§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
§ Clause 5.
Amendment again proposed—
In page 3, line 27, to leave out Sub-section (2)."—(Mr. Levy.)
§ Question again proposed, "That the words of Sub-section (2) to the word 'appointed,' in page 3, line 28, stand part of the clause."
§ THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CARSON,) Dublin University
explained that the delegation of powers by quarter sessions was the most convenient method of carrying out the functions of the county licensing committee abolished by the last clause. The power of appointment would be with quarter sessions, and there was no intention to interfere with that power; the Home Secretary would only make the rules under which the justices to whom the duties would be delegated would act as a standing committee. There seemed to be an idea that the Home Secretary was being given too wide powers in connection with the appointment of the committee. That was not so. He would only be able to lay down rules regulating the appointment; the actual appointment itself would be left to quarter sessions.
§ COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping)
hoped that the hon. Member would not persist in pressing the Amendment. In early parts of the debate hon. Gentlemen opposite had found fault with the Government for limiting the discretion of the justices in quarter sessions, yet now they were asking the House to 1495 accept an Amendment which would prevent them handing over their business to a committee of men who would probably be experts, and consequently thoroughly well qualified to deal with licensing matters. He noted that hon. Members opposite were by no means agreed on this point.
§ MR. GALLOWAY (Manchester, S. W.)
thought the Amendment if carried would bring about a worse state of affairs than now existed, by subjecting the whole quarter sessions bench to pressure from political quarters with regard to the grant and renewal of licences. It was most desirable to avoid the introduction of Party politics.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)
, rising to a point of order, asked, was not the question simply whether the Amendment should be withdrawn?
said several of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters having refused to allow the withdrawal, the discussion necessarily proceeded.
§ MR. J. F. HOPE (Sheffield, Brightside)
said he wished to put one Question to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
§ DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)
said, if it was competent for him to do so, he moved that the Question be now put.
§ MR. J. F. HOPE
asked why the first part of the sub-section was optional and the second part mandatory?
§ SIR EDWARD CARSON
replied that in the opinion of the Government, the subsidiary duties mentioned ought to be delegated to the committee.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 193; Noes, 123. (Division List No. 226.)1499
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire||Fisher, William Hayes|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc.||Fison, Frederick William|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Chapman, Edward||FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Clive, Captain Percy A.||Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon|
|Arrol, Sir William||Coates, Edward Feetham||Flannery, Sir Fortescue|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Flower, Sir Ernest|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Coghill, Douglas Harry||Forster, Henry William|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R.||Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.)|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Galloway, William Johnson|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)||Gardner, Ernest|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile||Garrit, William|
|Balcarres, Lord||Dalkeith, Earl of||Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r||Davenport, William Bromley||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds||Denny, Colonel||Graham, Henry Robert|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Greene, Sir E. W. (B'rySEdm'nds|
|Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)||Dickson, Charles Scott||Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||Gretton, John|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers||Groves, James Grimble|
|Bigwood, James||Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Gunter, Sir Robert|
|Bill, Charles||Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart||Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)|
|Bingham, Lord||Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Hare, Thomas Leigh|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.|
|Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn||Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)||Heaton, John Henniker|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Fardell, Sir T. George||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.|
|Bull, William James||Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r||Hoare, Sir Samuel|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Hobhouse, Rt. Hn H. Somers't, E|
|Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Horner, Frederick William|
|Hoult, Joseph||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham||Muntz, Sir Philip A.||Spear, John Ward|
|Hudson, George Bickersteth||Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)||Spencer, Sir E (W. Bromwich)|
|Hunt, Rowland||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk)|
|Jameson, Major J. Eustace||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset|
|Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.||Myers, William Henry||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)|
|Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.||Newdegate, Francis A. N.||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T.(Denbigh)||Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.)||Stock, James Henry|
|Kerr, John||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Kimber, Henry||Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Percy, Earl||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Pilkington, Colonel Richard||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N.R.||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)||Plummer, Sir Walter R.||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Pretyman, Ernest George||Tuff, Charles|
|Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Long, Col.Charles W. (Evesham)||Randles, John S.||Tully, Jasper|
|Long, Rt.Hn. Walter (Bristol,S.)||Rankin, Sir James||Valentia, Viscount|
|Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Rasch, Sir Frederic Came||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Reid, James (Greenock)||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Remnant, James Farquharson||Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E. (Taunton|
|Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine||Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.|
|Macdona, John Cumming||Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd|
|M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh)||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)||Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks.)|
|M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Majendie, James A. H.||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart|
|Manners, Lord Cecil||Royds, Clement Molyneux||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Martin, Richard Biddulph||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)||Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.|
|Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Maxwell,Rt.Hn.Sir H.E.(Wigt'n||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford||Young, Samuel|
|Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.)||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander||Younger, William|
|Melville, Beresford Valentine||Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse|
|Milvain, Thomas||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||TELLERS FOE THE AYES—Sir|
|Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)||Alexander Acland-Hood and|
|Morpeth, Viscount||Seton-Karr, Sir Henry||Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.|
|Morrison, James Archibald||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||Lough, Thomas|
|Allen. Charles P.||Duncan, J. Hastings||Lundon, W.|
|Asher, Alexander||Ellice,Capt E.C.(S Andrw's Bghs||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Emmott, Alfred||MacVeagh, Jeremiah|
|Benn, John Williams||Farquharson, Dr. Robert||M'Arthur, William J.(Cornwall)|
|Black, Alexander William||Fenwick, Charles||M'Crae, George|
|Boland, John||Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)||M'Kenna, Reginald|
|Brigg, John||Flynn, James Christopher||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Markham, Arthur Basil|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Grey, Rt.Hon.Sir E. (Berwick)||Moulton, John Fletcher|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Burt, Thomas||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Nussey, Thomas Willans|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Helme, Norval Watson||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Caldwell, James||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)|
|Cameron, Robert||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Doherty, William|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Higham, John Sharpe||O'Dowd, John|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||O'Shee, James John|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Jacoby, James Alfred||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Jones, William(Carnarvonshire||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Crombie, John William||Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Cullinan, J.||Kilbride, Denis||Rea, Russell|
|Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)||Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.||Reckitt, Harold James|
|Delany, William||Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)||Reddy, M.|
|Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries|
|Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Leng, Sir John||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Lewis, John Herbert||Russell, T. W.|
|Doogan, P. C.||Lloyd-George, David||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)|
|Shackleton, David James||Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)||Tomkinson, James||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Sheehan, Daniel Daniel||Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth|
|Sheehy, David||Wallace, Robert||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Shipman, Dr. John G.||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Soares, Ernest J.||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)||Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd|
|Sullivan, Donal||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||White, George (Norfolk)||TELLERS FOE THE NOES—Mr.|
|Tennant, Harold John||White, Luke (York, E. R.)||Levy and Dr. Hutchinson|
Question put, and agreed to.
§ MR. WORSLEY-TAYLOR (Lancashire, Blackpool)
moved that the rules governing the appointment of committees should be made by quarter sessions, subject to approval by the Secretary of State. He thought that, having regard to the large powers entrusted to quarter sessions, there was no reason why they should not formulate their own rules.
In page 3, line 29, after the word 'made,' to insert the words 'by them to be approved by a Secretary of State.'"—(Mr. Worsley-Taylor.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR EDWARD CARSON
said the Government did not think the matter a very important one. If there was any feeling among hon. Members that these rules should be made by quarter sessions rather than by the Home Secretary, he would have no objection. He would say, however, that as the great majority of the rules under the Bill must necessarily be made by the Home Secretary, and as it was of great importance to have some kind of similarity in the various rules, he doubted whether there was any advantage in making the change. Still, if the hon. Member thought it worth while pressing the Amendment he would not oppose it.
§ MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire, E.)
pointed out that the county licensing committee, although appointed and regulated by statute, had power to make rules regarding their procedure, and surely it was not unreasonable to ask that a body like the quarter sessions should have similar power. If it was desired to lay down universal rules as to the constitution of the committee, it should be done in the Bill itself. There was too much legislation attempted by Government Departments at present.
§ SIR ROBERT REID (Dumfries Burghs)
said he preferred the BUI as it stood. The point was a small one and they had better pass to other questions in the consideration of which their time could be more usefully occupied.
MR. LLOYD WHARTON (Yorkshire, W.R., Ripon)
suggested that quarter sessions should be allowed to make their own rules, provided that they submitted them to the Home Office for approval.
§ MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)
asked if it would be in the power of the quarter sessions to appoint on the committee magistrates interested in the trade.
In page 3, line 29, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'providing for the mode of appointment, number, quorum, and procedure of committees.'"—(Mr. Worsley Taylor.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
In page 3, line 29, after the word 'and,' to insert the words 'except in a county borough.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. HELME (Lancashire, Lancaster)
moved to add words excepting also those non-county boroughs which have a separate commission of the peace and a population of over 25,000. He reminded the Committee that on the previous day the Government were good enough to grant powers with regard to 1501 new licences to magistrates in non-county boroughs. He now asked them to go a step further. A Committee of hon. Members sitting on both sides of the House had carefully gone into this question, and they found that out of 177 non-county boroughs having a separate commission of the peace there were many too small to have a separate compensation fund. It had therefore been decided to suggest that non-county boroughs with a separate commission of the peace and a population of over 25,000 should be entrusted with the entire control of the licensed houses within their boundaries. It was well understood that actual knowledge of a district was the foundation upon which successful local government was conducted. This was not a Party question, but administrative. It had been suggested that if this Amendment were conceded it would mean taking the gem out of its surroundings, and that the county area would be deprived of large sums which would otherwise be available for compensation. But was it not the fact that it was in the urban district that the over-plus of the licensed houses existed, rather than in the county districts? As the House had already accepted the principle of dealing with county boroughs apart from the administrative County areas of which they formed part, so he urged they should also accept the principle that local self government should be conceded to non-bounty boroughs with regard to licensing. He had put down an amendment to secure a provision for the automatic inclusion of other boroughs as their populations increased to 25,000. He strongly appealed to the Government to accept this Amendment.
In page 3, line 29, after the words last inserted, to insert the words 'or a borough having a separate commission of the peace and a, population of over twenty-five thousand.'"—(Mr. Helme.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE
hoped the Government before accepting this Amendment would consider the general position of county areas. It was the old story. First the Government made a concession to one class, then another class began to exert pressure, and, if this went 1502 on, the whole county area would be whittled away. This was not a question of jurisdiction, it was a question of money. He reminded the Committee that this was a question of administering a fund, and that the county would be left in an unfair position if the Government listened to many appeals for the exclusion of boroughs from the county area. The compensation fund would be largely raised from the boroughs, which the Amendment proposed to exclude from the area. The licensed houses in these boroughs were largely supported by country people. In some old-fashioned market towns there might be a congestion of licensed houses, but as their population did not reach 25,000 they would be left in the area, but there were other non-county boroughs steadily growing and thriving where there was no excess of licensed premises and these were to be taken out of the area. That was where the unfairness came in.
§ SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.)
declared that county boroughs were to enjoy this privilege on the basis of their local knowledge and administration, and he pointed out that there were no less than twelve county boroughs with populations of less than 25,000. Why should not Canterbury, he asked, be treated as an autonomous area, unless, of course, it was because it was in Kent? He reminded the Committee that they had the precedent of the Education Act where the population was fixed at 10,000; and, dealing with the objection that the area would not be sufficient for the purpose of raising an adequate compensation fund, he referred to the unanimous opinion of the non-county borough Members that the area would be sufficient. He hoped the point would be conceded by the Government.
MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W.R., Elland)
said that, in his opinion, the Amendment of his hon. friend did not go far enough. He thought that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Somerset was valid, and that reform was needed in non-county boroughs even more than in the large cities. Although they might not have a superfluity of public-houses, reform was necessary; and, therefore, they 1503 ought to be given autonomy. It was rather an arbitrary and unnecessary line that was drawn by his hon. friend in selecting a population of 25,000; and he would later propose that 10,000 be substituted. Under the Education Act autonomy was given to boroughs of that size for the purposes of secondary education. There were a large number of boroughs which felt very bitterly at being deprived of direct control over their own licences. He thought the Government would be well advised to offend as little as possible these important local authorities.
§ DR. HUTCHINSON (Sussex, Rye)
said that difficulties would arise in many boroughs. For instance, part of Tunbridge Wells was in Kent and part in Sussex. It had a very efficient borough bench, and no complaint regarding it had been made. It was very hard that it had in one instance to apply to quarter sessions in Kent and in another instance to quarter sessions in Sussex. Such an anomaly ought to be put an end to. All they wanted was to allow those boroughs to work out their own salvation in their own way.
§ SIR EDWARD CARSON
said it was difficult to draw the line in these cases. There might be no valid reason why a borough with 49,000 inhabitants should be treated differently to a borough with 50,000 inhabitants. But the line had to be drawn. The only question was the provision of a proper compensation area; and it was important that it should not be too small. If it were too small there would not be sufficient funds to effect a desirable reduction of licences. The Government went very carefully into the matter, and were very anxious to meet the views of the borough councils in the matter. The figures, however, showed that, if the Amendment were accepted, the amount of compensation available would in some cases be too small to be effective, while in other cases it would be more than adequate having regard to the existing number of public-houses, and would probably be more than would be used. The latter cases would, however, diminish the effectiveness of the fund in the county at large. Therefore, if the Amendment were accepted, in some 1504 cases the compensation area would be too small, and in other cases it would be too large, and it would reduce the fund available for the county generally. The only really feasible and practical way of setting up a compensation fund was by the means proposed in the Bill. Several representations had been made to the Government; and the Government had put back the licensing system in this particular, exactly as it was before. They had gone a step further, and had put down an Amendment providing for the representation of non-county boroughs. It was to insert—In page 4, line 8, after the word 'committees,' to insert the words 'of quarter sessions and for the constitution of those committees where requisite as standing committees, and also for the addition to those committees in the case of a county, of representatives of the justices of any boroughs within the county not being county boroughs, but having a, separate commission of the peace.'That would, he thought, meet the desire of the non-county boroughs. He could assure the Committee that the acceptance of the Amendment would render ineffective the compensation fund in many cases.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)
said that he was very glad that the Government intended to make some provision for the representation of non-county boroughs. He intended, however, to move an Amendment giving the boroughs a statutory right to representation. If those boroughs were not represented at quarter sessions, the Court would be dealing with areas from which it had on representation. There was nothing in the Amendment mentioned by the Solicitor-General which would give non-county boroughs a claim to representation. Some of the worst cases in the country were the cases of little market towns, many of which had a public-house for every hundred of the population. These houses supplied fairs and markets on certain days, but for the rest they had to be kept going by the local population. If the borough justices had not the right of representation they would not be summoned. The average county justice looked down on the borough justice. He thought the hon. Member for the Ripon Division would agree to that.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said it was not always those who had the right who looked down on people. Why should not the Solicitor-General put this right of representation into Clause 5 instead of Clause 6?
§ SIR EDWARD CARSON
said that the Home Secretary would be empowered to make rules; but if the hon. Gentleman did not think that that was sufficient he would be prepared to introduce other words.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said the Amendment which he would suggest was: "When constituting the committee under this section every non-county borough having a separate commission of the peace shall be represented thereon."
§ SIR EDWARD CARSON
I should like to consider that, and I can assure the hon. Member I will try to meet him on Report.
§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE (Huddersfield)
said there was a very strong feeling on this matter amongst the non-county boroughs because they considered the Bill deprived them of an autonomy they now possessed. They had always exercised the jurisdiction which the Bill sought to dispossess them of. There was no allegation that the magistrates had discharged their duties improperly or imprudently. It was therefore a strong thing on the part of the Government to bring in a Bill to deprive them of the jurisdiction they had. The reason given was that it might affect the distribution of the compensation fund which would be derived from the counties in which they were scheduled, but if there was any argument in that at all, it was in favour of maintaining the existing state of things. If there were redundant licences they would exist in these small boroughs and not in the Scattered country districts, and the larger amount of the contribution to the compensation fund in the counties would be derived from these boroughs and not from the other portions of the county. Scarborough, with a 1506 population of 33,000, would contribute £2,056 as a non-county borough population, but if the Amendment were agreed to the amount available for the Scarborough Quarter Sessions for compensation would be £773. Whether they were compensated on the basis of the proportion of population, the levy on licences, or on the assessable value, the result would be the same—they would only receive back a third of what they contributed to the fund. Under these circumstances he thought there had been no solid argument for removing from non-county boroughs the jurisdiction they possessed.
MR. FISON (Yorkshire, W.R., Doncaster)
as the representative of a non-county borough thanked the Government for the way in which the non-county boroughs had been treated. In the West Riding of Yorkshire there were a dozen non-county boroughs and he did not see how quarter sessions was to be kept an efficient body if they were constantly adding to their body the representatives of these non-county boroughs. He thought the present appeal from the licensing authorities of the non-county boroughs to the quarter sessions was the most efficient way of dealing with the matter.
§ MR. THEODORE TAYLOR (Lancashire, Radcliffe)
hoped the Government would go further than they had done. Knowing something about the small non-county boroughs in the West Riding of Yorkshire, he might say that there were many with over 25,000 inhabitants who would lose their jurisdiction. It was sought by this Amendment to confirm to these boroughs the jurisdiction they had hitherto possessed. At present the borough justices had no title to sit at quarter sessions. True, the Government had at last promised to give them some kind of representation at quarter sessions, but that was not enough. Knowing something of these non-county boroughs, he said the areas were large enough to form a compensation fund and would make a homogeneous area over which the compensation money could be spent. There was a very strong case in Lancashire and Yorkshire for this Amendment, 1507 and he put it to the Government it was only fair treatment to mete out to these areas. In his view the borough magistrates had as much right to sit in review at quarter sessions on their own decisions as had county justices. No doubt borough justices were looked down upon as inferior beings, but since the Local Government Act which created every chairman of an urban district council a county magistrate that objection against borough justices no longer held good. He should vote for this Amendment as a very necessary step in devolution. He hoped that, as in the case of other measures, such as the Education Act, the larger non-county boroughs of from 25,000 to 50,000 inhabitants would receive, what he regarded as a mere matter of justice, the consideration to which they were entitled.
§ SIR EDWARD GREY (Northumberland, Berwick)
said that if the Amendment were accepted as it stood it would still leave in their anomalous and unsatisfactory condition some of the smaller non-county boroughs. He was one of those who, in regard to the Education Act, felt the great importance of not confusing the area by making exceptions within it. He saw the force of the Government contention that it was desirable to have a homogeneous and large area for dealing with compensation, but in this case community of interest and feeling would not be established between non-county boroughs and quarter sessions. There was to be no channel of communication between them, and they would be in some cases two almost hostile bodies—he meant hostile in the sense of entirely separate. If this Amendment were not accepted some means must be found of dovetailing one with the other. He was therefore glad to see that the Government had put down an Amendment with regard to representation. He thought the hon. Member opposite who had thanked the Government ought to have reserved his thanks. The Solicitor-General, it was true, hoped to meet this point on Report, but all he had on the Paper was that the Secretary of State "may" make rules. There was not even a direct instruction.
§ SIR EDWARD GREY
thought it would be best to frame a direct instruction, and expressed the opinion that the only satisfactory way would be to insert words in Clause 5. He did not doubt the good faith of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but he could not help his mind going back to what was said with regard to the time limit on the Second Reading, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought something might be done in Committee, and how that idea was carried out.
§ SIR EDWARD CARSON
What I said was that the question of time limit should be considered in Committee.
§ SIR EDWARD GREY
said that the impression created by the remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the Second Reading of the Bill was that it would not only be considered, but considered with a view of admitting it into the Bill, but that there were difficulties in the way. The Bill was, however, being discussed under certain restrictions which might cause those difficulties to be disposed of somewhat summarily on Report.
§ MR LLOYD WHARTON
thought the Opposition were showing a certain lack of gratitude inasmuch as representatives were to be introduced from boroughs which had never been represented before.
MR. HIGHAM (Yorkshire, W.R., Sowerby)
pointed out that hon. Members who opposed this Amendment were, to some extent, defeating their own purpose. It was contended that the Amendment would take out of the county area such an amount of value as would deprive the county of a large amount of its worth. But in non-county boroughs at the present time there was an exceedingly strong feeling against the deprivation to which they were subjected, and the feeling was so operating as to cause the non-county boroughs to force themselves into the position of county boroughs. In Accrington, one of the largest non-county boroughs in Lancashire, there 1509 was a very strong feeling that this work should be left to them. For years they had felt that the appeals to quarter sessions were really against them, and if the larger non-county boroughs were left out of the Bill the present feeling would be intensified. Under the proposal of the Government the boroughs of Nelson, with a population of 35,000, Accrington with a population of 45,000, and Darwen with a population of 40,000, would be in the position of children, and he appealed to the Government to consider the position of such non-county boroughs. It would be an easy matter for these non-county boroughs to add surrounding districts to their area, and the counties would then be deprived of a greater amount of value still. In the towns which he had mentioned much of the opposition to the Bill arose from the fact that they were being excluded from its action, and the opposition even of extreme temperance men would be greatly lessened by such a concession as that embodied in the Amendment.
§ LIEUTENANT-COLONEL PRYCE-JONES (Montgomery Boroughs)
drew attention to the fact that quarter sessions were represented by a large number of magistrates, many of whom did not reside in the district, whereas in the case of borough magistrates they did usually reside in the district. That fact, he thought, was a very strong argument why they should have a voice upon the committee appointed by the quarter sessions to consider licensing appeals. He had the honour to represent six boroughs, four of which had separate commissions of the peace. He made a strong appeal to the Government to include these boroughs. He did not see why all of them should not be represented, and he would support any proposal which would have that result.
§ MR. TREVELYAN
said he felt bound to move an Amendment to this Amendment. He was not at all satisfied with what the Government had said in regard to non-county boroughs. Many of the smaller non-county boroughs were as important as those having 25,000 of population, and on their behalf he would move to substitute 10,000 for 25,000 in the Amend- 1510 ment. There were many boroughs in Yorkshire under the limit of the Amendment, which were as much deserving of consideration as those large non-county boroughs which had been mentioned. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
To leave out the words 'twenty-five' and insert the word 'ten.'"—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'twenty-five' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ MR. NUSSEY (Pontefract),
as representing one of the smallest county boroughs in the West Riding of Yorkshire, supported the Amendment. Non-county boroughs which had had a separate commission of the peace for many years felt they were being badly treated in the Bill. In the borough of Pontefract the magistrates had protested most strongly against the proposal of the Government to merge these smaller boroughs into the counties. He recognised the difficulty which would be placed upon the Government if this Amendment were accepted, because, if they made the area too small, in a great many cases the fund for compensation would be too small to be of much use. There were some small non-county boroughs, such as Newmarket, which were in two counties. What would be done with them? Would they be given two representatives, or none at all? He thought the simple way would be to allow every one of these Small boroughs to manage its own affairs. They would have ample funds at their disposal in most cases to deal with any reasonable reduction of licences. He hoped the Government would recognise the claim of these old non-county boroughs and give them fair and just consideration under the Bill.
§ SIR EDWARD STRACHEY (Somersetshire, S.)
said he desired to support the Amendment moved by his hon. friend behind him on the ground that 25,000 was too high. The hon. Member for Ripon seemed to think that there were a very small number of boroughs under 25,000 with separate commissions of the peace. That might be so in the North of England but was not the case in 1511 the West of England. In the large county of Somerset there was not one single borough which would be included by this 25,000 limit. It seemed ridiculous that a borough Which had the right to send a Member to Parliament should have no right of representation under this clause. He was sure the Home Secretary would recognise that there was a very strong feeling indeed in small non-county boroughs not only with a population of 25,000 but of 10,000 and under, that they did not like to be treated in this way. What would happen under this Bill was that the autonomy of the small non-county boroughs would be destroyed. He supported the area being 10,000 under the Education Act, and therefore he was absolutely consistent in this matter. As regarded the licensing question, it was only fair and right that there should be local self-government in the fullest sense. He certainly hoped his hon. friend would press this Amendment to a division, and he could assure the Committee that as regarded the West of England there was a strong feeling that the 25,000 limit was not of the slightest advantage to them.
§ MR. WORSLEY-TAYLOR
hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment. He was one of those who habitually sat at quarter sessions, and he ventured to think that if this Amendment were accepted it would go far to create very great difficulty in the administration of the Act. In the county of Lancashire there was a population of 4,300,000, and of that number 2,500,000 were in county boroughs, leaving 1,800,000 for the rest of the administrative county. So far as he could see from the census, there were no less than fourteen of these non-county boroughs, having separate sessions which had populations of 25,000 and over. The total population of these fourteen non-county boroughs with over 25,000 inhabitants was about 480,000. Therefore the result was that there would be taken out of the administrative county for the purpose of the compensation fund that figure of 480,000, leaving 1,300,000 instead of 1,800,000, and there would be in that county fourteen different sets of authorities for the purpose of the compensation fund. He thought as a matter of economical administration that it would 1512 be vastly better for the 1,800,000 and for the purposes of raising the compensation fund that they should be dealt with generally.
§ MR. EMMOTT (Oldham)
appealed to the hon. Member for Elland to withdraw his Amendment, because it seemed to him to bring the whole question to a ridiculous point, and he was perfectly certain that there was not a ghost of a chance of it being carried. With regard to the other Amendment dealing with areas having a separate commission of the peace and 25,000 inhabitants, he thought a very strong case could be made out for it. He had not been convinced by the figures of the hon. Member opposite. If these boroughs were taken out of the county, the county only lost money; but the boroughs lost much more than money by being retained. Many of them were not ejusdem generis with the county around them. These boroughs hated the interference of quarter sessions because they were often a different class of population altogether, and they felt that the county justices did not understand the requirements of their localities. It was admitted that in some cases they lost financially, whilst in others they gained. He thought a very strong case had been made out for the Amendment inserting 25,000, and he hoped the hon. Member for Elland would withdraw his proposal in regard to boroughs of 10,000.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)
said the argument of the last speaker showed exactly the same distrust of quarter sessions. These boroughs had their ancient institutions and a history older than that of quarter sessions, and consequently they did not like being interfered with by an outside body. Now the privilege they had enjoyed so long was going to be taken away from them and placed in the hands of quarter sessions. What they wanted was that all communities should work together. If they made one community jealous of another they would cause great trouble and difficulty in the working of this Bill, and he did not see how it could be avoided. If they took away certain powers from small boroughs and handed them over to quarter sessions how could they expect the local magistrates to work 1513 cordially with quarter sessions. Nothing was more likely to irritate or hurt their feelings than to have their powers taken away and handed over to quarter sessions. There might be a possibility of the fund being rather small, but they might give them the option of being included in the quarter sessions area if they wished it. That would prevent all friction and it would make this part of the Bill work smoothly. He hoped the Government would refrain from imposing these irritating restrictions upon small communities.
§ MR. PYM (Bedford)
thought they ought to feel grateful to the Government for the concessions they had made on this point. When he came to consult his borough sessions and borough magistrates he could not say whether they would be satisfied or not. At any rate they had advanced in the direction of giving these smaller areas a certain independence which under the Bill as it stood before they did not have. He thought the suggestion to insert 10,000 might be objected to on the ground that boroughs of 10,000 would not have a sufficient I number of magistrates to be able to divide them to sit in two Courts. He doubted whether the small boroughs would be sufficiently large to raise an adequate compensation fund for the purpose of reducing the number of licences. On the other hand, he thought 25,000 was sufficiently large for the purposes he had mentioned, and he hoped the Government would favourably consider this suggestion, because this was a matter upon which boroughs of 25,000 inhabitants felt very strongly. Hon. Members knew perfectly well the strong feeling of jealousy which existed in some of these old boroughs, and nothing had brought the feeling out more strongly than the creation of the county councils. The interference of the county council with his borough would be like holding out a red rag to a bull. Why should they do this? If these old boroughs had a sufficiently large area and sufficient magistrates to carry out the intention of the Bill, why should they not be given this independent power? He hoped the Government would give a favourable consideration to this point. On this matter he desired to support the true interests of the borough he represented.
§ MR. WALLACE (Perth)
said he would be disposed to support the Amendment of his hon. friend if he thought there was any chance of its being adopted, but in the circumstances he hoped it would not be pressed, because he thought if it was pressed it would not be carried, while it would endanger the acceptance of an Amendment with regard to the larger boroughs which was desired by both sides of the House. He agreed with his hon. friend as to the strong feeling in the small boroughs with regard to the preservation of their rights. In Scotland there was nothing more prized than the powers possessed by local magistrates to deal with licensing matters. The local magistrates discharged their duties in a way which gave almost universal satisfaction. He thought the same result would take place in England. None of the difficulties which might arise in the smaller boroughs could arise in the larger boroughs of over 25,000 inhabitants. He was quite sure that it would create great jealousy amongst the smaller boroughs if they discriminated between them, giving representation on quarter sessions to some and denying it to others. He hoped that, in carrying out the pledge given, the hon. and learned. Member would try to see that all these boroughs had the same representation on the licensing authority.
§ VISCOUNT MORPETH (Birmingham, S.)
said hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House seemed to have forgotten the nature of the Bill with which they were dealing. It was a Bill for the encouragement of temperance. Hon. Members on the other side of the House laughed. They had been advocating temperance, and had continually said that the proper way of dealing with this subject was to have a national levy over the whole country for the purposes of compensation, and now they were busily engaged helping the smaller boroughs to limit the very small and inadequate fund to be provided for the purposes of this Bill. The Committee had been told by hon. Members opposite about the prestige of the borough magistrates. They had been told that certain things must not be done because of the interference with the 1515 dignity and prestige of the borough magistrates. He did not admit that there was such a feeling as hon. Members had alluded to; but assuming that there was this feeling, it seemed to him that the best way to get over it was to adopt the Amendment proposed by his right hon. friend the Home Secretary. He looked at this matter purely from the point of view of how they were going to help in the reduction of licences. He held that they would help in the reduction of licences by making the areas of adequate size. The congestion was not the Same all over the country. It was worse in some districts than in others, and if they were to reduce the number of licences in the most congested districts it was desirable that those areas should be joined to other districts, which would help them out in the matter of reductions. He hoped the Government would stand firm in this matter and not allow the areas they had selected to be whittled away and the effectiveness of the Bill to be in that way lessened.
§ SIR JOSEPH LEESE (Lancashire, Accrington)
said he could conceive why hon. Members in discussing this question put forward the views which suited their own constituents. He did not quarrel with them for that, but when they brought forward an Amendment to the Amendment on the Paper, which would destroy the possibility of doing a fair measure of justice to the larger boroughs, he thought that policy ought to be deprecated. He regarded the Amendment to the Amendment as absolutely antagonistic to the proposal of his hon. friend the Member for Lancaster. In effect the 10,000 population boroughs said to the larger boroughs: "You shall not have autonomy unless we get it too." The result of giving effect to that view would be that the large boroughs, in which he was specially interested, and those large places which were within 3,000 or 4,000 of being county boroughs, would be kept out of their legitimate rights. He thought the Committee did not know the amount of jealousy that existed between the large non-county boroughs and the county councils. The non-county boroughs found themselves being deprived of their local autonomy step by step. They con- 1516 ceived that they could manage their own affairs as well as the county councils could manage for them. They were indignant at being superseded as educational authorities in their own boroughs, and now they were not to be permitted to control the drink trade in their local districts. He would heartily support the proposal of the hon. Member for Lancaster.
§ MR. SHACKLETON (Lancashire, Clitheroe)
said he happened to be in intimate touch with three boroughs which would be closely affected by the Amendment, if parried. He was a member of the Bench of the borough of Accrington, and he knew the feeling there against the proposals in this Bill. The other boroughs of which he spoke were Darwen and Clitheroe. The whole of these boroughs had sent to him officially, through the town councils and the borough Benches, petitions and resolutions protesting against this proposal. Surely that was the only way, apart from a general election, they hay of obtaining the opinion of the people directly concerned. Here they had opinion directly stated against the action of the Government in this matter. He agreed with the hon Member for Sowerby that to deprive local authorities of the powers which they previously had would do serious injury to the good government of our municipalities. The noble Lord the Member for Birmingham came and told them that this was an unwise proposal. He had better go to the Birmingham Borough Bench and ask them to give up their rights. It was most unfair for hon. Members representing places which had this power to try to prevent others from getting it. He hoped the Government would gracefully consent to the Amendment.
§ MR. COGHILL (Stoke-upon-Trent)
supported the Amendment. He was perfectly certain that (he Solicitor-General fully recognised the difficulties underlying this question. He thought the non-county boroughs had a grievance in this respect. He represented three large towns in the Potteries, and the question was peculiarly complicated in relation to them. One town happened to be a county borough, having a population of over 50,000. Naturally the 1517 others were jealous of that town. He sympathised with Gentlemen representing the smaller boroughs, but to suggest that boroughs of 10,000 population should be included was going too far in the other direction, unless large boroughs of over 25,000 population were placed in the same position as county boroughs. If these were county boroughs the question would be perfectly simple, but as they were not, it was extremely hard that boroughs with a population of 30,000 or 40,000 should be placed in a distinctly inferior position to that of towns immediately adjoining whose population was just over 50,000. He hoped the Solicitor-General would see his way to going a little further than he had done towards meeting the very strong views which were held on both sides of the House.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEY (Yorkshire, W.R., Pudsey)
said he had always objected to this grading of boroughs according to population, for, after all, that was a fluctuating standard. They all remembered that when the Local Government Act was passed two classes of boroughs were established—county boroughs with a population of 50,000, and non-county boroughs with a population of less than 50,000. Great soreness was created in the smaller boroughs on account of this distinction, because they were deprived of some of their privileges and placed under the rule of the county councils. The Government were proposing to do exactly the same injustice to the smaller boroughs under this Bill as under the Local Government Act. Now it was proposed to have boroughs under 25,000 population, boroughs between 25,000 and 50,000 population, and county boroughs a class by themselves. It would be better to deal with all the boroughs in the same fashion and give them similar privileges. By the Bill they were going to make confusion worse confounded in local government if this Amendment was not accepted by the Solicitor-General.
§ MR. HENDERSON (Durham, Barnard Castle)
said he wanted to join the hon. Member who had just spoken in support of the Amendment. He could not speak as the representative of a non-county borough; but he had the 1518 honour in the present year to be the chief magistrate of a non-county borough with a population of some 45,000. He presided at the annual licensing meeting, when it was unanimously decided to take no action during the present year, having regard to prospective legislation. The other day he called a meeting of the magistrates in order that they might consider the Bill that was proposing this prospective legislation, and, with one exception, they voted in support of a resolution protesting against the destruction of their powers by this Bill, and, therefore, in their name he made an appeal to the Solicitor-General that he would consider the claim of a borough of the size and importance of Darlington, with which he was connected. There was another point which ought to be very carefully kept in mind during the present discussion. The basis of this Bill had been very clearly stated to be the action of the magistrates throughout the country in taking away licences on the ground of non-requirement. Hon. Members would remember that he asked the Home Secretary to give him a Return on this particular matter, and that Return clearly demonstrated that the non-county borough Benches had committed no evil, if any evil had been committed by any Benches. If they had done the least mischief the Government ought to have some regard for the very mild way in which they had exercised their powers in the past, and should not seek by this Bill to take away those powers that they had so mildly put into operation. He appealed to the Solicitor-General whether he could not see his way to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Lancaster and allow non-county boroughs of a population of over 25,000 to retain the powers which they had hitherto enjoyed.
§ SIR EDWARD CARSON
said he was most anxious, if he could, to go further than he had already done. But the Government had gone into this question most minutely, and they had deliberately come to the conclusion that this Amendment would spoil the working of the compensation fund. It was, therefore, impossible that he could hold out any hope of going further than he had already done. He had himself gone personally into the figures of all the non-county 1519 boroughs—certainly most of those which had more than 25,000 of population, and had a separate commission of the peace—and the conclusion to which he had come was that in some cases there would not be sufficient contributions to the compensation fund to enable the magistrates practically and effectively to deal with the suppression of unnecessary licensed houses. On the other hand, in several boroughs there would be this state of facts—particularly in comparatively new districts where there was a large population—that there would be a very good class of public-house, and practically there would be very little necessity for taking away superabundant houses at all; but, at the same time, there would be a very considerable annual value of contributions to the compensation fund lost to the county, which wanted it badly in connection with some of the small non-county boroughs whose contributions would be very small. It was solely on these grounds that the Government had drawn the line they had done. But they thought they ought to do something for the larger non-county boroughs, and he had undertaken to consider, as far as possible, to have a representation of the non-county boroughs upon quarter sessions; and that he would attempt to carry out to the best of his ability. It had been said over and over again that they were taking away some right from the non-county boroughs. He knew that they were taking it away to this extent, that they would have only the same power to suggest the houses that ought to be suppressed as they now had.
MR. WHITTAKER (Yorkshire, W.R., Spen Valley)
They do not suggest now. They have the power.
§ SIR EDWARD CARSON
said that the hon. Member knew perfectly well the distinction. At the present moment they had not the absolute right of taking away a licence, because there was an appeal to quarter sessions which was exercised in every case.
§ SIR EDWARD CARSON
said that if the hon. Member would look into the figures he would see that in almost every 1520 case, if a licence was taken away for the reason of redundancy, and redundancy alone, there was an appeal to the quarter sessions. Under the Bill the local justices would simply report the house to quarter sessions. But if in any wise the compensation fund was made less adequate than under the Bill, then they would be really interfering more with the power to reduce licensed houses. Therefore, the Government could not accept the Amendment.
§ MR. HELME
asked if he might venture just finally to suggest to the Government that in the list of the boroughs presented to them a comparison was made of the amount the compensation paid would amount to calculated for areas in the smaller counties and the smaller county boroughs and those asked for were sufficiently large. Hence there was no question of principle, as opposed to the Bill, in pressing this Amendment on the Committee. He asked the Government to look at the question as related to such boroughs in Lancashire as were on the edge of becoming county boroughs—such as Blackpool and Southport. These boroughs had very large areas, and at the present moment they were applying to be constitituted county boroughs. In fact, they would be county boroughs before this Bill came into operation. Contrast Canterbury, with a population of 15,000 which was a county borough, with Lancaster, the county town, with a population of between 40,000 and 50,000 and with old historic associations for hundreds of years. Why should Lancaster be placed in a position of inferiority to Canterbury? Where was the justice in that, and where was the principle? This was not a Party question. It was undeniable that in the request they had made they were guided by the fact that they knew that the Government had the power to carry the Bill through the House, and they only asked the Government to consider the equities of the case. The fact was they restricted their request to those boroughs which were large enough to provide the compensation. In the interest of the future working of this measure, he would point out that it would be far better if the Home Secretary and Solicitor-General 1521 would, before the Report stage, look into this question and bring up a clause which would work better than the one proposed. It might be possible to provide that in some very small boroughs there should be an appeal to quarter sessions. He trusted that in these cir-
§ cumstances the hon. Member for Elland would withdraw his Amendment.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 281; Noes, 130. (Division List No. 227.)1525
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile||Higham, John Sharpe|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Dalkeith, Earl of||Hoare, Sir Samuel|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Hobhouse, Rt. Hn H. (Somers't, E|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||Hogg, Lindsay|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside|
|Arrol, Sir William||Dickson, Charles Scott||Horner, Frederick William|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Soseph C.||Hoult, Joseph|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Houston, Robert Paterson|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers||Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil|
|Austin, Sir John||Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||Hudson, George Bickersteth|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Hunt, Rowland|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart||Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Emmott, Alfred||Kerr, John|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W).||Kimber, Henry|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r||Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward||King, Sir Henry Seymour|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)||Kitson, Sir James|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds||Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r||Knowles, Sir Lees|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N. R.|
|Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)||Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas||Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)|
|Bartley, Sir George C. T.||Fisher, William Hayes||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Fison, Frederick William||Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks||FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon||Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine|
|Bigwood, James||Flower, Sir Ernest||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)|
|Bill, Charles||Forster, Henry William||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.|
|Bingham, Lord||Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.)||Lonsdale, John Brownlee|
|Blake, Edward||Galloway, William Johnson||Lowe, Francis William|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Gardner, Ernest||Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)|
|Bond, Edward||Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Brigg, John||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-||Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred|
|Butcher, John George||Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Macdona, John Cumming|
|Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.|
|Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.||Graham, Henry Robert||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Greene, Sir E. W( B'ryS Edm'nds||M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W.|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire||Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)|
|Cawley, Frederick||Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Grenfell, William Henry||Majendie, James A. H.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Gretton, John||Manners, Lord Cecil|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Groves, James Grimble||Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc.||Gunter, Sir Robert||Markham, Arthur Basil|
|Chapman, Edward||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.|
|Charrington, Spencer||Hall, Edward Marshall||Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H. E. (Wigt'n|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.)|
|Give, Captain Percy A.||Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)||Melville, Beresford Valentine|
|Coates, Edward Feetham||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.|
|Coddington, Sir William||Haslett, Sir James Horner||Milvain, Thomas|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.||Molesworth, Sir Lewis|
|Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R.||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Heaton, John Henniker||Morrison, James Archibald|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Helder, Augustus||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer|
|Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.|
|Muntz, Sir Philip A.||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)||Tuff, Charles|
|Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Myers, William Henry||Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse||Valentia, Viscount|
|Nannetti, Joseph P.||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)||Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sheffield|
|Newdegate, Francis A. N.||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Nicholson, William Graham||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Walton, Jn. Lawson(Leeds, S.)|
|Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Shackleton, David James||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Sharpe, William Edward T.||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Shaw-Stewart, Sir H.(Renfrew)||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel||Welby,. Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton|
|Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley||Simeon, Sir Barrington||Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.|
|Percy, Earl||Smith, Abel H(Hertford, East)||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd|
|Pilkington, Colonel Richard||Smith, Tames Parker(Lanarks.)||Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne|
|Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Plummer, Sir Walter R.||Soames, Arthur Wellesley||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Pretyman, Ernest George||Spear, John Ward||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.|
|Randles, John S.||Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne||Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh., N.|
|Reid, James (Greenock)||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord(Lanes.)||Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks.)|
|Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart||Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf' d|
|Remnant, James Farquharson||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine||Stock, James Henry||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart|
|Renwick, George||Stone, Sir Benjamin||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Rickett, J. Compton||Stroyan, John||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.|
|Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Rolleston, Sir John F. L.||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)||Young, Samuel|
|Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert||Thorburn, Sir Walter||Younger, William|
|Round, Rt. Hon. James||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Royds, Clement Molyneux||Tollemache, Henry James||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Runciman, Walter||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.||Pym and Mr. George White.|
|Rutherford, John (Lancashire)||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.||Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Levy, Maurice|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Evans, Sir Fran. H. (Maidstone)||Lloyd-George, David|
|Allen, Charles P.||Farquharson, Dr. Robert||Lough, Thomas|
|Ambrose, Robert||Fenwick, Charles||Lundon, W.|
|Asher, Alexander||Flynn, James Christopher||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Fuller, J. M. F.||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Furness, Sir Christopher||M'Crae, George|
|Benn, John Williams||Garfit, William||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)|
|Black, Alexander William||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Boland, John||Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick)||Moss, Samuel|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Griffith, Ellis J.||Murphy, John|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Haldane, Rt. Bon. Richard B.||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)|
|Burt, Thomas||Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale||Newnes, Sir George|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Harwood, George||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Caldwell, James||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Nussey, Thomas Willans|
|Cameron, Robert||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Holland, Sir William Henry||O'Shee, James John|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Horniman, Frederick John||Partington, Oswald|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Perks, Robert William|
|Cremer, William Randal||Jacoby, James Alfred||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Crombie, John William||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Cullinan, J.||Joicey, Sir James||Price, Robert John|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Reddy, M.|
|Delany, William||Joyce, Michael||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Dobbie, Joseph||Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Doogan, P. C.||Langley, Batty||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)||Rose, Charles Day|
|Edwards, Frank||Lay land-Barratt, Francis||Russell, T. W.|
|Elibank, Master of||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Ellice, Capt E. C. (S Andrw's Bghs||Leng, Sir John||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Shipman, Dr. John G.||Toulmin, George||Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)|
|Slack, John Bamford||Wallace, Robert||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Smith, Samuel (Flint)||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Soares, Ernest J.||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Stanhope, Hon. Philip James||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Sullivan, Donal||White, Luke (York, E. R.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)||Whitley, George (York, W. R.)||Trevelyan and Sir Edward|
|Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)||Strachey.|
|Tomkinson, James||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
§ Question put "That those words be there inserted."1526
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 171; Noes, 246. (Division List No. 228.)1529
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Moss, Samuel|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Flynn, James Christopher||Murphy, John|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Newnes, Sir George|
|Allen, Charles P.||Fuller, J. M. F.||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Ambrose, Robert||Furness, Sir Christopher||Nussey, Thomas Willans|
|Asher, Alexander||Garfit, William||O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||O'Malley, William|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Goddard, Daniel Ford||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)||Partington, Oswald|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Griffith, Ellis J.||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Perks, Robert William|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Hall, Edward Marshall||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Benn, John Williams||Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Black, Alexander William||Harwood, George||Price, Robert John|
|Boland, John||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.|
|Brigg, John||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Reddy, M.|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Higham, John Sharpe||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Burns, John||Holland, Sir William Henry||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Burt, Thomas||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Horniman, Frederick John||Rose, Charles Day|
|Caldwell, James||Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.||Runciman, Walter|
|Cameron, Robert||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Jacoby, James Alfred||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Shackleton, David James|
|Cawley, Frederick||Joicey, Sir James||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Charming, Francis Allston||Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Jones, William(Carnarvonshire||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Joyce, Michael||Slack, John Bamford|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Kearley, Hudson E.||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W.||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)||Kitson, Sir James||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Cremer, William Randal||Langley, Batty||Stanhope, Hon. Philip James|
|Crombie, John William||Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)||Sullivan, Donal|
|Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Delany, William||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)||Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)|
|Dobbie, Joseph||Leng, Sir John||Tomkinson, James|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Levy, Maurice||Toulmin, George|
|Doogan, P. C.||Lewis, John Herbert||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||Lloyd-George, David||Wallace, Robert|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Lough, Thomas||Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.)|
|Dunn, Sir William||Lundon, W.||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Edwards, Frank||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Elibank, Master of||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Ellice, Capt E. C. (S Andrw's Bghs||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Emmott, Alfred||M'Crae, George||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maids tone||M'Kenna, Reginald||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)|
|Farquharson, Dr. Robert||Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe||Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne|
|Fenwick, Charles||Markham, Arthur Basil||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)||Wilson, John (Falkirk)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)||Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd||Helme and Mr. Pym.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas||Macdona, John Cumming|
|Arrol, Sir William||Fison, Frederick William||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose||M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)|
|Austin, Sir John||Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Majendie, James A. H.|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Flower, Sir Ernest||Manners, Lord Cecil|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Forster, Henry William||Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.)||Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H. E. (Wigt'n|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Galloway, William Johnson||Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Gardner, Ernest||Melville, Beresford Valentine|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manch'r||Gore, Hon. S.F. Ormsby||Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Milvain, Thomas|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon Gerald W. (Leeds||Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Molesworth, Sir Lewis|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)|
|Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)||Graham, Henry Robert||Morgan David J. (Walthamstow)|
|Bartley, Sir George C. T.||Greene, Sir E. W. (B'rySEdm'nds||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks||Grenfell, William Henry||Morrison, James Archibald|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Gretton, John||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer|
|Bigwood, James||Groves, James Grimble||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.|
|Bill, Charles||Gunter, Sir Robert||Muntz, Sir Philip A.|
|Bingham, Lord||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Murray, Rt. Hon A. Graham (Bute|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)|
|Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Myers, William Henry|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Haslett, Sir James Horner||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Butcher, John George||Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.||Newdegate, Francis A. N.|
|Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.||Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire||Heaton, John Henniker||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Helder, Augustus||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Hoare, Sir Samuel||Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc.||Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somers't, E||Percy, Earl|
|Chapman, Edward||Hogg, Lindsay||Pilkington, Colonel Richard|
|Charrington, Spencer||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Piatt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Horner, Frederick William||Plummer, Sir Walter R.|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Hoult, Joseph||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Coates, Edward Feetham||Houston, Robert Paterson||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)||Randles, John S.|
|Coddington, Sir William||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne|
|Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Hunt, Rowland||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.||Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||Kerr, John||Renwick, George|
|Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)||Kimber, Henry||Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge|
|Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Knowles, Sir Lees||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Davenport, William Bromley||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||Lawson, John Grant Yorks., N. R||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford|
|Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.||Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.)||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Lowe, Francis William||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Faber, Edmund B. (Hants., W.||Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)||Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Sinclair, Louis (Romford)||Thornton, Percy M.||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.|
|Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)||Tollemache, Henry Tames||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.||Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh., N.)|
|Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)||Tritton, Charles Ernest||Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H. (Yorks.)|
|Spear, John Ward||Tuff, Charles||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart|
|Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset||Valentia, Viscount||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)||Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H(Sheffield||Wyndham, Rt Hon. George|
|Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart||Walker, Col. William Hall||Yerburgh, R. bert Armstrong|
|Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.||Wanklyn, James Leslie||Young, Samuel|
|Stock, James Henry||Warde, Colonel C. E.||Younger, William|
|Stone, Sir Benjamin||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Stroyan, John||Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E( Taunton)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir|
|Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Welby, Sir Charles G. E.(Notts.||Alexander Acland-Hood and|
|Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'd Univ.||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd||Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.|
|Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Thorburn, Sir Walter||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
§ MR. SLACK (Hertfordshire, St. Albans)
moved to insert a provision enabling any person entitled to be heard by the committee of quarter sessions to appear and be heard by counsel or solicitor. He submitted that such a provision was necessary in view of the complicated terms of the present measure and the difficulties of interpreting the licensing law of this country. Solicitors as well as counsel were included in the Amendment not only in order to minimise the expense, but also because solicitors had no right of audience at quarter sessions, and might therefore be held to have no right of audience before a committee of quarter sessions. Solicitors were now heard at brewster sessions and many of the powers of brewster sessions now in reality or in effect passed to the committees referred to in this section. It was essential that those members of the local public who desired to be heard in opposition to, or in support of, a licence-application as well as an aggrieved licence-holder should unmistakably have the right to legal assistance and the services of a trained advocate before these committees.
In page 3, line 32, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'and any person entitled to be heard by such committee may appear and be heard by counsel or solicitor on his behalf.'"—(Mr. Slack).
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR ALBERT ROLLIT
said he hoped the Government would see their way to accept this proposal. The Amendment was not designed to give solicitors a 1530 right of audience at quarter sessions, that matter rested entirely with quarter sessions themselves, and in certain cases the right was given. The right of audience was almost universally given to solicitors before the present licensing committees, but as that committee was to be abolished and its place taken by a delegated committee of quarter sessions a question might arise as to whether solicitors would have right of audience before it. It was desirable that the question should be determined not only in the professional interest but also in the interest of the public, because many cases which would come before the new committee would not bear the expense of appearance by counsel, and in such cases unless the parties were able to do justice to themselves they would really have no representation at all.
§ MR. H. D. GREENE (Shrewsbury)
hoped the Amendment would not be accepted. For centuries past it had been the duty of quarter sessions to regulate the right of audience, and they had established the practice all over the country that where a sufficient representation of barristers could not be found they would hear solicitors. But it ought to be left to the quarter sessions to decide to whom they would give audience. There was no jealousy on the part of the Bar in the matter. The Bar was not so numerous a body as the solicitors; it was more under effective control; barristers had adopted certain sessions throughout the country, and it was easier for quarter sessions to recognise those who were continually appearing before them than solicitors who might come from all parts of the country, and 1531 who as strangers might not altogether command the confidence of the Court. The matter was an important one as it involved the giving to solicitors of a statutory right to appear. No such right was given in regard to the standing committees created in 1872, and he failed to see why such a right should be conferred by statute in connection with the new committee to be set up by this Bill. No public interest would be served by the Amendment, and he hoped it would be rejected.
§ MR. J. A. PEASE (Essex, Saffron Walden)
said that inasmuch as solicitors were allowed to appear at the ordinary brewster sessions he could not understand why persons interested should not be permitted to be represented by solicitors before the committee of quarter sessions.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)
was altogether opposed to the giving of any new statutory rights to solicitors. The last statutory right given to that profession involved an expenditure of £2,000 per annum from the public funds to enable solicitors to strike one another off the Rolls, but the duty had not been adequately performed, there being many solicitors who ought to have been so dealt with, but had not been. If a statutory right was to be given it should be reserved to barristers, though, personally, he would rather have neither barristers nor solicitors. In cases of the sort to be dealt with under this clause, an ordinary citizen could adequately represent his case before a body of intelligent country justices. He did not agree that the ordinary layman would be unable to do justice to his case. He would readily back an ordinary intelligent publican against an ordinary intelligent solicitor in such a matter. But the Court of quarter sessions would have power to hear either counsel or Solicitors, and the choice ought to be left to the Court.
§ SIR HENRY FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)
reminded the Committee that barristers could not be briefed except through solicitors. The heavy cost of litigation in this country was caused by the necessity imposed upon suitors of 1532 having two legal advisers belonging to the different branches of the profession.
§ SIR HENRY FOWLER
said if the hon. Member would propose it perhaps there would be no objection raised by the other branch of the profession.
§ SIR HENRY FOWLER
said that what were practically the duties of brewster sessions were to be transferred to a new body and all that was asked for by the mover of this Amendment, who represented the Law Society, was that solicitors should have the same right of audience before the standing committee as they had before the other body.
§ SIR EDWARD CARSON
said this Amendment raised questions of importance not connected with this Bill at all, and the Licensing Bill was hardly the measure upon which they could settle them. This Bill did not alter the position of barristers or solicitors in their relation to quarter sessions, and proposed to leave it exactly as it was before. The hon. and learned Member for Islington said that solicitors had already the right to appear before brewster sessions and the licensing committee. That right was not going to be affected by this Bill. As regarded the licensing committee of quarter sessions, it had always rested with quarter sessions as to whether they would hear either barristers or solicitors or whether they would allow a solicitor to appear without a barrister. They were not going to interfere with that arrangement and were leaving that power with the quarter sessions, and it would remain exactly the same after this Bill had passed as it was before. To make a change, giving audience where the quarter sessions had before had the right to refuse audience, raised a question which he did not think ought to be settled in this way, because it raised much larger questions of principle.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said this question did not matter to the solicitor at 1533 all, and it was not a question of wrangling between him and the barrister as to who should get the fees. The solicitor made a much better thing out of it when he instructed counsel than when he appeared himself. All they did by compelling them to select a barrister was to double the cost to the public. The Solicitor-General was a living example of what solicitors suffered from and the Attorney-General was another. The result of this system was that the barrister got all the fees and the solicitors got nothing but the work. This was not fair trade and he wanted a little reform in this respect. This was the only country in the world where they had a system of this sort. They certainly ought to abolish either the solicitor or the barrister. There were one or two other professions he should like to see abolished, and they might include the parsons, but that was rather wide of the subject. He wished to allow the client to choose for himself. In most districts the solicitors had a much wider experience in advocacy than barristers on this question, and why should they be prevented from presenting the same case before quarter sessions? It would save expense, and in many cases it would be more efficiently done. This would not be in the interests of solicitors because they would get smaller fees, but it would be in the interests of the public.
§ MR. THEODORE TAYLOR
said he did not advocate this proposal so much in the interests of solicitors as of the public. It would be presumptuous of him as a mere layman to express any opinion as between the respective branches of the legal profession, but he wished to retain the right of a client to have a solicitor to do the work he had done so long before the local bench. The Solicitor-General had stated that this Amendment was opening up by a side issue a great question, and he said he objected to take up such a large subject upon so small a point. The fact of the matter was they only wanted that the same business should be
§ allowed to go into the hands of solicitors as had been given to them before. It was the Government who were making a little change in the procedure in this particular business, and they simply wished a client to continue to be able to have a solicitor instead of a barrister if he wished it. They did not wish generally to infringe the great professional principle which was at stake, and as a layman he was not going to express any opinion as to whether a solicitor or a barrister would be the better to employ. This Amendment was in the interests of the public, and he claimed for the public the same option, which they had had hitherto, to engage for this particular business those whom they had engaged before. Surely they could do this without raising the great issue which had been referred to by the Solicitor-General.
§ MR. SLACK
said he had not raised this question in the interests of the legal profession but solely in the interests of the general public. It seemed to him that the licensing law was in about as complicated a tangle as any branch of the law, and he thought that anyone interested in objecting to or in the renewal or refusal of a licence ought to have the opportunity of employing someone conversant with the law to appear on his or their behalf before the committee of quarter sessions. The section as framed did not give a right of audience to any person whatever, and the committee of quarter sessions might possibly hold that they had no power to hear anyone unless some such words as he had proposed were placed after the word "Act." Furthermore, an aggrieved licence-holder or a body of persons anxious to object to the renewal of a licence ought to have the right to retain the services of an advocate without being, in all cases, put to the additional expense which the retaining of a barrister as well as a solicitor would involve.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 161; Noes, 258. (Division List No. 229.)1537
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Ambrose, Robert||Atherley-Jones, L.|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Asher, Alexander||Barlow, John Emmott|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Ashton, Thomas Gair||Barran, Rowland Hirst|
|Allen, Charles P.||Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire|
|Beaumont, Wentwortk C. B.||Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Bell, Richard||Harwood, George||Perks, Robert William|
|Benn, John Williams||Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Black, Alexander William||Helme, Norval Watson||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Boland, John||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Price, Robert John|
|Brigg, John||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Rea, Russell|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.||Reddy, M.|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Holland, Sir William Henry||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Burns, John||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Burt, Thomas||Horniman, Frederick John||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Caldwell, James||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Rose, Charles Day|
|Cameron, Robert||Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.||Runciman, Walter|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Russell, T. W.|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Jacoby, James Alfred||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Cawley, Frederick||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Channina, Francis Allston||Joicey, Sir James||Shackleton, David James|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)||Joyce, Michael||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Cremer, William Randal||Kearley, Hudson E.||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Crombie, John William||Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Kitson, Sir James||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan||Langley, Batty||Spear, John Ward|
|Delany, William||Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.||Stanhope, Hon. Philip James|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)||Sullivan, Donal|
|Dobbie, Joseph||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||Leese, Sir Joseph F.( Accrington||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Leng, Sir John||Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr|
|Dunn, Sir William||Levy, Maurice||Tomkinson, James|
|Edwards, Frank||Lewis, Herbert||Toulmin, George|
|Elibank, Master of||Lloyd-George, David||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Ellice, Capt EC(S. Andrw's Bghs||Lough, Thomas||Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.)|
|Emmott, Alfred||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Walton, Joseph (Bansley)|
|Evans, Sir Francis H.(Maidstone||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Eve, Harry Trelawney||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney|
|Farquharson, Dr. Robert||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Fenwick, Charles||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)||M'Crae, George||Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||M'Kenna, Reginald||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Markham, Arthur Basil||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Moss, Samuel||Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)|
|Fuller, J.M.F.||Moulton, John Fletcher||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Furness, Sir Christopher||Murhpy, John||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Newnes, Sir George||Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh, N.)|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Woodhouse, Sir J T(Huddersf'd|
|Grant, Corrie||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E.(Berwick)||O'Down, John|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||O'Malley, William||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Parrott, William||Slack and Sir Albert Rollit.|
|Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Partington, Oswald|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden||Bartley, Sir George C. T.||Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Cayzer, Sir Charles William|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)|
|Arrol, Sir William||Bignold, Sir Arthur||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Bigwood, James||Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A.(Worc.|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Bill, Charles||Chapman, Edward|
|Austin, Sir John||Bingham, Lord||Charrington, Spencer|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Blundell, Colonel Henry||Churchill, Winston Spencer|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Bond, Edward||Clare, Octavious Leigh|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Bousfield, William Robert||Clive, Captain Percy A.|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn||Coates, Edward Feetham|
|Balcarres, Lord||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Brotherton, Edward Allen||Coddington, Sir William|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r||Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)||Coghill, Douglas Harry|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Bull, William James||Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds||Butcher, John George||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch||Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow||Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.||Cripps, Charles Alfred|
|Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)||Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh||Renwick, George|
|Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile||Kerr, John||Richards, Henry Charles|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Keswick, William||Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Kimber, Henry||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Davenport, William Bromley-||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-||Knowles, Sir Lees||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||Lawson, John Grant(Yorks N.R||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Leveson-Gower, Frederiek N. S||Samuel, Sir Harry S.(Limehouse|
|Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Faber, Edmund B. (Hants. W.)||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r||Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.||Shaw-Stewart, Sir H.(Renfrew)|
|Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Lowe, Francis William||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Fison, Frederick William||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Lutas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.|
|Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Flower, Sir Ernest||Macdona, John Cumming||Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)|
|Forster, Henry William||M'Iver, Sir Lewis( Edinburgh, W||Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset|
|Galloway, William Johnson||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.)|
|Gardner, Ernest||Majendie, James A. H.||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Garfit, William||Manners, Lord Cecil||Stock, James Henry|
|Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn||Massey-Main waring, Hn. W. F.||Stroyan, John|
|Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-||Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Maxwell, W. J.H.(Dumfriesshire||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'd Univ.|
|Goschen, Hon. George Jochim||Melville, Beresford Valentine||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Graham, Henry Robert||Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Milvain, Thomas||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Greene, Sir E. W.(B'rySEdm'ds||Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Tuff, Charles|
|Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.||Morgan, David J.(Walthamst'w||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|Grenfell, William Henry||Morpeth, Viscount||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Gretton, John||Morrell, George Herbert||Valentia, Viscount|
|Groves, James Grimble||Morrison, James Archibald||Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H.(Sheffield|
|Gunter, Sir Robert||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Guthrie, Walter Murray||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Wallace, Robert|
|Hall, Edward Marshall||Muntz, Sir Philip A.||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||Myers, William Henry||Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E.( Taunton|
|Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Newdegate, Francis A. N.||Welby, Sir Charles G. E.(Notts.)|
|Haslett, Sir James Horner||Nicholson, William Graham||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd|
|Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne|
|Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Heath, James (Staffords, N.||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Holder, Augustus||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)||Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Hoare, Sir Samuel||Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley||Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H.(Yorks.)|
|Hobhouse, Rt Hn H. (Somers't, E||Percy, Earl||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Hogg, Lindsay||Pilkington, Colonel Richard||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Horner, Frederick William||Plummer, Sir Walter R.||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Hoult, Joseph||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Houston, Robert Paterson||Pretyman, Ernest George||Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.|
|Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Young, Samuel|
|Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Pym, C. Guy||Younger, William|
|Hunt, Rowland||Randles, John S.|
|Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.||Reid, James (Greenock)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir|
|Jessel, Captain Merbert Merton||Remnant, James Farquharson||Alexander Acland-Hood and|
|Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.||Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine||Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes|
Question, "That Clause 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ MR. DISRAELI (Cheshire, Altrincham)
moved an Amendment to omit the words which would have the effect of abolishing 1538 the old licensing committee. He said he had no hostile intention in moving this Amendment. His object was to obtain 1539 from those responsible for the measure the reasons why the old county licensing committee had been abolished. That committee was an integral part of a public body, and it had rights and duties which worked into this Bill in a most satisfactory manner. He could not understand why the committee was to be done away with at the moment when another committee was to be appointed. He was conservative enough not to see an old body like the county licensing committee abolished without dropping a tear. He thought that it might have been utilised in working this Act instead of constituting an entirely new body.
In page 3, line 32, to leave out from the word 'and' to the end of Sab-section (2)."—(Mr. Disraeli.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ SIR EDWARD CARSON
said that the new committee would be the licensing committee of the quarter sessions, appointed by the same persons as the old committee was, but with certain restrictions as to the numbers.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
In page 3, line 33, at end, to add the words '(3) The justices of a licensing district being a county borough shall exercise their powers under the Licensing Acts, 1828 to 1902, as to the renewal of licences through the borough licensing committee appointed under Section 38 of The Licensing Act, 1872, but such number as the whole body of justices acting in and for the borough determine shall be substituted for seven as the maximum number of that committee.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE
said he wished to move an Amendment to the Home Secretary's Amendment providing that such "greater" number of the licensing borough committee should be substituted for seven as the maximum number of the committee. The Amend- 1540 ment of the Government, whilst enabling the justices to increase the number of the committee, would also enable them to diminish it, and to appoint a committee of five instead of seven. He was anxious to make it clear that the intention of the Government was to make the number in excess of seven.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
In line 4, after the word 'such' to insert the word 'greater.'"—(Sir James Woodhouse.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'greater' be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS
said that the justices would themselves decide what the number of the committee should be; but perhaps the hon. Member's idea was to make a minimum of seven, with power to increase the maximum. He would consider that point before Report.
§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE
said that on the understanding that the minimum would be seven, with power to increase the maximum, he would withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE
said that his next Amendment provided that the whole body of justices should be "qualified."
In line 4, after the second word 'of' to insert the word 'qualified.'"—(Sir James Woodhouse.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'qualified' be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
§ SIR EDWARD CARSON
said it had already been decided that men who were not qualified could not vote for the appointment of a committee. The Amendment of the Home Secretary had to be read in connection with previous Licensing Acts, and by inserting the word here it would throw doubts on the provisions of the other Acts where the same provision did not exist.
§ SIR ROBERT REID
said he could not help thinking that this was a very important committee, and that it would be more prudent to make provision in the Act, so as to prevent any doubt or misgiving, that those who were on the committee were subject to some disqualification.
§ SIR EDWARD CARSON
said he really did not think any difficulty would arise in ascertaining what was disqualification.
§ MR. WHITTAKER
said he was glad to hear that disqualification did apply, and he hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be prepared to put words in to make it clear that the disqualification applied to the whole Bill.
§ MR. WHITLEY
said he would make a special appeal to the Solicitor-General that the disqualification should be re-enacted in this Bill. He had had considerable experience of licensing committees, and he knew that it was exceedingly inconvenient to refer to several statutes in order to arrive at a point. It should be remembered that justices who were not qualified did take part in proceedings "at their own risk," and it was invidious for a private individual to challenge the vote of such justices. The real position could be understood better if some provision as to disqualification were put into this Bill, so as to prevent a continued reference to previous Acts.
§ SIR EDWARD CARSON
said he must point out that this Act must be construed as one of the Licensing Acts from 1828 to 1902. It might be said why re-enact one section and not another. However, he would be willing to insert words to make the point clear.
§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE
said that as the reply of the Solicitor-General was sympathetic, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.1542
MR. HERBERT ROBERTS (Denbighshire, W.)
said that as regarded the first part of his Amendment there was now no necessity to move it because of the assurance of the Solicitor-General. A new situation would be created by the Act, and justices would have a different type of cases to decide. Financial considerations would enter into questions, as they had not entered before, in connection with the payment of compensation, and it was essential that the actions of justices should be above suspicion. On that broad ground he would move his Amendment.
In page 3, line 33, at end, to add the words, 'No justice disqualified under the Licensing Acts, and no owner, lessee, or occupier of any licensed premises within any county, and no agent of such person acting, or who during the two years preceding shall have acted for him in any wise in connection with such licensed premises shall be qualified to act as a justice within such county for any of the purposes of this Act.'"—(Mr. Herbert Roberts.)
§ Question proposed. "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR EDWARD CARSON
said that the Government could not possibly accept the Amendment. It would include in disqualification holders of shares in brewery companies, which was going a long way to find a personal interest. It would also debar any person who in anywise had acted as agent for and owner within two years, and that was going an enormous length. Surely the present law was stringent enough. The hon. Member suggested that a licence-holder in "any county" should be disqualified.
§ SIR EDWARD CARSON
said that even with that limitation he thought the present law was stringent enough.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. CRIPPS (Lancashire, Stretford)
said at present, when there was an appeal to quarter sessions, the licensing magistrates, who dealt with the matter in the first instance, did not take part in a decision when the matter was under appeal. That was in accordance with a 1543 general principle of law, and should be followed in the altered procedure under the Bill to ensure an impartial tribunal. He used the words "decision of the committee," because in the view of those cognisant with quarter sessions procedure the presence of the justices might be useful to assist the tribunal.
In page 3, line 33, at end, to add the words—(3) No justice who has taken part in any decision of quarter sessions shall, if on the committee, take part in any decision of the committee when the grant or renewal of such licence is under consideration.'"—(Mr. Cripps.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR EDWARD CARSON
said from a practical point of view it would be impossible to accept this Amendment. Reports would be received from all the licensing districts in the county, and, as, each part of the county would have to be considered in relation to the whole, the Amendment would mean that every man would have to be taken off when the report had to be decided upon.
§ MR. CRIPPS
said after what his right hon. and learned friend had said he would not press the Amendment. He would merely like to say that what the Solicitor-General suggested would not arise. The law as it now existed did not allow a magistrate to sit in appeal on a case, which he had already decided, when it came to quarter sessions. He hoped that practice would be followed in the future as it had been in the past in order to ensure the maximum of impartiality.
§ MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH (Anglesey)
said he did not know whether the Solicitor-General would see his way to accept the Amendment he now proposed to move on behalf of his hon. friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs to put in the words "or a non-county borough having a separate commission of the peace." But a moment's considation would show that a non-county borough having a separate commission of the peace ought to be represented at quarter sessions in some way or other. It was quite clear that this Amendment was 1544 directed to a defect in the Bill and offered a remedy for it if such a remedy was possible.
In page 3, line 29, after the words last inserted, to insert the words 'or a non-county borough having a separate commission of the peace."—(Mr. Ellis Griffith.)
§ SIR EDWARD CARSON
said that when the question was first raised he had promised to put down an Amendment for the Report stage of the Bill. That promise he adhered to, but he could not say what the nature of his Amendment would be until he looked into the matter.
§ SIR EDWARD GREY
admitted that the Solicitor-General had met them very fairly. He had promised to consider the matter between this and the Report stage, but he stated that he reserved his opinion now because of the difficulties of detail. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must not be surprised, however, if the Committee were a little disappointed in this matter, because it was quite possible that on the Report stage they might not have an opportunity of considering how far the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment fell short of their hopes. In view of the conditions under which the Report stage would be conducted it was necessary that hon. Members should express their views on the present occasion, in order that the Solicitor-General, who was anxious to meet them as far as possible, might be perfectly informed as to what the desires of the Committee were.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said he was particularly anxious that all these boroughs should be represented. There were so few of them that it would not be a serious matter to give each a representative. The Solicitor-General had agreed to insert words giving a statutory right of representation; would he not go a step further and say that such a right would be given to each of these boroughs?
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.1545
§ Clause 6:—
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE,
in moving to make the power of the Secretary of State to make rules "subject to the consent of Parliament," said that on the present occasion it was impossible to do more than discuss the general character of the regulations. The practice of devolving upon Government Departments important branches of legislation had made considerable progress under the present Government, and it was time the matter was seriously considered. The practice was, no doubt, largely due to Parliamentary exigencies. Governments had come to the conclusion that it was impossible to carry measures if Parliament was to be allowed to discuss, even within moderate limits, the proposals put forward; hence resort was had to all kinds of devices to withdraw from the cognisance of Parliament large portions of legislative proposals. The functions which under this clause were to be devolved upon the Home Secretary were such that Parliament fifteen years ago would not have dreamt of delegating to a Government Department. They practically comprised a Bill in themselves, and he desired to enter a general protest against this extension of the doctrine of legislation by Departments. Possibly it would be better that a Committee of the House should be appointed to draw up the regulations in conjunction with the Department; at any rate the House ought to retain some control over purely legislative matters of this character. He understood that the rules were not even to be laid upon the Table of the House. That was an entirely new departure. The requirement did not afford a very great safeguard, because an opportunity was very seldom given for the discussion of rules so laid, but the mere knowledge that Parliament had the power and might if necessary insist upon exercising it, was, at any rate, some safeguard against this kind of legislation. Parliament had tried devolution upon Grand and Select Committees, it was now trying devolution upon Government Departments, which was the worst of all possible 1546 kinds of devolution. The time had come when the House of Commons ought seriously to consider whether a stop should not be put to this encroachment upon its rights. The guillotine was bad enough, but this proposal was worse, and he submitted that some provision ought to be inserted reserving to the House of Commons the right to express its judgment upon the rules made under the clause. He begged to move.
In page 3, line 34, after the word 'may,' to insert the words 'subject to the consent of Parliament.'"—(Mr. Lloyd George.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. ASQUITH (Fifeshire, E.)
said that this clause was a good specimen of a species of draftsmanship which was becoming increasingly common, the object of which was to exclude from the consideration of the House matters which in old days were always recorded in the body of the Act itself or in the schedules. In the Municipal Corporations Act, for example, they would find the very same class of matters dealt with in the schedules, the details of which were subject to the criticism and received the approval of the House; and it was in order that the time of Parliament, or, what was more important, he supposed, that the time of the Government might be saved that this particular method of draftsmanship was employed. But it had never been carried quite to the same extent to which it had been carried in this clause. He was not going to discuss in detail the different sub-heads, but he wished to allude to the first sub-head, which provided that—A Secretary of State may make rules for carrying into effect this Act, and may by those rules, amongst other things—(a) provide for the provisional renewal of licences which are included in reports of the justices of a licensing district under this Act, and for consultation with those justices as to their reports, and the time and manner of the consideration of those reports, and of the payment of compensation.That was a pretty large jurisdiction for a Minister of the Crown. The other sub-heads were—(b) provide for the enforcement of any security given for money borrowed, and for the time within which money borrowed is to be replaced; and (c) regulate the management and application of the compensation fund and the 1547 audit of the accounts of quarter sessions; and (d) provide for the mode of appointment, number, quorum, and procedure of committees, and for the employment of officers for the purposes of this Act; and (e) regulate the procedure for obtaining the consent of quarter sessions to the grant of a new on-licence, and for the hearing under this Act of persons interested in licensed premises; and (f) provide for the authentication of any documents on behalf of quarter sessions or their committees.The whole of this new machinery would be subjected to the control of the Home Secretary, and Parliament was to have no control at all in the matter. He quite agreed that in Home Office administration it was necessary to give the Minister the power of framing special rules and regulations, but they had always required such special rules and regulations to be laid on the Table in order that they might receive the approval or disapproval of the House. There was no such provision in this clause and he would like to ask the Solicitor-General on what occasion and under what conditions the House of Commons would have the opportunity of bringing the Minister to book. If the House was not to have an opportunity by the laying of the rules and regulations on the Table he could not see any other way by which any rules and regulations which might be made could be brought under the control of the House. It was quite conceivable that some day or other they might have a Liberal Secretary of State in power, and he would have the framing of these regulations, and very drastic he might make them. Therefore, he was not making this appeal in any sense from the point of view of one Party or the other. He contended that in the interests of the authority and jurisdiction of the House of Commons they ought not to part lightly with so large a share in the framing of regulations which were essential to the proper carrying out of this Bill.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said he took even a more serious view of the clause than did either the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment or the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. They seemed to think that it would be sufficient if the regulations were laid on the Table.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES
thought it would be no safeguard at all. Rules and regulations of the kind were laid on the Table, and unless an address was moved within forty days they had ipso facto the force of law. However much a private Member might desire to call them in question, he had no chance whatever of doing so except in the middle of the night, and practically no attention was called to them, for the simple reason that there was no opportunity during those forty days. Therefore what the right hon. Gentleman opposite thought might be a safeguard was no safeguard at all under the present rules of the House. Therefore he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends would dismiss from their minds the idea that this Amendment would meet the case.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)
said the rules would have to receive the approval or disapproval of Parliament in the event of the Amendment being carried. The proceedings on the rules would be regarded as business exempted from the Standing Order by which business was interrupted at twelve o'clock.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said he did not agree with the hon. Gentleman if he meant that the rules could be brought before the House for discussion after midnight. He did not believe the Speaker would hold that this was exempted business. He came now to the merits of the case. He agreed that it was a most serious thing to place this power in the hands of a Secretary of State. Consider what was to be done by the Bill. They had spent many days profitably, and some unprofitably, in limiting the powers of the licensing justices and quarter sessions. What they should and what they should not do had been argued, but Clause 6 upset the whole of the arrangements, and put the whole of the procedure of the justices, how they were to get money, and what they were to do with it, entirely under the Home Office. That was a supersession of the whole of the rest of the Bill. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had read some of the clauses. He would only refer to sub-sections (b) and (c). 1549 The Home Office was to make regulations to—(b) provide for the enforcement of any security given for money borrowed, and for the time within which money borrowed is to be replaced; and(c) regulate the management and application of the compensation fund and the audit of the accounts of quarter sessions.Why, the whole of the rest of this Bill dealt with the method in which the compensation fund was to be raised and how it was to be applied, and now it was proposed by Clause 6 to take away all the power they had previously given and to hand it over at one fell swoop to the Home Office. He agreed that that was taking away the liberties of the House, and the liberties of the people of England. It was taking away power from the cognisance of the House and putting it into Provisional Orders, or orders by the Home Office, or other Departments, with respect to matters affecting the well-being of the subject. It was for the House to settle the terms of an Act of Parliament, to determine what the conditions were to be, and how the powers should be exercised. He submitted that the House had no right to delegate that power. The House had no right to say, "We are tired of debating the Bill; we cannot go into all the details required in order to insure that it shall be properly carried out, and w e will hand the whole thing over to the Secretary of State for the Home Department." Secretaries of State were not always so perfect as the right hon. Gentleman who now represented the Home Office. They might have in that office the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife, and, although his own side would feel great confidence in him, he was not sure that Members on that side would feel equal confidence in him in the administration of the Licensing Acts. That was sufficient to show the I extreme danger of allowing anything to pass from the power of the House. What was here proposed amounted not to delegation, but to usurpation, of the duties of the House. If the House agreed to a clause like this it would amount to a dereliction of their duty. This supersession of the House by Ministers in the making of rules had gone far enough, and it seemed to him that unless the House now made a stand the 1550 practice would go very much further than was safe for the House or the country. Let the House remember that he was a friend of this Bill. He thought it was a good Bill, and he had supported the Government upon it all through. But with regard to this clause he did entreat them to pause and think what they were doing. He could see no reason why this clause should not be omitted altogether, and quarter sessions and the licensing justices left to make the regulations required. Surely they could be trusted for that. He had been struck during the discussion of the Bill by the extreme ability, good temper, and accessibility to argument of the Solicitor-General. The hon. and learned Gentleman had shown a most remarkable instance of the ease with which a Minister who was accessible to reason might conduct a Bill through the House. His argument regarding this clause was not founded on prejudice against the Bill, the brewer, or the publican. It was based on the interests of the House of Commons, in which he was sure both the Solicitor-General and the Prime Minister felt as much interest as he did himself. He did not know whether the whole scope and final effect of this clause had been duly considered yet. It would take a great load off his mind if it could be withdrawn.
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)
said he was afraid his hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn would think that his intervention in the debate showed that a less reasonable spirit was going to prevail than he found in the utterances of his hon. and learned friend the Solicitor-General. His hon. friend was alarmed at the terrible prospect of leaving matters of such immense importance to be dealt with, not by the House, but by an executive officer, the Home Secretary. But his own proposal was to leave them, not to the Home Secretary, who was responsible to the House, but to persons who did not owe any responsibility to the House. If these matters were legislative concerns which the House ought never to allow out of its grasp, what was to be thought of a proposal to turn every bench of quarter sessions in the country into a legislative assembly? Whatever might 1551 be their merits, the various parts of his hon. friend's speech did not hang together and form a single argumentative whole. He entirely dissented both from his hon. friend and from the right hon. Gentleman opposite as to the importance of the matters dealt with in this clause. He did not think they were of such importance as they supposed. They were matters purely of machinery, and he did not think it would be to the advantage of the House unnecessarily to cumber legislation with them. If there was anything which must have been brought home to every Member of the House, he would not say in the course of the present session, or of the last decade, but of the last twenty years, it was that the difficulty of getting a Bill through the House in the face of discussion, which might be of the most legitimate kind, was augmenting. It had produced some expedients to which he had himself given the sanction of his own example, but which he admitted were not of a kind to conduce to lucidity in legislation—for instance, legislation by reference. That method had been resorted to by both Parties. It was not that any Government desired to keep from the House matters which the House ought to discuss, I but that any expedient by which the discussion of a Bill in the House could be shortened the Government of the day were almost bound to grasp at. Unless they did so it was really hardly possible to get through the modicum of legislation which was admitted on both sides to be necessary.
In his opinion the expedient adopted in Clause 6 was far less open to objection than the extreme cases of legislation by reference which themselves he regarded as necessary. Of course, it was possible to abuse the power of handing over to the Home Secretary or any other Minister, responsibilities which the House does not wish to take upon itself. But would anybody say that those powers were abused in the present case? The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the Factory Acts, and said with perfect truth that it was necessary in these cases in order to secure elasticity that the Home Secretary should have great power of varying provisions with regard to different trades and districts. This power was of incomparably greater importance than anything 1552 in this purely machinery clause. With regard to the question of precedents, he reminded the Committee that by Clause 41 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, passed by general consent last year, it rested in the first place with the licensing court—[Mr. McCRAE: Which is partly representative]—and then with the Secretary for Scotland, to deal with matters which were more than mere matters of machinery. He did not, however, care to rest this question on precedents, though precedents might be quoted. In a matter of machinery he thought it would be lunacy to insist that the whole machinery should be set out to be discussed and made an instrument of obstruction or a cause of long delay. Moreover, there was an inherent advantage in leaving these questions of machinery to an executive officer responsible to the House, because changes might occur, and the conditions in one district might differ from those in another. It would, of course, be possible to discuss the conduct of the executive officer in Committee of Supply.
§ MR. ROSE (Cambridgeshire, Newmarket)
apologised for not having been in his place when his Amendment came on. The Prime Minister had said that this was purely a question of machinery, but having had considerable experience, he could say that machinery was frequently of vital importance. He firmly believe that if Parliament had the power of considering and drawing up carefully the regulations under which this measure would be worked, then it might be a step forward in temperance reform; but if the regulations were narrow and restricted, no decided progress would be made in temperance reform. Parliament should certainly have something to say in the drawing up of the regulations which would be the driving power of the machinery of the Act.
§ SIR JAMES JOICEY (Durham, Chester-le-Street)
said that it was perfectly clear that the Bill as it stood proposed to take away very important powers from the control of the House, and he confessed he looked upon this with considerable alarm, because he felt sure that the system would be developed 1553 in other Bills and that practically the power which now rested with the House would be taken away and given to Government Departments. He had had a good deal to do with Government Departments, and he had come to the conclusion that all the wisdom did not rest with them. If the Bill were passed as it stood, most important matters would be left in the hands of the Home Secretary.
§ And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.