Commons Sitting of 26 July 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Alexandra (Newport, and South Wales) Docks and Railway Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Portmadoc, Beddgelert, and South Snowdon Railway Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified). Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Belfast and North East Ireland Electricity and Power-Gas Bill [Lords] (by Order). Read a second time, and committed.
Dundee, Broughty Ferry, and District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Savings Banks Acts Amendment Bill; Barnet District Gas and Water Bill; Thames River Steamboat Service Bill; Strabane, Raphoe, and Convoy Railway Bill; Surrey Commercial Dock Bill; Torquay Tramways Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—Bournemouth Corporation (Tramways) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

PETITIONS.
  EAST INDIA (ARMED EXPEDITION TO) TIBET).
  Petition from Newcastle, for inquiry; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Anerley; Avoch; Borough, S.E.; Braunton; Dulwich (two); Lower Weston; Lytham; LRuncorn; and Sheffield; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Dulwich, for alteration to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  Petition from Dunfermline, for extension to Women; to lie upon the Table.
  VALUATION BILL.
  Petition from Ravenstborpe, against; to lie upon the Table.
  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS1ACT, 1897.
  Petition from Harrogate, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  SUGAR DUTIES.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 15th March; Mr. Lough]; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC INCOME AND EXPENDITURE.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 18th May; Sir Henry Fowler]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 277.]
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 21st July, 1904, declaring that William Callow, Gauger, Royal Laboratory, War Office Department, was appointed without a Civil Service Certificate through inadvertence on the part of the Head of his Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND REGISTRY.
  Account presented, of Receipts and Payments in respect of the Land Registry for the year ended 31st March, 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 278.]
  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AN]) COURT OF APPEAL, ETC.
  Copy presented, of Account showing the Receipts and Expenditure in respect of the High Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal during the year ended 31st March, 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 279.]
  AFRICA (No. 11, 1904).
  Copy presented, of Final Report of the Uganda Railway Committee [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 3236 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented, of Calendar of the Stuart Papers belonging to His Majesty the King, preserved at Windsor Castle. Vol. II. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented, of Report on the Manuscripts of the Earl of Mar and Kellie, preserved at Alloa House, N.B. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CHARITABLE DON ATIONS AND BEQUESTS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Fifty-ninth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TECHNICAL EDUCATION (APPLICATION OF FUNDS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 4th August, 1903; Sir William Anson]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 280.]
  COLONIAL REPORTS (MISCEL-LANEOUS).
  Copy presented, of Report No. 27 (Selections from Colonial Medical Reports for 1901 and 1902) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  STATISTICAL ABSTRACT (UNITED KINGDOM).
  Copy presented, of Statistical Abstract For the United Kingdom in each of the last fifteen years from 1889 to 1903, Fifty-first Number [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAY RETURNS.
  Copy presented, of Returns of the Capital, Traffic Receipts, and Working Expenditure of the Railway Companies of the United Kingdom for the year 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL TAXATION LICENCES, 1903–4.
  Return ordered, "of the amount received in respect of each administrative county and county borough in England and Wales for Local Taxation Licence Duties and Penalties, and under The Local Government Act, 1888, in the year ended the 31st day of March, 1904 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 293, of Session 1903)."—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)

  JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.
  Return ordered, "(I.) of the Companies registered during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1903, which filed a prospectus and to which certificates to commence business have been granted, stating—

  (1) The date of registration.

  (2) The date of the prospectus.

  (3) The amount of the nominal capital.

  (4) The amount of each share.

  (5) The amount issued or to be issued otherwise than for cash.

  (6) The amount offered for subscription in cash.

  (7) The amount underwritten.

  (8) The commission for underwriting.

  (9) The minimum subscription required.

  (10) The amount allotted before commencing business.

  1191

  (11) The amounts per share payable on application and allotment.

  (12) The total directors' share qualification, if any; and

  (13) The date of the certificate to commence business.

  (II.) Of the Companies registered during the year 1903, which filed a prospectus, but to which certificates to commence business have not been granted, stating the particulars specified in (I.) so far as they are applicable.
  (III.) Of the Companies registered during the year 1903 which filed a declaration that the Company 'does not issue any invitation to the public to subscribe for its shares.'
  (IV.) Of the Companies registered during the year 1903 which have not filed a prospectus or a declaration that the Company 'does not issue any invitation to the public to subscribe for its shares,' and stating the particulars specified in (I.) so far as they are applicable.
  (V.) Of the Companies which were dissolved or struck off the register during the year 1903.
  (VI.) Of the total number of Companies dissolved during the year 1903 (1) by order of the Court; (2) after voluntary liquidation; and (3) pursuant to the provisions of Section 7 of The Companies Act, 1880, and Section 26 of The Companies Act, 1900.
  (VII.) Of the total number and nominal paid-up and considered as paid-up capital of the Companies registered during the year 1903 in London, Edinburgh, and Dublin respectively, distinguishing Limited Companies from unlimited, and Companies registered with a nominal capital from Companies registered without such capital.
  (VIII.) Of the total number and paid-up capital, including the amounts considered as paid on vendors and other shares, of all Companies having a share capital which were on the register on the 30th day of April, 1904, except such Companies as were in course of liquidation or removal from the register under the provisions of Section 7 of The Companies Act, 1880, and Section 26 of The Companies Act, 1900.
  (IX.)Of the total number and nominal capital of the Companies registered in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively, in every year since the commencement of The Companies Act, 1862, to 1903, inclusive.
  (X.) Of the fees and capital duty paid in respect of Registered Companies during the year 1903 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 357, of Session 1903)."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

  REGISTRATION OF NURSES.
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence [Inquiry not completed].
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Appointments to Clerical Staff of Congested Districts Board in Ireland.
  MR. WILLIAM MOORE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if, in view of the fact that appointments to the clerical staff of the Congested Districts Board in Ireland have of late years been controlled by Civil Service competitive examination, and that appointments have been recently made to these positions in the case of which this rule has been relaxed or suspended, he will state if the persons so appointed were nominated or recommended by the Under-Secretary to the Commissioners who have the appointment; if this rule has ever been relaxed in the case of a Protestant candidate; and under what circumstances it was relaxed in the present case at the instance of the Under-Secretary and to the exclusion of Protestant candidates.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.)Appointments to the permanent clerical establishment of the Congested Districts Board are filled by means of competitive examination conducted in the ordinary manner by the Civil Service Commissioners. The last occasion on which such appointment was made was in 1898. The Question presumably refers to a class of official described as temporary clerks, the appointment of whom rests with the

  1193
  Board. A Sub-Committee of the Board was formed in May to select candidates for vacancies these temporary positions. Of the five persons appointed since May, four were recommended by the Committee, on which the Under-Secretary did not sit. All five nominations were approved by the Board. There is no official record of the religious denominations of the candidates.

  The Retention of Immature Raw Potable Spirits in Bond.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the leading physicians and the medical officers of health of the United Kingdom have unanimously condemned the consumption of immature raw potable spirits as injurious to the health of those who drink them; and whether he will take steps to compulsorily retain such spirits in bond for a period of at least three years, as is done in Canada and other countries.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I do not quite know to what the first paragraph in the hon. Member's Question is intended to refer. With regard to the latter part of the Question, I must ask the hon. Member to refer to an Answer which I gave to a Question of his on the same subject on the 15th of February last,† to which I have nothing to add.

  Reports on Art Instruction in Secondary Schools.
  MR. LAWRENCE: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education how many reports on the Art instruction in secondary schools have been made to the Board during the last twelve months by Science inspectors; whether it is with the approval of the Board that such inspectors should inspect the Art work at such schools in the absence of the Art master, and when no Art instruction is going on, and report thereon to the Board; and whether he will place upon the Table the full report by the
  † See (4) Debates, cxxix., 1326.
  1194
  Science Inspector On the Art instruction at the Kendal Grammar School, which led last year to the dismissal of the Art master from his appointment at that school, and the report of the Art Inspector sent to re-inspect the work done there.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) There is no division of the Board's inspectors which can accurately be defined as "Science" Inspectors; if only for this reason, therefore. I am unable to give the information asked for in the first part of the Question. Any such definition would be seriously misleading. I do not think that there is any sufficient reason for laying upon the Table the two reports referred to in the last paragraph of the Question, but I shall be happy to show them privately to the hon. Member if he desires it. So far as my information goes, the report of the Board's inspector was not, as the hon. Member seems to suggest, the only cause of the dismissal of the Art master.

  Charges on British Vessels entering United States Ports.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, seeing that the charges made on British vessels entering United States ports are estimated to produce upwards of £70,000 annually, and that the United States, like other countries, will benefit by the reduction of 12½ per cent. made in the light dues on vessels entering British ports, will he say whether arrangements have yet been made with the Foreign Office with a view to secure a compensating reduction in the charges made on British vessels entering United States ports.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) My hon. friend will recollect that I promised him in July, 1903, that I would have the figures carefully gone into, and consider whether any representations could usefully be made to the United States Government, and that I informed him in August last year that I had come to the conclusion that there was not a

  1195
  sufficient case to justify a representation. Nothing has since occurred which enables me to modify that opinion.

  Exemption of Abstractor and Assistant Clerks from Retirement at the Age Limit.
  MR. THORNTON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that upon their Promotion to the establishment the senior assistant clerks of the abstractor class were not, in many cases, made aware that they would be compulsorily retired at the age of sixty-five, either by the Treasury or by the heads of their respective departments; and, if so, whether he can take any steps to prevent their compulsory retirement at this age.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The Treasury has no power to exempt abstractors or assistant clerks from the operation of the Order in Council of the 29th November, 1898, which prescribes compulsory retirement at the age of sixty-five.

  Installation of Post Office Telephones in County Cavan.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state whether, in view of the success of the experiment in installing telephones in county Cavan, he will extend facilities for private installation by reducing the charge below the amount of £7 10s. per annum now charged for connection with six small villages and the county town; will the remaining towns in the county be connected; and will he further state the cost of private installations in rural Switzerland, Sweden, and Denmark.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) During the nine months ended 31st May last, 959 calls were made from the telephone call offices established at Cavan and the seven rural post offices in the district. The receipts were £7 17s. 9d., and the cost of the service for the same period was about £30, without including any interest on the capital cost of establishing the call offices, which was about £150. The arrangement has, I understand, been of advantage to the district, but it is not a remunerative one to the Post Office. There does not appear to be any appreci
  1196
  able demand for the establishment of telephone exchanges in connection with this arrangement. If there were, I should be happy to consider whether the message rate subscription of £3 a year, with a fee of one penny for each originated call, could be offered to subscribers. The present arrangement provides only for communication between Cavan and rural post offices in the neighbourhood. If the system were connected with the general telephone system of the country, the cost of the service would be very greatly increased. I have no information as to the existence of small telephone systems of this kind in Switzerland, Sweden, and Denmark, or of the charges which would be made in such cases. The cost of any such arrangement must, however, necessarily depend upon local conditions.

  Fraudulent Wines.
  MR. ALBAN GIBBS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the diminution in the duty payments on cheap foreign wines is partly caused by the manufacture, free of duty, in this country of wine from dried currants and raisins, which manufacture is blended with the cheap classes of imported wines, and that such mixtures are almost invariably sold under the designation of some foreign wine; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any steps to protect the Revenue and safeguard the public from this species of fraud.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I am aware that allegations have been made in the sense of the Question, but the information at present at my disposal is not sufficient to enable me to determine what measure of truth may be contained in them. I am, however, satisfied that a case for inquiry exists, and I propose in the course of the autumn to institute further investigation of the subject, and, if necessary, to consider whether measures are required for the protection of the Revenue. As regards protection of the public from fraud, it is open to any purchaser who may be defrauded by a false trade description to take proceedings under the Merchandise Marks Acts; and, for this purpose, members of the trade are really in as good a position to take

  1197
  action as any public Department, though, for both, the difficulties in the way of establishing proof of an offence are great.

  Alcohol for Industrial Purposes.
  COLONEL DENNY: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current price per gallon of alcohol used for industrial purposes in Great Britain, France, Germany, and Belgium respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I regret that I have not the information required to answer this Question.

  Retarded Promotions in the Indian Army.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that in some recent cases the promotion of officers of the Indian Army, formerly the Staff Corps, as provided for under the regulations, viz., to captain after eleven years service, to major after twenty years service, to lieutenant-colonel after twenty-six years service has been retarded by order of the Commander-in-Chief, although they have completed the terms of service above set out, and have satisfied the conditions of service in operation during that period, and have passed the tactical examination; whether it is stated in the regulations that promotion is to he governed by such regulations as the Secretary of State may make from time to time; whether on the existing regulations stated, the Commander-in-Chief, while vested with full powers as to promotions in regimental appointments, in staff appointments, and in the Army departments, has also been authorised by the Secretary of State to retard promotions of officers in the Indian Army after time service; and, if so, when and where the new regulation has been published.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Under Royal Warrant promotions in the Indian Army are made under such regulations as may be laid down from time to time by the Secretary of State for India in Council. Acting on this authority my predecessor in Council approved of the retardation of promotion in the case of officers who, notwithstanding that they may have completed the required length
  1198
  of service, have proved themselves to be inefficient. Such cases are determined by the Commander-in-Chief in India, subject to the approval of the Government of India, and are reported to the Secretary of State in Council. Up to the present the promotion of four officers has been retarded. The Government of India has been directed to publish the new regulation in Indian Army Orders. I may observe that the ordinary periods of service for promotion to captain and major are nine and eighteen years respectively, and not as given in the Question of the hon. Member.

  Water Storage in India.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state what has been done, or is now being done, in India for carrying out the recommendations of the Scott-Moncrieff Commission for the increase of water-storage works of comparatively small size and cost; what surveys for actual work have been made, more especially in Northern Gujerat and the Deccan; what definite projects have been prepared and sanctioned and in what locality has actual work been done; and is any water actually being impounded during the present monsoon.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply made to the hon. Member for Flintshire on Monday, the 25th instant.†

  German Locomotives on the East Indian Railway.
  SIR ALFRED HICKMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether in view of the fact that the East Indian State Railway have lately placed an order for locomotives in Germany, and that the employment in the engineering trades is reported by the Board of Trade to be dull, and that the percentage of unemployed trade union members is more than double what it was this time last year, he can take steps to secure a portion of this or similar orders for this country.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I am informed by the East Indian
  † See page 1034.

  1199
  Railway Company (which is not correctly described as a "State Railway") that no orders for locomotives have been placed in Germany since 1902. Their latest orders were given to firms in this country.

  Bicycle Riding on the Footpath at Kanturk.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Police Constable Lett, who summoned a civilian at Kanturk Petty Sessions on the 16th instant for the offence of riding a bicycle on the footpath near the town, admitted in Court that he himself had committed a similar offence a short time previously; and, if so, will he state what notice will the constabulary authorities take of the policeman's conduct.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The facts are correctly stated. The constable gave an explanation of his action to the magistrates, who accepted it as satisfactory. The Inspector-General, under the circumstances, does not propose to take official notice of the constable's conduct on the present occasion.

  Net Fishing on the Bann.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that net fishing has been practised recently on the Upper Bann contrary to the law; and, if so, will the Government take immediate steps to put an end to this illegal conduct.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Department has received complaints relative to alleged illegal netting in the Upper Bann, which were communicated to the conservators of the district in whom the enforcement of the inland fishery laws is vested. The Department has recently decided to make a grant towards the funds of these conservators for the purpose of the protection of the fisheries of Lough Neagh and its tributaries. This will enable better supervision to be effected.

  Nationalist Band at Banbridge.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieu-
  1200
  tenant of Ireland if he can state under what circumstances was a Nationalists' band from Ballyvarley allowed to parade the road leading from Banbridge to Scarva for almost the entire day on the 13th instant; and whether, in view of the fact that the police authorities prohibited Protestant bands parading on this road, he will, in the interest of the public peace, give instructions against similar band parades in future.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Nationalist band paraded the road between Rings End and Ballyvarley School, in accordance with its annual practice, on the 13th July. The band did not leave its own locality. No Protestant band attempted to play on this portion of the road.

  Militia Reserve Men in the South African War.
  DR. THOMPSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many men were supplied from the Militia Reserve to their linked Line battalions during the late war in South Africa; also how many men of the Militia Reserve fought in the actions of Colenso, Pieter's Hill, and Spion Kop.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary ArnoldForster.) 13,014 Militia Reserve were posted to Line battalions during the late war in South Africa; a large majority to their linked battalions, but some few to other corps. The exact number of the latter cannot be stated without reference to each Militia unit. No men of the Militia Reserve were at Colenso, as they were not called up till December 1899. 440 Militia Reserve were posted to battalions which fought at Spion Kop, and 1,041 to battalions which fought at Pieter's Hill, but it cannot be definitely stated how many were present at each engagement.

  Distribution of War Trophies.
  MR. WHITMORE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the refusal of the London County Council to take charge of the guns allotted to London has been communicated to him; whether he has received an offer from the Council of the city of Westminster to take charge of them; and, if so,

  1201
  whether he will entertain this offer favourably.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The refusal of the London County Council has been communicated to the War Office through the General Officer Commanding Fourth Army Corps. The allotment of the trophies referred to within the area of the Fourth Army Corps is for the General Officer Commanding to decide, but I understand that one gun has been allotted to the city of Westminster.

  Volunteer Review in Hyde Park.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to recommend His Majesty to hold a review of Volunteers in Hyde Park prior to the close of the London season.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) No, Sir. No such proposal has been submitted to the King.

  Parasitic Fevers in India.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether any steps are being taken to investigate the mode of infection in dum-dum and other allied parasitic fevers in India, with the view of preventing the heavy mortality and invaliding from these fevers among British soldiers in India, and so diminishing the annual draft now necessary.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Steps are being taken to investigate the mode of infection in dumdum fever; but it will be some time before the investigation will be completed, and further evidence must be awaited before anything in the nature of special preventive measures can be intelligently formulated. Assuming that by "other allied parasitic fevers" malarial fevers are referred to, preventive measures have been adopted at military stations in India where such fevers are prevalent. It may be added that, as regards other fevers, a special Commission is investigating Malta fever, the occurrence of which in India is becoming more recognised, and a special Committee is investigating anti-typhoid inoculation.

  The Arrest of Captain Harry Lambart.
  SiR JOHN ROLLESTON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Captain Harry Lambart, Kimberley Light Horse, late Commandant of Klerksdorp, Transvaal, was arrested and placed in solitary confinement, contrary to King's Regulations, and that his services were dispensed with from His Majesty's Army without a trial; will he explain why applications for the reason of this treatment have been ignored and applications for a reopening of his case refused; and whether, considering the services of this officer, for which he received the written thanks of Lord Roberts and other generals, he will order an inquiry, at which Captain Lambart can attend, to inquire into the charge of misappropriation of public money.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The proceedings of Courts of inquiry on officers serving with Colonial corps have not been forwarded to the War Office. The only document bearing on this case is a short narration of the surrender of Klerksdorp with a marginal note to the effect that "Captain Lambart's services have been dispensed with—Pretoria, 5th October, 1900." As regards the charge of misappropriation of public money, no report on the subject has reached the War Office. Captain Lambart was given information to the above effect in January last. I can see no grounds for instituting the inquiry suggested in the Question.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Swimming Instruction for Boys in the Navy-Caning Inattentive Pupils.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that on board H.M.S. "Lion" at Devonport boys are constantly subjected to floggings with birches and canes for inability to swim a required distance; by whose authority, and on whose instigation, are these punishments inflicted; and whether it is intended to take any steps for the abolition of the punishment of flogging in the Navy for deficiency in physical strength.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative; but, by the direction of the commanding officer of H.M.S. "Lion," certain boys who, through laziness and inattention during swimming instruction, failed to make sufficient progress, were after due warning punished by caning. In no case was any punishment inflicted where failure was due to deficiency in physical strength.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: After what investigation was it done? What inquiries were made into the conduct of the boys? Were they simply laughing?
  MR. PRETYMAN: After careful investigation by the commanding officer and after due warning.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: How many boys were flogged?
  MR. PRETYMAN: I do not know how many were flogged, but I do know that before this light punishment was inflicted there were 126 boys who, after thirteen months instruction in swimming, had failed to profit by it—that was in January last—and now there are only seven, showing it is better that boys should be caned than run the risk of drowning.

  Military Occupation of South Africa— Expenditure.
  MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the annual cost of the military forces now maintained in South Africa, and what is the capital cost incurred for barracks and hutments.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT,: The annual cost of the present garrison in South Africa is about £3,100,000. The capital expenditure incurred up to 31st March last on barracks and hutments is approximately £2,550,000.
  MR. WHITLEY: And is that expenditure on barracks, etc., still going on?
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: Yes.
  MR. WHITLEY: Can the hon. Gentleman give an estimate of how much more is to be spent?
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: That is impossible, but I should say it would be about £1,000,000.

  The "Tweeddale's" Cargo of Coolies— Treatment on Arrival in South Africa.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has yet received the despatch from Lord Milner, asked for by cable on 23rd June, relative to the arrival and landing at Durban of coolies from the steamship "Tweeddale" and their transmission to Johannesburg; and, if so, whether he will state the terms of Lord Milner's report.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): I have received the despatch which encloses a report by the Superintendent of Foreign Labour, Mr. Evans, who has had a prolonged experience of Chinese labourers in the Straits. The report is somewhat lengthy, and, if the hon. Member concurs, I propose to give the paragraphs which are relevant in the form of a written Answer.
  Appended is the written Answer referred to:—
  Extract from a report by Mr. W. Evans, Superintendent of the Foreign Labour Department, Johannesburg, on the arrival at Durban of Chinese labourers by the s.s. "Tweeddale."
  On the arrival of the ship she was boarded at the outer anchorage by the port health officer and my boarding officer, and on the return of the health officer I went aboard myself with some of the representatives of the Mines Labour Importation Agency. I went all over the ship with the surgeon-superintendent and spoke to many of the men. They all seemed cheerful and eager to get up to the mines and begin work. Owing to the bad weather outside I obtained permission from the Port Authorities to bring the ship in and moor her in the bay. Police were posted on board to prevent any communication

  1205
  with the shore. At daylight on Monday, 20th inst., she was taken alongside the wharf at the Bluff and as soon as possible my staff took charge of the decks and made the best possible arrangements for carrying out their work on board, as the depot was not yet ready. During the three days, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, the 1,049 men were checked, their contracts were registered, their passports were issued to them, their marks of identification including finger prints, were taken and they were each photographed. The surgeon-superintendent or his assistant was present during the whole of the work, and all those who had passed through his hands for beri-beri were ordered to stand down for further examination. Finally, out of the 1,049 who arrived, 1,006 were passed as fit, three died while the ship was at the wharf and forty who were suffering from beri-beri were sent back to China by the same ship. On Tuesday, the 21st inst., 299 men who had been passed and registered on Monday were entrained, and left for Johannesburg at 8.15 a.m., arriving at their destination, East Rand, at 12 noon on the 22nd inst. They travelled in a train specially set apart for this purpose, composed of ordinary third class carriages, with the centre compartment dosed in and arranged with sanitary conveniences. Electric light and drinking water were provided for each carriage. On Wednesday 360 men were sent off at the same hour, and on Thursday 347. A conductor accompanied each train, and I myself went up with the last train. The rationing of the men on the journey was done by contract, the contractor being the present railway department contractor. Meals were served at Pietermaritzburg (1 p.m.), Estcourt (6.30 p.m.), and Standerton (6.30 a.m.). The rice and rations were served in tin cans and dishes holding sufficient for eight men, and one of each was passed into each compartment, the men carrying their own rice bowls and chopsticks. The food was of excellent quality, sufficient, and nicely served. No disturbance occurred either while the ship was at the wharf or during the train journey, and the arrangements made by the railway and police authorities were perfectly carried out.

  Transvaal Estimates.
  MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if there is any provision in the Transvaal Estimates for the year 1904-5 for the repayment to the Imperial Treasury of the £1,250,000 on account of material, and the £900,000 on account of transport and stores, outstanding since the transfer of the railways from military to civil control; and when he expects to obtain a settlement of these claims.
  MR. LYTTELTON: The first sum of £1,250,000 is still in dispute. It will be seen on reference to page twenty-six of Cd. 2102, that whatever amount is finally settled to be due will be found out of the loan and not out of Transvaal funds proper. The second sum of £900,000, or rather £843,000, on account of transport and stores supplied for repatriation purposes, Lord Milner has intimated that he expects to be able to pay off before the end of the calendar year (see page forty of Cd. 2102) by the sale of remaining supplies and stock.
  MR. WHITLEY: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he expects to obtain a settlement of both sums before the coming year?
  MR. LYTTELTON: I said nothing about the settlement of the first sum, but I certainly expect one in the case of the second.
  MR. WHITLEY: The first sum named in my Question has already been two years under consideration. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance?

  Self-Government for the Transvaal.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in a position to state to what extent the Legislative Council under the proposed scheme of local self-government for the Transvaal will be elective, and to make any statement as to the nature of the proposed franchise; whether he will be in a position to lay the details of the scheme before the close of the present session; and, if not, whether any operative steps

  1207
  will be taken in the matter before Parliament has had an opportunity of discussing the proposals.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I would refer the hon. Member to my Answer to the similar Question put to me yesterday,† in which I stated that I was not in a position to give details at present. I fear that it will not be possible for me to do so before the close of the present session, and I cannot undertake to delay action in the matter until Parliament reassembles.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a pledge that no steps shall be taken before Parliament has an opportunity of dealing with the matter?
  MR. LYTTELTON: No, Sir, I cannot give any pledge with regard to that.
  DR MACNAMARA: Then I shall ask Mr. Speaker to receive a notice of a Motion for adjournment on this subject.
  MR. SPEAKER: It will be of no avail. No such Motion can be made today, as it is a day allotted, under the Resolution of the House of the 5th July, to the Licensing Bill.

  Canada and Treaty-making Powers.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any correspondence has pissed between His Majesty's Government and the Canadian Government relating to a desire on the part of Canada for more extensive power in treaty making when Canadian interests are involved; and, if so, will he lay the correspondence on the Table of the House.
  MR. LYTTELTON: No such correspondence has taken place.

  Rio Grande du Sol—British Consul and the Canadian Flag.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any protest has been received from the Canadian Government respecting the action of the British Consul at Rio Grande du So!, Argentine Republic,
  †See page 1042.
  1208
  in ordering the removal of the Canadian flag from the mast of a vessel commanded by Captain Taylor; and, if so, what action has been taken by His Majesty's Government.
  MR. LYTTELTON: No protest has yet been received from the Canadian Government in regard to the incident referred to by the hon. Member, but the matter has been raised in the Canadian House of Commons, and it appears that the Government of Canada proposes shortly to communicate with me on the subject, which will be carefully considered when the facts are before His Majesty's Government.

  Immature Spirits.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the leading physicians and the medical officers of health of the United Kingdom have unanimously condemned the consumption of immature raw potable spirits as injurious to the health of those who drink them; and whether be will take steps to compulsorily retain such spirits in bond for a period of at least three years, as is done in Canada and other countries.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The Board of Inland Revenue are not aware of the alleged condemnation. With regard to the latter part of the Question, I must ask the hon. Member to refer to an Answer which I gave to a Question of his on the same subject on the 15th of February last,† to which I have nothing to add.

  The "Ras Bera"—Wilful Disobedience of Crew.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any report from His Majesty's Acting Consul-General at the port of Yokohama, Japan, of the proceedings of the Naval Court which was summoned by the Acting Consul-General at Yokohama, on 12th April, 1904, to inquire into the charge of wilful
  † See (4) Debates, cxxix., 1326.

  1209
  disobedience to lawful commands preferred by the master of the ss. "Ras Bera" against twenty-one of the crew of that vessel; whether he is aware that twenty-one men refused to proceed on the vessel on the ground that she was carrying contraband of war; that at the trial the crew of the vessel produced His Majesty's proclamation of neutrality; and that the Naval Court ordered the twenty-one men to be dismissed from their ship and to forfeit their wages; and whether, in view of the results entailed by the refusal of assistance to these men by the Acting Consul-General, he will state if this official was justified in acting in this manner; and if he will cause inquiries to be made at once into this matter.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): Yes, Sir; I have received the report of the Naval Court held at Yokohama in April to investigate the complaint made by the master of the Ras Bera," that certain members of the crew were guilty of continued disobedience to lawful commands, and continued wilful neglect of duty and general insubordination subversive of discipline. The Naval Court, having heard evidence on both sides, found the charge proved, and passed the sentence referred to in the Question. From the information I have received, it appears that the vessel did not carry contraband of war. The matter was dealt with by a duly constituted Court with the Acting Consul-General as President, and the Executive have no power to interfere with the finding.

  Girls Public Day School Company and the Government Education Grant.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education what amount of grants have been paid out of public taxation to the Girls Public Day School Company since the 31st March last; whether that company still pays its shareholders 4 per cent. dividend; whether these public grants to dividend-paving companies are to be continued; and, if so whether they will be extended to other educational adventures for private profit.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): No grants have been paid since 31st March, 1904, to the Girls Public Day School Company, but grants will be paid of the year ending 31st July, 1904. I believe the last dividend declared by the company was 4 per cent. For the future a school owned or conducted by a company will only be eligible for recognition if the company is wound up and its property vested in trustees on trust for the purpose of secondary education. The amount of the share capital, so far as actually expended on site, buildings, or equipment, can in such cases be treated as a charge on the property, subject to the repayment of principal with interest at the rate of not more than 4 per cent. within a limited period of time. It may be necessary to allow certain companies who are taking steps to comply with these conditions another year under existing conditions, in order to give them time to make the necessary alterations in their constitution. As regards the last paragraph of the Question, I must refer the hon. Member to Article 20 of the new Regulations for Secondary Schools, which expressly lays down, as a condition of recognition, that a school must not be conducted for private profit.

  Technical Instruction in England—Return of Officials employed by County Boroughs.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will grant a Return dealing with officials employed by county boroughs in England with populations between 20,000 and 100,000 in carrying out the provisions of the Technical Instruction Act.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The Technical Instruction Acts were repealed by the Education Act of 1902, and as a consequence were no longer in force on 1st June, 1904, in any county borough, with three exceptions. Hence the Return asked for by the hon. Member cannot be supplied. I do not consider that the Board would be justified in granting any Return on the lines of the Return asked for. Technical instruction in county boroughs is now being provided as part of schemes for the general provision of education other than elementary, and

  1211
  consequently the arrangements are at present in a very transitional stage. The salaries of teachers in this kind of instruction depend largely upon the very varying lengths of time for which they are employed; any general statement under this head would therefore be of little value. On the other hand, the making of such a Return would involve county borough councils and this Board in a large amount of labour and expense to which the value of the Return would be wholly incommensurate.

  Cahircivane to Coppal (Kerry) Road.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an application was made by the Congested Districts Board for assistance in constructing a road from Cahircivane to Coppal in the Cahirciveen Union, county Kerry; can he state the reason of the delay in entertaining the application, in view of the fact that two years have elapsed since it was sent in; and whether the Board will now give the required assistance.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM.): The cost of the road was estimated by the applicants to amount to £1,582. There are many other works with prior claims on the available funds of the Board, and it is unable to entertain the application for assistance in the present case.

  D. J. Burke's Estate.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that Mr. H. Lewis, of Loughrea, was informed by the solicitor having carriage of the proceedings in the Land Judge's Court, that he would recommend a proposal by him for the purchase of his Court tenancy on the estate of the trustees of D. J. Burke, at the sum of £700, or twenty-three-and-a-ha lf years purchase of the rent; and that the Congested Districts Board made an offer over the head of the occupying tenant, Mr. Lewis, to purchase this holding at £1,100, or thirty-six-and-two-third years purchase of the rent; and, if so, will be state who are the members of the Board who were present when it was
  1212
  decided to pay this sum for the farm; and what explanation is forthcoming for an offer by the Board so much in excess of the value arrived at by the solicitor having carriage of the sale.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Mr. Lewis has informed the Board that the solicitors having carriage of the sale stated they would recommend Mr. Lewis' offer. They did recommend its acceptance to the owners, by whom, however, it was considered insufficient. Mr. Lewis held Lot 1 on a lease pending the sale—i.e. a Court letting—at £30 a year. The Poor Law valuation is £66 5s. a year. The Board's offer of £1,100, or sixteen-and-three-fifths years purchase of the valuation, was reasonable. The land is held to be well worth the money. It is no part of the Government policy to establish tenancies which do not exist. It is part of the Government policy to purchase untenanted land for the purpose of relieving congestion. The members of the Board present at the meeting when it was decided to make the offer were Sir Antony MacDonnell, Lord Shaftesbury, Mr. Geoghegan, Mr. Kennedy, and the Rev. Denis O'Hara. The decision was in conformity with the usual practice of the Board.
  MR. KILBRIDE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how it was in the interests of the estate that Mr. Lewis should hold the farm at 50 per cent. under the Government valuation?
  ME. WYNDHAM: I think the hon. Gentleman is quite familiar with re-lettings of the Court lands. When an estate is in the Land Judge's Court, in order to derive some revenue from it, it is let from year to year for any sum that can be obtained.
  AN HON. MEMBER: For the advanof the receiver.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Congested Districts Board became the purchasers of Lot 2 of the estate of the trustees of D. J. Burke; who are the parties described as trustees; did the Congested, Districts Board decline to purchase Lot

  1213
  2 unless they were also accepted as purchasers of Lot 1, in the occupation of Mr. Lewis; and, if so, whether, seeing that these lots are situate in different counties and separate from each other, he will state under what circumstances did the Board determine to deprive Mr. Lewis of his holding.
  MR. WYNDHAM: (1) The reply to the first query is, Yes. (2) The trustees under the will of the owner are the Most Rev. Dr. Healy and the Rev. J. Cahalan. The reply to the third query is, Yes. There were two lots: Lot 1, untenanted, and leased pending sale on a Court letting to Mr. Lewis; Lot 2, tenanted and congested. The Board would not have bought Lot 2 unless they could also secure Lot 1 to relieve the congestion in Lot 2. Their action was in strict accordance with all previous legislation dealing with the relief of congestion by migration as embodied in the Act of 1891 and amending Acts.

  Irish Land Purchase—Warden Estate, Sneem.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that more than one-half of those on the Warden Estate, at Sneem, are weekly or future tenants or caretakers who never had an opportunity of having a fair rent fixed, the Estates Commissioners will inquire carefully into the proposed terms of purchase of the whole estate before the terms are sanctioned.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No application in respect of the sale of this estate is before the Estates Commissioners. In the case of non-judicial holdings it is always their practice to have the estate inspected before sanctioning advances.

  Irish Board of Agriculture—Portal Veterinary Inspectors.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the decision of the Treasury on the application of the Portal Veterinary Inspectors of the Board of Agriculture in Ireland to be placed on the same terms as to pension as all the other officers of that Department.
  MR WYNDHAM: Pension rights have been conceded in the cases of sixteen of these inspectors. In four other cases an increase of pay has been granted.

  River Riffey Drainage—Edgeworthstown Floods.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he win state what steps are taken to provide for the drainage of the River Riffey, in consequence of the overflow of which last year two mill were drowned near Edgeworths-town.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member's previous Question of the 24th February on the same subject,† except to say that I have ascertained that the flooding of the townlands named in that Question is not due to any defects in the condition of the adjoining drainage district of Inny, for which the trustees would be responsible.
  MR J. P. FARRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman refer this matter to the Board of Works, so that an inspector may visit the place?
  MR. WYNDHAM: My Answer in based on information supplied by the Board of Works.

  Edgeworthstown Loan Fund Society.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in consequence of the failure of the auditor of the Loan Fund Board in Ireland to require debentures to be compared with entries in the books of the Edgeworthstown Loan Fund Society, a number of people have lost their life's savings by reason of the issue to them of bogus debentures by the late secretary to that society; and what steps he intends taking to afford relief to these people.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The losses sustained by the persons referred to are not due to the reason alleged in the Question. They lodged their money with an official of the society who was not authorised to receive it, and who not only failed to notify the lodgments to his committee, but failed to record the receipts in the books of the
  † See (4) Debates, cxxx., 842.

  1215
  society. Obviously, a comparison of properly issued debentures with the books of the society would not have enabled the auditor to trace the fraudulent conduct of this official. No responsibility in the matter attaches to the Loan Fund Board, and the Government is not celled upon to take action in the direction suggested.

  Irish Loan Fund Board.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what are the functions and powers of the Loan Fund Board for Ireland; whether it is compulsory on their auditors to summon debenture holders before them in order to compare their debentures with the entries on the local society's hooks; and, if so, are entries made by such auditors in verification of such debentures.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The functions and powers of the Board are enumerated in the Act 6 and 7 Vic. cap. 91. The reply to the second part of the Question is in the negative. Such an arrangement would be impracticable, as many of the debenture holders live at a considerable distance from the offices of the local loan fund societies.

  Gortnabinni and Tulloha Schools, Kerry—Instruction in Irish.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an extern teacher of Irish is employed in the Gortnabinni school, in the parish of Bonaire, county Kerry; and whether, in view of the fact that this teacher would be available for giving instruction in Irish as an extra subject in the Tulloha school, in the same parish, he will state what is the reason for refusing facilities for instruction in their native language to the children attending Tulloha School.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The reply to the first part of the Question is, Yes. The school referred to in the second part of the Question is under different management. The appointment of an extern teacher of Irish is a matter for the manager of the school, with whose discretion the Commissioners cannot interfere. The teaching of Irish is not compulsory in national schools.
  MR. BOLAND: Will the managers reconsider their decision if the school children leave the school in a body?
  MR. WYNDHAM: That is a matter for the managers.

  Marlborough Street Training College.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant the two Returns relating to Training Colleges in Ireland, standing on to-day's Paper.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The information will be prepared and communicated to the hon. Member. I hardly think it is of sufficient public importance to embody in a formal Parliamentary Paper.
  The following are the Returns referred to:—
  Marlborough Street Training College (Building Grants)—Return showing—(1) The total amount awarded as grants for building and equipment to each of the training colleges under local management in Ireland in accordance with the letter of Mr. Arthur Balfour to the Commissioners of National Education of the 25th day of November, 1890; and (2) The amount which each such total grant would give as a capitation grant on the number of students for which each such college was recognised.
  Marlborough Street Training College.—Return showing—(1) The total number of students admitted for the first t me to Marlborough Street Training College in each year from 1892 to 1903, both inclusive; (2) The number of Presbyterian students admitted for the first time to Marlborough Street Training College in each year from 1892 to 1903, both inclusive, and the percentage of such number to the total number admitted; (3) The percentage of Presbyterian pupils on the rolls of national schools in Ireland in each year from 1892 to 1903, both inclusive; (4) The percentage of national schools under Presbyterian managers in each year from 1892 to 1903, both inclusive; (5) The number of Methodist students admitted for the first time to Marlborough Street Training College in each year from 1892 to 1903, both inclusive, and the percentage of such number to the total number

  1217
  admitted; (6) The percentage of Methodist pupils on the rolls of national schools in Ireland in each year from 1892 to 1903 both inclusive; and (7) The percentage of national schools under Methodist managers in each year from 1892 to 1903, both inclusive.

  Mr. A. M'Guire's Estate, County Leitrim.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received any proposal for the sale of the estate of Mr. Arthur M'Guire, situate at Miltron, Carrigallen, county Leitrim; and, if so, what steps have they taken to bring about the reinstatement in his holding on that estate of an evicted tenant named Thomas Rourke.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have referred this Question to the Estates Commissioners, but so far have not received their report. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat it to-morrow.

  Castlerea Rate Collector.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have considered the special circumstances of the case of Rate Collector Hanson, Castlerea, to whom the Roscommon County Council admit they owe the sum of £166 15s. 6d., as arrears of poundage; and whether the Local Government Board still refuse their sanction to the payment of this debt.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Board has given the matter careful consideration, but is satisfied that the circumstances are not such as would justify the granting of further concessions to this collector.

  Irish Saltless Butter for England.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to further complaints respecting the detention of Irish saltless butter shipped for the English markets; and whether he will consider the advisability of getting the Department in Ireland to move with the railway companies to facilitate the export of Irish produce so that it may be placed on an equal
  1218
  footing with foreign produce coming to the same markets.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Complaints have been received and are being investigated by the Department.

  Irish Department of Agriculture—Veterinary Branch.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that for a period now extending into the fifth year the Veterinary Branch of the Department of Agriculture has been worked from Touche's Section of Dublin Castle; and seeing that this is the only administrative branch of the Department which remains segregated from the Department's own offices in Merrion Street, whilst other administrative bodies more recently transferred have been accommodated in Merrion Street, whether he can say when practical effect will be given, with a view to the due supervision of that branch, to the provisions requiring the transfer to the Agricultural Department of the veterinary powers of the Castle authorities as contemplated by Act of Parliament.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There is no accommodation in Merrion Street for the Veterinary Branch of the Department. The provisions of the Acts of Parliament transferring the powers of the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council to the Agricultural Department have been duly carried out, and there is no difficulty of supervision such as suggested in the Question.

  Lisnagade Disturbances.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, on the 13th July, a man named Samuel Ewarts, accompanied by his wife and four children, were driving home from Scarva when, coming to Lisnagade School, a number of persons stopped the car and used abusive language to the occupants; whether, in view of the fact that Ewarts was struck on the head several times and that one of his children was struck, he can say why District Inspector Bell, who witnessed the assault,

  1219
  made no arrests; and, as the offenders are known to the Crown, will he order a prosecution.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am making further inquiry in this matter, and shall be glad for a postponement of the Question until Thursday next.

  Portumna Railway.
  MR. THORNTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the present derelict state of the Portumna Railway is owing to the loss of a security for £32,420, through the negligence of a Department of the Government, and that this loss has been the cause of the difficulties that have befallen the railway, including a loss to the Treasury of their loan on mortgage of £12,000 and interest; and, if so, whether the Government will take the necessary steps for renewing the permanent way, and get the line re-opened for traffic for the benefit of the district at an early date; or, failing the above, whether he will cause a full investigation into the circumstances referred to.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am in communication with the Public Works Loan Commissioners in reference to this Question, which I will ask my hon. friend to postpone until Thursday next.

  American Mail Sorting at Queenstown.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that 1,952 sacks of mails landed at Queenstown from New York, from the White Star liner "Teutonic," on Wednesday week were delivered in London unsorted, and to the fact that only eighteen men were despatched from Dublin to sort these sacks; whether he will explain why the officials in Dublin who were responsible for this duty did not take more adequate steps to meet the requirements of this heavy mail; whether it is usual to send men to perform this duty who are unacquainted with the work; whether he will say how often within the past twelve months the American mails from Queenstown have been delivered in London unsorted; and whether, in view of the inconvenience caused, he will take
  1220
  such steps as will prevent the American mails passing through Queenstown to London arriving in that city unsorted in future.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): The hon. Member has, I think, been misinformed. The number of bags of unsorted letters from the "Teutonic" received in London on the 14th instant, was five, not 1,952; and the delivery of these letters was not delayed. The number of men sent to Queenstown was eighteen. An outgoing American mail was due to pass through Dublin the following morning and some of the regular staff were absent on annual or sick-leave. It was, therefore, not considered safe to reduce the force available at Dublin by sending a larger number to Queenstown.

  Dublin Castle Telegraph Office.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he can explain why Constable Woulfe, of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, was appointed to the telegraph office, Dublin Castle, over the heads of other members of the force who had obtained first and second-class certificates; and whether, in view of the police orders that no such appointment will be given to any person having only third-class certificate, he will inquire why Woulfe was selected for the position.
  LORD STANLEY: I am not in a position to answer the hon. Member's Question. The appointment to which he I refers is not a Post Office appointment.

  Irish Postmasters and the Irish Language.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has been asked to receive a deputation, consisting of prominent members of the Gaelic League, which desires to submit the necessity for appointing postmasters in Ireland with a knowledge of the Irish language; whether he has returned and, if so, what answer to the request; and whether, in view of the fact that in the cases of vacancies in the Carmarthen and Criccieth post offices quite recently it was specified that a knowledge of Welsh was necessary, he will state why Irish is not accorded the same treatment in Ireland as Welsh is in Wales.
  LORD STANLEY: I have been asked to receive a deputation from the Gaelic League to deal with the subject mentioned by the hon. Member, and I have replied to the effect that I had already carefully considered the question which it was proposed to raise, and that in my judgment there would not be any advantage to be gained by receiving a deputation on the subject. As regards the use of the Welsh language in Wales, I would refer the hon. Member to my Answer to his Question of the 12th instant.†
  MR. BOLAND: But is the noble Lord aware that in many parts of Ireland delay is caused to correspondence by letters addressed in Irish having to be sent to Dublin to be deciphered?

  Harcourt Road, Dublin, Sub-Postmaster.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will explain why the arears of salary from 1st May, 1902, which he has now directed to be paid in the case of the town sub-postmaster of Harcourt Road, Dublin, and which are alleged to have been withheld purely through inadvertence, were not allowed in May. 1903, when the Postmaster-General's attention was specifically directed in an official report to the fact that the payment was being designedly withheld; and if he will state who is responsible for the allegation that the withholding of the payment up to the present has been due purely to inadvertence.
  LORD STANLEY: I am making further inquiry into the subject of the hon. Member's Question, and I will communicate the result to him.

  Russian Cruisers and the Dardanelles and Bosphorus Passage.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the Treaties of 13th March. 1871, and 30th March. 1856, where by the Great Powers of Europe affirmed and engaged to respect the prohibition for ships of war of Foreign Powers to enter the Straits of the Dardanelles or the Bosphorus, and of the fact that in December, 1902, and January, 1903, four Russian torpedo boats, flying the
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxvii., 1366.
  1222
  commercial flag and said to be carrying no cannon or war material, passed through those Straits, and that on 1st January, 1903, His Majesty's Ambassador addressed a Note to the Porte calling attention to this infraction of the treaties, he will now state whether any, and, if so, what, action has been taken by His Majesty's Government, since the presentation of that Note, to prevent further such infractions of the treaties; have further infractions in fact taken place, by the passage through the Straits of Russian armed vessels, then or subsequently claiming to be and to exercise the rights of duly-commissioned ships of war; and, do His Majesty's Government now propose to take any steps to prevent still further infractions of the treaties.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Until the recent passage of the "Peterburg" and the "Smolensk" no action has been taken by His Majesty's Government since the presentation of the Note to which the hon. Member refers in his Question, and we have not heard of any infractions of the treaty.

  The Dardanelles and Bosphorus—Russo-Turkish Convention.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the official statement on 21st October, 1902, that there were no negotiations going on upon the subject of the passage of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles by ships of war, His Majesty's Government have since been made aware that in 1901 a convention on the subject was made between Turkey and Russia providing special conditions for the passage of special Russian ships; and, if so, have the terms or stipulations of that convention been communicated to His Majesty's Government; and will they lay the communication upon the Table.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We are not aware of any convention of the kind referred to by my hon. friend.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will inquiries be made by the right hon. Gentleman?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have asked the Foreign Office, and they are not aware of any such convention.

  Privateering—The Declaration of Paris—Russian Volunteer Fleet's Status.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that Article 1 of the Declaration of Paris, 1856, declares that privateering, la course, is, and remains, abolished, and Article 2 that the neutral flag covers enemy's merchandise, except contraband of war; whether Lord Clarendon, in agreeing, on 8th April, 1856, to the Declaration, declared, on behalf of Great Britain, that he only agreed to Article 2 provided that privateering were equally abolished for ever; and whether, on 14th April, 1856, Count Orloff, on behalf of Russia, while announcing that he had received power to Sign the Declaration, added, nevertheless, that his Court could not engage itself to maintain the principle of the abolition of privateering; whether the ships of the Russian Volunteer Fleet, being private ships commissioned by the State, differ in any material respect from privateers; and whether, in view of the reservations made by Russia as to Article 1 of the Declaration at the time of its signature, of her subsequent recent action in commissioning vessels of the Volunteer Fleet, and of the consequent violation of the express condition under which Lord Clarendon accepted Article 2 of the Declaration, His Majesty's Government will now consider the propriety of announcing that it will no longer feel itself hound by the Declaration of Paris, and will reserve its right to capture, in war, enemy's property carried at sea under a neutral flag.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think the general statement of law contained in the first two paragraphs of the Question is seriously at variance, if at variance at all, with the treaties, though I must not be taken as giving an authoritative decision on that point. With regard to the third paragraph, and in part to the fourth paragraph, the whole question of the status of the Volunteer Fleet is under discussion between the Government of this country and the Government of Russia, and I think it would be undesirable for us to discuss it across the floor of the House by way of Question and Answer. If I understand my hon. friend's general principles aright, it is the last sentence of the Question to which he
  1224
  attaches the greatest importance. He has always strongly objected to the provisions of the Declaration of Paris which changed international practice, but I cannot hold out any hopes that we are going to make recent occurrences the occasion of any remonstrances to the other Powers upon that broader subject.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask, in due course, whether we may expect some statement of the result of the negotiations going on with respect to the status of these vessels? I presume we shall have Papers laid on the Table.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am very reluctant to lay Papers on the Table. Of course, if questions of practical importance leading to grave national issues were at stake, the House of Commons would rightly insist on being made fully acquainted with all that occurred; but I do not think it would be desirable that I should promise at this moment to lay Papers on this subject before the House.

  The Sinking of the "Knight Commander."
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government has received any information of the sinking of the British ship the "Knight Commander," carrying American goods; and, if so, whether he has any statement to make on the subject.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: We have received a rumour to the effect the right hon. Gentleman refers to, but we have at present no means of authenticating it. I need hardly say that we are making all the inquiries in our power; and until the result of these inquiries is known it would perhaps be inconvenient that I should say anything further.

  Education Estimates—Physical De-terioration Committee's Report.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it will be possible to arrange a time for the discussion of the Report laid last Thursday of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration. May I at the same time also ask the First Lord of the

  1225
  Treasury when it is proposed to take the Education Estimates.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot enter into any engagement on the subject of these two Questions.

  Scottish Education Bill.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Committee on the Scotch Education Bill will be resumed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot fix a day.
  MR. CROMBIE: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to say?
  MR. A J. BALFOUR: There are limits to the session, and I think, bearing those in mind, the hon. Member will be able to restrain his natural and justifiable impatience.
  MR. PIRIE: But is it the intention of the Government to proceed with the measure this session?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope it will piss this session.

  Navy Estimates—Flogging in the Navy.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Admiralty Vote will be put down for discussion before the close of the session, to enable public attention to be directed to the practice and the methods of flogging men and boys in the Royal Navy.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; I cannot say when the Navy Estimates will be taken.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: My Question is, will they come on before the close of the session?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have said I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the information he desires.

  Sittings of the House—Suggested Rearrangements.
  MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury
  1226
  whether he will consider and propose such Amendments to the Rules of the House as will enable it to adjourn not later than eleven of the clock at night.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should be very glad that our proceedings should end at eleven o'clock. My recent experience has shown me that even twelve o'clock is hardly the hour at which the. House always desires to, terminate its. proceedings. If the hon. Member will exercise his individual influence among, his friends, I hope we shall reach, if not the ideal which he contemplates, at all events something near it.
  MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will give further consideration to the question of making such alterations in. the commencement and close of the sessions of Parliament as will avoid the necessity for sitting during the months of July and August.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not at all reject the idea that we might distribute the portion of the year given up to the Parliamentary session in a more convenient, and I would almost add a more rational, fashion. But there are two very great difficulties in the way. One is that the date at which our financial business for the year comes to an end is 31st March. If we have to begin Supply, as we do now, on 1st April, and have to conclude that and all other matters at the early date which the hon. Gentleman suggests, I think it would require a considerable re-arrangement of our business, and I am not sure that it would not involve altering the financial year. My right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer contemplates with legitimate dismay the prospect of having three Budgets in two years. There is another reason even more important. It is quite easy for the House to determine that it will meet in November. By what measure are you going to make it impossible that, having met in November, it will not go on till the present date in August? If you had a legal termination of the session, which is common to a very large number of foreign Legislatures, you would of course get over the difficulty. But imagine how great a change that would involve in the ordinary procedure of this House!
  MR. BROADHURST: May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks an inquiry into the whole subject by a Select Committee would he of any assistance to him.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I certainly would not think of refusing a Select 'Committee. But it would be an elaborate inquiry, and I do not think that I could take part in it. The labour thrown on those who have to administer public affairs is so great that to add to the necessary work done outside the House the necessity of attending and presiding at a long elaborate inquiry of this sort really makes the proposal almost impracticable; and whether the House would care for a Committee which did not have upon it the Leader of the House for the time being and the Leader of the Opposition, I think there may be some doubt.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I ask which three days are to be devoted to Supply next week?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I propose to take Supply on two days next week. I am not yet in a position to indicate the Votes that will be set down for discussion, but my hon. friend the Member for the Wellington Division of Somerset will endeavour to ascertain, through the ordinary channels, what Votes it is most desired to discuss. It would not be fair that Tuesday should be an allotted day for Supply purposes, as part of the sitting will be taken up by the discussion on the Motion for the suspension of the Twelve o'Clock Rule.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I point out that only two days have been given to the Irish Estimates? I hope another opportunity will be provided for the discussion of Irish affairs in Committee of Supply.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I quite recognise that some further time must be giver to Irish Estimates, and I will inquire what particular Estimates can be taken to suit the general convenience.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: We on these Benches have already expressed a desire that the Vote for the Queen's Colleges be taken, as upon it the whole question of University education in Ireland can be discussed.
  MR. LONSDALE: I hope that no promise will be made to the hon. Member for Waterford which will preclude a full discussion of the case of Constable Anderson.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: If the right hon. Gentleman has to make up his mind between the relative merits of the case of Constable Anderson and University education in Ireland I hope he will take a serious view of the matter.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I feel at a loss between these opposing Irish claims, but I shall try, as I always try, to make the best arrangements as to the business of the House, irrespective of Party.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I shall put another Question on the Paper for Thursday.

POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [1st July], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee of five Members, three to be nominated by the House, and two by the Committee of Selection.
Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That three be the Quorum.—(Lord Stanley.)

POST OFFICE SITES [EXPENSES].
Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of all sums payable by the Postmaster-General under any Act of the present session to enable His Majesty's Postmaster-General to acquire lands in London, Southgate, Blackpool, Leeds, and Newcastle-upon-Tyne for the public service and for other purposes, and of all expenses incurred in carrying into effect the provisions of such Act (King's Recommendation signified), this day.—(Lord Stanley.)

LICENSING BILL.
[5th ALLOTTED DAY.]
As amended, considered.
MR. SPEAKER: The first clause on the Paper, that standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Salford cannot be moved as a new clause, but may be proposed as an Amendment to Clause 1 at the end of line 1. With regard to the clause standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-East Manchester it requires some alteration in order to make it relevant to the Bill. It would be necessary in order to bring it into order, to insert after "1872" the words "from administering this Act."
SIR. J. FERGUSSONsaid he would of course make that alteration and would move the new clause in the following form: "A justice shall not be disqualified under Section 60 of the Licensing Act, 1872, from administhis Act by reason only of his holding shares in any such company as is mentioned in that section, unless he is also a director or otherwise directly concerned in the managment of the company." He said it dealt with a case of very great hardship. At one time the law did not allow a shareholder in any railway company which had refreshment rooms of its own to sit as a licensing justice; but that disqualification was considered too extreme and was removed; and he thought that the section of the Act of 1872 which provided that a magistrate having shares in a great brewery company was disqualified from acting as a licensing
1230
justice ought also to be abolished, especially as it was a common practice for magistrates with extreme temperance opinions to adjudicate at licensing sessions. To these men the trade was so obnoxious that, like Nero, they wished it had only one neck which could be cut through. To say that a man who held brewery shares was unfit to perform the ordinary duties of licensing justices was not only unnecessary but unjust. He did not think he need labour the point as the reasons for removing the disqualification were so obvious.
A Clause. (Provision as to disqualification of justices.)
"A justice shall not be disqualified under Section 60 of the Licensing Act, 1872 from administrating this Act by reason only of his holding shares in any such company at is mentioned in that section, unless he is also a director or otherwise directly concerned in the management of the company."—(Sir.J. Fergusson.)
Brought up, and read the first time. Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the clause be read a second time."
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CARSON,)said the Amendment to the clause on the Paper which was suggested as necessary by the Speaker showed how impossible it was to accept any Amendment to the Bill of that kind. This Bill did not lay down any new qualification or any new disqualification of the magistrates who were to administer the licensing law, and if they were to make an addition to the qualification for administering one Act as against another the system would be rendered absolutely unworkable. He was bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be under a misapprehension as to the existing state of the law. He seemed to suppose that a magistrate holding shares in any brewery company was disqualified from acting as a licensing justice. The 60th Section of the Act of 1872 only disqualified a magistrate from acting as a licensing justice who held shares in a brewery operating in his licensing district. Whatever might be thought of the law as it stood—and he thought there was more to be said for it than against it—it was impossible to accept an Amendment to

1231
this Bill which would not be applicable to the general licensing law, and which would prove absolutely unworkable and unpracticable. He strongly deprecated the practice of magistrates who had expressed strong temperance views administering the licensing laws; but there was no other course but to leave it to the good feeling and sense of justice of those magistrates whether it was right, after they had made up their minds, to go on the bench and adjudicate in licensing cases. Such conduct could only lead to agitation in the district, which would do more to destroy the power of the magistrates as an administrative body than anything he could possible conceive. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would realise the desirability of leaving the law as to qualifications and disqualifications where it stood at present, and would not I attempt to set up any special jurisdiction.
SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid the Solicitor-General had given the House a very important interpretation of the law. He was bound to say he did not read it in that light.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The right hon. Baronet is only entitled to make a personal explanation. He cannot proceed to argue the matter.
MR. BROADHURSTsaid he felt much relieved at the attitude taken up by the Solicitor-General, But he would like to point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that it was not unknown that magistrates who were practically the owners of public-houses were to be found at times sitting on the bench when licensing cases were under consideration, and he was glad the Solicitor-General had put his foot down upon that practice. With regard to his observations as to temperance men going on the bench with their minds already made up against a licence, he would like to point out that there was no similarity between the two cases, as the temperance reformers had no direct interest in the licence as the brewer had.
SIR EDWARD CARSON: I take it the hon. Member does not dispute my proposition that a man ought not to adjudicate
1232
upon a matter on which he has made up his mind beforehand.
MR. BROADHURST: Certainly not, on general questions.
SIR EDWARD CARSON: Or on this question?
MR. BROADHURST: I do not think it applies to this question.
MR. WHITTAKERobserved that the Solicitor-General appeared t3 be troubled about people with preconceived opinions in favour of temperance. He had no condemnation for the magistrates who went on the bench with a preconceived determination not to take a licence away unless compensation was given.
SIR EDWARD CARSON: I say that is just as disgraceful as the other.
MR. WHITTAKERnoted that that remark was only made by the hon. and learned Gentleman when it was drawn from him, and it was not cheered by the supporters of the Bill. There were Gentlemen in that House arid magistrates all over the country who had again and again declared that licences ought not to be taken away unless compensation was given. That was not the law. They went on the bench with a preconceived determination not to take away licences without securing compensation, and yet there was no condemnation from the Government for that conduct. He quite agreed that men should not sit on a bench upon a definite case upon which beforehand they had announced a definite decision, but it was a little wearisome to hear these objections thrown at only one particular class of magistrates with preconceived opinions. During the sittings of the Royal Commission it transpired that on one bench there was a gentleman sitting regularly on licensing matters who was solicitor to five brewers in the town. Had he no preconceived opinions? He quite agreed with the reading of the law just given by the Solicitor-General as to the extent of the existing disqualification, and he thought that was sufficient.
MR. GROVESreminded the House that the origin of the Rill was to be traced to the drastic and ill-advised action of certain magistrates with preconceived opinions in connection with licensing matters. That had led the Government to introduce this legislation, and had it not been for that action the law might have remained untouched for a long period of years, for they would have continued in the future to rely upon justice and equity. They had been told that unless a man had a direct personal interest in the immediate district he was not disqualified from acting as a licensing magistrate, but it frequently happened that a man preferred to make his investments in breweries with which he was personally acquainted. He quite agreed that if a man had a direct personal interest he ought to be disqualified by law, if not by his own conscience, from adjudicating, but that was a very different thing to saying that from every bench of magistrates should be eliminated its most active members probably, because they happened to have a small or general interest in the trade. It was the extreme absurdity and one-sidedness of that position which had induced his right hon. friend to put this clause on the Paper. He knew of a case in which an honorary official of a society for the total suppression of the liquor traffic continually sat on a licensing bench, and all attempts to point out to him the impropriety of such action had failed. It was such cases as these that emphasised the inequality and burning injustice of the present state of the law. If this Bill was to become a working success—as he hoped it would—and a greater measure of temperance reform than many anticipated, the Government would do well to give their careful attention to this question of disqualification.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is now discussing the question whether magistrates holding strong views against the granting of licences should act as licensing justices. That is not the proposal contained in the new clause, which is strictly limited to the question of disqualification through holding shares
SIR J. FE RGUSSON: After the statement of the Solicitor-General I will,
1234
with the permission of the House withdraw my Motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEmoved an Amendment to limit the duration of the Act to 1st January, 1919. He said this was a different way of getting at a sort of time limit to any which had hitherto been proposed. The object was to make the Bill a temporary instead of a permanent Act of Parliament. As the question had been discussed before, he would not take up much time. It was clear that this Bill would not be a final settlement of the licensing question. It would not effect very much one way or another except in the way of establishing vested interests which would interfere with legisation in the future. If this Government had not the time, resource, or political courage to deal with a question of that magnitude in the way it should be treated, they ought not to stand in the way of future Governments dealing with it. It was a question which needed dealing with drastically. The Bill had been introduced to meet a temporary political difficulty—to retail for the Government the support of the brewers; therefore let the Bill be of the same character as the difficulty which created it, and let the Government consent to make the Bill a temporary measure. To make a Bill of this character permanent was introducing a very serious obstacle in the way of temperance reform in the future. There had been no end of methods adopted in America and our Colonies to deal with the temperance question, but if the present Bill became law without introducing some time limit, methods to the same end could not be applied in this country. The Bill would convert a licence into a property. But by making the Bill temporary in its operation the trade would enjoy fourteen years wherein to clear out. That was a generous estimate, and it ought to be considered satisfactory. The Government had inserted a provision with regard to new licences at the end of seven years, and providing that the licensees should not have a reasonable expectation of renewal. The new licence-holders under

1235
the Bill, therefore, were rot in the same position as the holders of old licences. The House could not deal with this great problem in this trivial and small way. There must be a clean slate. There were only two ways of doing it. Either the Government should say that if the publican's property was taken away in the public interest the public must pay for it—that would be the courageous view—or they might say that a time limit would be enforced in the way he suggested by his Amendment, for the public would say, "We are asked to buy our own property; it is public property; and we say that we are not going to buy what is our own property." Thus they gave the publicans fourteen years, and if either of those suggestions was adopted the Government would be provided with a clean slate in approaching the consideration of the problem. But the policy adopted by the Government was rather to put off the evil day and to make the eventual handling of the question more difficult than it was before. They could not accept the grossly antiquated proposition that the trade was going to provide the compensation. The licence duties were sufficiently low in all conscience. Let them take the United States of America. Why, in New York City alone—and the population there was a million less than the population of London—licensed houses paid more than half a million a year more for duty than the whole of the licensed houses in the United Kingdom! He knew he was leading a forlorn hope in this matter, but the Opposition, at any rate, could not accept the Bill as a final settlement, or even as a serious contribution towards the solution of the licensing problem.
A clause. (Duration of Act.)
"This Act shall continue in operation until the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen."— (Mr. Lloyd-George.)
Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,)said he was afraid that he must agree with the hon. Member that his attempt
1236
to impose a time limit was a forlorn hope. The Government had given its reasons on several occasions why it could not accept a time limit, and he did not think that the hon. Member had brought forward any fresh argument to induce the Government to alter the decision it had stated over and over again. It should not be forgotten that the compensation money was to be provided by the trade itself and not by the public. A time limit, therefore, would not be fair to those who were contributing towards the compensation fund. It would, indeed, be hard on licensees who insured their premises under the Bill if the period of insurance were limited to fourteen years. A licensee at the end of one year's insurance might receive full compensation, whereas the licensee who contributed for ten years, or a longer period, might find that he had been contributing to the benefit of his rivals but to the eventual loss of himself. This was merely one of the grounds on which the Government had come to the conclusion that a time limit was out side the scope of the Bill. The hon. Member in moving his clause had admitted that he was leading a forlorn hope. No doubt he would desire to test the opinion of the House, and he hoped the debate would not therefore be unduly prolonged.
MR. ASQUITHsaid he regretted to hear the speech of the Home Secretary, and he was sure that in days to come the supporters of the Government would regret it. The right hon. Gentleman had produced no new argument against the need for a time limit, and he himself in rising was not possessed by any feeling of vanity that he might succeed where both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Carnarvon had failed. But he protested against the assumption that underlay the right hon. Gentleman's speech—the assumption that, if this period of mutual insurance lasted only for a limited time, at the end of that period some injustice would be done to the trade. That would not be so for two reasons. In the first place, if this Bill had the effect which its promoters attributed to it, and if it would reduce unnecessary licences, it was quite clear that at the end

1237
of the period the area of reduction would be much narrower than it was at present. In other words, there would not be the same reason on the part of the licensing authorities to interfere in anything like the same drastic manner with licence-holders. That rested on the assumption that the Bill would have the effect attributed to it by its authors—an assumption which he himself did not share. The second point was equally clear. It was that the survivors who had contributed to the compensation fund during the period would have obtained a diminution of competition and an enhanced value of the premises in which they were interested, which would be an ample quid pro quo for what they had contributed to the fund. Therefore, people who had contributed to the fund, and who had not themselves been made victims of the process of reduction, would have an enhanced value of their premises and a diminished risk. The matter went to the very root of the whole argument; and he again wished to express his deep regret that the Government had not seen fit, even at the eleventh hour, to incorporate in the Bill a provision which, although it would not destroy many of the objectionable features of the Bill, would, at any rate, limit its operation.
MR. CRIPPSsaid he thought that the right hon. Gentleman was under a misapprehension as to the effect of the time limit. The right hon. Gentleman said that after fourteen years the number of redundant licences would be much less. He entirely agreed. But why should a person after fourteen years had elapsed not receive the same measure of treatment as he would have received during the fourteen years. They had to consider the individual effect in these cases. It was totally unjust and unfair to say that an individual who after fourteen years was deprived of his property in the public interest ought not to be placed in the same position as a similar individual who had been deprived of his property just before the termination of the fourteen years. The fact was they could not apply the time limit if they wanted to deal fairly and justly as between the State on the one hand and the individual on the other. The right hon. Gentleman also said that alter fourteen years the survivors would
1238
have property enhanced in value. It was a question whether that would be so or not; but, in any event, what argument was that? If the argument were to work fairly, they ought to increase the compensation in that case, He thought the right hon. Gentleman would feel that that was not a sound argument; because if what was right was right now or next year it would be equally right in the future. In reply to the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs, he would point out that no one assumed that all temperance reform could be dealt with him one Bill. This Bill would, however, reduce the number of redundant public-houses; and there was no temperance reformer who would not agree that that was at least one of the directions in which they should proceed if they desired a true measure of temperance reform. What would be the effect of the Amendment? It would reduce the fund which would be available for buying out redundant public-houses which ought to disappear according to every temperance reformer. That ought to be carried out on the very lines that his Party had always adhered to, and always would adhere to, viz., that they could not do justice in one direction if they did conscious injustice in another. The whole basis of a time limit was a fallacy. The principle on which they should proceed was that there was a case for fair treatment whenever private property was taken away in the public interest.
MR. BOUSFIELDsaid that a great many hon. Members on both sides held the view that in order to, meet the temporary emergency which this Bill sought to deal with, it was not necessary to establish a permanent system of compensation. They recognised, however, that there was a temporary emergency which ought to be met by legislation. The magistrates in the past took a certain view of their duty; the magistrates of the present had, in response to public opinion, changed that policy, and had come to the conclusion that licences granted in the past ought not now in the public interest to be retained. That change in policy called for some system of compensation for houses which were closed in the public interest. But

1239
they had not agreed, and did not agree, to a permanent system of compensation to meet a temporary emergency. That would not be a right thing, or a thing that could remain permanently on the Statute-book. Taking that view, he could not but regret that the hon. Gentleman opposite had thought it right to move his Amendment. There were two forms of what might be called a time limit. The Amendment was a form of time limit which sought to render the Bill transitory, and which sought to disable it as a permanent settlement. That being the nature of the Amendment, he could not support it; and he thought many of his hon. friends who were in favour of the principle of a time limit would not be able to support it either. The object to be aimed at was not to render the Bill transitory or nugatory, but to secure a fair and final settlement. If it were to be final it must be fair, and if it were to be fair it must be final. That was where he took issue with the hon. Gentleman opposite. If a new system of licensing were to be introduced in which capital was to be invested, it could not be fair unless it gave the security which a permanent Act of Parliament gave. Fairness and finality went together; and they were not without hope, even yet, that the Bill might be so amended as to afford a permanent settlement of the matter.
The other class of time limit was of a totally different character, and sought to secure a permanent and final settlement of the matter. He recognised that there was a great deal of force in the argument that, if they were asking people to pay into a compensation fund for fourteen years, they could not regard that as an insurance fund, which would be completely exhausted by the protection received (luring such period; and that it would not be fair that a man who had been paying into the fund for fourteen years should have his own licence abolished in the fifteenth year without receiving any compensation at all. That would not be a fair settlement. He had put down on the Paper a competitive Amendment. The two were covered by the generic term of time limit, which was, however, inappropriate as a description of two Amendments of a very different character. Many of them thought the
1240
matter of such importance that it ought to be dealt with apart from Party considerations. This was not the last stage of the Bill. Amendments might be made in another place; the Bill might come back to that House in a different form; and their business at that stage was to leave it as far as possible in a form which would permit of the alteration they desired in order that it should be a permanent settlement. Therefore, he thought that the hon. Gentleman had been ill-advised in bringing forward his Amendment. It would destroy the Bill, whereas his object was to make the Bill a final settlement. He appealed to his hon. friends who were interested in the trade to give further consideration to that matter, and to see whether it would not be desirable in their own interests to make some concession which would render the Bill a permanent settlement. The present form of the Bill was so disputable that it could not be regarded as final. The Amendment he had put down would be moved in another place; and he hoped that ultimately the Bill as passed would be a final settlement.
MR. BRYCEsaid that the hon. Gentleman had stated that fairness and finality went together, and that if the Bill were fair it would be final.
MR. BOUSFIELDsaid he simply laid down the proposition that the two things must go together; that any Bill that was final must be fair, and that a Bill to be fair must be final.
MR. BRYCEexpressed his obligation the hon. Member for having corrected the impression he at first created. He had created the impression that this Bill contained so many disputable elements that t could not be final, and it was because he Opposition held that view that this Amendment had been moved in order that t should not be final. The House should recognise that this matter must be dealt with again, and dealt with on different lines, and the Government would do well to recognise the views of many moderate men of their own Party who felt that the Bill could never be permanent. Another reason why this measure must be a temporary measure was that it was brought forward to meet and deal with a

1241
temporary evil. This was not a measure founded on the principles of eternal justice. Had it been so it might have been introduced many years previously when licences were being taken away without compensation being paid. If eternal justice demanded that compensation should be given in these cases, compensation was required to be given just as much then as it was now. The hon. Member for Salford had given the true explanation of the introduction of this Bill, an explanation which had been often given by hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House and one they were glad to find confirmed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Gentleman had let the cat out of the bag. He said if they were going to take away the owner's property after fourteen years it was just as had to take it away then as now. The hon. Gentleman had shown what was the real fallacy on which the whole case for this Bill rested. In his view a licence granted for a year, to expire at the end of a year, was property; in his view the licensing bench of magistrates when it granted a licence made a gift of a property to the recipient of that licence. He admitted that, if that was the correct view to take, those opposing the Bill were entirely out of Court, but in their view it was not a property; in their view the most that could be said was that a reasonable expectation had been given that what had been done before would be done again. But that expectation could not last for ever and it was absolutely put an end to by a plain declaration removing all hope in the future. The question was how long the notice should be? His hon. friend had put it at fourteen years. Such a term was surely long enough to enable people to escape from the delusion that a licence for one year meant a licence to he continued year after year without end. The hon. Member for Stretford had argued that at the end of fourteen years the value of the property would be enhanced, and that the owner ought to get a better price, but the hon. and learned Gentleman forgot that the owner had had the benefit of that enhancement during that time. He quite agreed that if it was a property it would be a more valuable property in the end and that the owner, therefore, ought to receive greater compensation, but if it was not a property at all but only an expectation, then that expectation got less as years went on after the notice was given. The
1242
Home Secretary had not added any new arguments; he had not given any argument at all. The right hon. Gentleman could not find the slightest answer to the case as to whether this was a property or only an expectation. If it was a property the compensation ought to come out of public funds; if it was merely an expectation then the time limit did not affect it. He thought the best way that the House could mark its sense of the temporary character of this Bill, was by enacting that it should be in force for only a fixed number of years.
MR HENRY HOBHOUSEexpressed his regret that the question of the time limit had been put forward in so crude and unsatisfactory a form. To make the Bill temporary would produce an entirely wrong effect, because the effect would be that, before a certain day, there would be full compensation under the Bill and that after that date there would be no compensation at all. Such an arrangement did not appeal to him. This Bill was clearly not a permanent settlement of this question. What he had always thought they wanted was a sliding scale of compensation, or the establishment of the principle of valuation, based on the non-renewal of a licence after a certain day, and on the absence of any expectation. That would not be done by making this Act temporary. He could not help thinking that if something of that kind had been introduced into the Bill by the Government in the first instance, it would have been accepted by reasonable men on both sides. It was true that this was a measure of temperance reform, but he considered that too high a price was being paid for it.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid that the particular form of time limit proposed in this Amendment was about the worst possible that could be conceived. The right hon. Member for Aberdeen had said that this Bill could only be a temporary measure, but one of the favourite arguments in the previous debates was that the Government were preventing any-new legislation on the subject. The right hon. Member for Aberdeen took a different view of the power of Parliament,

1243
with the nation behind it, from that taken, he thought, by the right hon. Member for Berwick. There was, however, no use legislating in this way by throwing out threats as to whether a Bill would be permanent or temporary. The Bill would be permanent until the House desired to change it; but let them not put clauses in the Bill which would not only render it difficult to carry on the system of licensing in this country, but would subject it to the uncertainty which would be caused by the idea that Acts of Parliament could be torn up by the mere fact that the different Parties walked across from one side of the House to the other. If the Amendment were carried, what was to happen at the end of the fourteen years? The Amendment set up no system, and he submitted with confidence that the licence-holder would be in a great deal stronger position at the end of the fourteen years than he was in now. The ante–1869 houses were brought within the scope of this Bill, but at the end of fourteen years they would be said to be outside the Bill. The Amendment, if passed in its present form, would throw the whole licensing system into a state of absolute chaos at the end of the period. He would not again go over the arguments with regard to a time limit—whether there ought to be compensation at the end of the limit, or whether the time limit itself ought not to be the compensation, which to his mind was the only real alternative—but the proposal that after making the man insure they should say at the end of the period that everything was at an end and that the old system should revive was an absolutely hopeless Amendment. The hon. Member for Carnarvon had asked where was the unfairness of a fourteen years time limit seeing that the Bill had set up a period of seven years for new licences. New licences and old licences had nothing whatever in common. The holders of new licences would possess none of the existing interests, and because there would be a clear field the Government had determined that no monopoly should be permitted to arise in connection with new licences. But what had that to do with old licences which had a recognised interest, saleable in the market, recognised by the State for purposes of taxation, and recognised as possessing an
1244
easily assessable value? The time limit Amendments which had been rejected were attempts to solve the question in relation to the licence itself; but the present Amendment proposed to apply a time limit to the Bill, and that he felt was absolutely impossible of acceptation.
SIR EDWARD GREYsaid the Solicitor-General had stated that another Parliament would be absolutely free to reverse legislation passed by the present Parliament. That, of course, was perfectly true, since every new Parliament had, in theory, a perfectly clear start, but what had been done in one Parliament might make it more or less difficult for another Parliament to feel itself free in the matter. Much of the Solicitor-General's speech was, in effect, an exemplification of the manner in which, if the Bill passed without a time limit, it would, year by year, become increasingly difficult for the House to adopt any alternative system of temperance reform. The right hon. Gentleman argued against the adoption of the time limit on the ground that, by the Bill, licence-holders were to pay an insurance calculated on the assumption that their licences were never to be taken away in the public interest without full compensation, and that, as long as that went on, it would become more unjust to impose a time limit on the remaining licence-holders. The right hon. Gentleman therefore argued that anything in the nature of a time limit was unsuitable to the Bill and to the system which that Bill would establish and would become increasing unsuitable as time went on. That was precisely the reason why they on the Opposition side regarded it as of the essence of the case that a time limit should be introduced. If the Bill was passed, the Solicitor-General and the Government supporters generally would be the first to argue that, inasmuch as a system of insurance had been set up all over the country and an expectation created that there would be no time limit, therefore, from that point of view, any future Parliament would be in equity bound by what was done by the present Bill. He submitted that the manner and the special circumstances under which the Bill was being passed would make it unusually little binding either in reality or in equity upon any

1245
future Parliament. He noted a very significant omission from the Solicitor-General's speech. The right hon. Gentleman opposed the Amendment before the House on the ground that it was the most unsuitable form in which the question of the time limit could be raised, but he did not say that he or the Government would regard with any greater favour some other Amendment in what they conceived to be a more suitable form but asserting the same principle. The Amendment before the House was a forlorn hope, but was the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hackney any less so from the Government point of view? The only allusion of the Solicitor-General to a more suitable form of dealing with the matter was where he said that other Amendments had already been rejected by a large majority. If that was so was it really worth while for the hon. Member for Hackney and the right hon. Member for East Somerset to quarrel with the form of his hon. friend's Amendment. If the Government had given any indication that they would be prepared to accept the time-limit principle in any other form he would have paid great attention to what the hon. Member for Hackney had said.
MR. BOUSFIELDsaid he quarrelled not with the form but with the substance of the present Amendment, the effect of which was practically to render the present Bill not a settlement of the matter at all, whereas the object of his own Amendment would have been to render it a permanent settlement.
SIR EDWARD GREYsaid the impression on his mind was that the hon. Member disapproved of this particular method of seeking to introduce the time limit. There was much in the hon. Member's Amendment, but, as the Government had not the remotest intention of supporting it, the question as between the various forms of introducing the principle became a very little one. The objection of Members on that side of the House to the Bill had been admirably stated from the Government Benches. The hon. Member for Salford had begun by saying that the Bill was introduced because certain magistrates had taken away licences without giving compensation.
MR. GROVESsaid that that had brought the matter prominently to the front.
SIR EDWARD GREYreplied that the hon. Member had gone further than that; he had said that if magistrates had not taken away licences without giving compensation the Bill would not have come before the House. But the hon. Member for the Stretford Division had gone even further and said there must never come a time when magistrates should again be able to take the course of extinguishing licences without compensation. That was really the main ground of his (the speaker's) objection to the Bill—that it would close the door, as far as it was possible for the present Government to close it—against any alternative method of temperance reform. The creed of the Government's supporters was based on the fact that they regarded licences granted for a year only as perpetual property. So that if, after the passing of the Bill, any attempt was made by a future Parliament to raise the question, members of the present Government would be the first to say that the matter could not be freely dealt with because a legal title had already been given. That was why he regarded the Bill as having no binding effect, and he submitted that the Opposition should place on record on every available opportunity their view that the Bill, having been passed at the fag-end of a session and by the methods which had been adopted, could not be recognised as permanent by future Parliaments.
MR. SPEAR, who said that he unfortunately had had an Amendment for a graduated time limit ruled out of order, expressed disappointment that the Government had not seen their way to introduce a time limit into the Bill. In his constituency there was a very strong wish for the reduction of licensed houses and a feeling that that would not be accomplished except somewhat on the lines of the present Bill, namely, by having compensation raised from the trade. Of that part of the Bill he entirely approved. While it might be contended that the licence-holder had only one year's legal holding, he submitted that custom had given him a considerable moral holding, and that the levying of death

1247
duties especially afforded a strong reason against licences being taken away without compensation, except for misconduct. He had, however, a strong objection to the holding being turned into a permanent vested interest. He was not concerned to defend the legislative action or policy of the temperance societies of the country; they had done much social good by the propagation of temperance principles, but he believed that too often they had hindered legislatively the cause they had at heart by their extreme attitude. Throughout this debate a somewhat different spirit had been manifested. The justice of compensation had been recognised, and he could not help believing that an opportunity had arisen which might have been utilised in the interests of temperance reform without inflicting any injustice upon licensed victuallers. He thought it was very unfortunate, therefore, that the Government should be passing a Bill which was extremely offensive in this particular to temperance reformers of all degrees. He appreciated the altered attitude of temperance societies on the matter of compensation, and regretted the Government had not seen fit to meet this by giving a time limit and thus promoting a lasting and just settlement of this difficult and complex question.
Another reason why he advocated a time limit was that the holders of the best class of licences would contribute very heavily to the compensation fund from which they would never receive any return, because there was no danger of their licences being withdrawn, whereas the plainer class of house, which would contribute much less, would receive grants from the fund or such increased trade as would more than compensate them for the contribution they made to the fund. While it was a necessary arrangement in order to secure the reduction of licences on a just principle it was a system which ought not to be permanent in its character, but after a reasonable number of years, when the redundant licences would have been withdrawn, they might expect that State regulated compensation should cease, and it should be a condition in granting renewals that there should be a mutual insurance fund into which the holder of each licence would pay in proportion to risk and liability of losing his
1248
licence. It would be unjust to the holders of the better class houses that they should have permanently to contribute heavily to a fund from which they would never receive any return. He asked the Solicitor-General to consider whether it would not be wiser in the interest of the trade to have a time limit. He was anxious to do justice to the licensed victuallers, but he was aware that they could not control the Government. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh!"] All he could say was that the licensed trade had suffered more from temperance reforms at the hands of the Party which supported the Government than they had at the hands of the Party opposite. It was true that every bit of temperance reform for the last twenty-five years had come from his side of the House. He wanted this to be a lasting settlement which would secure justice to the publican and yet appeal to the good judgment of all sections of the people. He hoped the Government would yield on this point, and, if they did he felt sure they would be rendering a service to temperance reform which future generations would bless them for.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid that on two occasions legislation granting the Principality of Wales popular control of licences had been passed by this House. Evidence on this point was brought before the Licensing Commission, and in the Chairman's Report it was recommended that at the expiration of seven years Wales should have a large measure of popular control. The Amendment provided that this Bill should cease to operate in fourteen years and that would at any rate hold out to the people of Wales some hope that at the end of that time the, way would he open to them to pass, legislation on this question in accordance with the prevailing sentiment of the country. The House would understand the strength of the opposition of Wales to this Bill and how earnestly the Welsh people would support any Amendment which would have the effect of enabling the Principality, within a certain number of years to work out its own salvation in accordance with the prevailing convictions of the people.
MR. THEODORE TAYLORsaid that he would like, even at that late hour, to endorse the remarks made by the hon. Member for Tavistock. He was profoundly convinced that the Government might yet make a better bargain in the interests of the holders of licensed property if they adopted a time limit than if the Bill was not altered in that respect. Whatever was said by mere partisans, they all knew that there was a sufficiently large body of opinion in the country opposed to this Bill which would make itself felt hereafter. Indeed, the vast majority of the people of the country were unalterably opposed to the Bill. He was one who would do justice to every interest concerned, but he believed that in order to effect a settlement of this matter the Government could have extorted from the opponents of the Bill more than justice, and that might have led to a permanent settlement. It would be bare justice that they would get in the future, he was certain, because if the Bill was passed in its present form against the entreaty of all the Members on the Government side who had prayed them to allow some time limit, reinforced by the solid opposition to the Bill in the country, they might depend upon it that the people of the country would not admit the principle that any Government, by whatever majority they passed a Bill, should be allowed to permanently thwart to such an extent the wishes of the people at large. Being himself a licensing magistrate, he was certain that this Bill, merely from the administrative point of view, would cast on quarter sessions such difficult duties that it would require amendment. If the Bill was so good a measure as the Government thought, surely they might trust to the working of it to convince the Legislature of the future, when the subject came up for examination, that it was best to carry out the same principle again—supposing a time limit was put into the Bill. If a time limit was not put into the Bill, it was a slap in the face to Members on the Government side of the House—who vet voted in the Lobby for the Government, however—and it was a slap in the face to the large body of Unionist temperance opinion, which would reassert itself at the polls, per-
1250
haps not by active opposition to the Government but by a slackening of the moral fibre of those who fought in the interests of the Unionist Party.
Although a temperance man himself, he had tried to approach this matter from an absolutely impartial standpoint—a very difficult thing for a Party man to do. The main object of the Bill was to make safe the financial interests of the owners of licensed premises. At all events, they were all agreed that that was one of the objects of the Bill; and he put it to the guardians of that interest in the House, that they were making a great mistake—how great the near future might prove—in neglecting the opportunity of making a settlement of the question. As Party men it suited him and other Liberals much better for the Bill to become an Act as it was. It would he Party capital for them, and would enable them to win votes from quarters from which they would not expect them. He was honest when he said that he believed the Liberal Party would gain from this Bill going to the country as an Act of Parliament; but, of course, they would have the question to deal with later on. It would, nevertheless, be a Unionist Party advantage to have it settled now. He believed it would tend to the settlement of this question if the Government, if not in this House then in another place, were to accept something in the nature of this Amendment.
MR. BARRANsaid he wished to call attention to some of the differences between compulsory insurance regulated by the State and compulsory insurance not so regulated. That was really the difference which this Amendment would produce in this Bill. The existence of the Bill for fourteen years would mean a compulsory insurance during that time. The State would undertake the regulation of it, but at the end of that period it would be quite as compulsory an insurance as before. There would, however, be this great difference. During the fourteen years when it was regulated by the State it would be confined to comparatively small localities, whereas at the end of that period the area would be widened practically to the Whole country. In other

1251
trades, and more especially dangerous trades, there was at the present time, to all intents and purposes, compulsory insurance. Employers were hound to expend a large sum in insurance, and any large employer who failed to do so would be courting certain disaster under certain circumstances. The trades which were put under that law got nothing from the Government, as the licensed trade did. The licensed trade got a very valuable asset, and that was an additional reason for insisting that licence-holders should be put under such disadvantages, if he might use the term, as would make their own insurance at a later period absolutely essential. During fourteen years, of course, they would have security or compensation. At the end of fourteen years there would be a very largely decreased number of public-houses. That meant that at the end of the period the trade would have a stronger monopoly than they had at the present time. They would have a combination more powerful even than any of those trusts of which the disadvantages in other countries had been seen. This combination would enable them to take from the consumers whatever funds they might require for compensation, either by an advance of prices or by
what the trade understood equally well—the question of quality. This Bill would give to the monopoly greater power still. There was no limit put to the continual increase in the value of these licences. No arrangement was made while the Bill was going through Committee to limit the amount of the valuation. Therefore they were giving to the licences an enormously added capital value in the future.
MR. BRIGGsaid he wished to speak on behalf of a body of people whose views had not been voiced in the House, so far as he knew. They would hail with delight the acceptance by the Government of such an Amendment as that proposed by the hon. Member for Carnarvon. As he read the Bill, a time limit was foreshadowed in regard to new licences it seemed to him that there would be very great difficulty, speaking from the quarter sessions point of view, in dealing with the two kinds of licences.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 138; Noes, 220. (Division List No. 277.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Allen, Charles P.

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Asher, Alexander

Duncan, J. Hastings

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Dunn, Sir William

Joicey, Sir James

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Edwards, Frank

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

Atherley. Jones, L.

Ellice, CaptE. C(SAndrw'sBghs

Joyce, Michael

Barlow, John Emmott

Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Evans, Sir Fran. H. (Maidstone

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Farrell, James Patrick

Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W.

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Fenwick, Charles

Lambert, George

Bell, Richard

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Langley, Batty

Boland, John

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

Brigg, John

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Broadhurst, Henry

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Levy, Maurice

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lewis, John Herbert

Burt, Thomas

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

Lough, Thomas

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Griffith, Ellis J.

Lundon, W.

Caldwell, James

Hain, Edward

Lyell, Charles Henry

Cameron, Robert

Hammond, John

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Channing, Francis Allston

Harwood, George

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Crombie, John William

Higham, John Sharpe

Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

Cullinan, J.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Moulton, John Fletcher

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Horniman, Frederick John

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Nussey, Thomas Winans

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

O'Doherty, William

Seely, Maj. J.E.B.(Isle of Wight

Ure, Alexander

O'Malley, William

Shackleton, David James

Wallace, Robert

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.)

O'Shee, James John

Sheehy, David

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Slack, John Bamford

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Parrott, William

Sloan, Thomas Henry

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Spear, John Ward

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Stanhope, lion. Philip James

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Price, Robert John

Strachey, Sir Edward

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

Rea, Russell

Sullivan, Donal

Yoxall, James Henry

Rickett, J. Compton

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Tennant, Harold John

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

Lloyd-George and Mr. Whittaker.

Runciman, Walter

Tomkinson, James

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Toulmin, George

Schwalm, Charles E.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

NOES

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Davenport, William Bromley

Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Allhusen, Augustus HenryEden

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Hoult, Joseph

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Dewar, Sir T.R.(Tower Hamlets

Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Dickson, Charles Scott

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Arrol, Sir William

Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

td>Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Dixon-Hartland, SirFredDixon

Kimber, Sir Henry

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Doogan, P. C.

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Balcarres, Lord

Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

Knowles, Sir Lees

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

Doughty, Sir George

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W.(Leeds)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch)

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

Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Fisher, William Hayes

Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Fison, Frederick William

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Bignold, Sir Arthur

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Bigwood, James

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Bousfield, William Robert

Forster, Henry William

Long, Col. CharlesW.(Evesham

Brassey, Albert

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

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

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Galloway, William Johnson

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Gardner, Ernest

Lowe, Francis William

Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

Garfit, William

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Burke, E. Haviland

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Butcher, John George

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

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

Campbell, J.H.M. (Dublin Univ

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Macdona, John Cumming

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Maconochie, A. W.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh, W

Chamberlain,Rt Hn. J.A(Worc.

Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Chapman, Edward

Gretton, John

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Charrington, Spencer

Groves, James Grimble

Maxwell, RtHn. Sir FL E(Wigt'n

Clancy, John Joseph

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Coates, Edward Feetham

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

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

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

Morpeth, Viscount

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich

Morrell, George Herbert

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Mount, William Arthur

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Hayden, John Patrick

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Crippe, Charles Alfred

Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Heaton, John Henniker

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Nannetti, Joseph P.

1254

1255

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Thornton, Percy M.

Nicholson, William Graham

Robinson, Brooke

Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

Nolan, Col. JohnP.(Galway, N.)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Tully, Jasper

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Valentia, Viscount

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Round, Rt. Hon. James

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

O'Dowd, John

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Walker, Col. William Hall

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Webb, Colonel William George

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Samuel, Sir HarryS.(Limehouse

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

Pemberton, John S. G.

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Percy, Earl

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

Pierpoint, Robert

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Pretyman, Ernest George

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Pryce-Jones, Lt.—Col. Edward

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Purvis, Robert

Smith, RtHn J. Parker(Lanarks

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Rankin, Sir James

Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Ratcliff, R. F.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Reid, James (Greenock)

Stroyan, John

Renwick, George

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Ridley, Hon. M. W.(Stalybridge

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G(O xf'dUniv.

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid he begged to move the clause which appeared on the Paper in his name. He need not trouble the House by reading the clause, which was somewhat clouded by legal phraseology; but he would like to state in popular language what was the object of the proposed Amendment to the Bill. He wished to make it possible for an existing licensee, the period of whose licence was for one year, to elect to take a new licence for seven years. He would point out to the House that the situation of this clause had very materially changed since first placed upon the Paper, and while the Bill was going through Committee. At that time the Government had not adopted the view that the best system of licensing was to sweep away the annual term and to grant every licence for a period of seven years. They had apparently now come to the conclusion, in regard to all new licences, that the term of their duration instead of being one year should be seven years, subject of course to the discretion of the magistrates, who might fix it at a less period. As he understood it, it was open to them to grant licences for seven years, but not for more. He congratulated the Government upon the courage with which they had adopted this ultimately universal system for dealing with this trade, regulating it, and bringing it into accordance with utility and good sense. It was obvious that a seven years term would satisfy both classes which
1256
were interested in the granting of licences. It satisfied the licensee because it gave him a fixed period during which he had comparative security of tenure, subject of course to forfeiture for had conduct; and at the end of that period his chance of renewal would not be for one year, but for seven years. The result was that a term would be given long enough to form the subject-matter of insurance which might be effected on mutual lines. Therefore, from the point of view of the licensee, they put the trade upon a reasonable basis. All that was asked on behalf of the friends of temperance was that there should be some opportunity for readjusting the number of houses to the public wants. At the end of the seven years under that system this opportunity would arise. By this proposal they would accomplish the three-fold object of regulating the trade on businesslike principles, of satisfying the public requirements, and of giving security of tenure for a limited period, which would enable the licensee to make his own insurance and relieve him from the obligation of coming under the cumbrous system of insurance by public authority. If that was a good system in regard to new licences, he hoped the Solicitor-General would tell the House whether it would not work equally well with regard to existing licences.
The proposal of the Government as it stood was in an imperfect and truncated condition. It suggested an admirable

1257
provision in regard to new licences, but it made no provision for the licences now in existence. He hoped that he would not be met by a plea of non possumus. His suggestion was that they should pro-wide a mode of merger which created no conflict with the operation of this Bill. The Bill would continue in the case of the old licensees who preferred the machinery the Government provided for insurance, but in the case of the old licensees who Aid not prefer that machinery, it should be possible for them to take new licences lieu of the old. It would be said by some of his friends that the effect of this clause would be to entirely destroy the Government scheme, and for two reasons. In the first place, it had been said that the existing licensees of large properties would elect to take a seven years licence because they would be relieved from a contribution to the fund, and thus licences in large properties would not be brought within the scope of the operation of the fund. On the other hand, the small licensee would be kept out because it would be said that if they continued under the existing system their contribution to the fund would be increased by the fact that the holders of the large licences would keep out and elect to take a seven years licence. The result would be that there would be no fund and no mode for compensating the houses suppressed, and, therefore, no suppression would take place. What was the answer to that? In the first place, he did not think it was clear that they could prevent the Government scheme being destroyed in the case of large hotels, because they could easily arrange with the magistrates to take a new licence for seven years, and thus be kept out of the operation of the Bill altogether. If in the course of a few years so large a number of licence-holders elected to take up new licences for seven years as practically to bring the existence of the fund to an end, they would then be exchanging the new system for the old by the simple option provided under this clause. Parliament would then see that the seven years system had been a success, and the cumbrous machinery of insurance by public authority would be abolished. He put this suggestion before the Government because he did not think that the
1258
law could be left for any appreciable period in the present state of confusion. They could not have working side by side in a satisfactory way a seven years system and an annual system. The seven years system was a rational one which commended itself to all those engaged in the trade, and if the Solictor-General could I not accept his suggestion he would like him to suggest some other method.
A clause (Seven years licences).
"Upon the proposed grant to any person after the passing of this Act of a new licence, or upon the application be any licensed person for the renewal of an existing licence, such proposed grantee or applicant shall declare whether he elects to have such licence granted or renewed, as the case may be, for one year, or whether he prefers in lieu thereof to have issue, to him a seven years licence. In the latter event, Sections 1, 3, and 4 of his Act shall not apply to such licence, and the same shall operate in all other respects as an annual licence save only that the duration thereof shall be seven years instead of one year and that during the currency of such period the licensing justices may, if they think fit, forfeit such licence upon the ground that the licensed premises have been ill-conducted or are structurally deficient or unsuitable or upon grounds connected with the character or fitness of the holder of the licence, and upon the expiration of the said period and of each succeeding period of seven years the said justices may in their discretion grant the renewal of the said licence or may refuse the same without any obligation to pay or provide compensation, and in such manner as licences are now renewable subject only to forfeiture upon the grounds above stated."—(Mr. Lawson Walton.)
Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid the first proposal of the hon. and learned Member was in regard to the granting of new licences, and he proposed that instead of the system under the Bill which provided that a person could only get a new licence by paying the full monopoly value, subject to conditions as to tenure which the magistrates might lay down, that the brewer or the publican who already held a licence might elect to take out a new licence for seven years in place of it

1259
without paying anything for its monopoly value and without any of the restrictions which the magistrates could place upon new licences. Such an applicant would be in a vastly superior position to an ordinary licence-holder. The view of the Government was that they ought not to grant a new licence without making the holder pay the monopoly value, which was the difference between the value of the premises with and without a licence. What his hon. and learned friend sought to do for the trade by this Amendment, as opposed to the proposals of the Bill, was to give the brewers an option. Instead of adhering to the system under the Bill, the hon. and learned Member proposed that the brewer, the publican, or the applicant might elect to take a new licence for the same period without paying anything for the monopoly value which would be conferred upon them. If he were to have regard to the cause of the brewer or the publican only, he would say that this Amendment could not possibly do them any harm, for it would enable them to create a new monopoly. Such an applicant for a new licence would be placed in a greatly superior position than was the case at present, because he would enjoy a run of seven years without interruption, and without having paid a shilling for the monopoly that was given to him. This proposal would destroy the compensation basis of the Bill, and the Government could not accept the Amendment.
MR. CRIPPSsaid that upon this very important question, he quite agreed with what the hon. Member opposite had said, that looking at the future licences there must be uniformity of system. It was impossible to suppose that they could have two classes of licences, one an annual licence subject to compensation, and the other a seven years licence, upon which the monopoly value was not subject to the compensation clause. The vice of this Bill was in suggesting a new system which was wholly inapplicable, having regard to the conditions they had to control, and which must operate badly. Our licensing system should be placed upon the best basis possible. The Government proposed to adopt the
1260
principle of a possible seven years term. From his experience as a licensing magistrate, he would never consent without a protest to the withdrawal from the supervision of the licensing justices of any licence granted by a magistrate for so long a period. A licence ought to come up for supervision every year, in order that the justices might see that the holder was taking all precautions and acting in accordance with public wellbeing and public morality. It was not a question of illegality, but let them consider what might happen. Take the case quoted in the House of a publican refusing to serve soldiers in uniform. Under this seven years system he submitted that such a thing could be done with impunity for the whole of that period. That was, a fatal blot on this system. The seven years system gave no security that the result of a title of this kind might not be that, instead of the public getting what they wanted, they would either get the big brewer who wanted to make a large profit out of the house in the seven years and the tied-house system, or municipal public-houses. He could not conceive the advisability of granting a licence, the nature of which made a tied house a necessity. Nothing could be worse; and he would look with suspicion at anything which introduced a system which might conduce to municipal public-houses. The conditions the Government imposed in this case would not permit any ordinary man to apply for a licence. A man who wanted a new licence nowadays had to go to a large expense, and had to make a very good title for a new licence for particular premises. The justices were not likely to grant to the applicant a redundant licence, but only a licence required in the public interest, and one which would not be likely to be interfered with in the future, and that was the real security the licensee obtained. If the Government wished to intercept monopoly value in the future—and he did not think the licensee should have it—it ought to be done by a proper scale of Imperial duties. By putting up licences to auction the worst possible class of men might be obtained, if only they offered the best price. That was a bad principle, and he hoped it would not be sanctioned for the first time by a Unionist Government

1261
which was supposed to have particular regard for the principles of local government. He agreed entirely as to the desirablity of having a uniform system with regard to licences, but he hoped the Amendment in its present form would not be accepted.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONwas a little surprised to find how much he was in agreement with the hon and learned Member for the Stretford Division. He agreed that this question ought not to be dealt with in a temperance Bill, and he could hardly conceive that anybody could regard, it as a temperance reform. In his opinion it ought to be done in a Finance Bill, and this wag an attempt to do in an indirect way what ought to be completely and uniformly done in some future Finance Bill. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman that they ought to have one uniform system, and that the proper way of dealing with the monopoly value was not to cast upon local magistrates the difficult task of finding out how much duty ought to be imposed on the granting of a new licence. The duty was an Imperial asset, and it ought to be levied by the Imperial Government. It ought to be ascertained by the Inland Revenue and be exacted from all licence-holders, new or old. He welcomed the Bill because it introduced into our legislation for the first time the very principle for which the hon. and learned Member had contended. For the first time the principle was being recognised that it was the right and duty of the State to exact from every licensed holder of a public monopoly the full value of that monopoly. Clause 4 made the Bill a totally different measure, and he could not imagine that it would be possible for Parliament to go on with the anomalous position which it would create by having not merely two distinct sets of licences, but three totally different classes of licensed victuallers. How could the finances be properly dealt with if there were three different sets of duties, each having a separate origin and a separate destination? He regarded Clause 4 as a most important new departure in respect of the great principle to which he had alluded—so important that he was rather inclined to diminish such resistance as he had offered to the Bill. The clause would have enormous
1262
effects. The time would come when the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take the matter into his own hands, and, instead of receiving £1,500,000, he would get the £10,000,000 which he (the speaker) believed ought to be produced. His hon. and learned friend the Member for Leeds wished to exclude from the application of Clause 4 the licences dealt with in his Amendment and that deterred him from supporting it. If they levied compensation, they reduced the monopoly value, so that it was immaterial whether the new seven years licences paid compensation money or not. The important 1point was that the only new licences, which would be possible would be subject to the monopoly clause and the whale value of the monopoly would be devoted to public purposes.
MR. BOUSFIELDsympathised with the desire of the mover of the Amendment to obtain a uniform system of licensing after the lapse of a sufficient number of years. From the point of view of a final settlement, he did not think the period of seven years for new licences was sufficiently long to secure the object the Government had in view, viz., that of giving a man such a term as would enable him to recoup himself for the capital expenditure he had made. If the term was inadequate the magistrates, at the end of the period, would say, as they said now, that the man, though he had no legal right, had a moral right to a renewal inasmuch as he had not held the licence for a sufficiently long period to recoup himself for the expenditure he had made on the premises. So strongly was he impressed by that argument, that he believed Section 4 would not be operative unless the Government saw their way to extend the term. He would be glad if, by some means the provision of Clause 4 could, after a term of years, be applied to all licences. The scheme of compensation was based upon having as large an area as possible for compensation purposes, and as the Amendment would necessarily tend to restrict that area by diminishing the number of houses by which the fund would he supplied, and thereby reduce the advantages to be derived from the operation of the Bill, he regretted that he would be unable to give it his support.
MR. LAWSON WALTONintimated that under the circumstances he would not press the Amendment to a division.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. BOUSFIELD,who had given notice of the following new clause, "After the end of fourteen years after the passing of this Act existing on-licences shall not be renewed, but in place of every existing on-licence which is still in existence after the end (if such period there shall be granted at the next licensing sessions a new licence for the term of seven years, subject to the provisions of Section 4 of this Act, but without the imposition of any payment or conditions under such section other than the conditions (if any) attached to the existing licence. Provided nevertheless that such new licence may be refused on the same grounds and subject to the same terms and conditions as the renewal of the existing licence might have been refused"; said he had put the Amendment on the Paper as a supporter of the Bill, and in the hope that it would tend to make the Bill a final settlement of the question with which it dealt. He agreed, however, that at present the Amendment had no chance of acceptance, but he felt that if it came before the House -at a later period, having at its back the voice of a stronger authority the Government would be compelled to re-consider their position. He had reason to believe that the Amendment would be moved in another place; and in the hope that it would be then carried and come back to this House at a later stage, he did not propose to move on the present occasion.
Min WORSLEY-TAYLORsaid he had put down this Amendment in order to call the Solicitor-General's attention to what appeared to him a doubtful point under the Act of 1872. The effect of Section 60 of the 1872 Act was to provide that no justice should act for any purpose under that Act in respect of any premises in the profits of which such justice was interested or of which he was wholly or partly the owner, lessee, or occupier. There was a doubt under the present
1264
Bill whether that disqualification of a justice to act might not be made hereafter to apply to circumstances which were not contemplated at the time when that section was passed. His Amendment had particular reference to two clauses of the present Bill. Clause 5 gave power to quarter sessions to divide their area into districts, and Clause 3 required them, if it was necessary, to impose the charges which were made in the Bill on all the licensed premises in the whole of their area or in a given district. It was doubtful whether the words of Section 60 might not prevent the owner of a house from acting even in the limited administrative sense that was implied under the two clauses to which he referred. Strictly speaking he would not be acting in respect of his particular premises, but on the question whether an area should be divided into districts. If his house happened to be in one of those districts it might be held that he was disqualified from acting although he thought no one could seriously suggest that there would be the slightest objection, in fact, to his so acting. Again, in respect of imposing a charge on all the licensed premises in the area, his own licensed house might be one among hundreds and possibly it might be held hereafter that he was disqualified from acting in that matter. If that were the case it would disestablish scores, almost hundreds, of county gentlemen who were regular attendants at quarter sessions, and it was to clear up the point that he had put down his Amendment.
A clause (Provision as to Disqualification of justices)—
"No justice shall be disqualified under section sixty of The Licensing Act, 1872, or otherwise, to act with reference to the imposition and levying of charges on licences in any area or district, or the division of any area into districts, under this Act by reason of his being wholly or partly the owner of any licensed premises within such area or district."—(Mr. Worsley-Taylor.)
Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid the point raised by the hon. and learned

1265
Member was whether the provisions of this Bill setting up the compensation fund, would debar a member of quarter sessions from taking part in those proceedings because he happened to be interested in public-houses in the district where the fund was being set up. He had looked at the section referred to, and it seemed to him clear that Section 60 of the Act of 1872 was intended to prevent any justice acting in a matter which specifically affected a particular house in which he was interested. It would be a far-fetched construction to extend that prohibition to the duties which the hon. Member had mentioned. If, however, he was assured that there was doubt in the matter he would see that words were inserted to meet the case.
MR. LAWSON WALTONdid not think that there could be any doubt that the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Member for Blackpool would not disqualify justices, because it was only in cases where their own houses were actually being considered as a matter of specific investigation that the disqualification would arise.
MR. WORSLEY-TAYLORsaid that what had been said would relieve all anxiety on the point, and every justice would feel that he was entitled to sit under the circumstances he had described. He therefore begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
MR. WHITTAKERasked if in a case where a landowner owned a public-house and the local justices recommended that it should be one of the public-houses in that district which should have their licences refused that landowner would be disqualified from acting in such a case at quarter sessions.
SIR EDWARD CARSON: No.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. J. H. LEWIS, in moving to omit Clause 1, said that as originally drawn it provided that there should be a permanent vested interest in new licences. That was held from the very beginning to be a fatal defect in the Bill. The Government did meet the
1266
general feeling in regard to that, and introduced an Amendment which made it clear that, so far as new licences were concerned, there was to be nothing in the nature of a vested interest created in them. Subsequent Amendments were introduced to carry that into effect. He was bound to say that he had considerable doubt as to the way in which they would be ultimately construed. Whether the Amendment would go further than to prevent the creation of any vested interest in new licences was a question on which there might be considerable difference of opinion. Clause 1 contained a number of extremely objectionable provisions. It made a very great difference in the administrative powers the magistrates would possess in future as compared with the powers they possessed at the present time. He could not agree that the words introduced with regard to the conduct of the house and of the licensee covered the whole ground covered by the administrative jurisdiction of the magistrates. At present the magistrates had powers with regard to hack-doors and side-entrances, and some of the best work they had done in Liverpool and other large towns had been in the making of premises more easy of police supervision, and in preventing secret and illicit drinking and improper practices. It appeared to him that under this clause it would be extremely difficult for the magistrates to continue that excellent work. He regarded that as a very great blemish on the Bill.
In regard to the tenants of tied houses, the Government had a great opportunity of doing something to improve their position. It would have been possible, by giving the magistrates certain powers, to have destroyed some of the worst features of that very bad system. The Government, however had not availed themselves of the opportunity of dealing with that system. He doubted whether such an opportunity would arise for a long time to come. Nor had the Government dealt with the question of transfer. Owing to the existence of the tied-house system public-houses passed from hand to hand with great rapidity, and with great deterioration in many cases to the character of the houses. He knew of instances where what were called free houses had been

1267
converted into tied houses, with the result that instead of remaining places of refreshment they had become mere drinking dens and nothing more. In this country there were 20,000 transfers of tied houses every year. What they meant in the way of bankruptcies, and other very objectionable things in the tied-house system, it would be difficult to enumerate. He regretted that the Government had not introduced in the first clause a provision to enable the magistrates to put some restriction on the enormous number of transfers and changes of tenantry. It was one of the most scandalous parts of the licensing system at the present time. He regretted the Government did not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Plymouth, who wished to make it clear that quarter sessions were to act under the Bill as administrative bodies. The result of that refusal would be that they would not have that free discretion which local justices now possessed to deal with the licences that came before them. Another important question raised by the first clause referred to the payment of compensation. A great deal had been said with regard to the sympathy which the public felt for the licence-holder. There was no doubt that the public felt a considerable amount of sympathy for the licence-holder who was dispossessed. But what justice did the licence-holder receive under this Bill? He was placed in an extraordinary and an anomalous position. It was the desire of the public that the licence-holder should receive his fair share of compensation, and it was their impression that he would receive the greater part of the compensation. That was a delusion from which before long there would be a rude awakening. His compensation was limited to one year's tenancy ill the licensed premises.
SIR EDWARD CARSON: That is not so.
MR. J. H. LEWISsaid 85 per cent. of the licence-holders of this country were tenants of tied houses. This Bill contained nothing to prevent such tenants from contracting themselves out of their interest for a longer period than one year. The Solicitor-General had said that the Government did not propose to interfere
1268
with their right to contract themselves out of their liberty.
SIR EDWARD CARSONdissented.
MR. J. H. LEWISsaid the practical result would be that a man who had been in a public-house for a few weeks might receive the same amount of compensation as a man who had been a tenant of a similar house for twenty or thirty years. That was the anomaly he was drawing attention to.
MR. CRIPPS,on a point of order, asked whether the matters to which the hon. Member was referring did not arise on Section 2, and not Section 1 of the Bill.
MR. SPEAKER: Section 1 only settles the principle that licences can only be refused, in certain cases, on payment of compensation. The amount of compensation and the mode of ascertaining it arises on Section 2.
MR. J. H. LEWISsaid he would not pursue the subject any further. His only object was to show that the compensation to which this clause referred would be likely to work very injuriously to the licence-holder. Those who believed that the conception of the Bill was unsound would by voting against Clause 1 record their opinion that the Bill had been introduced in the interest of a portion of the licensed trade, and that the portion which deserved their sympathy least of all.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 1, line 5, to leave out Clause 1."—(Mr. J. II. Lewis.)
Question proposed, "That the words of Clause 1, to the word 'on,' in line 5, stand part of the Bill."
MR. WHITLEYsaid that a good part of the clause had not been discussed owing to the operation of the closure. It was clear that the clause did destroy the existing discretion of the magistrates with regard to all those minor points of conduct of licence-holders which were so important in making the difference between good and doubtful conduct of

1269
the premises. They had never yet had an explanation from the Government why they did not carry out on the first clause the intentions they declared on the First Reading of the Bill with respect to the discretion of the local justices. To have drafted the clause in this way would have saved a great deal of discussion, and at the same time would have avoided the great evil which the Government had quite unnecessarily introduced in this Bill, viz., that they were destroying the beneficial powers of the local magistrates not exactly to make by-laws, but to make such conditions upon renewal of licences as would have all the effect of by-laws, ensuring good conduct on the part of the licensee. He thought that the Government had gone out of their way to destroy the discretion of the local magistrates, which they themselves, on the First Reading of the Bill, declared they aid not intend to do. For his part, he very greatly deplored that fact, and it was one of the greatest evils to be found in the Bill. The second matter to which he wished to refer was that the Government had persistently refused to meet all the efforts on that side of the House to make the operation of this clause tend in the direction of minimising the prevailing method of tying up these houses in the hands of the brewers. He knew that the Government had not a free hand; they had a certain command to obey, and it would have involved a revolt of a small section of their supporters if they had done anything to set free the tenant as against the owners of the licensed premises. If the Government had had at heart a measure of licensing reform, here was an opportunity, so far as moulding the machinery of the clause was concerned, to restore the position of the licence-holder to that which he had before the great brewers began their campaign of buying up the licensed premises. That had a very important effect on the method of esti-
mating the amount of compensation that was to be paid. The tied-house system had introduced not only a great evil in the administration of the law, but had also given a fictitious value to the licence. Unfortunately, it was on that fictitious value that the Government had made their estimate for the purposes of compensation. The Government might have produced a reduction of the number of licences if they had taken the opportunity of destroying the monopoly power of the tied-house system, and left the Bill on the basis of giving compensation to those persons who lost their employment because of the operation of the Act. If the Government had done that, this Bill would have gone through practically by common consent. The Government had, however, chosen the other way; and he felt sure that on both these points the country would not be satisfied with the proposal that they wore now about to carry, and that the country would, at some time in the future, insist on restoring to the magistrates the discretion, which had been of great benefit of recent years, and would insist on an effort being made to destroy the evil system of tied houses. He was glad to see that the free house licence-holders had had the courage to separate themselves from that portion of their fellow-traders who were bound to the tied houses and who were satisfied to go on in the miserable and degrading position of parting with their freedom in carrying out the public duties which were imposed on them by a licence to sell intoxicating liquors. He regretted that the Government had persistently refused to accept all Amendments which would have improved their Bill, and he believed that they would greatly lose in persisting in that course.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 232; Noes, 140. (Division List No. 278.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Balcarres, Lord

Bond, Edward

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

Bousfield, William Robert

Allhusen, Augustus HenryEden

Balfour, Rt. Hon G. W.(Leeds)

Brassey, Albert

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

Arrol, Sir William

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Butcher, John George

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Campbell, J.H.M.(DublinUniv.

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Bigwood, James

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Baird, John George Alexander

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Chamberlain,Rt Hn. J.A(Worc.

Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Pierpoint, Robert

Chapman, Edward

Hoult, Joseph

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Charrington, Spencer

Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Clancy, John Joseph

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Purvis, Robert

Coates, Edward Feetham

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Rankin, Sir James

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

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Rateliff, R. F.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W.

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.)

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

Renwick, George

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Keswick, William

Richards, Henry Charles

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Kimber, Sir Henry

Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Ridley. S. Forde(Bethnal Green

Gust, Henry John C.

Knowles, Sir Lees

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Win.

Robinson, Brooke

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Davenport, William Bromley

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Davies, SirHoratioD.(Chatham

Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Denny, Colonel

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

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

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Dickinson, Robert Edmund

Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Samuel, Sir HarryS.(Limehouse

Doogan, P. C.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Doughty, Sir George

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

Seely, Charles Hilton(Lincoln)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

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

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants., W.)

Lowe, Francis William

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

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

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Smith, RtHn J. Parker(Lanarks

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

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

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

Spear, John Ward

Fisher, William Hayes

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

Fison, Frederick William

Macdona, John Cumming

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh, W

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Stroyan, John

Forster, Henry William

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

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

Galloway, William Johnson

Maxwell, RtHn. Sir H.E(Wigt'n

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Gardner, Ernest

Melville, Beresford Valentine

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

Garfit, William

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Thornton, Percy M.

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

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

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Tuff, Charles

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

Tully, Jasper

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

Moore, William

Valentia, Viscount

Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

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

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

Morpeth, Viscount

Walker, Col. William Hall

Gretton, John

Morrell, George Herbert

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Groves, James Grimble

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Hall, Edward Marshall

Mount, William Arthur

Webby, Lt. Col. A.C.E(Taunton

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Harris, F. Leverton(Tynein'th)

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Harris, Dr. Fredk. R.(Dulwich)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Wortley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Nicholson, William Graham

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Nolan, Col. JohnP. (Galway, N.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

Nolan, Joseph (Lout h, South

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.)

O'Dowd, John

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Pemberton, John S. G.

Mr. Ailwyn Fellowers.

Hobhouse RtHn H(Somers't, E

Percy, Earl

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Asher, Alexander

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Allen, Charles P.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

1272

1273

Atherley-Jones, L.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Perks, Robert William

Barlow, John Emmott

Hammond, John

Pirie, Duncan V.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Harcourt, RtHn. Sir W(Monm't

Price, Robert John

Bell, Richard

Harwood, George

Priestley, Arthur

Boland, John

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Rea, Russell

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Helme, Normal Watson

Rickett, J. Compton

Brigg, John

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Broadhurst, Henry

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Robson, William Snowdon

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Higham, John Sharpe

Roe, Sir Thomas

Burt, Thomas

Holland, Sir William Henry

Runciman, Walter

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Horniman, Frederick John

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Caldwell, James

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Cameron, Robert

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Schwann, Charles E.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isleof Wight

Channing, Francis Allston

Joicey, Sir James

Shackleton, David James

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Cremer, William Randal

Joyce, Michael

Sheehy, David

Crombie, John William

Kearley, Hudson E.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Kilbride, Denis

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Cullinan, J.

Lambert, George

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Dalziel, James Henry

Langley, Batty

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

Levy, Maurice

Tennant, Harold John

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lloyd-George, David

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

Donelan, Captain A.

Lough, 'Thomas

Tomkinson, James

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Lundon, W.

Toulmin, George

Duncan, J. Hastings

MacVeagh, (Jeremiah

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Dunn, Sir William

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Ure, Alexander

Edwards, Frank

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Wallace, Robert

Eli bank, Master of

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.)

Ellice,Capt E.C(SAndrw'sBghs

Markham, Arthur Basil

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

Mitchell, Edw.(Fermanagh, N.)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Evans, Sir Fran. H. (Maidstone

Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Fenwick, Charles

Moulton, John Fletcher

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Eithmaurice, Lord Edmond

Murphy, John

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

Flynn, James Christopher

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby, Co.)

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

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

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

O'Doherty, William

Yoxall, James Henry

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Malley, William

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

Parrott, William

TELLERS FOR TEE NOES—Mr.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Partington, Oswald

Herbert Lewis and Mr. J.

Hain, Edward

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

H. Whitley.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 1, line 5, after the word 'an' to insert the word 'existing.'"—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)
Question proposed, "That the word "existing' be there inserted."
MR. DISRAELIsaid that this was not a drafting Amendment. It raised the whole question of old licences versus new licences. A protest had been already made against the alteration in the Bill providing for two kinds of licences; and he also wished to protest against it. The insertion of the word "existing" would draw the line between existing licences and licences granted after 1905. They all now deplored the ante–1869 licences; but in future they would have the ante–1905
1274
licences. He could not understand why the Government had altered their mind in the matter. Licensing Bills were thrown down on the floor of the House to be wrangled over by the trade on the one hand and the teetotalers on the other; but the Government would be well advised to take the opinion of an intermediate and moderate section of the House. Hon. Members who acted on quarter sessions and petty sessions held the opinion that to set up two kinds of licences was to alter the Bill very materially for the worse. In the case of a new licence; if the house were well conducted, it would not be necessary for the licensee to appear before the magistrates annually, which was a disciplinary measure of the greatest advantage. It appeared to be assumed that benches of

1275
magistrates were always granting new licences; but as a matter of fact, it was extremely difficult to obtain a new licence at present. Application after application was refused, and perfectly rightly refused, unless it could be shown, beyond any doubt, that the licence was wanted. The Government had consented to the introduction of a time limit, which they had refused in another part of the Bill, and in order to do away with one kind of interest, they allowed the trade to build up another—a seven years interest—because it could not be said that no interest would accumulate during the seven years. Not only would a vested interest accumulate, but it would accumulate seven times or seventy times seven times as much as the interest would under the old system. He could not let this matter pass without protesting against it.
MR. GROVESsaid he was encouraged to move the Amendment standing in his name by an expression which fell from the Home Secretary at an earlier stage, holding out hope that off-licences would be included within the scope of the Bill. Off-licences were of great variety, and all of them could not be included, but he asked the Government to give consideration to those off-licences which came on all fours with the beerhouse licences already within scope of the Bill. Otherwise, a very considerable number of licences up and down the country would be left out of the operation of the Bill, and he strongly pressed on the Government, that there was a real claim on the part of the humbler beersellers of the class described to be included in the Govern-merit's proposals. He did not say that they should have a full measure of compensation, but compensation on a reasonable and modest scale. He trusted the Government would not give a negative reply without taking time to consider the question, and that they would see if some measures could not be adopted now or in another place to give effect to a modest request on behalf of a modest class. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed to theBill—
"In page 1, one 5, after the word 'licence,' to insert the words 'or a licence for the sale of beer not to be consumed on the premises.'"—(Mr. Groves.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid on the-last occasion on which this particular question was discussed he thought it was clear that the Government had thoroughly made up their mind that they could not include these licences in the scope of this Bill, because in their opinion they were on an entirely different footing and were not such as could come within its terms. There were at least eight or nine different classes of "off" licences, and very few comparatively of the total number of "off" licence-holders would hold licences for the sale of beer only. He understood that the holders of beer, "off" licences were not anxious to come into the Bill as it stood. but that it was proposed that they should pay less towards the compensation fund and on a different basis. That, however, would introduce a further complication. At the present late period he was not prepared to re-open the question, and he could only regret that the hon. Member should have received the impression that he had held out any hopes of reconsidering the matter.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. J. H. LEWIS,in moving to except tied houses from the operation of the Bill, said he strongly objected to the State giving the sariction of its support to that particular form of carrying on the liquor trade. There was no reason why these houses should be included in the Bill at all. Brewers owned these houses in large numbers, and could themselves, by establishing a system of mutual insurance, easily effect privately what this Bill proposed to do publicly. This House had no right, by intervening in the matter, to make it easier for the present bad system to continue. Unfortunately the system had grown to such an extent that 85 per cent. of the licences were for tied houses, while in one county the percentage was actually 93. The tenants were practically tenants at the will of the

1277
landlord; they were compelled to buy all the articles they sold from the brewers to whom they were tied. The results of the system to the publican were disastrous. He was ground to the lowest possible point; to make a living he was compelled to force his goods upon the public, and very often to have resort to illegal inducements to secure custom. It was not to the advantage of the public that such a system should continue, and he submitted that houses of this character should be exempted from the operation of the compensation clauses of the Bill. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 1, line 5, after the word licence,' to insert the words 'other than a licence the holder of which is subject to conditions requiring him to purchase the commodities or goods which he sells or uses from any particular person, firm, or company.'"—(Mr. J. H. Lewis.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. BROADHURSTremarked that a proper share of the compensation, if any were to be given, should go to the tenants at will of tied houses. Frequently the tenant at will was led, if not by force, at any rate by misleading statements, into investing his savings, perhaps the savings of a lifetime, in a beerhouse, and frequently he lost what he invested in it. This tied-house system was at the root of almost all the discredit which had been brought upon the drink traffic in the last twenty or twenty-five years. When these tenants realised the facts, they often discovered to their hor or that it was impossible to make a living if they carried on the business of the house in an honest straightforward way in accordance with the law. The Government should step between these unprotected tenants and the big rich brewery companies and say that these tenants should have proper reward if their houses were closed in the public interest. He remembered Mr. Goschen's scheme, which was defeated, and that the money which was to have been used for compensation was switched on for technical education purposes, under county and borough councils. That scheme was mainly opposed because it made no efficient provision for the tied-house tenant. It was
1278
exactly the same case here. The tenants at will should be the objects of the commiseration of the House of Commons, and that House should see that there was ample provision for securing the interests of the unhappy victims of the tied-house system. Since he introduced this subject ten or twelve years ago he had received thousands of letters from all over the country pointing out the hardships and injustice that were perpetrated under the system. One man hid lost £300 in such a business and he had had to leave without a farthing of compensation. These people should be protected against the despotism and almost slavery to which they were subjected.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid the hon Member opposite appeared to be moat anxious to protect the manager and the licensee of tide houses.
MR. BROADHURST: Certainly.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid the effect of this Amendment would be that all the protection they had at present would be abolished without their receiving a penny. That was the reason why he found some difficulty in reconciling the speech of the hon. Member with the Amendment. It was hardly necessary to go into the merits or the demerits of the tied-house system. He did not agree with the view which was so often put forward—frequently somewhat recklessly put forward—as to the demerits of the system. He knew one instance in which the managerial system, under a good brewery where strict inspection detained, had been most effective in promoting the proper conduct of public-houses.
MR. BROADHURST: Where is that good brewery?
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid the hon. Member's opinion was that there were no good breweries. Whatever might be the merits or the demerits of the tied-house system, it was really Parliament who had been accountable for allowing the tied-house system to grow up. They had brought it about by the very legislation they had passed in relation to licensing. If they took the trouble to go back to

1279
see what was the origin of the tied-house system, they would find that it was simply this. The magistrates under what was called the yearly licensing system had told the people that if their licences were to be continued they must spend somany hundereds of pounds in putting their premises into proper condition and making of the licences. The for the renewal of the licences. The result was that the people were driven to go to the brewers to borrow the money to enable them to carry out the behests of the magistrates. The further result of that was that compacts were entered into with the brewers who took the risk of the yearly tenancy, binding the licence-holder to take goods from them, and so by degrees the tied-house system grew up. That had rendered it absolutely impossible for any man without considerable capital to take these licensed houses and to carry them on. It was a perfectly legitimate arrangement, and to accept the Amendment would mean that magistrates having to get rid of a redundant licence, in making a choice, would naturalluy select the tied house in preference to the free house, because no question of compensation would arise. There was no ground whatever for the limitation. Which would be to the disadvantage of the licensees for which the hon. Member was champion.
MR. REAsaid the Solicitor-General had told them that the merits of the tied-house system were not raised by the Amendment before the House, but he did not observe that the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman related to anything else but the merits of that system. The Solicitor-General said this Amendment would exclude the tied-houses from the operation of the Bill, and that 75 or 80 or perhaps even 90 per cent. of the licensed houses of the country were tied. Of course, to exclude such a percentage would be to stultify the Bill. He himself contended that would not be the effect of carrying the Amendment, because he did not believe that the brewer landlords would consent to lose the benefits of the endowment which the Bill gave. He would make another arrangement with his tenants. He agreed that the tied-house system was a great evil. Tied houses
1280
differed in various localities. A tied house in London was a house where probably a brewer was an indulgent creditor. In Liverpool a tenant was a mere servant, and in various parts of the country a tied house was something between the two. It was quite possible for the tie to be more onerous and more enslaving than any agreement for paid service. In his own constituency he found that a large number of the tenants of tied houses had parted with their personal, political, and economic freedom. The conditions of the tie were really in many cases quite degrading, and altogether contrary to public policy. It was a common thing, for instance, that the tenant was bound to keep his house open during all legal hours. It was astonishing when they examined this question to find what a great proportion of six-day licences were held by free men, and what a very small proportion of these licences were held by the tenants of tied houses. In his part of the country it was a condition of the agreement in many cases, that the brewer landlord had the privilege of entering the premises at any hour day or night, and searching them to see if there were anything there he had not supplied. An Englishman's house was supposed to be his castle, but it was not so if it were a tied house. The conditions were onerous and degrading in other respects. The tenant was not permitted to even question the measure of the goods supplied to him, and, if he could not question the measure, how could he question the quality. The tenants were bound to do nothing to injure the licence, and in many instances, to "annoy" their landlord meant forfeiture of their tenancy. Beyond that, in cases which he himself knew of, they had bound themselves to appear before the licensing magistrates and support their own dismissal, and to transfer all their rights in the licence to another person. The proof of this was in the number of transfers that took place. He had in his mind an instance of a house which had had four tenants in sixteen months. A friend of his own, a large employer of labour, told him that three of his men had left him to take up public-houses under the tied-house system; and they all came back to him seeking employment, after a few months, broken men. Old workmen, who thought they

1281
had enjoyed many happy hours in the public-house, imagined that if they had a public - house of their own they would be in a paradise; but they soon found that they had nothing of the kind. He maintained that if this Amendment were accepted, it would do a great deal to reduce, if not to end, the tied-house system and free the tenants.
MR. LAMBERTsaid that the right hon. Gentla-man opposite said that the tied-house system had its merits, but he was very careful not to say what these merits were. The tied-house system, as now in vogue, was popular with no section of the constituencies, except that of the brewers. He himself had never heard one single voice lifted up in praise of it.
SIR EDWARD CARSON: Have you read the Majority Report?
MR. LAMBERTsaid he had, and he did not think it had spoken glowingly of the system, and if it did report in favour of it, it went against the universal sentiment of the country. The Solicitor-General told them that the origin of the system was that the licensees were not able to carry out the alterations which the magistrates deemed desirable for the conduct of the business of a licensed victualler. That was wholly erroneous, and there was nobody outside Ireland who could, he should have thought, have put forward such a plea.
Sin EDWARD CARSON: I refer the hon. Member to the history of the subject.
MR. LAMBERTasked if the right hon. and learned Member would tell him that history now. He would rather have it now than later. He maintained that the origin of the tied-house system was the insane competition of the brewers to get hold of public-houses in order to make bigger profits from the sale of their liquor.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON: It was long before that.
MR. LAMBERT: Really we are getting some new versions of history. The hon. Member said that the tied-house system came in vogue long before the brewers.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON: What I said was, long before the brewers thought to buy up the houses.
MR. LAMBERTsaid he would be very glad if hon. Gentlemen opposite would not give different versions of this history. There was no doubt in the minds of impartial people that it was the endeavour of the brewers to get larger profits on the sale of their liquor that had created this system of tied houses. Possibly they might get another version of the history of the tied-house system from the hon. Member for Manchester. He would suggest that if the Amendment of his hon. friend were carried it would prevent an injustice being done to the holder of a free licence. The Solicitor-General told them that if there were redundant houses, the free houses would be suppressed and that the tied-houses would be continued. He did not believe it. The magistrates were as fully alive to the evil of the tied-house system as any body of men could be. What were they going to do by the Bill? They were going to make the holder of the licence of a free house pay an annual sum for compensating the brewer who owned the tied houses. Besides, they knew perfectly well, that the price of the materials from which beer was made had gone down very considerably. He wanted to know whether the price of beer had gone down. On the contrary, it had been kept up by the tied-house system. The brewers charged the public what they liked, and compelled them to consume their beer, no matter how had it was. If the Solicitor-General could reduce himself to an ordinary beer-drinking citizen he was certain the right hon. and learned Gentleman would never pour down his throat the concoction the brewers turned out. No matter how bad it was, however, the public had to drink it, wholly owing to the tied-house system. That was not right or fair. No wonder the people of the country who were not teetotalers were against the system, and believed that it was a bad system for the morality of the district in which they resided. Why should the brewers have a monopoly and compel the people to take their beer, no matter how bad it was? The public were rebelling against the system, and he did not believe

1283
that a public meeting could be got up in favour of the tied-house system.
And it being half-past Seven of the Clock the debate stood adjourned till this evening's sitting.

EVENING SITTING.
LICENSING BILL [5TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment [26th July] proposed to the Bill. on Consideration, as amended—
Which Amendment was—
"In page 1, line 5, after the word 'licence,' to insert the words 'other than a licence the holder of which is subject to conditions requiring him to purchase the commodities or goods which he sells or uses from any particular person, firm or company.'"—(Mr. Herbert Lewis.)
Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. LAMBERT,continuing his remarks, said that not only were the public injured by being supplied with drink of an inferior quallty, but the ratepayers lost a certain amount by way of the returns on the rateable value which should attach to a licensed house, because the brewer kept down the nominal value of the house and sought to get his profit by means of the beer and spirits which he compelled his tenants to buy. With regard to the Solicitor-General's refer ences to the history of the tied-house system, he expressed a doubt whether it had arisen from the necessity brewer, were under of advancing money for the purpose of repairs, and pointed out that the Majority Report of the Peel Commission attributed it rather to competition. He added that while the Report admitted that under a good and careful brewer the system might operate advantageously, and good results might follow vet under less satisfactory conditions tin tie might have quite the contrary effect The Minority Report went further am said the general eject of the tied-house system was to push the sale of liquor. If hon. Members opposite believed that to be the case, but yet wanted the Bill to be a measure of temperance reform, how
1284
could they explain the attitude they were taking in regard to the Amendment before the House?
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid, as a matter of personal explanation, the hon. Member having challenged his statements with regard to the origin of tied houses, he might say he got his facts from the "History of Liquor Licences," by Sidney Webb.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid that the tied-house system arose principally through persons in the trade obtaining loans from brewers, distillers, and mineral water manufacturers, a man wanting a loan very often going to a brewer and offering the additional recompense, beyond the interest, of agreeing to sell his beer. But the system was due in a great measure also to contract. The publican went to the brewer, or the brewer to the publican, and it was arranged that only a certain beer should I be sold on the condition that it was supplied at a reduced rate, an arrangement which the brewer was only too glad to fall in with. No one could deny that that was a perfectly legitimate arrangement. He did not believe the tying of houses led to the sale of had leer. Such a thing he believed was quite I contrary to the experience of hon. Members of this House, because on the whole it was with good brewers that contracts such as he had mentioned were made. From a purely theoretical point of view I he was not a friend to the tied-house system, and he acknowledged the desirability of the publican being able to deal where be liked. At the same time he recognised that that was practically an impossibility, because the publican was sure to be in some need of the brewer, the distiller, or the mineral water manufacturer. But if he were asked whether the free or the tied house had been the better conducted he would be bound to admit that as a rule the tied house was the better conducted of the two. He had always found that where a brewer was the freeholder or the leaseholder of a house and had let the house to a tenant it was always better conducted than what was called a free house. A considerable portion of this debate had taken place upon this clause and upon

1285
the sub-section of Clause 2, which dealt with the amount to be paid to the actual licensee, the desire being that the actual publican should get as large a share of the compensaition as possible. He agreed with the Solicitor-General that if the Amendment were carried practically no licences would be suppressed. It was stated by the hon. Member for the Flint Boroughs that 85 per cent, of the houses were tied; and it was manifest, therefore, that only 15 per cent. would cane within the scope of the Bill, if the Amendment were accepted. Therefore, the Amendment would nullify the Bill altogether. The hon. Member for South Melton said that if the Bill were passed, the persons who held the tie would free the houses; but that was not in the least degree likely. A large number of the houses were tied by loan, and they certainly would not be freed. Houses tied by lease might be freed; but they would be the worst class of houses, and they could not even rely on that. He was not one of those who thought that a reduction in the numbers of public-houses would bring about a millennium; but he was most anxious that the experiment should be tried. If the Amendment were accepted the Bill would be reduced to a very small compass; and he, therefore, earnestly hoped it would be rejected.
MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid there was no question which he should like to see dealt with more than the tied-house question. He should welcome any Bill which provided for the total abolition of the tied-house system, because he believed the system did much to lessen the sobriety of the people. In the district for which he acted as a licensing justice nearly the whole of the public-houses in certain villages were owned by two brewery companies. The tenants were bound to take their beers, spirits, aerated waters and even tobacco pipes and sawdust from certain brewery companies. In the interests of the public the tenants of these houses ought to enjoy the blessings of free trade. The House of Commons seemed to have entirely lost sight of the nights and interests of the British public. A house was licensed not for the benefit of the licensed holder, but for the convenience of the public. The people,
1286
therefore, had a right to demand that they should drink the beers and the spirits they desired and not be compelled to take them from one source. In Yorkshire men had been known to walk many miles from home to get beer fit to drink. Hon. Gentlemen opposite might think that the payment of compensation would settle the tied-house system; but he ventured to predict it would be no settlement at all. The Bill was a brewery company's endowment Bill, not a Bill in the interests of the licensed holders. If hon. Gentlemen opposite were temperance reformers, they would insist that every man holding a licence should be responsible for the proper conduct of the house, and be liable to have his licence removed for misconduct. They were told that tied houses were better conducted; but, surely, the responsibility of a manager was less than that of an owner. Whenever a tied house was badly conducted, and a case was brought before Brewster sessions the representative of the brewery could say how extremely sorry the company were, that they had an excellent character with the man, but that they were misled, and that it was entirely contrary to their desire that the house should be mis-conducted. The company would then ask that the licence be transfered to another manager. He believed this was one of the most important questions involved in the measure, and that the great majority of the people of this country, and of licence-holders themselves, urgently demanded that the iniquitous tied-house system should be utterly abolished. He claimed that on the principles of free trade publicans should be able to buy in the best and cheapest market and so provide purer liquor than they now supplied.
MR. RENWICKsaid they had been occupied for a considerable time in endeavouring to settle the extremely difficult question of compensation to publicans who lost their licences through no fault of their own, but he put it to the House that to accept this Amendment and bring 15 per cent. of the licence-holders within the Bill and leave 85 per cent. out, would be to get justice by doing an injustice to the greatest number. They had heard some pretty strong statements from hon. Members opposite, but he had an idea that publicans were sufficiently wide-awake

1287
when a house was offered to them to inquire into the matter and discover whether it was a good bargain or not. They were told that a tied house had to sell had beer which no free house would take. For many years he had been an advocate of pure beer, and had presented his views from many a platform during elections in populous working-class constituencies, but he had been opposed by teetotalers and extreme Radica's. 'He was once violently assailed by teetotalers who said that if they had purer drink working men would have to spend more money to get drunk and so an injustice would be done. He believed they were more likely to get purer beer from the great brewers than from small free houses. The breweries had a great reputation to uphold. They were extremely careful that their houses should be well conducted, that good liquor should be supplied, and that no black mark should be put against their licences. They had no temptation whatever to sell had drink. In many, if not in most cases, the big, well-conducted houses belonging to brewery companies had the largest trade because their customers were good judges of what was good beer. He trusted that the House would reject the Amendment by a large majority. They were most anxious for a settlement, but were not likely to get it by leaving 65 per cent. of the licensed victuallers outside the benefit of the Bill. He did not believe that the brewers would, as had been stated, charge rack rents, because competition would have a levelling influence. He hoped the Amendment would be rejected by a large majority.
MR. HARWOODsaid that the tied-house system had one recommendation of a practical kind, and that was that where the houses were in the hands of a few holders they could be given up. In one district in Manchester, fifty houses were surrendered. It paid the brewery companies to give them up, because they were not worth keeping on. But they would be worth keeping on now, because of the compensation. Under the old order of things it might have been worth while keeping up the tied-house system for the licences that were sometimes surrendered without compensation, but now that that advantage
1288
was to be taken away the House were justified in considering the system as a whole. He had said again and again that he was in favour of public-houses and should he sorry to live in a country where there were none. He believed they were a necessary adjunct to our civilisation, and that the people would never give them up altogether. But there were three condiditions under which public-houses should be carried on—they should sell good liquor at a reasonable price, and under proper conditions of sobriety and good conduct. The tied-house system operated against all these conditions. The point of view of the public had not been sufficiently considered. Only the other day he was in a public-house taking a glass of beer and complained that it was horrible stuff. "Yes," said the manager, "you cannot get a decent glass of beer within six miles of this place, because all the public-houses are owned by one firm." ["Name."] The name did not matter. There were several places in the country in which the whole drinking supply of the community was in the hands of one firm. The danger of a monopoly and syndicates was impending, and the public would be robbed. He believed in liquor being good and cheap; but if it was not cheap, at any rate let the State get the advantage of it. He did not agree with the difference in price going into the pockets of private firms. The day would come when the people of England would rise up on this matter. [Ironical cheers.] It was all very well to jeer, but if a working man wanted a glass of beer for his dinner—and he had a right to it—he was entitled to have good honest liquor at a decent and fair price. Neither of those conditions was secured by the tied-house system. The time had come when the House ought to give some attention to the rights of the people in this matter. Was the tied-house system a good system for sobriety and comfort? He was largely in favour of public-houses because they were the only free clubs that the people possessed. They had Liberal clubs and Conservative clubs, but he did not believe in a man associating socially with people who agreed with him. As an employer of working men-and he spoke from experience—he did not believe in a working man who did not associate with his. fellows. It was not the business of a man to work all day and to crouch over his fireside at night. The

1289
only place he could go to now was the public-house, which ought to be made a working man's club, 'where he could have his drink with comfort, and amid proper surroundings, with no inducement to go to excess. How did the tied-house system operate in that respect? The manager of a tied house had no particular reason for inducing a man to sit all night over one or two glasses of beer. His business was to get him to drink as much as he could, and then get somebody else to take his place. He could instance case after case where public-houses had been practically turned into drinking bars. The tied-house system was in favour of the drinking bar and against making the public-house a working man's club. After all, they wanted a condition of things in which a working man might be freely supplied and yet would not be
tempted to drink more than was good for him. The manager of a tied house would be discharged if he did not make a certain turnover. He did not care about his reputation; he wanted to do so much. business. He foresaw, therefore, that they were drifting to a great danger. They were drifting to a point where they were going to be in the hands of a terrible monopoly, a monopoly which was going to rob life of some of its greatest pleasures. Members of the House were sent to Parliament to consider the welfare of the people as a whole and he warned them against the development and continuance of a system which was inimical to the true well-being and comfort of the people.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 110; Noes, 199. (Division List No. 279.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Malley, William

Aisnworth, john Stirling

Grant, Corrie

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Barlow, John Emmott

Hammond, John

Paulton, James Mellor

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Harcourt Lewis V. (Rossendale

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Bell, Richard

Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Berri, John Williams

Harwood, George

Power, Patrick Joseph

Boland, John

Heinle, Norval Watson

Price, Robert John

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Rea, Russell

Brigg, John

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dionfries

Broadhurst, Henry

Higham, John Sharpe

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Burt, Thomas

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

Roe, Sir Thomas

Caldwell, James

Horniman, Frederick John

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Cameron, Robert

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Schwann, Charles E.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Scott, Chas, Prestwich (Leigh.)

Channing, Francis Allston

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Shackleton, David James

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea

Shaw, Thomas (Hamrick, B.)

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

Slack, John Bamford

Cremer, William Randal

Joyce, Michael

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Crooks, William

Kearley, Hudson E.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Kilbride, Denis

Sullivan, Donal

Cullinan, J.

Lambert, George

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Langley, Batty

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Tomkinson, James

Delany, William

Layland- Barratt, Francis

Toulmin, George

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Trevelyan, Charles Philips,

Donelan, Captain A.

Levy, Maurice

Ure, Alexander

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Lewis, John Herbert

Walton, John Lawson(Leeds. S

Duncan, J. Hastings

Lough, Thomas

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Ellice, CaptEC(S. Andrw'sBghs

Lyell, Charles Henry

Weir, James Galloway

Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Markham, Arthur Basil

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Farrell, James Patrick

Mitchell, Ed. (Fermanagh, N.)

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

Fenwick, Charles

Moulton, John Fletcher

Yoxall, James Henry

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Murphy, John

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nussey, Thomas Willans

TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Mr.

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

Herbert Gladstone and

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

O'Doherty, William

Mr. William M'Arthur.

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Agnew, Sir, Andrew Noel

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Arrol, Sir William

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

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

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

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Goulding, Edward Alfred

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Balcarres, Lord

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

O'Dowd, John

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

Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry

Palmer, Sir Walter (Sailsbury)

Balfour, RtHnGerald W.(Leeds

Greene, Sir EW(B'rySEdm'nds

Pemberton, John S. G.

Balfour, Kenneth R. Christch.

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

Percy, Earl

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

Pierpoint, Robert

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Gretton, John

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Groves, James Grimble

Pretyman, Ernest George

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Hall, Edward Marshall

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hardy, Laurence(KentAshford

Purvis, Robert

Bigwood, James

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Rankin, Sir James

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Harris, F.Leverton (Tynein'th)

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Bond, Edward

Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich)

Rateliff, R. F.

Bousfield, William Robert

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Brassey, Albert

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley.

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Heath, James (Staffords. NW.

Renwick, George

Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

Richards, Henry Charles

Bull, William James

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Ridley, Hn. M.W. (Stalybridge

Butcher, John George

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Ridley,S. Forde (Bethnal Green

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

Hobhouse, RtHnH. (Somers'tE

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbys.

Hoult, Joseph

Robinson, Brooke

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Howard, J. (Mild., Tottenhain

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Chamberlain, RtHn. J.A.(Worc.

Hozier, Hn. James HenryCecil

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Chapman, Edward

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Rutherford, W. W.(Liverpool)

Charrington, Spencer

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. SirJohnH.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Coates, Edward Feethain

Kennedy, Vincent P. (CavanW

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

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

Kenyon, Hn. G. T. (Denbigh)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Kerr, John

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Kimber, Sir Henry

Spear, John Ward

Craig Charles Curtis (Antrim S.

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Knowles, Sir Lees

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Stroyan, John

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Lawrence, Wm. F.(Liverpool)

Talbot, Rt. Hn. JG(Oxf'dUni v.

Dalkeith, Earl of

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

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lee, ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareham

Thompson, DrE.C.(Monagh'nN.

Davenport, William Bromley

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Thornton, Percy M.

Davies, SirHoratio D.(Chatham

Legge, Col. on. Heneage

Tillett, Louis John

Denny, Colonel

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

Tomlinson, Sir Win. Ed. M.

Dewar, Sir T.R.(TowerHamlets

Lowe, Francis William

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Tuff, Chkrles

Dickson, Charles Scott

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsnlouth

Valentia, Viscount

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Abred

Vincent, Col. SirC. EH(Sheffield

Dixon-Hartland, SirFred Dixon

Maconochie, A. W.

Walker, Col. William Hall

Doogan, P. C.

M'lver, SirLewis(Edinburgh W.

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Webb, Colonel William George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

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

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Manners, Lord Cecil

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

Maxwell, RtHnSirH. E.(Wigt'n

Whiteley, H. (Ashton undLyne

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

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Worsley-Taylor, HenryWilson

Fisher, William Hayes

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Morpeth, Viscount

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Morrell, George Herbert

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Flower, Sir Ernest

Mount, William Arthur

Forster, Henry William

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES, Sir

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, SW.

Murray, RtHnAGrahain (Bute

Alexander Acland-Hood,

Gardner, Ernest

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

and Mr. Ailwvn Fellowes.

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 1, line 6, to leave out the words 'existing at the date of the passing of this Ac.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid this Amendment had not been moved during the Committee stage, although the subject-matter had been previously discussed.

1293
Therefore, he thought it was desirable that the House should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon it. The object of the Amendment was to make it clear that the discretion of the local justices should remain untouched except in cases where licences were refused on the sole ground of non-necessity. He was not going to discuss the decision in Sharpe v. "Wakefield," because, whatever might be the opinion of hon. Members in regard to the real meaning of this Bill, there was no doubt that this procedure by enumeration in reference to renewal had been practically condemned by the unanimous voice of the magistrates of the country so far as the 1869 beerhouses were concerned. It had been condemned by the Royal Commission, and the importance of the point he was now raising had been fully realised by those interested in the trade. Last year there was a Bill introduced in another place with the express object of limiting the discretion of the local justices in reference to the 1869 beerhouses. That Bill was based upon the petitions sent from Liverpool and Manchester urging the importance of legislation upon the subject. The two great reforms demanded in those petitions were that all on-licences should he made subject to the four conditions laid down, and that the local justices should be obliged to state their reasons for refusing any licences. In a reply given upon a former occasion by the Solicitor-General, he stated that if that Amendment were carried there would always be a difficulty in defining the meaning of the phrase "public interest," and he referred to the possible case of a licensed house happening to be near a church, or chapel, or school, and said that although it might be right to argue that that was not a suitable place for a public-house it might be very unfair to refuse that licence without compensation. The right hon. Gentleman's next point was that the phrase "ill-conducted" covered the case which he was now bringing before the House, and practically provided what he desired, namely, a clear definition of the fact that licences should not be refused without compensation except upon the sole grounds of non-necessity. There was a striking similarity between the words of the section and the four words which had proved so fatal a bar to licensing reform in reference to 1869 beerhouses. He was
1294
afraid that if this Bill were passed in the form in which it now stood it would lead to innumerable difficulties and would very seriously impair the full discretion of the local licensing justices. He asked the Government upon what possible grounds could they object to making this point perfectly clear. The alleged object of this Bill was not to interfere with the discretion of the justices except on this particular point, and he asked that this should now be made perfectly clear by the acceptance of the words he had suggested. Although he was aware it was difficult to obtain a concession of this character at this stage he still hoped that it would be possible for the Solicitor-General to favourably consider the proposal he had made. Upon those general grounds he begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 1, line 6, to leave out from the word 'on' to the word 'shall,' in line 10, and insert the words 'the sole ground that the licensed premises are not required in the public interest.'"—(Mr. Herbert Roberts.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid the object of the Bill was not to interfere with the disciplinary powers of the licensing justices. It was impossible to draft the Bill in the simple way suggested by the hon. Member. The words "not required in the public interest," for instance, were incapable of comprehensive definition. The magistrates might in the enforcement of particular ideas deprive a man of his licence on what were not really public grounds. The Bill could not be drafted in the form suggested without leaving it open in that way. What the Government had done. therefore, was to specify the causes for which a man would cease to have a title to compensation. When they set up an insurance fund they must, before asking a person to subscribe to it, show him as specifically as they could what he was going to insure against. Supposing the magistrates—and he was taking what had really happened—said they would only renew a licence upon certain conditions, and the applicant said he could not carry on his house upon such terms, and the magistrates consequence took away the

1295
licence. Was that a matter of the public interest? There was one case in which the magistrates would net renew a licence because the man had erected a telephone in his house, and in another case the magistrates would not renew the licence unless only such wines were sold as were made in England. The hon. Member might think that these were very trivial matters, but they led to a great deal of difficulty in the administration of the law. These were questions which should be left to the discretion of the magistrates. They might deprive a man of his licence who had contributed to the insurance Fund not on public grounds, but because he would not accept their view. [An HON. MEMBER: That would be a public ground.] What the Government had tried to do was to specify the cases in which a licence-holder would not be entitled to compensation. An Amendment was agreed to on behalf of the Government in relation to the breach of conditions made in the public interest, and it had been inserted in a subsequent part of the Bill. He could assure the hon. Member that the Government had carefully considered the matter from his point of view, and, whether they were right or wrong in the conclusion they had come to, they had done their best to meet the specific cases in which a nun ought to get no compensation.
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid they ought to be gratified with the interpretation which the Solicitor-General had put on the clause. As he understood the
speech it meant in effect that there was to be no compensation when a house was not required in the public interests. He thought that was a very important comment en the meaning of the Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the Bill was more clear than the Amendment of his hon. friend. He understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that if the magistrates required certain conditions to be fulfilled and the licensee did not fulfil them, then the House was ill-conducted.
SIR EDWARD CARSONwas understood to dissent.
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHasked whether, if the magistrates said that a house was not to be opened on Sunday and the licensee refused to agree to that condition the licensee would be entitled to compensation under the Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: Certainly.] An hon. Members aid "centainly," but that was news to some of them. The hon. and learned Gentleman was anxious to preserve the disciplinary power of the magistrates, but it was doing away with it entirely, if the magistrates could not exact a condition of that kind. That would be to take away the discretion they had under the present law. He would support the Amendment of his hon. friend because it put the matter in a more specific and definite form.
Question put.
The House divided.:—Ayes, 217; Noes, 135. (Division List No. 280.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bond, Edward

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Bousfield, William Robert

Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton)

Allhusen, AugustusHenryEden

Brassey, Albert

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Dalkeith, Earl of

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Arnold-Forster, RtHnHughO.

Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

Davenport, William Bromley-

Arrol, Sir William

Bull, William James

Davies, SirHoratioli(Chatham

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Butcher, John George

Denny, Colonel

Aubrey-Fletcher, RtHon. Sir H.

Campbell, J.H.M. (DublinUniv

Dewar, SirT. R.(TowerHainlets

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Baird, John George Alexander

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Dickson, Charles Scott

Balcarres, Lord

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

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

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Dixon-Hartland, SirFred Dixon

Balfour, RtHn Gerald W. (Leeds

Chaimberlain, Rt. HnJ. A.(Worc.

Doogan, P.C.

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Chapman, Edward

Dorington, RtHon. SirJohnE.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Charrington, Spencer

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Hurtling-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Clive, Captain Percy, A.

Faber, Edinund B. (Hants, W.)

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Coates, Edward Feetham

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

Bignold, Sir Arthur

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

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Bigwood, James

Colston, Chas Edw. H. Athole

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Bingham, Lord

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Fisher, William Hayes

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose.

Fitzroy, Hon. EdwardAlgerton

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalyhridge

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A.R.

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Flower, Sir Ernest

Long, RtHnWalter(Bristol,S)

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Forster, Henry William

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

Lowe, Francis William

Robinson, Brooke

Galloway, William Johnson

Lloyd, Archie Kirkman

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Gardner, Ernest

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Round, Rt. Hon. James

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

Maconochie, A.W.

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Gorst, Rt. Hon. SirJohnEldon

M'Iver, SirLewis(EdinburghW.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Manners, Lord Cecil

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Green, Walford D.(Wednesbury

Maxwell, RtHnSirHE(Wigt'n

Samuel, SirHarryS.(Limehouse

Greene, Sir EW(B'rySEdm'nds

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Seton-Karr, Sir Heary

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Gretton, John

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Groves, James Grimble

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Hall, Edward Marshall

Morgan, DavidJ.(Walthamstow

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Morpeth, Viscount

Spear, John Ward

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Morrell, George Herbert

Stanley, EdwardsJas.(Somerset)

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Morton, Arthur H. Alymer

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord(Lancs.)

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

Mount, William Arthur

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich)

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Stroyan, John

Haslam, Sir Alfred S,

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

Hatch, Ernest Fredk. Geo.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Thompson, DrEC(Monagh'n N.

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Thornton, Percy M.

Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.)

Nicholson, William Graham

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Heaton, John Henniker

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

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Henderson, Sir A.(Statford, W.)

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Tuff, Charles

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

O'Brien, Patrick (Killkenny)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Hoare, Sir Samuel

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

Valenti, Viscount

Hobhouse, RtHnH.(Somers't, E

O'Dowd, John

Vincent, Col. SirC. E.H.(Sheffield

Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Walker, Col. William Hall

Hoult, Joseph

Petnberton, John S. G.

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Percy, Earl

Webb, Colonel William George

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Pierpoint, Robert.

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

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. ArthurFred.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. SirJohnH.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Kerr, John

Purvis, Robert

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Keswick, William

Pym, C. Guy

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

Kimber, Sir Henry

Rankin, Sir James

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Knowles, Sir Lees

Ratcliffe, R. F.

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Remnant, James Farquharson

TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Sir

Lawson, JohnGrant(YorksN.R.

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Lee, Arthurff.(Hants., Fareham

Renwick, George

Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Richards, Henry Charles

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Cameron, Robert

Eve, Harry Trelanwney

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Allen, Charles P.

Channing, Francis Allston

Farrell, James Patrick

Asher, Alexander

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Fenwick, Charles

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Craig. Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Asquith, RtHon. Herbert Henry

Cremer, William Randal

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Atherley-Jones, L.

Crombie, John William

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Barlow, John Emmott.

Crooks, William

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Cross. Alexander (Glasgow)

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

Beaumont, Wentworth C.B.

Cullinan, J.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn

Bell, Richard

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Benn, John Williams

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Grant, Corrie

Boland, John

Delany, William

Hammond, John

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles.

Harcourt, LewisV.(Rossendale

Brigg, John

Donelan, Captain A.

Harwood, George

Broadhurst, Henry

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Hayte., Rt. Hon. SirArtiturD.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Duncan, J. Hastings

Heinle, Norval Watson

Burt, Thomas

Ellice, Capt. EC(S. Andrw'sBghs

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Ellis, JohnEdward (Notts.)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Caldwell, James

Evans, SirFrancisH.(Maidstone

Higham, John Sharpe

1298

1299

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

Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

Slack, John Bamford,

Horniman, Frederick John

Moulton, John Fletcher

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Hutchinson, Dr. CharlesFredk.

Murphy, John

Sullivan, Donal

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Norman, Henry

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Thomas, DavidAlfred (Merthyr)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid

Tomkinson James

Joicey, Sir James

O'Doherty, William

Tonlmin, George

Jones, DavidBrynmor(Swansea

O'Malley. William

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Ure, Alexander

Joyce, Michael

Paulton, James Mellor

Wallace, Robert

Kearley, Hudson E.

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Walton, JohnLawson(Leeds, S.

Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Kilbride, Denis

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Langley, Batty

Price, Robert John

Weir, James Galloway

Law, Hugh Alex.(Donegal, W.

Priestley, Arthur

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Rea, Russell

Whiteley, George (York. W. R.)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Reid, SirR. Threshie (Dumfries.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Rickett, J. Compton

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Levy, Maurice

Roberts, John Bryn (Eition)

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

Lewis, John Herbert

Roe, Sir Thomas

Woodhouse, SirJ. T.(Huddersf' d.

Lough, Thomas

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Yoxall, James Henry

Lyell, Charles Henry

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Sehwann, Charles E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES, Mr.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Herbert Roberts and Mr.

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Shackleton, David James

Ellis Griffith

Mansfield. Horace Rendall

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid that the object of the Amendment standing in his name was very simple. It provided that the local magistrates in their report to quarter sessions should state any circumstances affecting the renewal or the value of the licence which they considered material At present there was machinery for getting full information. The parties went before the local magistrates, who, after ail, knew most of the conditions. There was an appeal, with the cross-examination of witnesses; but in future that would not be so. As the Bill now stood the local magistrates would refer the matter to quarter sessions with a report thereon, but that report might be of the most meagre description, and might only say that in their judgment the licence should not be renewed. If his words were adopted, every circumstance effecting the licence which was considered material would be reported to quarter sessions. The reason why he had put 'value" into the Amendment was that this question of valuation had not yet been fully discussed, and was still shrouded in a great deal of mystery. They ought to know on what principle the licence would be valued. Would it be according to the way in which the house had been conducted? Surely quarter sessions ought to have full information before they proceeded to appreciate the value of a licence.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
1300
"In page 1, line 24, to leave out the word 'thereon' and insert the words 'on any circumstances affecting the renewal or the value of the licence which they consider material.'" —(Mr. Henry Hobhouse.)
Question proposed:— "That the word 'thereon' stand part of the Bill."
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid that the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman seemed to him to be absolutely unnecessary. What he proposed was, to leave the report absolutely to the discretion of the local magistrates, who would naturally report all the materials to enable quarter sessions to form an opinion as to whether the licence should be renewed or not. The Amendment would restrict and stereotype the character of the report, where as the Government desired to leave it open to the magistrates to present their report in any form they thought best. The right hon. Gentleman said that quarter sessions would have a difficulty in coming to a conclusion, because they would have no local knowledge; but the Government had taken care that the justices in quarter sessions should hold consultations with the local magistrates, and they held that a great deal of this work, at all events in the first instance, would be largely done by the judicious action of the justices, who could ask the local magistrates for information on various matters not brought before them. If anything else was necessary, there would be a hearing at quarter

1301
sessions. On these grounds he thought it was not necessary to have a particular form of report. His right hon. friend also said that there should be a report on the value of the licence. He did not know whether his right hon. friend recollected that the value of the licence was to be ascertained by the Leland Revenue. Moreover, there was nothing to prevent quarter sessions employing a surveyor or an auctioneer with the object of obtaining any information required. Nothing would be more disastrous than to set up an expensive mode of procedure, which would be necessary in every case, arid which would largely eat into the compensation fund. If quarter sessions and the local magistrates approached each other, as he assumed they would, in a business-like way, they would be able to get rid of a great deal of the difficulty without incurring any unnecessary expense.
MR. CRIPPSsaid that to his mind it was extremely important that the quarter sessions should have before them a formal document setting forth the grounds on which the local justices recommended the refusal of the renewal of the licence. It was not possible, at that stage of the Bill and of the evening, to go into the questions of value, which really arose on the compensation clause. In his view, in a great many cases it would not be necessary to call in the Inland Revenue at all; but he would ask the Solicitor-General how the approval of quarter sessions could be properly and judicially given to any agreement between the parties as regarded value, unless they had before them the grounds
on which the local magistrates had acted. He thought the Amendment would undoubtedly, from an administrative point of view, be a great improvement.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The matter which stands out from this—shall I call it discussion—is this, that the discussion is entirely unreal. My hon. and learned friend who has just sat down and others on his side of the House are in favour of this most reasonable Amendment. But what is the use of it? It will not be accepted by the Government. There is no opportunity of discussing it in the House. We are called upon now to pass a certain part of this Bill. There are nearly two pages of the Bill which have not been discussed in Committee and which have not been discussed upon Report, and Amendments have been introduced into this part of the Bill by the Government which have never been before the House at all. Why should we go on with the pretence of going through what is called a stage of the Bill under these conditions? What a perfect farce and imposture the whole proceeding is, as my hon. and learned friend who has just sat down would be the first to admit; in fact, he has admitted it in his own observations—
And it being Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 5th July, to put the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
Question put, "That the word 'thereon' stand part of the Bill."
The House divided:—Ayes, 229; Noes, 160. (Division List, No. 281.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Chapman, Edward

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Charrington, Spencer

Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

Bigwood, James

Clancy, John Joseph

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bingham, Lord

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Clive, Captain Percy A

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. HughO.

Bond, Edward

Coates, Edward Feetham

Arrol, Sir William

Boustield, William Robert

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

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Brassey, Albert

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Bagot, Capt.Josceline FitzRoy

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Brown, Sir Alex. R. (Shropsh.)

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton).

Baird, John George Alexander

Bull, William James

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Balcarres, Lord

Butcher, John George

Cust, Henry John C.

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

Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ

Dalkeith, Earl of

Balfour, RtHn. GeraldW.(Leeds

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Davenport, William Bromley-

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Davies, Sir FloratioD.(Chatham

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Dewar, Sir T.R.(Tower Hamlets

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

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

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Dickson, Charles Scott

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Rateliff, R. F.

Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

Reid, James (Greenock)

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Li erpool)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Doogan, P. C.

Lawson, JohnGrant (Yorks. N.R

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnE.

Lee, Arthur H(Hants., Fareham

Renwick, George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Richards, Henry Charles

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Ridley, S. Forde)Bethnal Green

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

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Robert, Samuel (Sheffield)

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol, S.

Robinson, Brooke

Fisher, William Hayes

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Lowe, Francis William

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Flower, Sir Ernest

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Forster, Henry William

Lyttelton. Rt. Hon. Alfred

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

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

Maconochie, A. W.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Galloway, William Johnson

M'Iver, SirLewis(Edinburgh, W.

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Gardner, Ernest

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Samuel, SirHarry S.(Limehouse

Garfit, William

Manners, Lord Cecil

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

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

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

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby

Melville, Beresford Valentene

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Green, Waford D.(Wednesbury

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

Greene, SirE. W.(B'ryS. Edm'nd

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

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

Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.

Morgan, David J.(Walthamstow

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

Gretton, John

Morpeth, Viscount

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Groves, James Grimble

Morrell, George Herbert

Stroyan, John

Hall, Edward Marshall

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Mount, William Arthur

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

Hardy, Laurence(KentAshford,

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Hare, Thomas Liegh

Murray, Rt. H. n. A. Graliam(Bute

Thompson, DrE. C.(Monagh'n, N

Harrris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

Murray, Charles.J. (Coventry)

Thornton, Percy M.

Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Tuff, Charles

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Nicholson, William Graham

Valentia, Viscount

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

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

Vincent, Col. SirC. E.H.(Sheffield

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Walker, Co. William Hall

Heaton, John Henniker

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

O'Dowd, John

Webb, Colonel William George

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

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

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Whiteley, H.(Ashton und Lyne

Hoult, Joseph

Parkes, Ebenezer

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Pemberton, John S. G.

Wortley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Percy, Earl

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Pierpoint, Robert

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Jessel. Captain Herbert Merton

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Kerr, John

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Keswick, William

Purvis, Robert

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

Kimber, Sir Henry

Pym, C. Guy

Alexander Acland-Hood

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Rankin, Sir James

and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Knowles, Sir Lees

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Bell, Richard

Cameron, Robert

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Benn, John Williams

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Allen, Charles P.

Boland, John

Carnpbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Asher, Alexander

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Channing, Francis Allston

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Brigg, John

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herb. Henry

Broadhurst, Henry

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Cremer, William Randal

Barlow, John Emmott

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Crombie, John William

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Burt, Thomas

Crooks, William

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Caldwell, James

Cullinan, J.

1304

1305

Dalziel, James Henry

Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

Rickett, J. Compton

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Jones, William (Carnarvonsirhe

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Joyce, Michael

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Delany, William

Kearley, Hudson E.

Robson, William Snowdon

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Duncan, J. Hastings

Kilbride, Denis

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Edwards, Frank

Lambert, George

Schwann, Charles E.

Fffibank, Master of

Langley, Batty

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Ellice, CaptE. C.(S Andrw'sBghs

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W)

Shackleton, David James

Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Evans, Sir Francis H.(Maidstone

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Slack, John Bamford

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Levy, Maurice

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Farrell, James Patrick

Lewis, John Herbert

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Fenwick, Charles

Lloyd-George, David

Spear, John Ward

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Lough, Thomas

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Lyell, Charles Henry

Strachey, Sir Edward

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Sullivan, Donal

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

MaeVeagh, Jeremiah

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Freeman-Thomas, Captain, F.

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Tennant, Harold John

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herb. John

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Markham, Arthur Basil

Tomkinson, James

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

Mitchell, Edw.(Fermanagh, N.)

Toulmin, George

Griffith, Ellis, J.

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Moulton, John Fletcher

Ure, Alexander

Hammond, John

Murphy, John

Wallace, Robert

Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

Newnes, Sir George

Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Norman, Henry

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Harwood, George

Nussey, Thomas Winans

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Brien, Kmidal(TipperaryMid

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

O'Doherty, William

Weir, James Galloway

Helme, Horval Watson

O'Malley, William

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Shaughnessy, J. P.

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Partington, Oswald

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Higham, John Sharpe

Paulton, James Mellor

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

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

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

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

Holland, Sir William Henry

Perks, Robert William

Wood house, Sir J T(Huddersf'd

Horniman, Frederick John

Pirie, Duncan V.

Yoxall, James Henry

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Hutton, Alfred E (Morley)

Price, Robert John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Jacoby, James Alfred

Priestly, Arthur

Henry Hobhouse and Mr.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Rea, Russell

Cripps.

Joicey, Sir James

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Mr. SPEAKERthen proceeded successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given, and on every Question necessary to dispose of the allotted business to be concluded on the 5th allotted Day.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 2, line 6, to leave out the words this Act had not passed,' and insert the words 'the licence were subject to the same conditions of renewal as were applicable imme-
diately before the passing of this Act.'"—(Mr Solicitor-General.)
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 2, line 15, after the word 'appeal,' to insert the words 'to the High Court.'"—(Mr. Solicitor General).
Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
The House divided:—Ayes, 228 Noes, 149. (Division List, No. 282.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Balcarres, Lord

Bond, Edward

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

Bousfield, William Robert

Allhusen, Augustus HenryEden

Balfour, RtHn. GeraldW.(Leeds

Brassey, Albert

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Arnold-Forster, Rt. HnHughO.

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

Arrol, Sir William

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Bull, William James

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Butcher, John George

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Campbell, J.H. M.(DublinUniv.

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Bigwood, James

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Bingham, Lord

Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire

Baird, John George Alexander

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Pierpoint, Robert

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

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Chapman, Edward

Hoult, Joseph

Pretyman, Robert

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Pym, C. Guy

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Rankin, Sir James

Coates, Edward Feetham

Jesse!, Captain Herbert Merton

Ratcliff, R. F.

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

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Kerr, John

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Craig., Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Keswick, William

Renwick, George

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Kimber, Sir Henry

Richards, Henry Charles

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Ridley, Hon. M. W.(Stalybridge

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Knowles, Sir Lees

Ridley, S. Forde (BethnalGreen

Dalkeith, Earl of

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Davenport, W. Bromley

Lawson, John Grant (YorksNR.

Robinson, Brooke

Davies, Sir HoratioD(Chatham

Lee, ArthurH.(Hants. Fareham

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Dewar, Sir T.R.(TowerHamlets

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Dickson, Charles Scott

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

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

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Doogan, P. C.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

Lowe, Francis William

Samuel, SirHarryS.(Limehouse

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Loyd, Archie Kirkman-

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Duke, Henry Edward

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Seton-Marr, Sir Henry

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Lyttleton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

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

Maconochie, A. W.

Skewcs-Cox, Thomas

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

M'Iver, SirLewis(EditiburghW.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

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

Fisher, William Hayes

Manners, Lord Cecil

Spear. John Ward

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Stanley, Edwd. Jas. (Somerset

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Maxwell, Rt. Hn SirHE.(Wigt'n

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Flower, Sir Ernest

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Stroyan, John

Forster, Henry William

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

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

Galloway, William Johnson

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Gardner, Ernest

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

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

Garfit, William

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Thornton, Percy M.

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Morgan, DavidJ(Walthainstow

Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

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

Morpeth, Viscount

Tuff, Charles

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Morrell, George Herbert

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Valentia, Viscount

Green, Walford D.(Wednesbury

Mount, William Arthur

Vincent, ColSirC. E.H.(Shellield)

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

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Walker, Col. William Hall

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

Murray, RtH n A. Grahanq Bute

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Webb, Colonel William George

Gretton, John

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

Groves, James Grimble

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

Hall, Edward Marshall

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Nicholson, William Graham

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

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

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

O'Dowd, John

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

Parkes, Ebenezer

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

Heath, James(Staffords., N.W.)

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Heaton, John Henniker

Pemberton, John S. G.

Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

Percy, Earl

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Bell, Richard

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Atherley-Jones, L.

Benn, John Williams

Allen, Charles P.

Barlow, John Emmott

Boland, John

Asher, Alexander

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Brigg, John

1308

1309

Broadhurst, Henry

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Perks, Robert William

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Higham, John Sharpe

Pirie, Duncan V.

Burt, Thomas

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

Power, Patrick Joseph

Caldwell, James

Holland, Sir William Henry

Price, Robert John

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Horniman, Frederick John

Rea, Russell

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Channing, Francis Allston

Hutton, FAlfred E. (Morley)

Rickett, J. Compton

Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Roberts, John Bryn (Ellion))

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Cremer, William Randal

Joicey, Sir James

Robson, William Snowdon

Crombie, John William

Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

Roe, Sir Thomas

Crooks, William

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Runciman, Walter

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Joyce, iMichael

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Cullinan, J.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Schwann, Charles E.

Dalziel, James Henry

Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W.

Shackleton, David James

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Kilbride, Denis

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

Lambert, George

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

Delany, William

Langley, Batty

Slack, John Bamford

Mike, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Law, Hugh Alex.(Donegal, W.)

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Duncan, J. Hastings

Leyland-Barratt, Francis

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Edwards, Frank

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Sullivan, Donal

Ellice, CaptEC(SAndrw'sBghs

Levy, Maurice

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Tennant, Harold John

Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

Lloyd-George, David

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Lough, Thomas

Tomkinson, James

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Lyell, Charles Henry

Ure, Alexander

Farrell, James Patrick

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Wallace, Robert

Fenwick, Charles

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Walton, John Laws on (Leeds, S.)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

M'Kenna, Reginald

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Weir, James Galloway

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Markham, Arthur Basil

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

Mitchell, Edw.(Fermanagh, N.)

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

Gladstone, Rt. HnHerbert John

Moulton, John Fletcher

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Murphy, John

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

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

Newnes, Sir George

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Norman, Henry

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

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Woodhouse, SirJ. T.(Hudd'rsfi'd

Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Yoxall, James Henry

Hardie, J. Keir(McrthyrTydvil)

O'Doherty, William

Harwood, George

O'Malley, William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Herbert Samuel and Mr.

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Partington, Oswald

Toulmin.

Helme, Norval Watson

Paulton, James Mellor

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

Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 2, line 19, to leave out the words 'having regard,' and insert the words 'provided that.'"—(Mr. Akers Douglas.)
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 2, line 19, after the word 'holder,' to insert the words 'regard shall be had.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 2, line 22, after the second word 'licence,' to insert the words 'if a tenant.'"—(Mr. Solicitor-General.)
Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
The House divided:—Ayes, 226; Noes, 147. (Division List No. 283.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Bigwood, James

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Baird, John George Alexander

Bingham, Lord

Allhusen, Augustus Hemy Eden

Balcarres, Lord

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

Bond, Edward

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W(Leeds

Bousfield, William Robert

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. HughO.

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Chrisch.

Brassey, Albert

Arrol, Sir William

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Rt. Hn.

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Butcher, John George

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Bignold, Sir Arthur

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

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Heaton, John Henniker

Pemberton, John S. G.

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.

Percy, Earl

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Pierpoint, Robert

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

Hoult, Joseph

Pretyman, Ernest George

Chapman, Edward

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Charrington, Spencer

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Purvis, Robert

Clancy, John Joseph

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Pym, C. Guy

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Rankin, Sir James

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Ratcliff, R. F.

Coates, Edward Feetham

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Reid, James (Greenock)

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

Kerr, John

Remnant, James Farquharson

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Keswick, William

Renwick, George

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Kimber, Jir Henry

Richards, Henry Charles

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Knowles, Lees Sir

Ridley, S. Forde, Bethnal Green

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Lawson. John Grant(Yorks. N.R

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Cust, Henry John C.

Lee, ArthuaH (Hants., Fareham

Robinson, Brooke

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Legge, Col. Hon, Heneage

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Davenport, W. Bromley-

Llewdlyn, Evan Henry

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Davies, SiriforatioD.(Chatham

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

Royds, Clement Molynenx

Dickson, Charles Scott

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

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

Lonsdale, John Brownlce

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lowe, Francis William

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Samuel, Sir HarryS.(Limehouse

Doogan, P. C.

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Dorington, Rt. Hon. SirJohn E

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Macdona, John Cumming

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

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

Maconochie, A. W.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W

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

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Spear, John Ward

Fisher, William Hayes

Manners, Lord Cecil

Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

FitzGeralfl, Sir Robert Penrose-

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn.W. F.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Maxwell, RtHn SirHE(Wigt'n

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Stroyan, John

Flower, Sir Ernest

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Forster, Henry William

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

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

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Galloway, William Johnson

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Thompson, Dr EC(Monagh'n, N.

Gardner, Ernest

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

Thornton, Percy M

Gartit, William

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Morgan, David J(Walthamstow

Tuff, Charles

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

Morpeth, Viscount

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Morrell, George Herbert

Valentia, Viscount

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Vincent, Col. Sir C E H(Sheffield

Green, Walford D.(Wedncsbury

Mount, William Arthur

Walker, Col. William Hall

Greene, Sir E W(B'ryS. Edm'nds

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Wavle, Colonel C. E.

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

Murray, Rt. HnAGraham(Bute

Webb, Colonel William George

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

Murray, fCharles J. (Coventry)

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

Gretton, John

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

Groves, James Grimble

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Hall, Edward Marshall

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Nicholson, William Graham

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

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

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

O'Dowd, John

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Alexander Acland-Hood

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Parkes, Ebenezer

and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Heath, James(Staffords., N.W.)

Pell, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Ainsworth, john Stirling

Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry

Beaumont, Went worth C. B.

Allen, Charles P.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Bell, Richard

Asher, Alexander

Barlow, John Emmott

Beim, John Williams

1312

1313

Boland, John

Harwood, George

Partington, Oswald

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Hayden, John Patrick

Paulton, James Mellor

Brigg, John

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Broadhurst, Henry

Hleme, Norvai Watson

Perks, Robert William

Bryce, BA. Hon. James

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Higham, John Sharps

Power, Partick Joseph

Burt, Thomas

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

Price, Robert John

Caldwell, James

Holland, Sir William Henry

Priestly, Arthur

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Horniman, Frederick John

Rea, Russell

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Rickett, J. Compton

Channing, Francis Allston

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Roberts, John H. (Denhighs)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Jacoby. James Alfred

Robson, William Snowdon

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Cromer, William Randal

Joicey, Sir James

Runciman, Walter

Crombie, John William

Jones, David Brynmor(Swansee

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Crooks, William

Jones, William (Carmiarvonshire

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Joyce, Michael

Schwann, Charles E.

Cullinan, J.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Shackleton, David James

Dalziel, James Henry

Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

Shaw, Charles Edward (Staffor-

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Kilbride, Denis

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

Davies, M. Vaughan-)Cardigan

Lambert, George

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Delany, William

Langley, Batty

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

Stanhope, Hon. James Philip

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Sullivan, Donal

Duncan, J. Hastings

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Edwards, Frank

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Tennant, Harold John

Elibank, Master of

Levy, Maurice

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Tomkinson, James

Evans, Sir Francis H(Maidstone

Lloyd-George, David

Toultnin, George

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Lough, Thomas

Ure, Alexander

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Lyell, Charles Henry

Wallace, Robert

Farrell, James Patrick

Macnarmara, Dr. Thomas J.

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.)

Fenwick, Charles

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

M'Kenna, Reginald

Weir, James Gallaway

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

Free-manThomas, Captain F.

Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Moulton, John Fletcher

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Murphy, John

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

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

Hewnes, Sir George

Woodhouse, SirJ T (Hudd'rsf'd

Griffith, Ellis J.

Norman, Henry

Yoxall, James Henry

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Hammond, John

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

O'Malley, William

Slack and Mr. J. H.

Hardie, J Keir(Merthry Tydvil)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Whitley.

Bill read the third time, and passed.

Amendment proposed to the, Bill.
"In page 2, line 25, at end to add, the words 'if on the division of the amount to be paid as compensation, any question arises which quarter sessions consider should be referred to the determination of a Court, they may refer that question to the County Court in accordance with rules of Court to be made for the purpose.'"—(Mr. Soltcitor-General.)
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 2, line 28, to leave out the words 'purpose of providing compensation under,' and insert the words ' purposes of.'"—(Mr. Solicitor-General.).
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."—(Mr. Disraeli.)
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)said he thought that as they were discussing the Bill under special rules, a Motion for adjournment which involved a loss of time, should come from the other side.
MR. DISRAELIsaid he would withdraw his Motion, although he must say that he thought it would be better if the consideration of Clause 4 was left over until the next day.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. DISRAELIsaid that the Amendment standing in his name to the first sub-section of Clause 4, had for its object to restore the clause to its original form when the Bill was introduced to the House. The change which had been introduced into the Bill with reference to new

1315
licences would deal a very heavy blow at quarter sessions who wished to see uniformity in the granting of these licences. They could have no uniformity as the Bill now stood, as it would be impossible for the magistrates to settle a uniform scheme for an entire county. There might be a different set of conditions in every petty sessions district in a county, and quarter sessions would have no power to vary the conditions laid down by petty sessions. In that way, a district might he denied a licence although it was wanted, as quarter sessions would only have the power to confirm or not to confirm. In the interests of the working of the Act, a definite scheme ought to be laid down. From time immemorial quarter sessions was the authority which had laid down the conditions under which licences should be granted; and that power should be left to them. Otherwise, there would be certain to be friction. His Amendment would enable local magistrates to give their opinion with reference to new licences, and would retain the supreme control of laying down the conditions on which new licences should be granted to quarter sessions. The Amendment found great favour with quarter sessions, and he hoped the Government would be able to accept it.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"in page 3, line 26, to leave out from the word 'of,' to end of Sub-section (1) of Clause 4, and insert the words 'confirming a new licence and of assenting to the conditions, if any, upon which such licence is granted, shall be exercised by quarter sessions after consultation with the justices of the licensing district, where such licence is granted.'"(Mr. Disraeli.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out up to the word 'new' in page 3, line 27, stand part of the Bill.
MR. CRIPPSsaid that he had an Amendment on the Paper similar in effect to that just moved and he could assure the House that he had not put it down in any spirit of hostility to the Bill. He was sure the Prime Minister would agree that the point raised was one of the most important in the Bill as regarded new licences, and deserved the most careful consideration.
And, it being Midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed to-morrow

POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [1st July], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Question again proposed.
MR. WHITLEYsaid that although under the circumstances he did not propose to object to the Second Reading being taken he desired to protest against the noble Lord bringing on a measure of this kind at such a late hour.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,)appealed to hon. Members opposite to allow this Bill to pass. He regretted that it had not been possible for him to put the Bill down at a more convenient time. He assured hon. Members that it was very necessary that the Bill should be passed at the earliest possible moment.
MR. DALZIELsaid that he would not offer any objection to the Bill if it was so urgent, but at the same time he associated himself with the hon. Member for Halifax in protesting against a Bill of this character being brought forward after twelve o'clock. He thought the noble Lord might have arranged for this Bill being brought forward at a time when they could have discussed it properly.
Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented Five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That Three be the Quorum.—(Lord Stanley.)

COUNTY OF SUFFOLK BILL.
Adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.