| Hozier, Hon. JamesHenryCecil | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Hudson, George Bickersteth | Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Hunt, Rowland | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Talbot, Rt. Hn. JG(OxfordUniv. |
| Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse | Newdegate, Francis A. N. | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. | Nicholson, William Graham | Thompson, Dr. E.C(Monagh'n, N |
| Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton | Nolan, Col. John P (Galway, N.) | Thorburn, Sir Walter |
| Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Kennaway, Rt. HonSir.John H | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Tillett, Louis John |
| Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T( Denbigh) | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | Tollemache, Henry James |
| Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop) | Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. |
| Keswick, William | Parker, Sir Gilbert | Tuff, Charles |
| King, Sir Henry Seymour | Pease, Herbert Pike( Darlington) | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward |
| Knowles, Sir Lees | Peel, Hn. Wm. RobertWellesley | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Laurie, Lieut.-General | Pemberton, John S. G. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Percy, Earl | Vincent, Col. SirCEH(Sheffield) |
| Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) | Pierpoint, Robert | Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter) |
| Lawson, JohnGrant(Yorks. NR | Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Lee, ArthurH. (Hants., Fareham | Plummer, Walter R. | Wanklyn, James Leslie |
| Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Pretyman, Ernest George | Webb, Colonel William George |
| Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S. | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | Welby, Lt. CobA. C.E.(Taunton) |
| Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. | Pym, C. Guy | Welby, SirCharlesG.E. (Notts.) |
| Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Randles, John S. | Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd |
| Long, Col. Charles W(Evesham | Rankin, Sir James | Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne |
| Long Rt Hn Walter(BristoLS) | Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Ratcliff, R. F. | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Lowe, Francis William | Reid, James (Greenock) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale) | Remnant, James Farquharson | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Lloyd, Archie Kirkman | Richards, Henry Charles | Wilson-Todd, SirW. H. (Yorks.) |
| Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) | Ridley, Hon. MW.(Stalybridge) | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth) | Ridley, S. Forde( BethnalGreen) | Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson |
| Lyttelton, Rt, Hon Alfred | Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Macdona, John Gumming | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Maconochie, A. W. | Rolleston, Sir John F. L. | Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H. |
| M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert | Young, Samuel |
| M'Fadden, Edward | Round, Rt. Hon. James | Younger, William |
| M'Iver, Sir Lewis(EdinburghW) | Royds, Clement Molyneux | |
| M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir |
| Manners, Lord Cecil | Rutherford, W.W. (Liverpool) | Alexander Acland-Hood |
| Martin, Richard Biddulph | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- | and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes. |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) | Bell, Richard | Burt, Thomas |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Benn, John Williams | Buxton, Sydney Charles |
| Allen, Charles P. | Black, Alexander William | Caldwell, James |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Boland, John | Cameron, Robert |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. HerbertHenry | Bolton, Thomas Dolling | Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) |
| Barlow, John Emmott | Brigg, John | Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Broadhurst, Henry | Cawley, Frederick |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Bryce, Rt. Hon. James. | Channing, Francis Allston |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Condon, Thomas Joseph |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow | Jacoby, James Alfred | Reid, SirR. Threshie (Dumfries) |
| Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Reckitt, J. Compton |
| Cremer, William Randal | Joicey, Sir James | Rigg, Richard |
| Crombie, John William | Jones DavidBrynmor(Swansea) | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) |
| Crooks, William | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) | Joyce, Michael | Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) |
| Cullinan, J. | Kearley, Hudson E. | Robson, William Snowdon |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George | Rose, Charles Day |
| Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan,W | Runciman, Walter |
| Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) | Kilbride, Denis | Russell, T. W. |
| Delany, William | Kitson, Sir James. | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) | Langley, Batty | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) | Schwann, Charles E. |
| Dobbie, Joseph | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) | Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh) |
| Doogan, P. C. | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Shackleton, David James |
| Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings | Leng, Sir John | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Edwards, Frank | Levy, Maurice | Sheehy, David |
| Ellice, CaptE. C(SAndrew'sBghs | Lewis, John Herbert | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) | Lloyd-George, David | Slack, John Bamford |
| Emmott, Alfred | Lough, Thomas | Smith, Samuel (Flint) |
| Brans Sir Francis H(Maidstn | Lundon, W. | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan | Lyell, Charles Henry | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Eve, Harry Trelawney | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Stanhope, Hon. Philip James |
| Farquharson, Dr. Robert | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Fenwick, Charles | M'Crae, George | Sullivan, Donal |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | M'Kenna, Reginald | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond | M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin | Tennant, Harold John |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Mansfield, Horace Rendall | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Markham, Arthur Basil | Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.) |
| Foster, Sir Walter (DerbyCo.) | Morgan, J.Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr) |
| Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Morley, Charles (Breconshire) | Tomkinson, James |
| Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. | Moulton, John Fletcher | Toulmin, George |
| Furness, Sir Christopher | Murphy, John | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn | Newnes, Sir George | Wallace, Robert |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Norman, Henry | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Grey, Rt. Hon. SirE.(Berwick) | Nussey, Thomas Willans | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid | Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney) |
| Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | O'Doherty, William | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | O'Malley, William | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Harcourt, LewisV.(Rossendale) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Whiteley, George (York, W.R.) |
| Harwood, George | O'Shee, James John | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Palmer, George Wm. (Reading) | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. | Paulton, James Mellor | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.) |
| Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. | Perks, Robert William | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Power, Patrick Joseph | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.) |
| Higham, John Sharpe | Price, Robert John | Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huadersfd |
| Hobhouse RtHnH(Somers't E) | Priestley, Arthur | Yoxall, James Henry. |
| Holland, Sir William Henry | Rea, Russell | |
| Hutchison, Dr. Charles Fredk. | Reckitt, Harold James | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) | Roddy, M. | Charles Seely and Mr. Warner. |
Question, "That the Amendment be made," put, and agreed to.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he wished to move that the vote of the hon. Member for Widnes recorded in the last division be disallowed, on the ground that he had direct pecuniary interest in the subject-matter upon which his vote was given. The effect of the Amendment, if carried, would have diminished the amount of compensation to go to the owner upon a licence being withdrawn. The servants on the licensed premises would have had their share of the compensation fund to the extent of three months wages or salary, and the occupier of the premises as his share would have had a sum equal to two years profits. The hon. 1304 Member for Widnes had a direct pecuniary interest, inasmuch as he was the owner of a considerable number of tied houses in Liverpool and other parts of Lancashire. He selected the hon. Member's vote for the Motion not from any personal motive. He did not want the hon. Gentleman or the House to believe that this was a personal attack, but he made the Motion to assert a very important principle. This was a question which ought to be left to the House to decide. He would quote the ruling of the Speaker on 30th April, 1901, given after the Prime Minister had endeavoured to draw a distinction between public and private Bills. 1305 It was not a question of order, it was for the House on each occasion to weigh the; advantages and decide. On 11th March, 1892, a Motion was made to disallow the votes of three Members in connection with the Mombasa Railway on the ground of pecuniary interest, and on that occasion the Prime Minister said the principle laid down by the Chair was that no Member should give a vote if his interest was of a direct and personal kind, but that principle must be interpreted by the particular occasion on which the House was called upon to apply it. A Committee sat in 1896 to consider this question, and Mr. Speaker Peel and the present Mr. Speaker declared it important that the House should decide on each particular case. He submitted that this was distinctly a case where it ought to be left to the House to decide. He disclaimed any intention of imputing any corrupt motive. He moved that the vote be disallowed.
THE CHAIRMANI am afraid I have very little to add to what I said the other night on the same matter. The hon. Member has practically raised the same point. I based myself on that occasion upon what is the latest pronouncement I can find from the Chair, a pronouncement made in 1898, and it arose on the Local Government (Ireland) Bill, 1898, on Report, Clause 42. That Bill provided for the payment of the landlord's share of the rates out of public money, whereupon an hon. Member raised the same point as the hon. Member has raised to-night, Mr. Speaker being in the Chair; and Mr. Speaker then said what I read out the other night, but for greater lucidity I will read it again—
The rule of the House is well understood that there must be a direct pecuniary interest of a private and particular, and not of a public and general nature, and where the question before the House is of a public and general nature, and incidentally involves the pecuniary interests of a class which includes Members of this House, they are not prevented by the rules of the House from voting. In the present case no question of privilege arises.I can only use exactly the same expressions. Mr. Speaker ruled on that occasion, and did not leave the decision to the House, and I think I am bound to follow his precedent and to rule the same way in this case. What I understand to 1306 be the rule is really this — that if an hon. Member has a direct personal pecuniary interest or advantage which he or one or two of his fellows may derive from the passage of a particular Bill he is not entitled to vote upon it. For instance, if a Government proposed a Bill for acquiring property for the purpose of manœuvres on Salisbury Plain or for the establishment of docks in a particular port, then, if an hon. Member happened to be the individual whose land would be taken for that purpose — either for the purpose of manœuvres or docks — it is quite char that he would have a direct personal pecuniary interet in that Bill passing; but if he was simply one of a class, whether brewers, or solicitors, or landlords, or tenants, or shipowners, or any other class, then the vote would not be disallowed.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsubmitted that this was a different case from the Irish case. That was a Bill, not to give a pecuniary advantage to the landlords, but to establish local government in Ireland, though incidentally something was done to benefit the landlords. But this was a Bill—[MINISTERIAL cries of "Chair."] This was a totally different Bill. It was avowed by the Government that this was a Bill to establish compensation, and that was the main and chief object of the Bill. The Chairman had stated that Mr. Speaker's ruling in 1898 was the latest, but the latest ruling was given by Mr. Speaker in 1901.
THE CHAIRMANI am afraid that I have nothing to add to what I have already said. The hon. Member has not convinced me that I was wrong on the previous occasion.
THE CHAIRMANthen proceeded successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given, and on every Question necessary to dispose of the allotted business to be concluded on the 2nd allotted day.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 2, line 4, to leave out the words 'in default of agreement,' and insert the words 'if an amount is agreed upon by the persons appearing to quarter sessions to be interested in the licensed premises and is approved by quarter sessions, be that amount, and in default of such agreement and approval shall.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 2, line 8, after the word 'premises,' to insert the words 'including the holder of the licence.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 2, line 9, to leave out from the word 'be,' to the word 'determined,' in line 10."—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
§ Amendment proposed—
1308
§
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.)
1311| AYES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Cripps, Charles Alfred | Hall, Edward Marshall |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton) | Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Hambro, Charles Eric |
| Arrol, Sir William | Cust, Henry John C. | Hardy, Laurence) Kent, Ashford |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Dalkeith, Earl of | Hare, Thomas Leigh |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. SirH. | Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th |
| Austin, Sir John | Davenport, William Bromley- | Haslett, Sir James Horner |
| Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy | Dickinson, Robert Edmond | Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Dickson, Charles Scott | Hay, Hon. Claude George |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- | Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley |
| Balcarres, Lord | Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Heath, James (Staffords.N.W.) |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Dixon-Hartland, Sir FredDixon | Heaton, John Henniker |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manch'r. | Doogan, P. C. | Helder, Augustus |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnE. | Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. GeraldW(Leeds | Doughty, George | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. |
| Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Hickman, Sir Alfred |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Hoare, Sir Samuel |
| Bartley, Sir George C. T. | Duke, Henry Edward | Hogg, Lindsay |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Dyke, Rt. Hon. SirWilliamHart | Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Hoult, Joseph |
| Bignold, Arthur | Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) | Houston, Robert Paterson |
| Bigwood, James | Fardell, Sir T. George | Howard, John (Kent, Favershm |
| Bingham, Lord | Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r | Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Hudson, George Biekersteth |
| Bond, Edward | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Hunt, Rowland |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse |
| Bowles, Lt. -Col. H.F( Middlesex) | Fisher, William Hayes | Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Fison, Frederick William | Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- | Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex.) |
| Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.) | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. |
| Bull, William James | Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh) |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Flower, Sir Ernest | Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop. |
| Butcher, John George | Forster, Henry William | Keswick, William |
| Campbell, J.H.M.(DublinUniv.) | Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S.W. | King, Sir Henry Seymour |
| Carlile, William Walter | Galloway, William Johnson | Knowles, Sir Lees |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Gardner, Ernest | Laurie, Lieut.-General |
| Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire | Garfit, William | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles William | Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Gordon, Hn. J.E.(Elgin& Nairn) | Lawson, JohnGrant(Yorks. N. R |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich.) | Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rH'mlets | Lee, ArthurH. (Hants., Fareham |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J A (Worc.) | Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.) | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) |
| Chapman, Edward | Goschen, Hon. George Joachim | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage |
| Charrington, Spencer | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S. |
| Clare, Octavius Leigh | Graham, Henry Robers | Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine |
| Coates, Edward Feetham | Greene, SirE. W.( B'rySEdm'nds | Long, Col. CharlesW.(Evesham) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E. | Greene, Henry D. (Shrewbury) | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (BristolS. |
| Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C.R. | Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Grenfell, William Henry | Lowe, Francis William |
| Compton, Lord Alwyne | Gretton, John | Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale) |
| Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas | Greville, Hon. Ronald | Loyd, Archie Kirkman |
| Crean, Eugene | Groves, James Grimble | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) |
| Lucas, Reginald J(Portsmouth) | Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley | Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset) |
| Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Percy, Earl | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.) |
| Macdona, John Cumming | Pierpoint, Robert | Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart |
| Maconochie, A. W. | Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Stock, James Henry |
| M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) | Plummer, Walter R. | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| M'Fadden, Edward | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W | Pretyman, Ernest George | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf dUniv. |
| M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | Thompson, Dr. E. C. (Monagh' nN |
| Manners, Lord Cecil | Pym, C. Guy | Thorburn, Sir Walter |
| Martin, Richard Biddulph | Randles, John S. | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. | Rankin, Sir James | Tillett, Louis John |
| Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir HE(Wigt'n) | Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne | Tollemache, Henry James |
| Melville, Beresford Valentine | Ratcliff, R. F. | Tomlinson, Sir Wrn. Edw. M. |
| Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. | Reid, James (Greenock) | Tuff, Charles |
| Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Remnant, James Farquharson | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward |
| Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Milvain, Thomas | Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green | Valentia, Viscount |
| Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) | Vincent, Col. SirC E H(Sheffield) |
| Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) | Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter) |
| Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.) | Rolleston, Sir John F. L. | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Moon, Edward Robert Pacy | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert | Wanklyn, James Leslie |
| Morgan, DavidJ. (Walthamstow | Round, Rt. Hon. James | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Morpeth, Viscount | Royds, Clement Molyneux | Webb, Colonel William George |
| Morrell, George Herbert | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) | Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E (Taunton) |
| Morrison, James Archibald | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) | Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.) |
| Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- | Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd |
| Mount, William Arthur | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander | Whiteley, H.(Ashtonund. Lyne |
| Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray | Samuel, Sir HarryS (Limehouse) | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Muntz, Sir Philip A. | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham(Bute | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) | Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) | Seton-Karr, Sir Henry | Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H. (Yorks.) |
| Nannetti, Joseph P. | Sharpe, William Edward T. | Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson |
| Newdegate, Francis A. N. | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Nicholson, William Graham | Simeon, Sir Barrington | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.) | Skewes-Cox, Thomas | Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H. |
| Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) | young, Samuel |
| O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid | Smith, H.C (North'mb. Tyneside | Younger, William |
| O' Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.) | |
| O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir |
| Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) | Spear, John Ward | Alexander Acland-Hood and |
| Parker, Sir Gilbert | Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich | Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes. |
| Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington | Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Flynn, James Christopher |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow | Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) |
| Allen, Charles P. | Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark | Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry |
| Ambrose, Robert | Cremer, William Randal | Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Crombie, John William | Furness, Sir Christopher |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon Herbert Henry | Crooks, William | Goddard, Daniel Ford |
| Barlow, John Emmott | Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E.(Berwick) |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Cullinan, J. | Griffith, Ellis J. |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Dalziel, James Henry | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton |
| Benn, John Williams | Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan | Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale |
| Black, Alexander William | Delany, William | Harwood, George |
| Boland, John | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Hayden, John Patrick |
| Bolton, Thomas Dolling | Dobbie, Joseph | Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. |
| Brigg, John | Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | Helme, Norval Watson |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Duncan, J. Hastings | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. |
| Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) | Edwards, Frank | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Ellice, Capt. E C (SAndrw'sBghs | Higham, John Sharpe |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) | Holland, Sir William Henry |
| Burt, Thomas | Emmott, Alfred | Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone | Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) |
| Caldwell, James | Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) | Jacoby, James Alfred |
| Cameron, Robert | Eve, Harry Trelawney | Johnson, John (Gateshead) |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Farquharson, Dr. Robert | Joicey, Sir James |
| Campbell- Bannerman, Sir H. | Fenwick, Charles | Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea |
| Cawley, Frederick | Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith ) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond | Joyce, Michael |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Kearley, Hudson F. |
| 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.)
1315| AYES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.) | Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Bull, William James | Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile |
| Arrol, Sir William | Burdett-Coutts, W. | Cust, Henry John C. |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Butcher, John George | Dalkeith, Earl of |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. | Campbell, J.H.M (Dublin Univ. | Dalrymple, Sir Charles |
| Austin, Sir John | Carlile, William Walter | Davenport, W. Bromley- |
| Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy | Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Dickson, Charles Scott |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire | Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph |
| Baird, John George Alexander | Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon |
| Balcarres, Lord | Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.A. (Worc. | Doogan, P. C. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r | Chapman, Edward | Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E. |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Charrington, Spencer | Doughty, George |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W.(Leeds | Churchill, Winston Spencer | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- |
| Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. | Clancy, John Joseph | Doxford, Sir William Theodore |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Clare, Octavius Leigh | Duke, Henry Edward |
| Bartley, Sir George C. T. | Clive, Captain Percy A. | Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Coates, Edward Feetham | Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E | Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) |
| Bignold, Arthur | Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C.R. | Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ. (Manc'r |
| Bigwood, James | Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst |
| Bingham, Lord | Compton, Lord Alwyne | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne |
| Bond, Edward | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Fisher, William Hayes |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Crean, Eugene | Fison, Frederick William |
| Bowles, Lt.-Col. H.F. (Middlesex | Cripps, Charles Alfred | FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- |
| Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon | Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham, | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. | Rolleston, Sir John F. L. |
| Flower, Sir Ernest | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert |
| Forster, Henry William | Lowe, Francis William | Round, Rt. Hon. James |
| Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S.W. | Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale) | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Galloway, William Johnson | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Gardner, Ernest | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Garfit, William | Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- |
| Gibbs, A. G. H. | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander |
| Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn, | Macdona, John Cumming | Samuel, Sir Harry S.(Limehouse |
| Gordon, Maj.-Evans (T'rH'mlets | Maconochie, A. W. | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.) | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W. |
| Goschen, Hon. George Joachim | M'Fadden, Edward | Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W. | Seton-Karr, Sir Henry |
| Graham, Henry Robert | M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) | Sharve, William Edward T. |
| Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Manners, Lord Cecil | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Greene, Sir E.W. (B'rySEdm'nds | Martin, Richard Biddulph | Simeon, Sir Barrington |
| Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) | Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. E. | Skewes-Cox, Thomas |
| Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) | Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H.E (Wigt'n | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Grenfell, William Henry | Melville, Beresford Valentine | Smith, H.C. (North'mbTyneside |
| Gretton, John | Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. | Smith, James Parker (Lanark. |
| Greville, Hon. Ronald | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Groves, James Grimble | Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G. | Spear, John Ward |
| Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Milvain, Thomas | Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich) |
| Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas E. | Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk |
| Hambro, Charles Eric | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | Stanley, Edwd. Jas. (Somerset) |
| Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford | Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.) | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs., |
| Hare, Thomas Leigh | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy | Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart |
| Harris, F. Leverton, (Tynem'th | Morgan, David J(Walthamstow | Stock, James Henry |
| Haslett, Sir James Horner | Morpeth, Viscount | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. | Morrell, George Herbert | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Hay, Hon. Claude George | Morrison, James Archibald | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G. (Oxf'dUniv. |
| Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley | Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Heath, James (Staffords.,N.W. | Mount, William Arthur | Thompson, Dr. EC (Monagh'n, N |
| Heaton, John Henniker | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | Thorburn, Sir Walter |
| Helder, Augustus | Muntz, Sir Philip A. | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.) | Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute | Tollemache, Henry James |
| Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. |
| Hickman, Sir Alfred | Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) | Tuff, Charles |
| Hoare, Sir Samuel | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward |
| Hogg, Lindsay | Newdegate, Francis A. N. | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside | Nicholson, William Graham | Valentia, Viscount |
| Hoult, Joseph | Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.) | Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H. (Sheffield |
| Houston, Robert Paterson | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter) |
| Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Hozier, Hon. James HenryCecil | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | Wanklyn, James Leslie |
| Hudson, George Bickersteth | Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Hunt, Rowland | Parker, Sir Gilbert | Webb, Colonel William George |
| Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington | Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E. (Taunton |
| Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. | Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley | Welby, Sir Charles G.E. (Notts., |
| Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton | Pemberton, John S. G. | Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd |
| Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) | Percy, Earl | Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne |
| Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H | Pierpoint, Robert | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh | Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop, | Plummer, Walter R. | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Keswick, William | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| King, Sir Henry Seymour | Pretyman, Ernest George | Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H. (Yorks.) |
| Knowles, Sir Lees | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson |
| Laurie, Lieut.-General | Pym, C. Guy | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Randles, John S. | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool, | Rankin, Sir James | Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H. |
| Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. NR | Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne | Young, Samuel |
| Lee, ArthurH. (Hants., Fareham | Ratcliff, R. F. | Younger, William |
| Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) | Reid, James (Greenock) | |
| Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Remnant, James Farquharson | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir |
| Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S. | Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge | Alexander Acland-Hood and |
| Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. | Ridley, S.Forde (Bethnal Green | Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes. |
| Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) | Ambrose, Robert | Barlow, John Emmott |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Ashton, Thomas Gair | Barran, Rowland Hirst |
| Allen, Charles P. | Asquith Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry | Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Hayden, John Patrick | Perks, Robert William |
| Benn, John Williams | Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. | Price, Robert John |
| Black, Alexander William | Helme, Norval Watson | Rea, Russell |
| Boland, John | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. | Reddy, M. |
| Bolton, Thomas Dolling | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Brigg, John | Higham, John Sharpe | Rigg, Richard |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Holland, Sir William Henry | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) |
| Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) | Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) | Robson, William Snowdon |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Jacoby, James Alfred | Rose, Charles Day |
| Burt, Thomas | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Runciman, Walter |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Joicey, Sir James | Russell, T. W. |
| Caldwell, James | Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Cameron, Robert | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Joyce, Michael | Schwann, Charles E. |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Kearley, Hudson E. | Shackleton, David James |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.) |
| Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark, | Kilbride, Denis | Sheehy, David |
| Cremer, William Randal | Kitson, Sir James | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Crombie, John William | Langley, Batty | Slack, John Bamford |
| Crooks, William | Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) | Smith, Samuel (Flint) |
| Cullman, J. | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington | Stanhope, Hon. Philip James |
| Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan | Leng, Sir John | Sullivan, Donal |
| Delany, William | Levy, Maurice | Tennant, Harold John |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Lewis, John Herbert | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Dobbie, Joseph | Lough, Thomas | Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.) |
| Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | Lundon, W. | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr |
| Duncan, J. Hastings | Lyell, Charles Henry | Tomkinson, James |
| Edwards, Frank | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Toulmin, George |
| Ellice, Capt. EC (S.Andrw'sBghs | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Wallace, Robert |
| Emmott, Alfred | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Evans, Sir Francis H.(Maidstone | M'Crae, George | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) | M'Kenna, Reginald | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Eve, Harry Trelawney | M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Farquharson, Dr. Robert | Mansfield, Horace Rendall | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Markham, Arthur Basil | Whiteley, George (York, W. R.) |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond | Morley, Charles (Breconshire) | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Moulton, John Fletcher | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) | Murphy, John | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. | Newnes, Sir George | Woodhouse, Sir J.T. (Hudd'rsfi'd |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Norman, Henry | |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Nussey, Thomas Willans | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick) | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid | Whittaker and Mr. Theodore |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | O'Malley, William | Taylor. |
| Hall, Edward Marshall | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | |
| Harwood, George | Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) |
Question, "That the Amendment be made," put, and agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 2, line 13, to leave out the words 'granted or.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
§ Amendment proposed—
§ "In page 2, line 16, at the beginning, to insert the word 'First.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 2, line 24, to leave out Sub-section (3), and insert the words, '(3) Such deductions from rent as are set out in the Second Schedule to this Act may, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, be made by any licence-holder who pays a charge under this section,
1316
and also by any person from whose rent a deduction is made in respect of the payment of such a charge.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 2, lines 33 and 34, to leave out the words 'or in respect of special payments for new licences.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
§
Another Amendment proposed—
In page 2, line 41, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'and such expenses of the justices of the licensing district incurred under
1317
this Act as quarter sessions may allow.'"— (Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
§
Another Amendment proposed—
In page 3, line 7, at the end, to add the wards, 'Quarter sessions shall in each year make such returns to the Secretary of State with respect to their own action, and that of the justices of licensing districts, under this
§
Act, as the Secretary of State may require.'"—(Mr. Solicitor-General.)
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill"
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 266; Noes, 160. (Division List, No. 222.)
1321| AYES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Doogan, P. C. | Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E. | Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Doughty, George | Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. |
| Arrol, Sir William | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh) |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Doxford, Sir William Theoaore | Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop. |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. | Duke, Henry Edward | Keswick, William |
| Austin, Sir John | Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | King, Sir Henry Seymour |
| Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy | Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) | Knowles, Sir Lees |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r) | Laurie, Lieut.-General |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) |
| Baird, John George Alexander | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Fison, Frederick William | Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks. N.R. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r | FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose | Lee, ArthurH. (Hants. Fareham |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds | Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage |
| Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. | Flower, Sir Ernest | Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Forster, Henry William | Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. |
| Bartley, Sir George C. T. | Foster, Philips. (Warwick. S.W. | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Galloway, William Johnson | Long, Col. CharlesW. (Evesham |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Gardner, Ernest | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. |
| Bignold, Arthur | Garfit, William | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Bigwood, James | Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. | Lowe, Francis William |
| Bingham, Lord | Gordon, Hon. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn | Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'rH'mlets | Loyd, Archie Kirkman |
| Bond, Edward | Gore, Hon. S.F. Ormsby-(Line.) | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth |
| Bowles, Lt.-Col. H.F.(Middlesex | Graham, Henry Robert | Lyttleton, Rt. Hon. Alfred |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Macdona, John Cumming |
| Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.) | Greene, SirEW (B'ryS. Edm'nds | Maconochie, A. W. |
| Bull, William James | Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.) | M'Iver, SirLewis (Edinburgh, W |
| Butcher, John George | Grenfell, William Henry | M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) |
| Campbell, J.H.M (Dublin Univ. | Gretton, John | Manners, Lord Cecil |
| Carlile, William Walter | Greville, Hon. Ronald | Martin, Richard Biddulph |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Groves, James Grimble | Massey-Mainwaring, Hon. W.F. |
| Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire | Hall, Edward Marshall | Maxwell, Rt. Hn. SirH. E (Wigt'n |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. | Melville, Beresford Valentine |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Hambro, Charles Eric | Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.A. (Worc | Hardy Laurence (Kent, Ashford | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Chapman, Edward | Hare, Thomas Leigh | Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G. |
| Charrington, Spencer | Haslett, Sir James Horner | Milvain, Thomas |
| Clare, Octavius Leigh | Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. | Molesworth, Sir Lewis |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) |
| Coates, Edward Feetham | Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley | Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.) | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy |
| Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C.R. | Helder, Augustus | Morgan, DavidJ. (Walthamstow |
| Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.) | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Compton, Lord Alwyne | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas | Hickman, Sir Alfred | Morrison, James Archibald |
| Crean, Eugene | Hoare, Sir Samuel | Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer |
| Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) | Hogg, Lindsay | Mount, William Arthur |
| Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. |
| Cust, Henry John C. | Hoult, Joseph | Muntz, Sir Philip A. |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Houston, Robert Paterson | Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham) | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) |
| Davenport, W. Bromley | Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil | Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Hudson, George Bickersteth | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Digby, John K. D. Wingfield | Hunt, Rowland | Newdegate, Francis A. N. |
| Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse | Nicholson, William Graham |
| Dixon-Haitland, SirFred Dixon | Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred | Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.) |
| Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) | Tollemache, Henry James |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. |
| O'Brien, P. J (Tipperary, N.) | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander | Tuff, Charles |
| O'Dowd, John | Samuel, Sir HarryS.(Limehouse | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward |
| Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley | Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) | Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H. (Sheffield |
| Percy, Earl | Seton-Karr, Sir Henry | Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter) |
| Pierpoint, Robert | Sharpe, William Edward T. | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel | Wanklyn, James Leslie |
| Plummer, Walter R. | Simeon, Sir Barrington | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Skewes-Cox, Thomas | Webb, Colonel William George |
| Pretyman, Ernest George | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) | Welby, Lt.-Col A.C.E. (Taunton |
| Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | Smith, H.C. North'mb. Tyneside | Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts. |
| Pym, C. Guy | Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.) | Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd |
| Randles, John S. | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) | Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne |
| Rankin, Sir James | Spear, John Ward | Whitmore, CharlesA lgernon |
| Ratcliff, R. F. | Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich) | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Reid, James (Greenock) | Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Remnant, James Farquharson | Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset) | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Ridley, Hon. M.W. (Stalybridge | Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.) | Wilson-Todd, SirWH (York.) |
| Ridley, S. Forde (BethnalGreen | Stewart, SirMark J. M'Taggart | Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson |
| Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) | Stock, James Henry | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart |
| Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) | Stone, Sir Benjamin | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Robinson, Brooke | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | Young, Samuel |
| Rolleston, Sir John F. L. | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G. (Oxf'd Univ | Younger, William |
| Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) | |
| Round, Rt. Hon. James | Thompson, Dr. EC (Monagh'n, N | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir |
| Royds, Clement Molyneux | Thorburn, Sir Walter | Alexander Aclana-Hood and |
| Rutherford, John (Lancashire) | Thornton, Percy M. | Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes. |
| NOES | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) | Ellice, Capt. E C (S. Andrw'sBghs | Layland-Barratt, Francis |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington |
| Allen, Charles P. | Emmott, Alfred | Leng, Sir John |
| Aston, Thomas Gair | Evans, Sir Francis H.(Maidstone | Levy, Maurice |
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry | Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Barlow, John Emmott | Eve, Harry Trelawney | Lough, Thomas |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Farquharson, Dr. Robert | Lundon, W. |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Fenwick, Charles | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift |
| Benn, John Williams | Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond | MacVeagh, Jeremiah |
| Black, Alexander William | Flavin, Michael Joseph | M'Crae, George |
| Boland, John | Flynn, James Christopher | M'Hugh, Patrick A. |
| Bolton, Thomas Boiling | Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) | M'Kenna, Reginald |
| Brigg, John | Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. | M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Mansfield, Horace Rendall |
| Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick) | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Griffith, Ellis J. | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Morley, Charles (Breconshire) |
| Burt, Thomas | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Moulton, John Fletcher |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale | Murphy, John |
| Caldwell, James | Harwood, George | Newnes, Sir George |
| Cameron, Robert | Hayden, John Patrick | Norman, Henry |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. | Nussey, Thomas Willans |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Helme, Norval Watson | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid |
| Cawley, Frederick | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. | O'Malley, William |
| Channing, Francis Allstone | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Higham, John Sharpe | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Holland, Sir William Henry | Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) | Perks, Robert William |
| Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) | Jacoby, James Alfred | Price, Robert John |
| Cremer, William Randal | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Rea, Russell |
| Crombie, John William | Joicey, Sir James | Reckitt, Harold James |
| Crooks, William | Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea | Reddy, M. |
| Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Cullinan, J. | Joyce, Michael | Rigg, Richard |
| Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | Kearley, Hudson E. | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) |
| Davies, M.Vaughan (Cardigan) | Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Delany, William | Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W. | Robson, William Snowdon |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Kilbride, Denis | Rose, Charles Day |
| Dobbie, Joseph | Kitson, Sir James | Russell, T. W. |
| Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | Langley, Batty | Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings | Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Edwards, Frank | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) | Schwann, Charles E. |
| Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Whiteley, George (York, W.R.) |
| Shackleton, David James | Tennant, Harold John | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) | Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.) | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Sheehy, David | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr | Wilson, Henry J.(York, W. R.) |
| Shipman, Dr. John G. | Tomkinson, James | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Slack, John Bamford | Toulmin, George | Woodhouse, SirJT (Huddersfi'd |
| Smith, Samuel (Flint) | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) | |
| Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. |
| Soares, Ernest J. | Wason, JohnCathcart (Orkney) | Herbert Gladstone and Mr. |
| Stanhope, Hon. Philip James | White, George (Norfolk) | William M'Arthur |
| Sullivan, Donal | White, Luke (York, E.R.) |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ And, it being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF the TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD,), Somersetshire, Wellingtonin 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.
§ SIR A. ACLAND-HOODPerhaps 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 1322 Colonial Secretary had treated the House respectfully, because hon. Members were anxious to have the fullest information in regard to the administration of this Ordinance in South Africa. The right hon. Gentleman replied to him, stating that he would not telegraph, but he promised to communicate with Lord Milner by despatch. He had not telegraphed, and therefore it was the right hon. Gentleman's duty to have sent a despatch to Lord Milner by the mail which left for South Africa at two o'clock on Saturday. But there was something far worse connected with this mater, and they had only to look at this Ordinance itself in order to see the very stringent conditions under which these Chinese laboured.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member will not be in order in discussing that question, because there is a notice on the Paper in regard to that subject. He will not be out of order in asking for further information in answer to his questions about telegraphing.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that having regard to the heavy penalties to which these men were liable for escaping, he thought he would be justified in calling attention to those sections of the Ordinance under which they would be liable to punishment. These men were liable to a fine of £10, or one month's imprisonment, for escaping. Then there was the question of the liability of the Englishmen or Boers in Pretoria who had had any dealings with these escaped men. These two Chinamen wore found at Pretoria, begging for work, and the men who gave them work were liable to a fine of £500 or two years imprisonment. These poor Chinamen could not have tramped forty miles, they must have gone by train and they must have been "harboured" by some persons, and the persons who harboured them were liable to a fine of £300, or two years imprisonment. Having 1323 regard to the awful penalties to which these Chinamen were subjected and the heavy penalties for harbouring them, he thought it was a matter which ought to be brought clearly before the notice of the House, because the House of Commons was responsible for the passing of this Ordinance. He thought they wore entitled to the fullest information, and the Minister who endeavoured to conceal and keep from the House information in regard to the atrocities now being enacted, more especially when it had been said that Lo d Milner did not care twopence for persons 6,000 miles away, was not treating the House of Commons with respect. The Colonial Secretary ought not to be simply the conduit pipe of Lord Milner, and he ought not to be allowed to treat the House of Commons with contempt. The institution of slavery in South Africa was an abominable thing.
§ MR. HERBERT 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.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,) Warwick and Leamingtonsaid he thought it was undesirable constantly to harass with telegrams men who were already burdened with an excess of work. He thought that if he wrote in the ordinary course to Lord Milner and obtained the information desired that was all that 1324 could reasonably be demanded on the present occasion. For many years indentured labourers under Ordinances sanctioned by hon. Members opposite had been liable to penalties for desertion. That a few Chinamen out of more than a thousand had been said to have escaped was not sufficient ground, in his judgment, for telegraphing to Lord Milner or seeking information through other thin the ordinary channels.
§ MR. H. J. WILSON (Yorkshire, W.R., Holmfirth)complained that the manner in which the Colonial Secretary had answered questions on the subject was scarcely that which the House had a right to expect. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to have treated the House as well as his. hon. friend with something like contempt.
§ MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.)suggested that the Colonial Secretary should urge Lord Milner to have all these Chinamen sent from whence they came, and if he would insist upon proper wages being paid and provide the money for their passage he was sure plenty of white labour for the mines could be found in London.
§ MR. 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.
§ MR. LYTTELTONrose to reply.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid the right hon. Gentleman had already exhausted his right to speak.