HC Deb 27 July 1904 vol 138 cc1399-427

Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment [27th July] proposed to the Bill, on Consideration, as amended.

Which Amendment was— In page 3, line 33, after the word 'public,' to insert the words 'subject as follows: (a) Such conditions shall in any case be attached as, having regard to proper provision for good management, the justices think best adapted for securing to the public any monopoly value which is represented by the difference between the value which the premises will bear, in the opinion of the justices, as licensed premises, and the value of the same premises if they were not licensed. Providedthat, in estimating the value as licensed premises of hotels or other premises where the profits are not wholly derived from the sale of intoxicating liquor, no increased value arising from profits not so derived shall be taken into consideration; (b) The amount of any payments imposed under conditions attached in pursuance of this section shall not exceed the amount thus required to secure the monopoly value.'"—(Sir. Edward Carson.)

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. J. H. LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)

said he moved the Amendment standing in his name not in any hostile sense to the proposal of the Government, but in order that everybody should clearly understand the meaning of those proposals. He took it for granted that anything like selling licences by public auction was excluded by these words, but he wished to now in what way it was intended to arrive at this monopoly value. Were the magistrates to have a valuer of their own, or was it intended that they should ask for tenders not binding themselves in any particular, or in what particular mode was it proposed that the magistrates should ascertain the monopoly value so that it should not exceed the amount mentioned in Subsection (b) of the Amendment? It was for this reason, and for the purpose of asking the hon. and learned Gentleman, for the information of the House, to explain the purport of the Amendment and the way in which it was proposed to ascertain the monopoly value that he now begged to move.

Another Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Bill— In line 12, to leave out paragraph (b)."— (Mr. J. H. Lewis.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."

SIR EDWARD CARSON

said it had been thought necessary to insert this clause for the purpose of showing that what the magistrates were to consider was not the question of who was the highest bidder but what, having regard to proper provision for good management, they deemed to be the monopoly value. It was impossible that they should ask for tenders. The application would be made exactly as it was made at the present time in respect to specific premises. The magistrates would form their conclusions as to what the premises were worth without a licence; and they would also form their conclusions as to what a suitable applicant would give for the premises if he were taking them as licensed premises. It was not a matter that could be reduced to a strictly scientific process. Honourable and skilful valuers differed in their valuation, but that did not prevent juries from making up their minds as to the value of property with which they were called upon to deal. These matters had been presented in a very exaggerated way. The question of valuation would right itself. The valuation must be a valuation relative to the disabilities created in connection with the new licences. When it was said, "How will it pay a man to take a licence at such an enormous sum for a few years?" the answer was that if the transaction would not pay people would not enter into it. It was impossible to lay down any abstract principle of valuation. Supply and demand, situation, length of term, and other questions entered into the matter. On such considerations and on such evidence as might be necessary the magistrates would come to a determination what sum they ought to ask for the monopoly value. The object of this subsection was to provide that the magistrates should not, reckless of other matters, grant a licence to a man who offered to give a great deal more than another. Such a system would lead to the selection of licence-holders without regard to character or the methods by which they conducted business, and would tend to foster a system under which their chief object would be to drive a great trade.

MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE

said the right hon. Gentleman had not answered, so far as he could discover, the Question of the hon. Member for Flint Boroughs as to whether the justices in the administration of this clause would have power to employ valuers. The right hon. Gentleman had said that they would take the evidence of skilled witnesses; but would all their advice be confined to what they heard from skilled witnesses, who, in all probability, would be brought forward by the brewers? He submitted that inasmuch as under the Act of 1872 it had been found necessary to give the justices power to employ valuers to ascertain annual values, it would be necessary to give the same powers here when the value to be ascertained was the much more complicated monopoly value. It might be said that the views taken by valuers of the value of a property very often differed very widely, and it might also be said that their views sometimes varied according to the interest of the parties for whom they were engaged; it would, therefore, seem only businesslike to allow the magistrates to employ a valuer to give them advice from the public point of view, without bias. He hoped before the Bill reached its final stage this point would be considered.

MR. H. C. RICHARDS (Finsbury, E.)

thought there would be great difficulty in the way of giving the magistrates power to employ skilled valuers, unless it were stipulated that the valuer retained by the magistrates should never undertake other business in the same neighbourhood; because, unless that were done, there would be the danger of the valuer coming forward in support of a licence, and the fact that he was the valuer of the magistrates would give his support much greater weight than it would otherwise possess. With regard to provisional licences, he believed that this proviso would give rise to many applications of that character. Applications would be made upon plans for certain sites, and better that magistrates should be able to signify their requirements as to the position and nature of the premises rather than have to consider competing applications. There was certain to be a number of applications for every probable new licence in any district with a steadily increasing population. If there was no such proviso as that now proposed, there would be great danger of magistrates who were members of municipal authorities attempting to drive batgains and accepting the highest bidder, and that, he submitted, would be a graved scandal. He appealed to the real friends of temperance on the other side not to support the omission of these words, as by so doing they would simply bring about the state of affairs suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries earlier in the afternoon. If the magistrates were not to consider the personal of the site, the matter would resolve itself simply into a question of money, and that would mean that all new licences would go into the hands of capitalists to the exclusion of the honest publican

MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH (Anglesey)

said the hon. and learned Member opposite might rest assured that valuers would have no more difficulty in giving evidence in one year of a precisely opposite effect to that which they had given in a preceding year, than the hon. and learned Member himself would have in advocating different sets of views on different occasions. With regard to this new sub-section, the monopoly value was to be the difference between the value of the premises unlicensed and the value of the premises licensed. The value to whom? Was it the value to the applicant? If so, surely the applicant ought to know what was the value of the difference to him. Then the value to a brewery company would be much greater than the value to an ordinary applicant. To a brewery company deriving both the wholesale and the retail profits the monopoly value might be £1,000 as compared with £500 to the man who would have only the retail profit. Other things being equal, why should the magistrates refuse the £1,000 in order to accept the £500 In that way the brewery companies would be given a great advantage. But, being more desirous of securing good management than of obtaining the capitalised value of the new licences, he recognised that the clause was a step in the right direction, and in that spirit, though he would like the proposal to have gone farther, he thought it should be supported.

MR. DUKE (Plymouth)

thought this new departure in licensing was capable of affording a solution of almost all the difficulties arising out of almost all the difficulties arising our of the present state of things in the country. But from the clause as it stood it was not quite clear how the justice were to be guided in arriving at the monopoly value. He doubted whether at present they had any sufficient or suitable machinery for that purpose. Believing as he did that the sub-section would be the means of preventing the growth of the tied-house system, he should support it; but he thought the House ought to have an explanation on the point he had raised, because it was a question of arriving at the value not in a country district where everything about a man was known, but in important urban districts where the amount involved might be large, and it was necessary to prevent the justices from being misled by the representatives of existing systems into fixing upon the new licences such exaggerated values as would result in making the new houses nothing more than replicas of the most inferior houses under the present system.

MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)

said the Solicitor-General appeared to distinguish between two kinds of monopoly value, and that was really where the difficulty in this question would arise. There were, indeed, two separate monopoly values—the value to the retailer, and the value to the brewery company of the monopoly which they were able to establish in regard to the output of beer through the channel of a particular public-house. The remarks of the Solicitor-General seemed to imply that the clause was to be limited to the monopoly value to the retailer. He believed the new system would have the effect of increasing the number of tied houses. The position of the tied tenant was such that the retail monopoly value diminished as the wholesale monopoly value increased; and if only the retail monopoly value was to be taken into account, it would be within the power o a brewery company who owned the premises to reduce that value to vanishing point, at the same time reserving to themselves the great monopoly value which they at present possessed. That was a serious matter, and would really destroy whatever value this proposal might otherwise have possessed. They had given the magistrates power to employ a valuer to determine the amount of compensation, but they did not possess any such power in regard to ascertaining the monopoly value. He hoped thin omission in the Bill which had been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Somerset would be remedied.

* MR. HELME (Lancashire, Lancaster)

said he trusted that the Bill would provide the magistrates with funds to carry out the important suggestions which had been made, and not leave them without professional advice in determining values.

MR. J. H. LEWIS

said he had formally moved the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper. He had made this proposal in no hostile sense, and he simply wanted to obtain an explanation of the sub-section. He wished to know whether the Government would provide for this extremely important I point by enabling the magistrates to appoint a valuer for this purpose.

SIR EDWARD CARSON

said he did not think this matter was so important as the hon. Member seemed to think. He had never known an application for a new licence where there had not been the strongest opposition, and those opposing the granting of a licence would certainly try to increase the monopoly value. As regarded Section 47, what was done there was that the magistrates, at the expense of the applicant, employed a valuer. He did not see why in this case, if it became necessary, the magistrates should not appoint a valuer in the same way.

MR. DUKE

reminded the Solicitor-General that in a great many of these cases the application would be refused.

SIR EDWARD CARSON

said he saw no reason why the magistrates should not say to the applicant that they were not in a position to decide the matter without appointing a valuer, and that if he went on with the application he would have to pay the cost of the valuation.

MR. J. H. LEWIS

asked permission to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed words inserted in the Bill.

MR. DISRAELI

moved the omission of Sub-section 3 of Clause 4,which provides for the granting of a new on-licence for a term not exceeding seven years, which shall not require renewal during the continuance of the term. As the discussion on Clause 4 had proceeded they had gone from bad to worse, and the clause was now so involved and difficult to understand that he feared magistrates would not know how it would work, and the result would be that very few new licences would be granted. Those magistrates who had had any experience in this matter would be disgusted at the way this question had been treated and the difficulties which had been thrown in the way. The Solicitor-General had said that there would always be a great deal of opposition to the granting of new licences, and that this would tend to raise the value of the licence, but that had not been his experience. The opposition was generally in the direction of showing that the licence was not needed and that there was no demand for a public-house in that particular part of the district. Under this Bill the magistrates would become public-house brokers and valuers,and they would be taking upon themselves duties for which they had no machinery. He protested against this granting a longer period for a licence; if they could put these new licences upon the same basis as the old licences he ventured to think that the clause would work smoothly. This differentiation in regard to licences was not a thing which people understood, and they would not understand why in one case a certain sum had to be paid for the licence whilst a much larger sum had to be paid in another case. These new licences ought to be put upon the same basis as the old ones, at the same time retaining all the monopoly value, but ascertaining that value by some other machinery and not through the magistrates, who were totally unequipped for performing such a duty. He dreaded the first application that would be made to the bench with which he was connected for a new licence, for although his bench might be quite satisfied that the neighbourhood wanted the licence they would be sure to be very reticent about granting it. This Bill bristled so much with technical points and difficulties that it would be almost a dead letter. He submitted that it was a very bad thing to allow any class of licensee to hold his licence for seven years without the usual annual review. He was absolutely in favour of the annual licence, and he hoped that the Government would even now see that they were making this 4th Clause so involved that no body of magistrates would be able to work it. The Government contended that by obtaining the monopoly value for a licence they had done away with the vested interest, but in his opinion the vested interest existed under these new licences in a far more dangerous way that it had ever existed under the old system of annual licences. Those hon. Members who looked more to the legislation in regard to new licences for temperance reform than to the extinction of existing licences by compensation could only feel dismayed at the manner in which this clause had been mutilated and twisted.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 3, line 313, to leave out Sub-section (3) of Clause 4."—(Mr. Disraeli.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'not,' in line 37, stand part of the Bill."

* MR. BOUSFIELD

wished to know what would happen if this Amendment were carried. He took it that the result would be that one year licences would continue to be granted. There was no system of compensation in regard to one year licences, and therefore he presumed that they would stand exactly upon the same footing as licences now stood. He hoped this section would be made more workable than it was as it stood. A large majority of Members of the House approved of the principle contained in the section. The fact was that the only principle on which this clause could rest, if they were not going to have the old system of equities grow up in connection with new licences, was that the term given under the clause should he sufficiently long to compensate the licence-holder for the capital expenditure he made when he applied for a new licence. That, he thought, was absolutely necessary to the success of the new system.

MR. GRETTON

said the small brewer would not be able to apply for one of the new licences because he would not be able to make the outlay on the premises, and at the same time pay for the monopoly value. He did not think it was the Government's intention that new licences should be granted exclusively to large brewery companies. The only possible way in which a valuer could ascertain the monopoly value was to find out what the new licence would fetch in the open market, and there the large brewery companies would be able to offer the highest price. It was not possible under this section, with only a seven years limit, for a small man surrendering a very large proportion of his profit to recoup himself if he did not obtain renewal after seven years. Only a large company owning many licences, some of which might succeed, would be able to recoup itself from the wholesale profits and not from the retail profits—and so be able to compete for a new licence. What he wanted to urge upon the House was that further discretion should be granted to the magistrates for the express purpose of their being able to grant licences to free licence-holders. He claimed for them equal consideration to that accorded to the trust companies. There was another aspect of the matter. The conditions were so onerous and difficult that very few brewery companies would be able to apply for those new licences, and the only solution of the question was in districts where there were large towns, where public authorities themselves would have to erect premises and hire out the licences for various periods. If that was to be the solution, however, not many Members would approve of it. What they wanted in this clause was more elasticity—that the magistrates might have power to extend the term if they considered that the small man was the best person to occupy the house.

MR. BOND

asked whether the intention of the Government was to make things slightly easier to the proposed licensee, to give him better security for the licence he was applying for, or was it intended to make things harder than they were already, and not to allow any new licence to be granted at all, except on terms so onerous and difficult that no one would apply, except now and again a brewer or hotel-keeper. Suppose the object was to make things easier, the clause was singularly ill-adapted to carry out that purpose. The discussion had proceeded upon the assumption that a term of seven years, neither more nor less, would be offered to any applicant who came forward, but, as a matter of fact, the clause said nothing of the kind. It left the discretion in the hands of the magistrates; they might not grant more than seven years but they might grant any term less than that. He supposed they might grant a term of a year only. What was the position of a man who wanted under this provision to obtain a licence? First of all the monopoly value was taken from him. Over and above that, he had got to pay for the licence, provide a house, fit it up, and his money so expended he could not hope to get back in full or anything like in full if the licence was refused, and yet he was supposed to come forward and be content if the magistrate should decide to grant the licence for one year only; at the end of that year he would have to come again and have the monopoly value charged against him once more. If it was really intended by the Bill to make it possible for the small men to take a licence and make reasonable profits, the discretion left by the clause to the magistrates should be taken away. They should not be allowed to grant a licence under these circumstances for one year, but a fixed term should be set up in the Bill and a less term than that should not be granted. If the object of the Government were to remove the sense of hardship the clause would produce and to mitigate the deterrent effect of the clause, the right course was to lay it down that if the applicant satisfied the other conditions and paid the monopoly value he should have a definite term in order that he might have security against disturbance. That object would certainly not be effected by striking out the sub-section altogether, although it might be by introducing proper Amendments. Therefore he could not vote against the Amendment.

MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH

said he understood the Amendment had reference to Sub-section 2, although they were to a certain extent discussing Sub-section 3. He thought the blouse was to be congratulated on the fact that the hon. Member for Derbyshire had intervened in the debate. He was an authority on this question. He was in a certain sense the father of the Bill, for he introduced the deputation from the trade to the Prime Minister. At any rate, the speech the hon. Member had just delivered was an illuminating one. Speaking as a large brewer he referred to the little man who, having no money, had no chance against the big brewer, but the speech of the hon. Member, as he understood it, was directed not so much in favour of the little man, of whom he had no fear, but against the trust companies. As a matter of fact, there were two points involved in the Amendment. The first was, that the new licences might be granted for seven years, and the second was, whether the monopoly value should go to the licence-holder or to the owner. He maintained that the interpretation of the Amendment was that the monopoly value did not go to the licence-holder, He thought that they, on that side of the House, quite understood and appreciated the difficulties in connection with this matter; still, they thought that the monopoly value should go to the licence-holder and not to the brewer.

MR. CRIPPS

said he naturally approached this question from au entirely different point of view from that of the hon. Gentleman opposite. His desire was to make the Bill as workable as possible. He was not concerned to discuss the monopoly value at present, although his view was that the monopoly value might be made the subject of Imperial taxation. He understood that, in the view of the Prime Minister, the clause did not in any sense interfere with the system of granting a licence for an annual term as at present.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Hear, hear!

MR. CRIPPS

said that to his mind that was very satisfactory, because it brought the licence within the review of the magistrates from year to year, and that was one of the most important safeguards of our licensing system. There was another point he wished to put to the Prime Minister. If they were to take the monopoly value, they must allow a sufficiently long period of time to give something in the nature of real security to the person who applied for the licence. If they made the term as short as seven years, they would either have tied houses pure and simple, or a system of municipal public-houses, which would be worse still.

MR. GROVES (Salford, S.)

said that it could not be claimed, so far as their contributions to the debates were concerned, that the voice of the brewers had been heard too much in the land. The brewers had refrained from obtruding their opinions on the House with regard to the question of new licences; but they recognised the earnest desire of the Government to place the question of new I licences in the future on an entirely different footing from that in which it had stood in the past. There had been very large contributions on the theorising side of the question during the debates, and it might be as well if they had a word on the practical side. If the Bill was to be a workmanlike measure, they most decide either to make the new licences annual, with a reasonable prospect of renewal, or to fix such a period as would give the applicant a reasonable security for the outlay which the magistrates demanded of him. An applicant for a new licence did not come before a bench of magistrates with an ordinary dwelling house. He produced plans for a new house, or of an old house altered, fitted for the requirements of the neigh-bourhood. These would show that a large outlay was required, and, as he had said, they must give the applicant an annual grant with a reasonable prospect of renewal, or fix a period which would afford a reasonable security for the investment of his money. He desired it to be understood that the brewers did not wish their own personal views on this matter to have more than undue importance. In the future they wished to stand in the same position as any ordinary applicant. The hon. Member opposite endeavoured to draw distinction between what he called the honest publican and the brewer's nominee. He did not think that the licensing magistrates would consider, in granting a new licence, whether the applicant had £500 or £1,000, or from what source he derived his capital, but only the requirements of the neighbourhood. He thought that if the Government hampered the discretion of the licensing magistrates by fixing the maximum at seven years they would make this clause practically unworkable.

MR. CORBETT (Glasgow, Tradesten)

said that he regarded elasticity as to the period of licences as of very great importance, because if the justices were obliged to grant licences always for seven years, licences would be dropping in irregularly from year to year, whereas if they had the discretion to grant for a lengthy period they would be able to group licences together according to particular districts, these would come up for renewal at the same time and the licensing justices could examine the question as a whole with regard to what was best for the interests of the neighbourhood. He sincerely hoped the Government would not agree to any concession to grant licences beyond seven years. There would be many difficulties if a longer period were granted.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said that same of the criticisms which had been passed upon the sub-section were based upon misapprehensions of what it was the clause proposed to do and not to do. He had been asked by the hon. and learned Member for Stretford whether there was any intention on the part of the Government to suggest to the magistrates that their best course was to give new licences for the term of seven years. There was no such suggestion in the clause, and there was no such intention in the minds of the Government. The Bill simply said that new licences should not be granted for a longer term than seven Years. It had been argued that that was a suggestion to the magistrates to grant new licences for seven years. But could any one suggest a form of words limiting the period to seven years which could not be said to suggest that the period should be seven years? Besides, the potential licensee would have something to say in the matter. He might prefer a licence for one year or two years, or any term of years up to seven, and the magistrates, whatever the period for which they might have a theoretical preference, would yield to his wishes in the desire to secure him as the best licensee. It had been also asked whether the attempt to capture the monopoly value for the public did not necessarily involve a long tenure. He did not think so. It had been assumed by those who had argued against the Government clause that the monopoly value would be a large sum of money in all cases. It would, in some cases, he believed, be a large sum, in other cases it would be practically nothing. This would depend not wholly, but largely, on the terms exacted by the magistrates. Their requirements as to the fashion in which a house should be built, or as to the alteration to be made, might entirely absorb the monopoly value. All the Government desired was that where monopoly value really existed it should go to the public, not to the licensee. The business of the magistrates was not to extort money for the public either by putting up licences for auction, or by exacting harsh terms from the licensee. Their business was to get the best man they could to manage the business, and to arrange with him so that there should be no monopoly value, but only a fair value. That being the principle, could it be better carried out than in the way the Government had attempted to carry it out in the clause? He did not believe the clause was in the least degree unworkable. He did not believe any jealousy would be excited as between the old licence-holders and the new. The circumstances of each would be different and the terms would be different. He did not think any complications would ensue at all. The only doubt he had ever entertained was whether, in certain circumstances, the magistrates might desire improvements on so large a scale, or impose conditions so onerous as to not only swallow up all the monopoly value, but to deter any reasonable business man from taking the premises at all on a seven years lease. He hoped and believed that this would not be so, and that the seven years lease would be found sufficient to cover all the risks. He hoped the House would accept the sub-section in the form the Government proposed.

MR. BOND

said he wished to move an Amendment extending the term for which new licences might be granted from seven to fifteen years. He doubted whether it would be considered that there had been adequate discussion on the surprising new proposals put forward at that late stage of the Bill. It had been argued by the Prime Minister that when magistrates were considering whether they should grant a new licence they would be disposed to take into account, in determining the monopoly value, the expenditure to which the applicant had been put in constructing the premises. But that was a misapprehension. There was a distinct direction that magistrates were to attach such conditions to the licence as to obtain for the public the whole benefit of the monopoly value, and there was nothing whatever said about taking into account the expenditure the applicant had been put to. That would be an additional burden upon him after he had paid the monopoly value of the licence. That being the case, it seemed to him that the magistrates I should be given the very fullest power of granting to licensees such a term as would enable them to reap the ordinary advantages which as traders they might expect to get out of premises which they had constructed to supply the needs of a particular trade. Unless it was the settled purpose of the Government to make it almost impossible for new licences to be granted in any circumstances, he thought they might reasonably accept the Amendment. If justice was to be done to the requirements of the community and a legitimate trade was to be carried on in districts where it was needed, then he thought magistrates should at least have power to grant to licensees terms which would enable them to recoup themselves for the expenditure to which they had been put, and earn a legitimate profit upon the trade which they carried on.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 3, line 37, to leave out the word 'seven' and to insert the word 'fifteen'—(Mr. Bond)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the word 'seven' stand part of the Bill."

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said that there seemed to be confused in this discussion the interest of the future licence-holder and the interest of the public. The licence-holder need not be considered. No man need apply for a licence if he was going to be injured. The interest of the public was another matter, and he agreed with his hon. friend that it was desirable to grant licences on terms which should bring forward good buildings and good men. There was, however, no evidence to show that the alteration from seven to fifteen years would attain that result.

MR. HERBERT ROBERTS (Denbighshire. W.)

said he wished to move to insert as a proviso at the end of the clause— Provided that no new licence shall be granted where the premises are in the vicinity of any place of worship or school. There was no doubt as to the desirability of such a condition being attached to a new licence. As the First Lord of the Treasury had pointed out, they had to consider not the pecuniary interests of the applicant but the interests of the public. In the United States this condition was attached to all licences, and it would also be part of the new Transvaal liquor law. A new system as regarded new licences would be established under the Act, and it was desirable that a general direction in the sense indicated should be given. The Amendment was

one of substance, and he hoped the Government would be able to accept it.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 3, line 42, at the end, to add the words Provided that no new licence shall be granted where the premises are in the vicinity of any place of worship or school.'"—(Mr. Herbert Roberts.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said that it was impossible to accept this Amendment, for two reasons. First, there must be a definition of "vicinity," otherwise the magistrates would Le "at sea"; and, second, if the Amendment were adopted, it would inflict great injustice. At the end of a term of years, whether one year or seven years, the next licence would be a new licence. It would be impossible to grant that licence if in the meanwhile a chapel or a church had been built in the neighbourhood.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 121; Noes, 216. (Division List No. 285.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)
Allen, Charles P. Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) M'Kenna, Reginald
Asher, Alexander Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin
Ashton, Thomas Gair Gladstone, Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn Markham, Arthur Basil
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Goddard, Daniel Ford Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)
Atherley-Jones, L. Grant, Corrie Moulton, John Fletcher
Barlow, John Emmott Griffith, Ellis J. Newnes, Sir George
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Norman, Henry
Benn, John Williams Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Nussey, Thomas Willans
Brigg, John Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale Partington, Oswald
Broadhurst, Henry Harwood, George Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Helme Norval Watson Pirie, Duncan V.
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Price, Robert John
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Higham, John Sharpe Rea, Russell
Caldwell, James Hobhouse. C. E. H. (Bristol, E. Reckitt, Harold James
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Holland, Sir William Henry Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries
Channing, Francis Allston Horniman, Frederick John Rickett, J. Compton
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) Jacoby, James Alfred Robson, William Snowdon
Cremer, William Randal Johnson, John (Gateshead) Roe, Sir Thomas
Crooks, William Joicey, Sir James Runciman, Walter
Dalziel, James Henry Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan Kearley, Hudson E. Schwann, Charles E.
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Lambert, George Seely, Maj. J.E.B.(Isle of Wight)
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Langley, Batty Shackleton, David James
Duncan, J. (Hastings) Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Edwards, Frank Layland-Barratt, Francis Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)
Elibank, Master of Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington Shipman, Dr. John G.
Ellice, Capt. EC(S. Andrw'sBghs Leigh, Sir Joseph Slack, John Bamford
Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) Lewis, John Herbert Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Eve, Harry Trelawney Lloyd-George, David Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Lough, Thomas Strachey, Sir Edward
Fenwick, Charles Lyell, Charles Henry Sullivan, Donal
Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Tennant, Harold John Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) Woodhouse, Sir J.T(Huddersf'd
Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr White, George (Norfolk) Yoxall, James Henry
Toulmin, George White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Trevelyan, Charles Philips Whiteley, George (York, W.R.) TELLERS FOR TEE AYES—Mr.
Ure, Alexander Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) Herbert Roberts and Mr.
Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S Whittaker, Thomas Palmer Tomlinson.
Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Duke, Henry Edward Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Llewellyn, Evan Henry
Anson, Sir William Reynell Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.
Arkwright, John Stanhope Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Arrol, Sir William Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Long, Col. CharlesW.(Evesham
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Long, Rt. HT1. Walter (Bristol,S.)
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Fisher, William Hayes Lowe, Francis William
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Bailey, James (Walworth) Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon Lucas, Col, Francis (Lowestoft)
Bain, Colonel James Robert Flannery, Sir Fortescue Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth
Balcarres, Lord Flower, Sir Ernest Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Balfour, Rt. Fin. A. J. (Manch'r Forster, Henry William Maconochie, A. W.
Balfour, Rt. Hn. GeraldW(Leeds Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S.W. M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Galloway, William Johnson M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Gardner, Ernest Majendie, James A. H.
Bartley, Sir George C. T. Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgin & Nairn Manners, Lord Cecil
Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. Hicks Gordon, Maj. Evans(T'rH'mlets Maxwell,RtHn.SirH.E.(Wigt'n
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- Melville, Beresford Valentine
Bignold, Sir Arthur Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.
Bigwood, James Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Bill, Charles Greene, SirE. W.(B'rySEdm'nds Molesworth, Sir Lewis
Bingham, Lord Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury) Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs. Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Bond, Edward Gretton, John Morgan, David. J.(Walthamstow
Boulnois, Edmund Greville, Hon. Ronald Morpeth, Viscount
Bousfield, William Robert Groves, James Grimble Morrell, George Herbert
Brassey, Albert Hall, Edward Marshall Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford Mount, William Arthur
Brotherton, Edward Allen Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.) Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham(Bute
Bull, William James Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Butcher, John George Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Campbell, J.H.M(Dublin Univ. Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley Newdegate, Francis A. N.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Heath, James (Staffords. N.W. Nicholson, William Graham
Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire Heaton, John Henniker Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.) Parker, Sir Gilbert
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Peel, Hn. Win. Robert Wellesley
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Hickman, Sir Alfred Percy, Earl
Chamberlain, RtHn J.A.(Worc. Hoare, Sir Samuel Pierpoint, Robert
Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton Hobhouse,RtHn11.(Somers'tE Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Charrington, Spencer Hogg, Lindsay Pretyman, Ernest George
Clive, Captain Percy A. Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside) Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Coates, Edward Feetham Hoult, Joseph Pym, C. Guy
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Houston, Robert Paterson Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne
Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil Ratcliff, R. F.
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Hudson, George Bickersteth Reid, James (Greenock)
Compton, Lord Alwyne Hunt, Rowland Remnant, James Farquharson
Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.) Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. Renwick, George
Cripps, Charles Alfred Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Richards, Henry Charles
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge
Cross, Herb, Shepherd (Bolton) Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh) Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Keswick, William Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Kimber, Sir Henry Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Davenport, William Bromley- Knowles, Sir Lees Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Davies, Sir HoratioD.(Chatham Laurie, Lieut.-General Round, Rt. Hon. James
Dickson, Charles Scott Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Royds, Clement Molyneux
Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C. Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool) Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Dixon-Hartland, Sir FredDixon Lawson, JohnGrant (Yorks, N.R Samuel, SirHarry S.(Limehouse
Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E. Lee, Arthnr H.(Hants., Fareham Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Sharpe, William Edward T.
Sheehan, Daniel Daniel Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Skewes-Cox, Thomas Tully, Jasper Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Stanley Edward Jas. (Somerset Valentia, Viscount Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.) Vincent, Col. SirC. E.H (Sheffield Wylie, Alexander
Stone, Sir Benjamin Walker, Colonel William Hall Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) Wanklyn, James Leslie Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.
Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'dUniv. Warde, Colonel C. E. Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) Webb, Colonel William George
Thompson, Dr. EC(Monagh'n, N Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon- TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir
Thornton, Percy M. Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd Alexander Acland-Hood
Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M. Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Tritton, Charles Ernest Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.)
Tuff, Charles Wilson, John (Glasgow)

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

And it being after Eleven of the clock, Mr. Speaker proceeded, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 5th July, 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 6th allotted day.

Amendment proposed to the Bill—

"In page 4, line 33, after the word 'number,' to insert the words 'and seven shall be substituted for three as the minimum number.'" —(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 4, line 33, at the end, to insert the words, 'The justices of any borough, not being a county borough but having a separate commission of the peace, shall be entitled to appoint one of their number to act with reference to the determination of any question as to the refusal of the renewal of a licence under this Act, and any proceedings consequential thereon, on the

committee appointed under this section by quarter sessions, and for those purposes any justice so appointed shall be deemed to be an additional member of the committee.'"—(Sir Edward Carson.)

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 5, line 7, to leave out from the word 'for,' to the word 'committees,' in line 8, and insert the words 'constituting where requisite.'"—(Sir Edward Carson)— instead thereof.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 5, line 8, to leave out from the word 'sessions,' to the word 'standing,' in line 10.'"—(Sir Edward Carson.)

Question put, "That the Amendment be made."

The House divided:—Ayes, 224; Noes, 135. (Division List No. 286.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Blundell, Colonel Henry Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Bond, Edward Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole
Anson, Sir William Reynell Boulnois, Edmund Compton, Lord Alwyne
Arkwright, John Stanhope Bousfield, William Robert Condon, Thomas Joseph
Arrol, Sir William Brassey, Albert Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Brotherton, Edward Allen Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.)
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.) Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)
Bailey, James (Walworth) Bull, William James Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)
Bain, Colonel James Robert Butcher, John George Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile
Balcarres, Lord Campbell, J.H.M.(DublinUniv. Dalrymple, Sir Charles
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manch'r Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Davenport, William Bromley
Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W.(Leeds) Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire Davies, SirHoratioD.(Chatham
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Cayzer, Sir Charles William Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Dickson, Charles Scott
Bartley, Sir George C. T. Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.
Beach, Rt. Hn. SirMichaelHicks Chamberlain, RtHn. J.A.(Worc. Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Chamberlayne, T.(S'thampton) Dixon-Hartland, Sir FredDixon
Bignold, Sir Arthur Charrington, Spencer Doogan, P. C.
Bigwood, James Clive, Captain Percy A. Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.
Bill, Charles Coates, Edward Feetham Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Bingham, Lord Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Duke, Henry Edward
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Reid, James (Greenock)
Faber, Edmund B. (Hants., W.) Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N.R. Remnant, James Farquharson
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham) Renwick, George
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Richards, Henry Charles
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge
Fisher, William Hayes Llewellyn, Evan Henry Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green
Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Flower, Sir Ernest Long, Col. CharlesW.(Evesham) Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Forster, Henry William Long, Rt.Hn.Walter(Bristol,S.) Round, Rt. Hon. James
Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.) Lowe, Francis William Royds, Clement Molyneux
Galloway, William Johnson Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Gardner, Ernest Loyd, Archie Kirkman Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Gordon, Hn. J.E.(Elgin& Nairn) Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets) Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)
Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Sharpe, William Edward T.
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Maconochie, A. W. Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Greene, Sir E.W(B'rySEdm'nds M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury) M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Spear, John Ward
Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.) M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset
Gretton, John Majendie, James A. H. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord(Lancs.)
Greville, Hon. Ronald Manners, Lord Cecil Stone, Sir Benjamin
Groves, James Grimble Maxwell, RtHn. Sir H.E(Wigt'n Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Hall, Edward Marshall Melville, Beresford Valentine Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G(Oxf'dUniv.
Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford) Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Thompson, Dr. E C(Monagh'n, N
Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th) Mildmay, Francis Bingham Thornton, Percy M.
Harris, Dr. Fredk. R.(Dulwich) Molesworth, Sir Lewis Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.
Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Tuff, Charles
Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Hay, Hon. Claude George Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) Tully, Jasper
Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley Morpeth, Viscount Valentia, Viscount
Heath, James (Staffords., N.W. Morrell, George Herbert Vincent,Col.Sir C.E.H(Sheffield
Heaton, John Henniker Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Walker, Col. William Hall
Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.) Mount, William Arthur Wanklyn, James Leslie
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Warde, Colonel C. E.
Hickman, Sir Alfred Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute) Webb, Colonel William George
Hoare, Sir Samuel Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E(Taunton
Hogg, Lindsay Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside Newdegate, Francis A. N. Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Hoult, Joseph Nicholson, William Graham Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne
Houston, Robert Paterson Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.)
Hudson, George Bickersteth O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Hunt, Rowland Parker, Sir Gilbert Wortley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Percy, Earl Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Pierpoint, Robert Wylie, Alexander
Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T.(Denbigh) Platt-Higgins, Frederick Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Keswick, William Pretyman, Ernest George Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.
Kimber, Sir Henry Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Knowles, Sir Lees Pym, C. Guy
Laurie, Lieut.-General Randles, John S. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne Alexander Acland-Hood
Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth) Ratcliff, R. F. and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
NOES
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Caldwell, James Duncan, J. Hastings
Allen, Charles P. Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Edwards, Frank
Asher, Alexander Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Elibank, Master of
Ashton, Thomas Gair Channing, Francis Allston Ellice, Capt. E.C(SAndrw'sBghs
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)
Atherley-Jones, L. Cremer, William Randal Eve, Harry Trelawney
Barlow, John Emmott Crooks, William Farquharson, Dr. Robert
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Dalziel, James Henry Farrell, James Patrick
Benn, John Williams Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Fenwick, Charles
Blake, Edward Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan) Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)
Brigg, John Delany, William Flynn, James Christopher
Broadhurst, Henry Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Donelan, Captain A. Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John
Grant, Corrie MacVeagh, Jeremiah Seely, Maj. J.E.B.(Isle of Wight
Griffith, Ellis J. M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Shackleton, David James
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill M'Kenna, Reginald Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale Markham, Arthur Basil Shipman, Dr. John G.
Harwood, George Mitchell, Edw.(Fermanagh, N.) Slack, John Bamford
Helme, Norval Watson Moulton, John Fletcher Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Newnes, Sir George Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Higham, John Sharpe Norman, Henry Sullivan, Donal
Hobhouse, C.E.H. (Bristol, E.) Nussey, Thomas Willans Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Holland, Sir William Henry O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.) Tennant, Harold John
Horniman, Frederick John O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)
Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.) Tomkinson, James
Jacoby, James Alfred O'Malley, William Toulmin, George
Johnson, John (Gateshead) O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Joicey, Sir James O'Shee, James John Ure, Alexander
Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea) Partington, Oswald Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Jones, William(Carnarvonshire Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney)
Kearley, Hudson E. Pirie, Duncan V. White, George (Norfolk)
Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W. Power, Patrick Joseph White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Kilbride, Denis Price, Robert John Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)
Lambert, George Rea, Russell Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Langley, Batty Reckitt, Harold James Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) Rickett, J. Compton Wilson, Henry J.(York, W.R.)
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Woodhouse, Sir J.T(Huddersf'd
Layland-Barratt, Francis Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Yoxall, James Henry
Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington) Robson, William Snowdon
Leigh, Sir Joseph Roe, Sir Thomas TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Lewis, John Herbert Runciman, Walter Mr. Whittaker and Mr.
Lundon, W. Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Goddard.
Lyell, Charles Henry Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift Schwann, Charles E.

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

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 5, line 10, to leave out from the word 'and,' to the first word "for,' in line 14.'"—(Sir Edward Carson.)

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 5, line 35, after the word 'an,' to insert the word 'existing.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 6, line 9, after the word 'an,' to insert the word 'existing.' "—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 6, line 14, at the end, to insert the word 'and.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 6, line 17, to leave out the word 'but,' and insert the words 'Provided that.'—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas)—instead thereof.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 6, line 20, to leave out the words quarter sessions for the whole county,' and insert the words the justices sitting at each such separate sessions'—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas)—instead thereof.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 6, line 28, after the word 'alone,' to insert the words 'or sweets alone.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 6, line 36, at the end, to insert the words, Provided that where a provisional grant and order of confirmation of an on-licence has been made before the passing of this Act under Section twenty-two of The Licensing Act, 1874, and is subsequently declared to be final under that section, the licence shall, although not in force at the date of the passing of this Act, be deemed to be an existing on-licence."—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)

Question put, "That the Amendment be made."

The House divided:—Ayes, 221; Noes, 132. (Division List No. 287.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ.(Manc'r Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth
Arkwright, John Stanhope Fisher, William Hayes Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Arrol, Sir William Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon Maconochie, A. W.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Flannery, Sir Fortescue M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Flower, Sir Ernest M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Forster, Henry William M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)
Bailey, James (Walworth) Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.) Majendie, James A. H.
Bain, Colonel James Robert Galloway, William Johnson Manners, Lord Cecil
Balcarres, Lord Gardner, Ernest Maxwell, RtHn. Sir H.E(Wigt'n
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manch'r Gordon, Hn. J.E.(Elgin& Nairn) Melville, Beresford Valentine
Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W.(Leeds) Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets) Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Molesworth, Sir Lewis
Bartley, Sir George C. T. Greene, Sir E.W(B'rySEdm'nds Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir MichaelHicks Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury) Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.) Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)
Bignold, Sir Arthur Gretton, John Morpeth, Viscount
Bigwood, James Greville, Hon. Ronald Morrell, George Herbert
Bingham, Lord Groves, James Grimble Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Blundell, Colonel Henry Hall, Edward Marshall Mount, William Arthur
Bond, Edward Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Boulnois, Edmund Harris, F. Leverton(Tynetn'th) Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)
Brassey, Albert Harris, Dr. Fredk. R.(Dulwich) Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Brotherton, Edward Allen Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. Nannetti, Joseph P.
Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.) Hay, Hon. Claude George Newdegate, Francis A. N.
Bull, William James Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley Nicholson, William Graham
Butcher, John George Heath, James (Statfords., N.W. Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.)
Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ. Heaton, John Henniker Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Henderson, Sir A.(Statford, W. O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Hickman, Sir Alfred Percy, Earl
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hoare, Sir Samuel Pierpoint, Robert
Cecil, Lord Wugh (Greenwich) Hogg, Lindsay Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Chamberlain,Rt Hn. J.A(Worc. Hope, J.F.(Shettield, Brightside Pretyman, Ernest George
Chamberlayne, T.(S'thampton) Hoult, Joseph Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Charrington, Spencer Houston, Robert Paterson Pym, C. Guy
Clive, Captain Percy A. Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil Handles, John S.
Coates, Edward Feetham Hudson, George Bickersteth Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Hunt, Rowland Rateliff, R. F.
Colomb, Ht. Hon. Sir John C.R. Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. Reid, James (Greenock)
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Remnant, James Farquharson
Compton, Lord Alwyne Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Renwick, George
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Kenyon, Ho. Geo. T.(Denbigh) Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge
Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.) Keswick, William Ridley, S.Forde(Bethnal Green
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Kimber, Sir Henry Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Knowles, Sir Lees Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Laurie, Lieut.-General Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Cust, Henry John C. Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Round, Rt. Hon. James
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth) Royds, Clement Molyneux
Davenport, William Bromley Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Davies, Sir HoratioD.(Chatham Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N.R. Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham) Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Dickson, Charles Scott Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)
Dimsdale. Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C. Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Seton-Karr, Sir Henry
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Llewellyn, Evan Henry Sharpe, William Edward T.
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnE. Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Long, Col. CharlesW.(Evesham Spear, John Ward
Duke, Henry Edward Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol,S. Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Lowe, Francis William Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.
Faber, Edmund B.(Hants., W.) Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) Stone, Sir Benjamin
Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) Walker, Col. William Hall Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G(Oxf'dUinv. Wanklyn, James Leslie Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Thompson. Dr. E C(Monagh'n, N Warde, Colonel C. E. Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Thornton, Percy M. Webb, Colonel William George Wylie, Alexander
Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E(Taunton Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Tuff, Charles Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon- Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Tully, Jasper Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne
Valentia, Viscount Willoughby de Ereshy, Lord TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir
Vincent, Col. SirC. E.H(Sheffield Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.) Alexander Acland-Hood and
Vincent,' Sir Edgar (Exeter) Wilson, John (Glasgow) Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Grant, Corrie O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Griffith, Ellis J. O'Shee, James John
Allen, Charles P. Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Partington, Oswald
Asher, Alexander Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Ashton, Thomas Gair Hammond, John Pirie, Duncan V.
Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale Price, Robert John
Atherley-Jones, L. Harwood, George Rea, Russell
Barlow, John Emmott Helene, Norval Watson Reckitt, Harold James
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Rickett, J. Compton
Benn, John Williams Higham, John Sharpe Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Blake, Edward Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Brigg, John Holland, Sir William Henry Robson, William Snowdon
Broadhurst, Henry Horniman, Frederick John Roe, Sir Thomas
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Runciman, Walter
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Jacoby, James Alfred Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Johnson, John (Gateshead) Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Caldwell, James Joicey, Sir James Schwalm, Charles E.
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Jones, D. Brvnmor (Swansea) Seely, Maj. J.E.B.(Isleof Wight
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Jones, William(Carnarvonshire Shackleton, David James
Channing, Francis Allston Kearley, Hudson E. Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Kennedy, VincentP.(Cavan, W. Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) Kilbride, Denis Shipman, Dr. John G.
Cremer, William Randal Lambert, George Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Crooks, William Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Sullivan, Donal
Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan) Layland- Barratt, Francis Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Delany, William Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington) Tennant, Harold John
Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway Leigh, Sir Joseph Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Lewis, John Herbert Tomkinson, James
Doogan, P. C. Lundon, W. Toulmin, George
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Lyell, Charles Henry Trevelyn, Charles Philips
Duncan, J. Hastings MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Edwards, Frank MacVeagh, Jeremiah Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney)
Elibank, Master of M'Kenna, Reginald White, George (Norfolk)
Ellice,Capt E.C(SAndrw'sBghs M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) Markham, Arthur Basil Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)
Emmott, Alfred Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Eve, Harry Trelawney Moulton, John Fletcher Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Farrell, James Patrick Murphy, John Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Fenwick, Charles Newnes, Sir George Wilson, Henry J.(York, W.R.)
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Norman, Henry Woodhouse, Sir J.T(Huddersf'd
Flynn, James Christopher Nussey, Thomas Willans
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) Herbert Gladstone and Mr.
Goddard, Daniel Ford O'Malley, William William M'Arthur.
Bill to be read the third time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 283.]
Forward to