Commons Sitting of 6 June 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS
  PRIVATE BILLS (PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION) (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional provision in the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—Saddleworth and Springhead Tramways (Abandonment) Bill. Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  DEAN FOREST BILL (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred £ pursuant to the Order of the House of the 1st day of June, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Dean Forest Bill.
  London United Tramways Bill (King's Consent signified). Bill read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]
  Middlesborough, Stockton-on-Tees, and Thornaby Tramways Bill (King's Consent signified). Bill read the third time, and passed.
  Thames River Steamboat Service Bill (King's Consent and Prince of Wales' Consent signified). Bill read the third time, and passed.
  North-Western Electricity and Power gas Bill; Skipton Water and Improvement Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  North British Railway (General Powers) Order Confirmation Bill. Read the third time, and passed.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Jura; and Forres; to lie upon the Table.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES , ETC., BILL.
  Petition from Portsmouth, against; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Hindley; Kingsley; Bristol; Southampton; Westminster: Dunfermneli; Greenlaw; Pontardulais; Llandilo; Plymouth; Frodsham; Alva; Chester Stafford; Crouch Hill; Pembroke; Oldfield; Brighouse; Streatham; Elland; Sheffield; Swansea Valley; Languor; Forest Fach; Pontardawe; Porteynon; Dorking (two); Reigate; Red Hill; Manchester and Salford; Islington; Allendale; Lower Bantham; Balscote; Horley; Watford (four); Rickmansworth; High Bentham; Battersea; Portsmouth (six); Langton Matravers; Gainsborough; Walsall; Aston; Keasden; Warmwell Heath; Osmington; Chickerell; Wyke Regis; Westham; Weymouth (two); Upwey; Broadway; Preston; Winfrith; Miles Platting; Reynoldstone; Oxwich; Pitton Grower; Llangennith; Horton; South Norwood; Cardiff (three); Felling (two); Venerable Bede; Bill Quay; Armadale; Manchester; Croydon (two): Abingdon; Cefn Crib; Stockport (five); Newmilns; Ayr; West London; Woodside; Fortune's Well; south Stockport; South Watford; Easton (two); Ince in Makerfield; Settle; Bentham; Peterborough (three); Haddenham; Northampton; Bolton; Neithrop; Wincanton; South Cheriton; Hemel Hempstead: Burton-in-Lonsdale; Haslingden; Lochwinnoch; Kingsthorpe; North West London; Neilston; Fortrose; Newcastle-on-Tyne; Rossendale; Cloughfold; Bacup; York; Calverley; Falmouth (two); Newby; Kingston; Pontnewynydd; Bretherton; Hamworthy; Newtown; Higher Lytchett; Nuneaton; Dunkswell; Fauldhouse (two); Banbury; Ashton-under-Lyne; Abergavenny (two); Finstown; Brixton; Ryecroft; Cullingworth; East Morton; Leamington (two); Warwick; Auchterarder; Burrelton; Nottinghamshire;

  775
  Key worth; Rock Ferry; Batley; Keighley; Wallingford; Herston; South Wales and Monmouthshire; Southsea (two); Wolverhampton (two); Heronsgate; Pinner; Batley; Sturminster; Worth Matr avers; Wareham; Parkstone; Morden; Kenson; Waterloo; Lower Lychett; Binegar; Easkote; Shutford; Birkenhead (four); Mount Tabor; Bon-sall; Coupar Angus; Methven; Nuneaton; Diss; CorfeCastle; Northampton; and Swindon; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Ramsbury; and Bridgwater; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  Petition from Warwick, for extension to women; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petition from Sheffield, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SINGH, MAHENDRA MAHARAJAH MADHAVA.
  Petition of Mahendra Maharajah Madhava Singh, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.
  VALUATION BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Croydon; St. Marylebone; and Bridgwater; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  AGRICULTUREAND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND) ACT, 1899.
  Copy presented, of Three Minutes by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland sanctioning forms of Instruction for the county borough of Cork and the urban district of Athlone [by Act]; to lie upon the Table from the year 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  WEST AFRICA.
  Copy presented, of Statement of the Revenue and Expenditure and the Trade Return presented, relative thereto of the Gambia, Sierra Leone, and the Gold Coast, from the year 1895, and of Lagos and Southern and Northern Nigeria
  776
  from the year 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  CROWN AGENTS.
  Return presented, relative there to [Address 17th May; Mr. Herbert Samuel]; to He upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 194.]
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL.
  Copy presented, of Returns relating to the Council up to 31st March, 1904, with Estimate of Expenditure for the year ending 81st March, 1905 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 195.]
  EXPLOSIONS (MESSRS.CURTIS'S AND HARVEY'S FACTORY AT CLIPFE, KENT).
  Copy presented, of Report by Major A. Cooper-Key, His Majesty's Inspector of Explosives, to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on the circumstances attending an Explosion of Nitro-glycerine in the separating house of the Factory of Messrs. Curtis and Harvey, Limited, at Cliffe, Kent, on the 18th February, 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF STAFFORD).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the County Council of the County of Stafford altering certain Polling Districts in the Handsworth Parliamentary Division [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (WEST RIDING OF THE COUNTY OF YORK).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the County Council of the West Riding of the County of York altering certain Polling Districts in the Hallamshire Parliamentary Division [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3177 to 3179[by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL [LORDS].
  Return presented, relative there to [ordered 3rd June; Mr. Bonar Law]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 196.]
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 3rd June; Mr. Bonar Law]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 197.]
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Public Records (Home Office). Copy of Schedule containing a List and Particulars of Classes of Documents which were returned to the Office of His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department, and which are now in the Public Record Office, but which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation therein [by Act].
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES

  Annoyance caused by Heavy Gun Firing off Torbay.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if instructions may be given to abate the nuisance caused to the inhabitants of Exmouth, Teignmouth, and other places, by the constant firing of heavy guns off Torbay by His Majesty's cruiser "Undaunted," and that the firing may take place at sea or on some less frequented part of the coast.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The Admiralty is anxious to minimise the annoyance complained of, so far as maybe compatible with preserving the gunnery efficiency of His Majesty's ships, and have given instructions accordingly, and have also directed inquiry to be made with a view to a change of locality. Owing, however, to the strong tides on that part of the coast within the Devonport command, the large amount of coastal traffic, the number of fishing vessels, and the necessity which exists for mooring the targets in comparatively shallow water, the difficulty of selecting an alternative practice area is considerable.

  Delay in Erection of Coastguard Station at Arryheera, County Donegal.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty
  778
  whether, in view of the fact that tenders were invited over twelve months ago for the erection of a coastguard station at Arryheera, county Donegal, and that the tender of Messrs. Stewart and Co., contractors, Belfast, was accepted, he will explain why no instructions have been given to the contractors since the acceptance of the tender to proceed with the work; and state what is the cause of the delay in the erection of the building.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) After tenders were invited for new buildings, unforeseen difficulties arose in connection with the owner's title to part of the land leased to the Admiralty for the new buildings, the result of which has been that another site has had to be selected. The lease will shortly be completed, and the new buildings proceeded with in due course.

  Promotions of Senior Assistant Clerks.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury how many promotions have taken place, under Clause 15 of the Order in Council of 29th November, 1898, of senior assistant clerks to the second division, and the number of such promotions, to date, in each office, including Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) List of Promotion to the Second Division of the Civil Service from the ranks of the Senior Assistant Clerks of the Abstractor Class, under Clause 15 of the Order in Council of 29th November, 1898:—

  Admiralty

  16

  Agriculture and Fisheries, Board of

  3

  Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland), Department of

  1

  British Museum

  1

  Charity Commission

  3

  Customs

  1

  Deeds, Ireland, Registry of Education, Board of (including former Science and Art Department)

  27

  Home Office

  2

  Inland Revenue

  13

  Local Government Board

  England

  11

  Local Government Board Ireland

  6

  Meal Beliefs in Liverpool Post Office
  MR. SHACKLETON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that instructions have been issued at Liverpool that on such attendances as 11 a.m. to 7 p.m., 11 a.m. to 8 p.m., and noon to 8 p.m., not more than ten minutes should be granted for tea relief; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that such a limitation does not allow sufficient time for the purpose, he will direct that the fifteen minutes hitherto granted shall be restored.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Under the regulations of the Department a refreshment interval of thirty minutes is provided for on the duties to which the hon. Member refers. As the hours of attendance are somewhat inconvenient as regards meal times a further short interval of ten minutes is allowed, as an act of grace, if the work admits of it, and see no reason for extending this interval.

  Appointments for Male Telegraph Learners in Liverpool Post Office.
  MR. SHACKLETON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that there are at Liverpool sixty-five male telegraph learners waiting appointment, thirty-nine of whom are fully qualified, all receiving 6s. per week, and that these learners have been informed that they can only be appointed as vacancies occur which it is necessary to fill; and, if so, whether, in view of the declaration of official witnesses before the Bradford Commission that the Post Office endea-
  780
  voured to place learners upon the establishment after twelve months service, he will take steps to provide the youths with appointments.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) There are at present seventy male learners at Liverpool. Of these thirteen have been nominated for vacant positions as sorting clerks and telegraphists, to which they will be appointed in due course. Candidates for learnerships are informed before they enter the competitions that vacancies for sorting clerks and telegraphists occur at irregular intervals, and that no assurance can be given as to the time within which an established appointment will be obtained, regret that until vacancies occur am unable to provide the other youths with appointments.

  Postal Duties for Oxford Telegraph Staff.
  MR. WILLIAM JONES: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that for some time past endeavours have been made to compel the telegraph staff at Oxford to perform postal duties, and that they have been informed that they would be removed compulsorily to other offices in the event of the men declining to perform those duties; and whether, in view of the declaration of previous Postmasters-General, that telegraphists entering the service before 1896 are exempt from the performance of postal work, he will explain the reasons for this action.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The telegraph work at Oxford has of late considerably fallen off, and there is consequently not sufficient work to keep the officers in the telegraph office fully occupied. Their services have therefore to be utilised for the benefit of the Department in such a manner as the exigencies of the service require. All officers of the Department are expected loyally to perform any work required of them which they are capable of undertaking; and unless some means can be found to utilise the services of redundant telegraphists at the offices where they are at present employed a transfer to another office is the only alternative.

  Telephonic Connection with Tipperary, Clonmel, and Cahir.
  MR. CULLINAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, in the scheme decided on for telephonic connections with Tipperary and Clonmel, he will have Cahir, which is situated midway, included.
  (Answered by Lord Stanely.) Cahir is situated in the Clonmel exchange area. The National Telephone Company have an exchange at Clonmel, and have been in correspondence with the company on the question of the connection of Clonmel with the telephone trunk system, and the establishment of an exchange at Cahir in communication with that system through Clonmel. The company state that they will open in exchange at Cahir provided sufficient support is forthcoming, and that they are now making inquiry on this subject.

  Pay and Promotion of London Sorter Tracers.
  MR. KIMBER: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will state if he has received a memorial from the London sorter tracers, dated 26th March, 1904, asking for permission to personally lay before him their claims as regards pay and prospects of promotion; and, if so, will he accede to their request.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The memorial has been received; but until the Report of the Committee on Post Office Wages has been fully considered, am not prepared to give a definite answer to the request of the memorialists.

  Condition of Oak Trees in Richmond Park
  MR. JOHN HUTTON: To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether his attention has been called to the unhealthy condition of many of the aged oaks in Richmond Park, and whether he will consider the desirability of removing dead limbs and branches so as to improve the appearance of the trees and prolong their existence.
  (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) The First Commissioner is well aware of the condition of the old oaks in Richmond Park, and has already made provision in
  782
  the Estimates to have the dead wood removed from some of the trees which have sufficient vigour left. Many of the trees are too old to make such treatment either useful or desirable.

  Pupil Teachers
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, in view of the difficulties caused to local authorities by the present inadequate supply of teachers, he will modify the pupil teacher regulations in such a way that the engagement of boys and girls as pupil teachers at the age of fifteen may be allowed for a further period than that at present permitted in those regulations.
  (Answer by Sir William Anson.)It has been represented to the Board of Education that their regulation requiring pupil teachers admitted on or after the 1st of August, 1904, to be not less than sixteen years of age at the date of their admission is likely to produce serious inconvenience in certain districts, owing to the difficulty of supplying immediately the additional staff which would thus be rendered necessary, and to the impossibility of provision being made by that date in those places for the full-time instruction of intending pupil teachers between the ages of fifteen and sixteen. In view of this, the Board will be prepared, where it is shown to their satisfaction that the circumstances of any area require exceptional treatment, to postpone as regards that area the date at which this regulation will come into operation until a date not later than the 1st of August, 1906, and to allow candidates between the ages of fifteen and sixteen to be admitted as pupil teachers for engagements of three years from the 1st of August, 1902, and, if necessary, also from the 1st of August, 1905.

  Leith and Edinburgh Education Area.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in connection with the provisions of the Education (Scotland) Bill providing a joint School Board area for Leith and Edinburgh, he would give favourable consideration to the principle of a uniform bursary system over the

  783
  united area, which would include the Merchant Company and Heriot Schools.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) do not think it expedient to discuss by way of Question and Answer the details of a Bill which will shortly be discussed in Committee; but, while am unable to understand the exact purport of the hon. Member's Question, am not prepared to admit that any alteration of the area of beneficiaries under existing endowments comes within the scope of the Bill.

  Improved Accommodation and Precautions against Fire for Sick Poor in Workhouses.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: To ask the Secretary for Scotland with reference to the Report of the Departmental Committee on Poor Law Medical Relief, what steps the Local Government Board intend to take with a view to the improvement of the accommodation for the sick poor in poorhouses, especially as regards the prevention of overcrowding in the sick wards.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: To ask the Secretary for Scotland what steps the Local Government Board intend to take with a view to satisfy themselves that sick inmates of poorhouses are provided with sufficient moans of escape in the event of an outbreak of fire, the need for which has been pointed out by the Departmental Committee on Poor Law Medical Relief.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.)I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given to-day to Questions dealing with the same subject addressed to me by the hon. Member for Berwickshire.†

  Sale of Estates in County Donegal.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many landlords in Donegal have sold or have agreed to sell their estates under the Land Act of 1903; what are their names, and what are the valuation, rent, and purchase prices, and the number of tenants on each estate.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.)An interim Return of proceedings in respect
  †See page 800.
  784
  of the working of land purchase was recently laid upon the Table of the House. As at present advised am not prepared to call for further information on the subject.

  Standard Numbers for different Grades of Irish Teachers.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the National Board has yet fixed the standard numbers for the different grades of teachers; whether the numbers have been fixed by the Board or by the Treasury; whether in the latter event the Board has any power of alteration; and whether the arrangement of intergrade teachers was invented by the Board or by the Treasury.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The standard numbers for the different grades have been fixed by the Commissioners and the Treasury. The teacher described as "inter-grade" are teachers whose average incomes for the three years ended 31st March, 1900(exclusive of capitation grant under the Irish Education Act of 1892), did not come within the scales fixed for the various grades of teachers, but fell between the maximum rate of one grade and the minimum rate of the next higher grade. This was merely incidental to the new system of payments.

  Salaries of Irish National School Teachers.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many first of first class national teachers who had no report higher than good received increments at the end of the last triennial period; how many having the requisite average attendance and with no reports lower than good received no increments; and whether the practice of the Board since August has been to award increments to all first of first class teachers whose incomes had been £139 or upwards, provided their average attendance was over 70 and that their reports for the preceding three years had been good or a mixture of good and fair, whilst first of first class teachers whose incomes are below £139 are for that

  785
  reason denied increment, unless they receive two excellent reports for the preceding three years.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.)Teachers who were entitled to increments of good service salary by length of service, average attendance, etc., on 1st April, 1903, were granted increments if the reports on their schools for the triennial period were good. A few doubtful cases are still under consideration. First of first class masters, having incomes of £139 or over and less than £175, were recognised as in the first of first grade, and were granted increments if the reports on their schools were good and the average attendance 70. No teacher, no matter what his class or income, was refused an increment of good service salary on the ground that the reports on his school were not excellent, but teachers were not promoted to the first of first grade and the consequent increase of grade salary unless the last three reports on their schools were excellent or very good and the average attendance 70.

  Police Methods in Ireland.
  MR. CULLINAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state to the House the nature of the new instructions issued and the cause for their adoption by the Royal Irish Constabulary, under which constables visit houses to ascertain information by coaxing and deception, and photograph the inhabitants; whether constables in plain clothes take snap-shots at passers-by in main thoroughfares in cities or towns; and whether officers of the force shadow the constables in their performance of those new duties.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) No instructions, such as suggested in the Question, have been issued to the Constabulary. The police do not take "snip-shots" of individuals incitie3 and towns, except on rare occasions where it is desirable, for police purposes, to obtain photographs of persons suspected of being concerned in crime. The reply to the concluding inquiry is in the negative.

  Irish Land Purchase—Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants.
  MR. CULLINAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of
  786
  Ireland if he will state the total number of applications received by the Estates Commissioners from evicted tenants; the number (in counties) who have been restored to their old holdings; the number for which substitute holdings have been provided; and the number for whom no provision has been made; and in the latter class what steps, if any, have been taken.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.)The interim Return of proceedings under the Land Act of 1903, brought down to 30th April last, shows that forty-seven evicted tenants had been reinstated by landlords so far as is known, and twenty-four by the Estates Commissioners. It was also stated in the Return that inquiries were being made and negotiations pending for the purchase of about 15,000 acres of untenanted land in the counties of Roscommon, Galway, Wexford, Miyo, Limerick, Fermanagh, Tipperary, and Dublin, with a view to utilise such lands for the purposes amongst others of the reinstatement of evicted tenants. The Return shows in addition that on a large number of estates, applications for advances from which had been received, the negotiations for sale were in various stages of progress. There are doubtless many evicted holdings on these estates the former tenants of which, or their representatives, have applied to the Commissioners for reinstatement. All such applications are receiving the careful consideration of the Commissioners. I am not prepared, however, as at present advised, to impose on them the preparation of additional interim Returns, which can only have the effect of impeding the working of land purchase.

  Nurses for Military Stations.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask the Secretary of Stat for War whether any communications have been issued from the War Office containing proposals to provide military stations with a nurse trained in maternity and general nursing to attend the wives and families of soldiers without expense to them; and, if so, to whom were such communications made, and what is their general purport.

  787
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.)Letters were sent to all General Officers Commanding asking for an expression of opinion as to the best means of providing nursing for the wives and; families of soldiers in places where hospitals were not provided. The replies have not yet been received from all the officers concerned.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Admiralty Pensions.
  SIR CARNE RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the fact that in certain cases—similar to that of Mr. Fife, 21st September, 1903—Admiralty pensions are not given to applicants over sixty-five, with war service and in bad circumstances; and, if so, will he state what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARTHUR LEE,): The Admiralty have had the case of this man under their consideration, but in view of the bad reports which have been received of his conduct, they consider that this is not a case where a special pension should be awarded. There are no applicants of sixty-five years old and more in receipt of a war medal, and who fulfil the conditions as to character and necessitous circumstances, who have not been granted a special pension.

  The King's Uniform at Public Places of Entertainment.
  SIR CARNE RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of the two non-commissioned officers of the Irish Guards who were refused admission to the Gaelic Athletic Sports at Lea Bridge Clapton, on 23rd May, having previously paid their entrance, owing to the fact of their being in the uniform of their corps; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,: I was not aware of this matter until my hon. and gallant friend drew my attention to it. If the facts are as stated, the action taken by those responsible appears to have been a gratuitous outrage of a kind which thought was now unknown, but trust that the publicity given to the case by this Question may render the recurrence of such an incident impossible.
  GENERAL LAURIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain if these premises are licensed, and, if they are, will he urge the; licensing magistrates to take care that the licence is withdrawn without compensation?
  MR.MACVEAGH: Are not soldiers in uniform refused admission to English hotels, restaurants, and places of amusement?
  MR. CULLINAN: Have not the promoters of these athletic sports a perfect right to conduct them as they choose?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Anti-Typhoid Inoculation.
  MR. EUGENE WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Committee appointed by the College of Physicians to investigate and report upon the efficacy of anti-typhoid inoculation have completed their inquiries and made their Report.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The Committee appointed by the College to consider and report on the safety and prophylactic value of Dr. A. E. Wright's anti-typhoid inoculation have made their Report. But the whole question of anti-typhoid inoculation is being considered by a body of experts.
  MR. EUGENE WASON: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay the Report on the Table?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: will consider that when have received the final Report.
  MR. EUGENE WASON: Cannot we have the interim Report?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It is not an interim Report; it is only a Report by one part of the Committee.
  MR. EUGENE WASON: Well, can we see that?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir.

  Army Corps.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state how many Army Corps are there in Great Britain and Ireland.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: There are four Commands which are described as Army Corps, the head-quarters of which are situated at Aldershot, Salisbury, Dublin, and London.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Has the Report of the Departmental Committee been presented?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That hardly arises out of the Question.

  Volunteers—Cost of Training.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, what would be the additional annual cost to be defrayed by the State so that no Volunteer should be out of pocket in consequence of his endeavour to train himself as a soldier.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I am afraid that there are no statistics available from which it would be possible to calculate the cost to the State of providing for the out-of-pocket expenditure of the Volunteer over and above the public grants which are calculated to meet such expenses as are absolutely necessary in order that the average man may become efficient.
  MR. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an approximate estimate?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir. I have taken some pains to inquire and find so many items of expenditure are
  790
  undertaken by officers in pursuance of their own ideas of duty, and they vary so much, that cannot give even an approximate estimate.

  Shambles Barracks, Galway.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that an old building, known as the Shambles Barracks-of Galway, has been condemned long since; and that, in consequence of this condemned building extending into the street, congestion of traffic occurs; and, if so, will he say what action he proposes taking in the matter.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It was decided to dispose of these barracks, but owing to the pressure during the South African War it was found necessary to occupy them. It will not be possible to dispose of them until accommodation can be found elsewhere for the present, occupants.

  Commissioners of Mines and Railways in the Transvaal.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies by whom the positions of Commissioner of Railways and Commissioner of Mines in the Transvaal are now filled; how long they have occupied the posts; what is the salary in each case; and what has been the previous experience and career of the Commissioners.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): Sir P. Girouard is Commissioner of Railways. His salary has been fixed at £2,500 with a personal allowance of £1,000 in addition. During the war he occupied the post of Director of Military Railways and has held his present position since the railways were handed over to the Civil Government. He is a Royal Engineer office who rendered very distinguished, service in connection with the construction of railways in the Soudan War. Mr. Horace Weldon is acting in the appointment of Commissioner of Mines, the-salary of which is £2,000. I am not aware whether he draws a personal allowance. He was educated at the

  791
  Royal School of Mines in London and has had mining experience in the Isle of Man, the Lancashire Hematite Mines and the Rand Mines, where he went in 1893, working first as a miner and later as manager of several companies till war broke out, when he served in one of the Irregular Corps and in the Field Intelligence Department on General Buller's Staff. He was appointed Government Mining Engineer in 1901.

  Selukwe Gold Mines—Native Mortality.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what is the latest return of the death rate of the natives employed in the Selukwe gold mines in Rhodesia.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I am informed that during the four months ending 31st March, 1904, thirteen deaths occurred among natives employed in the mines in the Selukwe district; the average number employed during the period was 1,902.
  MR. TREVELYAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Report on mortality both in the Transvaal and Rhodesia will be presented?
  MR. LYTTELTON: I cannot. My impression is that we only this morning received information which will enable us to complete it.

  Native Labour in the Transvaal.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the latest date in 1904 at which natives from British Central Africa have been brought into the Transvaal to work in the mines; whether any period has been specifically fixed during the Transvaal winter by either the British or Transvaal Government within which the introduction of British South African natives into the Transvaal will in future years be prohibited; and whether a separate account will be kept and laid before Parliament of the mortality amongst British South African natives employed in the Transvaal mines.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I understand that none have so far been introduced in 1904. Their arrival is not to take place until August, as the right hon. Member will see on reference to page 35 of Cd. 1950. The local authorities are all agreed that these natives should not in future be brought to the Rand in winter. A separate account will be kept and published. The mortality up to the present is shown by the statements on page 33 of Cd. 1950 and page 153 of Cd. 2025. The mortality of the first six weeks among these natives was altogether exceptional.

  Chinese Labour in Southern Rhodesia.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Legislative Council of Southern Rhodesia has, in its present session, passed any resolution on the subject of the importation of Chinese labour into that territory; and, if so, whether he will state what were the terms of the resolution, and how many of the elected members voted for and against.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I am not aware that any resolution on the subject has been passed as yet.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the difference in the conditions in the Transvaal and of Rhodesia, an opportunity for discussion in this House will be afforded before he sanctions the importation into Rhodesia of Chinese indentured labour.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I think have already answered the same hon. Gentleman on this very Question. The Answer gave was this. I did not understand that any question of principle was raised by the introduction of Asiatic labour into Rhodesia which was not equally raised in connection with the same policy in the Transvaal, and in these circumstances did not think a separate discussion on Rhodesia necessary or desirable. I think that Answer still holds good.
  MR. TREVELYAN: Is not some difference to be found in the fact that Lord Milner was in favour of the introduction of Asiatic labour, whereas Sir Marshal Clarke was opposed to it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman wants me to get at facts he must give me notice; but if he wants an answer at once, should say that difference of opinion between these high officials, if it exists to the extent the hon. Gentleman represents, does not amount to a difference in principle as to the question of the employment of yellow labour which would require separate discussion in this House.
  MR. MARKHAMalso put a further Question which was not quite audible, suggesting that there was a substantial difference between the cases of Rhodesia and the Transvaal by reason of the fact that the Council in one case was nominated by Lord Milner.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not deny that there is a difference and an important difference; but it is not a difference of importance relative to the large issues which have been, rightly or wrongly—wrongly as think—attached to this question of Chinese labour.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Are we to understand that yellow labour, as the right hon. Gentleman calls it, can be introduced into any part of the Empire without any discussion or notice in this House?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can draw that inference, and certainly he ought not to do so.

  The Mission to Tibet.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can give an approximate date when the force now at Gyangtse will be ready to commence its advance to Lhasa; and
  794
  whether there is any evidence that the refusal of the Tibetans to negotiate is due to Russian influence.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): Until the actual date has been fixed, it would not be in the public interest to make any statement as to the day on which the force will advance. As regards the second part of the Question, I must refer the hon. Member to the information contained in the Blue-book.

  Competition for Government Appointments in India.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can at length state to what extent competition for Government appointments has been abolished or diminished in India; if the abolition of competitive examination for official appointment is applied to natives of the country only, or if it in any case extends to official appointments sometimes held by Europeans; if he will specify what classes of appointments have been abstracted from competitive entrance; also, if he will state who will now enjoy the patronage which will be created by the partial abolition of competition.
  MR. BRODRICK: Open competition for Government appointments has been abolished to the extent of three appointments annually to the Provincial Executive Service in the United Provinces and in Bombay, also in the case of the small proportion of appointments in the executive branch of the Provincial Service, which is filled by recruitment and not by promotion from the subordinate service. As regards appointments in the other provinces the Government of India are in correspondence with local Governments, and further deliberation is necessary before any orders can be issued. The change, as stated in my reply to the hon. Member on the 16th March†, relates exclusively to appointments made in India, which are ordinarily held by natives of the country. The class of
  †See (4)Debates, cxxxi., 1251

  795
  appointments affected by the orders issued in Bombay and the United Provinces is the executive branch of the Provincial Service. The duty of making appointments to this service will rest where it has always rested, that is, with the local Government.

  Massacres in the Sasun District.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information regarding the destruction of villages and slaughter of peasantry which has recently been perpetrated by Turkish troops and Kurds in the Sasun district and elsewhere in the neighbourhood of Bitlis and Van; and what action, if any, His Majesty's Government and other European Powers are taking in the matter with a view to the stopping of this bloodshed and devastation and the prevention of similar acts in the future.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): According to the reports received by His Majesty's Government, twelve villages have been burnt or destroyed in the Sandjak of Moush and thirteen in the Sandjak of Guendj, but it is not clear whether the destruction was caused by the insurgents or by the Turkish troops. There seems reason to hope that the loss of life has been comparatively small. His Majesty's Ambassador has from the beginning repeatedly represented to the Ottoman Government the gravity of the situation and has urged upon the Sultan the expediency of endeavouring to negotiate peaceably with the insurgents. The Turkish Government accepted a proposal made by Sir Nicholas O'Conor that the Consuls of Great Britain, France, and Russia should act as intermediaries, and the French and British Consuls have been at Moush since the middle of last month, awaiting the arrival of the Russian Consul, who was delayed at Tiflis. It is difficult for these officers to enter at present into negotiations with the bands, which are now scattered and disorganised, but there is no doubt that their presence has exercised a beneficia! effect. They have been instructed to remain at Moush until they are assured that there
  796
  is no likelihood of a fresh insurrectionary movement and of renewed military action.
  MR. BRYCE: Can the noble Lord give the House any Papers on the subject?
  EARL PERCY: There are hardly any to be laid.
  MR. BRYCE: You have the reports?
  EARL PERCY: Not in detail.

  Employment of Children Act By-Laws.
  MR. TENNANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been done with regard to sanctioning by-laws under the Employment of Children Act, 1903; and whether he can state how many and what local authorities will prohibit street trading by girls under sixteen.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): One set of by-laws under the Employment of Children Act has been confirmed and is now in force; viz., for the Borough of Warrington. Under this set, street-trading is absolutely prohibited in the case of girls under fourteen and partially (i.e. as regards certain places) in the case of girls between fourteen and sixteen. By laws have also been provisionally approved for Hull, where there is to be a partial prohibition for girls under sixteen, and for Burnley, Todmorden and Swindon, where the prohibition is to be absolute. Proposals from seven other places for the restriction or prohibition of such street trading are now under consideration.
  MR. TENNANT: Are these the only places where they have been approved?
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I have given the whole list.

  The Post Office and the National Telephone Company.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his negotiations with the National Telephone Company for the purchase of

  797
  their system are yet completed; and f whether he intends to give notice to terminate their licence at the end of this year; and what steps he intends to take to bring the arrangements before Parliament in accordance with his undertaking.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): The negotiations with the National Telephone Company on the subject of the purchase of their system are not concluded, and while they are still in progress the hon. Member will hardly expect me to make any declaration of the intentions of the Government as to terminating the Company's licence by notice. The hon. Member's last Question seems somewhat premature. I can only assure him that if an arrangement is come to have every attention of fulfilling my promise to bring it before Parliament for approval.
  MR. LOUGH: Is it not the case that the negotiations must be concluded this month if the necessary notice is to be given?
  LORD STANLEY: If the notice is to be given.

  Cycle Allowance to Telegraph Linemen.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that instructions have recently been issued by the superintending engineer to discontinue the allowance of 2d. per mile to linemen who use their own cycles for tracing line faults when trains or other conveyances are not available, and which allowance was sanctioned by the Postmaster-General about May, 1903; and, if so, whether he will see that this allowance is continued.
  LORD STANLEY: I am unable to trace the issue of any such instructions. Perhaps the hon. Member will be so good as to inform me by which of the superintending engineers he believes them to have been issued.

  Books of Postage Stamps.
  MR. EUGENE WASON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, having regard to the convenience to the public in being able to buy a book of twenty-four penny stamps for 2s. 0½d.,he could give
  798
  instructions that books of forty-eight halfpenny stamps could be supplied at the same price.
  LORD STANLEY: I doubt whether there would be much public demand for books of forty-eight halfpenny stamps, but am considering a proposal to issue books of penny and halfpenny stamps combined.

  Canadian Duty on Woollen Goods.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Canadian Government have decided to raise the duty on imported woollen goods to 45 per cent. ad valorem; and if he can say how the rate of duty imposed on woollen manufactures imported from this country, after allowing for the 33⅓ per cent. rebate, compares with that imposed in 1896 and in subsequent years.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I have no information as to any decision by the Canadian Government to alter the duty on woollen goods. If the hon. Member will put down an unstarred Question asking for the information referred to in the second part of his Question to-day, shall be happy to supply it. It cannot be conveniently given in reply to an oral Question.

  Report of Committee on Duties of Board of Trade and Local Government Board.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now state when the Report of the Committee appointed to consider the position and duties of the Board of Trade and Local Government Board is likely to be in the hands of Members.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): I propose to lay this Report at once.

  New Education Code—Changed System of Grants.
  SIR JOHN DORINGTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, in view of the fact that under the system of grants set out in Article 31 of the new Code there would be a gain of one shilling

  799
  on any child attending school continuously from the age of three to fifteen, but that if a child leaves school, as is commonly the case, at the age of thirteen, there would be a loss of five shillings on that child; and, in view of the financial loss thus involved to local authorities, the Board of Education will withdraw Article 31 of the new Code and substitute for it Articles 98 and 101 (a) of the existing Code for another year, so as to enable the financial results of the proposed change to be fully considered.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): I am not prepared to accept the representation of the effect of the new grant given in the Question as accurate. Statistics show that the age at which a child begins to attend school is, in fact, nearer four than three. Again, the hon. Member has sesumed that the average age at which a child ceases to be paid for as an infant is seven; the age is, in fact, about seven and a half. Beth these facts tend to vitiate the argument underlying the allegation in the Question. It must further be remembered that any loss of the kind suggested in the Question is not an annual one, but is spread over a period of ten years, and is very small compared with the total amount of the grant earned during the period. The Board estimate that if a child comes to school at three and stops until fifteen, it will earn 3s. 6d. more than was possible before, assuming that it was paid for as an infant until seven and a half. If a child attends from four to thirteen, there would be a loss of only 6d., spread over a period of ten years, as against the 5s. annually which the Question might imply.
  SIR JOHN DORINGTON: Will there not be a very considerable loss to the local authorities?
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: No, Sir. I think my Answer tends to show that there will not be a considerable loss at all, and that in some cases there will be a considerable gain.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Will the hon. Gentleman under-
  800
  take that the Question shall be discussed before the Code comes in force?
  Sis WILLIAM ANSON: An opportunity of discussing the new Code will be available. It does not come into force until the 1st August.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: It has to lay on the Table thirty days, and that period has already nearly expired.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: can assure the hon. Member there will be ample opportunity of discussing it before it comes into operation.

  Pauper Children and Pauper Nursing in Scotland.
  MR. TENNANT: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, with reference to the recommendation contained in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Poor Law Medical Relief, whether the Local Government Board have considered the advisability of holding an inquiry into the system of boarding out pauper children in Scotland; and, if so, whether they will appoint a Committee.
  MR. TENNANT: I beg also to ask the? Secretary for Scotland if he intends to introduce a Bill to empower the Local Government Board to prohibit pauper nursing in Scottish poorhouses, as has been recommended by the Departmental Committee on Poor Law Medical Relief.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,): The Local Government Board are at present considering the Report of the Departmental Committee on Poor Law Medical Relief with a view (1) to have effect given to such of the recommendations as appear advisable and do not require legislation, and (2) to propose legislation in so far as that may be necessary.
  MR. TENNANT: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the matters have mentioned come under the first category or the second?
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: I must ask for notice of that.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: Will legislation be proposed this session?
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: It is impossible for me to say.

  Lord Longford's Westmeath Estate.
  MR. SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Lord Longford's estate, in the county of Westmeath, or portions of it, has been sold to the occupying tenants; and, if so, upon what terms; whether he is aware that Andrew Caddell, of Gneevebawn, an evicted tenant, applied, through his parish priest, to be reinstated on his former holding, but was refused, and that on his application to the Estates Commissioners beseeching their interest to have him restored to his old farm, as it is unoccupied, the Commissioners declined to give any satisfactory reply; and, if so, will he state upon what grounds they base their refusal.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): There are no proceedings pending for the sale of any portion of this estate. An application for reinstatement has been received from Andrew Caddell. The Commissioners did not refuse the application; they stated it would be considered.

  Land Purchase in County Down.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the names of those landlords in county Down who have agreed to sell out under the Land Act, the number of tenants in each case, and the total numbers of landlords and of tenants in the county.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have no information as to the number of landlords or tenants in any particular county. I am not prepared—as at present advised—to call for further information than is contained in the Return on the Working of Land Purchase now in hon. Members' hands. The compilation of that Return imposed a serious tax on the Estates Commissioners' staff, whose time is more than occupied by the volume of work now coming into their Department.

  Kilbride Camp Canteen.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to statements made by Mr. Fletcher Moore, D.L., when presiding at Blessington Petty Sessions; on the 16th of May, to the effect that the Blessington magistrates had on the 4th of April refused to grant a licence to the canteen at the Kilbride Camp, county Wicklow, on grounds considered by the magistrates to be adequate and reasonable, and that subsequently the order for the licence was signed and granted by two magistrates, namely, Sir Henry Cochrane, who resides in Bray, a long way outside the Blessington district, and by Mr. James Shanks, who is not a magistrate for the county Wicklow; and, if so, will he say what action does he intend to take in the matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The issue of a canteen licence is regulated by Section 174 of the Army Act, 1881, which provides that it may be granted by any two justices of the peace "within their respective jurisdictions." am advised that each of the two justices who sign the order granting a canteen licence must be a justice for, and have jurisdiction in, the county in which it is intended to hold the canteen. In the present instance, one of the two gentlemen who signed the order was not so qualified, and the order made was, in the circumstances, invalid. I have so informed my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Have either or both of these gentlemen been in the habit of supplying mineral waters to the camp?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have no information on that point.
  *MR. CULLINAN: Is it not the case that under similar circumstances some years ago Mr. James Byrne, of Wallstown Castle, county Cork, was deprived of the commission of the peace for signing a licence outside his district?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! notice must be given of that.

  Earl Fitzwilliam and his Tenants.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieu-tenant of Ireland whether he is aware (1) that a number of ejectment processes at the instance of Earl Fitzwilliam were recently heard at the Tinahely Petty Sessions; can he say (2) how many decrees were granted by the Court, and (3) for how many years rent due; (4) can he state how many of the tenants decreed had refused to accept the landlord's terms of sale; (5) and how many of the tenants, on receipt of ejectment notices, consented to purchase their holdings at the landlord's price.
  MR. WYNDHAM: On Friday last communicated to the hon. Member the information desired in the first three queries. I have no official information on the other matters referred to. Unofficially have been informed that there has been no departure from the practice observed en this estate.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman call the attention of the Estates Commissioners to the action of the landlords in forcing the tenants to buy at their prices by serving ejectment notices on them for arrears of rent?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have no information that that is so.

  Wreck in Galway Mill Stream.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the wreck of an old boat or dredger, belonging to the Board of Works, has been left in the mill stream at Galway, obstructing it; and, if so, will he say when the Board of Works propose removing this wreckage.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): The Board of Works inform me that there is no wreck of an old boat or dredger belonging to them in the mill stream at Galway.

  Galway Drainage.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if there are
  804
  any reports in the Board of Works concerning the drainage or want of drainage of the Milltown River, county Galway, and of the Dunmore district; and, if there are no such reports, would the Board of Works send an engineer to report on the drainage of those districts.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The Board of Works has all the information upon the drainage of this district. It would not be usual to make an inspection of a drainage district in the absence of a complaint that the trustees have neglected their duties.

  International Law of Warfare.
  MR. LAWSON WALTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any representations have been made to the Russian Government in reference to their proclamation declaratory of contraband of war, particularly in regard to food and cotton, to the use of neutral ports for the coaling of warships for belligerent operations or as a naval base, or to the alleged setting of explosive mines outside territorial waters, or in reference to any of the above subjects; and, if so, will he direct that copies of these communications be furnished to Members of this House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The present war certainly has raised questions of novelty, and think some difficulty in connection with international law. The whole subject is being most anxiously reviewed by His Majesty's Government, but do not think that at this moment any public object would be gained by the publication of any communications we have made or indeed by any premature statement on the subject.

  Conscription.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Lord: of the Treasury if he has any announcement to make as to the view of His Majesty's Government concerning the opinion expressed in the Report of the Royal Commission on Militia and Volunteers that although these forces now voluntarily provide 20 per cent. more men than are authoritatively estimated to be necessary for land defence against an invader, compulsory service of the whole

  805
  male population for one year with the colours is desirable.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think this Question has already been answered by the Secretary for War in perfectly specific terms. To that answer have really nothing to ad I. We do not agree, of course, with the recommendation.

  State Registration of Nurses.
  MR. TENNANT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now prepared to set up the Select Committee on Nursing and the State Registration of Nurses, and to state what will be the reference to the Committee.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the Committee may be set down shortly. I do not think there ought to be any difficulty with regard to the reference, but am not in a position as yet to state it to the House. I do not know whether it is worth while adding that there are two Bills now before the House dealing with the subject, which, if the House were content to read them formally a second time, might be referred to the Committee.
  MR. TENNANT: Do understand that the Government would assist private Members—that they would not put any obstacle in their way?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: They would not put any obstacle in their way, but do not think could promise Government time.

  Defence of the United Kingdom.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Committee of Imperial Defence have arrived at an authoritative decision as to the force which should be maintained for the defence of the United Kingdom; if so, is there any objection to stating their decision.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think it would be desirable—I had almost said possible—to discuss questions of Imperial defence by Question and Answer across the Table of the House. This particular Question, as the hon. Gentleman will see, requires a whole speech to answer it, and do not think the House would tolerate,
  806
  at all events on this occasion, a speech; from me on the subject.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any statement to make as to the course of the business?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is proposed to continue the discussion on the Licensing Bill on Tuesday and Wednesday. As, however, the Aliens Bill was not referred to a Committee on Friday last, it is proposed to take that Motion first on Wednesday. I also propose to take the reference of the Penal Servitude Bill, to which imagine there will be no opposition.
An HON. MEMBER: In what order?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Bills will be taken in the following order:—The Aliens Bill, the Penal Servitude Bill, and the Licensing Bill. On Thursday intend to put down the Foreign Office Vote. Friday is a day allocated to private Members.

MEMBERS AND THE CHAIRMAN.
MR. MARKHAM: I desire, Sir, to call your attention to the fact that was in the House on Thursday last, and that my name is not recorded in the list of Members who disagreed with the decision of the Chairman. I only received the Votes and Proceedings by post, and could not raise the question before.
*MR. SPEAKER: understood that the hon. Member made a statement to the House, when asked if he stood up, that he stood at the Bar.
MR. MARKHAM: No, Sir, I said I stood up in my place, but was at the time on the Third Bench on the other side of the House, and the Clerk said that was sufficient to disqualify me from having my vote recorded.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentle man's memory differs from that of the Clerk at the Table, but will give instructions to have his name inserted.

THE NEW EDUCATION CODE.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEYasked for leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, "the heavy additional charge which will fall on the local rates if the alterations made in the grant for public elementary education by Article 31 of the new Code for the regulation of public elementary schools are allowed to come into force as they are now proposed."
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member was good enough to show me his proposal. At first understood that the Article was I coming into force on the 13th of this month, and that it would be too late to bring the matter under the notice of the Government unless there was a discussion I before that date. I understand now that it does not come into force until I 1st August, and that the Secretary to the Board of Education has undertaken that there will be an opportunity of discussing it on the Estimates. In these circumstances cannot say now that this is a matter of urgent public importance. It seems to me a matter which would fall under a general discussion of educational policy.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: My point is that there will be no opportunity of discussing the matter under Section 97 of the Act of 1870, under which the Code has to he for forty days on the Table of the House.
*MR. SPEAKER: That is merely a question of the operation of the Twelve O'clock Rule. In this particular case a Motion for an Address to the Crown could not be taken after midnight if objected to, but that does not affect urgency.

NEW WRIT.
New Writ for the county of Leicester (South or Harborough Division), in the room of John William Logan, esquire (Manor of Northstead).—(Mr. Robert Spencer.)
NEW BILLS.
  SHIPOWNERS' NEGLIGENCE (REMEDIES) BILL.
  "To enlarge the remedies of persons injured by the negligence of Shipowners," presented by Sir Harry Samuel; supported by Mr. Brynmor Jones, Sir Ernest Flower, Mr. Sydney Buxton, and Mr. Bell; to be read a second time upon Monday, 20th June, and to be printed. [Bill 220.]
  COUNTY COURTS (ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION) BILL.
  "To amend the County Courts (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Acts by giving powers of arrest of foreign ships in cases of personal injury to British workmen and others on board any such ship," presented by Sir Albert Rollit; supported by Sir James Woodhouse; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 221.]
  MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (COMPANIES) BILL.
  "To confer the Municipal Franchise upon mercantile corporations and companies," presented by Sir Albert Rollit; supported by Sir Fortescue Flannery. Mr. H. C. Richards, Sir William Holland, and Mr. Howard; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 222.]

  LICENSING BILL.
  On the Order for going into Committee on this Bill.
  *MR. SPEAKER: As to the Instructions to the Committee standing on the Paper, the first, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, is to give the Committee power to divide the Bill into two Bills, the one to deal with the limitation of the jurisdiction of local magistrates, and the other with the provisions for compensation. That is out of order because it is not competent to an hon. Member to move an Instruction of that kind unless the Bill is actually divided into two separate parts, or the two matters are independent of one another and fall naturally into separate Bills. That is not the case here. The next Instruction, in the name of the hon. Member for West

  809
  Nottingham, proposes that the Committee should have power to differentiate on the amount and mode of compensation payable in the case of what are known as tied houses. It seems to me quite competent for the Committee to deal with that matter by way of Amendment to the Bill, and, therefore, an Instruction is not required. The same remark applies to the next two Instructions, one standing in the name of the hon. Member for Anglesey to exclude Wales and Monmouthshire from the Bill, and the other in the name of the hon. Member for Spen Valley. That Instruction, which calls on the Committee to provide that the issue of licences shall not be confined to selected and favoured persons to the exclusion of others equally qualified and equally willing to comply with the conditions and regulations, appears to me to be bad for another reason, and that is that it is altogether too vague and indefinite and does not direct the Committee as to the precise object the hon. Member has in view.
  (Considered in Committee.)
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:—
  *MR. WHITTAKERsaid that in rising to move the postponement of Clause 1, he did so on the ground that that clause proposed a very important change in the administration of the licensing law which, according to the statement of Ministers of the Crown, was rendered necessary by the shape in which the compensation clauses had been drawn. It was quite possible, in view of the large number of Amendments there were upon the Paper to the compensation clauses, that they might be amended in such a way that it would not be necessary to make the sweeping and important changes in the jurisdiction of local justices which the passing of this clause would entail. The Bill, as he understood it, was in principle a Compensation Bill. Compensation was its main principle, and he imagined that hon. Members who voted for it did so chiefly on the ground that it was a Compensation Bill. That portion of the Bill
  810
  which interfered with the discretion of the justices was merely an incident. It seemed to him extremely desirable that they should settle the method and plan of compensation before they proposed to do so important a thing as to alter the discretionary powers of the justices, because they might get some particular kind of compensation carried which would entirely alter the method which the Bill at present proposed. He would venture to quote in support of that the words uttered by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Solicitor-General, on the Second Reading of the measure. He then said—
  "The whole difficulty in framing the Bill in regard to the renewal of licences has been to define what is the proper compensation area. The Bill has no intention whatever of taking away any power whatever from the magistrates which they already have."
  He regretted that this clause did not bear out that statement, but the hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say that it would be necessary to have a compensation area so large that it would be able to raise sufficient revenue for the purpose of extinguishing licences. Was not that an interference with the present tribunal? The Prime Minister made a similar statement, and therefore it was clear that the sole reason for interfering with the discretion of the justices was that the quarter sessions area had been selected as the compensation area. If they decided to have some other area, then it would not be necessary to make the very serious interference with the authority of the licensing justices which was proposed in the clause. Other arrangements might render Clause 1 altogether needless, and therefore the suggestion was justified that the clause should be postponed until they had discussed the compensation area. The contention in regard to compensation was that the area must be a large one because sufficient funds could not be raised without it, and that the authority which dealt with questions of licences must be the authority throughout that area. The levy must decide what was to be the licensing authority, and he submitted that that question had been entirely overlooked. Another point was whether the levy to be made for compensation purposes was to be a limited one. If they made it unlimited then they need not touch the licensing authority

  811
  and they need not pass Clause 1 at all but could allow the licencing authority I to remain as it at present stood. He submitted that the sound principle was I that the levy should depend upon the reduction, and that the reduction should not depend upon the levy. The whole necessity for that most undesirable and objectionable clause arose from the fact that they had provided for a limited levy. When they came to the compensation clause they had this simple thing to do to make the levy unlimited, and they would thus avoid any necessity for Clause 1 on that ground. That was why he suggested its postponement.
  It was well known that one of the most important subjects that would come up for discussion on this Bill was in connection with the question of a time limit, involving the point whether the compensation arrangement was to be temporary or permanent. He suggested that if the House should decide that the compensation should be a temporary arrangement, by adopting a time limit, it was undesirable that they should make a permanent change in the character and power of the licensing authority. They ought not to take away for all time the valuable discretion which the local justices now possessed simply to meet the temporary arrangement which he hoped it was quite within the bounds of possibility they would agree to make in regard to this compensation question. That, again, was another reason why they should postpone the consideration of the clause. The clause was an important one. It represented an entire revolution in the procedure and tendency of legislation. They had never had anything like it before, and that was a strong reason why no change should be made unless it was absolutely necessary and absolutely essential. The necessity for the change depended entirely upon the compensation arrangement, and they could not declare it to be essential until they had decided what those arrangements should be. He should like to remind the House that it was proposed to transfer from the local justices to quarter sessions their powers, and to practically turn an administrative authority into a Court. It practically deprived the justices of the powers which the recent decisions in the Dover and
  812
  Farnham cases had shown they were justified in exercising.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order The hon. Member is now proceeding to discuss he clause in detail. He must confine himself to giving reasons for the postponement.
  *MR. WHITTAKERsaid his object vas to point out the serious nature of the change which was projected, and to justify on that ground his contention that they should delay the consideration of she clause. He quite admitted that under the limitation of the rulings from the Chair he could not pursue in detail these matters, and therefore he would content himself with the question of principle. He would point out that this was a most serious change in the administrative powers of local justices which ought not to be made if it could be avoided, and unless it was admittedly rendered necessary by the scheme of compensation embodied in the Bill. He appealed to the House to settle the question of compensation before they proceeded to deal with the machinery for carrying it into effect.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 1 be postponed."—(Mr. Whittaker.)
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr AKERS-DOUGLAS,)could not agree with the hon. Member that it was desirable to postpone the discussion of this clause. It had always been held to be a good thing to have the principle on which a Bill was founded as near to the beginning of the Bill as possible. The principle on which this Bill and all its clauses depended was contained in the first clause, which set up the authority and also established compensation. It provided that licences should not be taken away on any ground other than that the licensed premises had been ill-conducted or were structurally deficient or unsuitable, or on grounds connected with the character or fitness of the proposed holder of the licence, except on payment of compensation. There they had the principle on which the Bill was founded, and therefore he thought it was perfectly

  813
  right that this clause should stand first in the Bill, and that the Committee, having disposed of it, should know where they were when they considered the other clauses. He, therefore, saw no reason for accepting the Amendment.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid the right hon. Gentleman, according to his mind, had accurately stated the argument upon which the supporters of the Amendment relied, but unfortunately for him it was the case that Clause 1 dealt with the machinery, and Clause 2 embodied the principle of the Bill. If the Solicitor-General would only look at Clause 2 he would find that the question of compensation for the non-renewal of licences was the main point raised by it. It was quite true that the same point was incidentally mentioned in Clause 1, but, under any circumstances, in Clause 2 it would be necessary for them to discuss the principle of compensation or no compensation. His submission to the Committee was that the Bill consisted of two clauses, the first of which embodied the machinery, and the second the principle of the Bill, and that it would be far more convenient and more suitable for discussion if the first clause were postponed until after the second had been dealt with. The Solicitor-General would no doubt remember that, in the course of the Second Reading debate, he had held out some hope that courts of quarter sessions would not be courts within the technical meaning of the word, but that they would become administrative bodies. Surely it would be useful if they could be informed what was to occur in connection with that. They wanted to know what were to be the provisions of the Bill as to compensation before they could deal with the machinery which was to administer that compensation. The hon. and learned Gentleman also gave them some hope chat a time limit might be accepted by the Government. The Solicitor-General shook his head. Well, perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman had changed his mind, and in that he did not differ very much from other members of the Government. Still he did hope that the Government would keep an open mind on this question. Whether or not they had, he submitted it would be for the convenience of the Home, and that
  814
  it would conduce to the speedy passing of the Bill if Ministers would accept the Amendment postponing the first clause. When they had settled the questions of compensation and of area, then it would be sufficient time to deal with that of machinery.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he regretted that the Government could not see their way to postpone the consideration of the first clause. What they really wanted to know was, What was the attitude of the Government going to be on the question of compensation, and on the question, also, of the time limit Because that would decide the attitude of the House in regard to questions of relatively minor importance. As his hon. friend the Member for the Spen Valley had said, if the question of compensation were settled, and if the Government adhered to their present position, the first clause became more or less immaterial. It would be simply an additional protection in the brewers' interest. Oh the other hand, if the Government acceded to the views of those who were in favour of a time limit, they would find the House in a less controversial frame of mind when it came to discuss the question of procedure. He had another point to raise. He held that the Government, in a thing of this sort affecting the magistrates' discretion, should take an opportunity of consulting the magistrates themselves in regard to their proposals. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, No!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to think it ridiculous that the Government should consult anyone except the brewers. He could not, however, help thinking that in a matter of this kind it was only fair that the magistrates should be consulted, and in view of the fact that within the next three weeks the Courts of quarter sessions would be sitting, and that by that time they would only have got through, the second and third clauses, he held there was ample opportunity for the Government to ascertain the opinions of the magistrates in regard to the first clause of the Bill. He hoped, therefore, that steps would be taken to secure that information.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he could quite understand the desire of the Government that the first clause should be taken at once if that clause were intended to provide some additional security to those who had property in public-houses. If the transfer of jurisdiction to quarter sessions were intended to bestow on owners of licensed property a more favourable tribunal and one less likely to interfere with their interests than the existing one, then anyone could easily see that that was a substantial reason in itself for supporting the proposal of the Government in its present form. But on the Second Reading that was not represented to be the purpose of the transfer of jurisdiction. The purpose was to harmonise the jurisdiction with the system of compensation by counties. If a different system of compensation should be adopted by the Committee, there would be no necessity for altering the jurisdiction and allowing quarter sessions to usurp the jurisdiction of the local justices. The fact that the first clause merely provided the method by which the compensation should be distributed seemed to be an adequate reason for postponing it.
  Mr. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid his hon. friend who moved the Amendment had already given most of the important reasons in favour of postponing the consideration of the clause. There was, however, one point to which he had not referred, and that was that the Bill, as it at present stood, did not appear to make the levy compulsory, and therefore they might have the magistrates of the different counties exercising their discretionary powers in different manners. It seemed to him that before they could decide their attitude on the first clause they must know the views of the Government as to the conditions which were to regulate the compensation fund, and he hoped, especially in regard to the most important question of the time limit, that they would have the views of the Solicitor-General before the Amendment was put to the vote.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid he would take his stand on the case set up by the Solicitor-General. If Clause 1
  816
  were passed as it stood, they might have the compensation under Clause 2 varying from one year to ten years or even twenty years, and they might have a variation also in the areas. But supposing that, under Clause 2, they established a time limit for compensation, what was to be done in regard to the change in the jurisdiction of the licensing authority? Was that change to be permanent? Why should it be permanent when the compensation proposal was only of a temporary character. It must be obvious that, if they were to proceed on the lines laid down by the Home Secretary, they must establish the main principle of the Bill, and that main principle was compensation for the withdrawal of licences on grounds other than those specified under Clause 1. Until that principle was established they could not decide whether the compensation should be permanent or temporary, they could not decide either what should be the area, whether it should be divisional, or county, or local, and how could they reasonably be asked to set up the machinery in Clause 1 until they knew what would be done in these matters. He was not particularly in favour of the quick passage of the measure, but he warned the Government that if they did desire to get it passed they must make plain their views on these questions. There were a considerable number of Amendments down to Clause 2, and it was absolutely essential to get a decision in regard to them before they could decide on the machinery by which the compensation fund was to be administered, otherwise they would run the risk of setting up machinery which, after all, might not be suitable to the Bill in its final form.
  MR. EMMOTTsaid he did not often interest himself in proposals to postpone a clause, but in this case he saw strong reasons for the postponement. He was surprised that the Government had not accepted the proposal to postpone the clause, because to do so would undoubtedly save much time. He frankly admitted that he had no special desire to save time in the interest of a Bill to which he did not give even that minimum support the Solicitor-General was in the habit of giving to measures of the

  817
  Government. Considering the main purposes of the Bill, the giving of security on the one hand and setting up compensation on the other, obviously the more logical course would be to proceed with the second clause first.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the Home Secretary appeared to oppose the Motion on the very ground on which it had been moved. A mere reference to the side-notes to the clauses showed that the main principle of the Bill was contained in Clause 2, which dealt with "Payment of compensation on non-renewal of licence." Surely, then, the second clause should be considered first.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid the Prime Minister, in his speech on the Second Reading, rebuked them for being so indignant at the transfer of power from petty to quarter sessions on the ground that the whole was better than the part; that showed that in the opinion of the Prime Minister the transfer of power from the justices to quarter sessions was of lesser importance, for, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it was merely a transfer from the part to the whole. It was perfectly
  clear that the only clause of vital importance was the compensation clause. The theory of the Government seemed to be that the opposition to the Bill came only from temperance reformers, who according to the right hon. Gentleman were imbued with hatred of the publicans. That they gathered from his speech on the Second Reading. But several weeks had elapsed since the Second Reading, and the great body of opposition to the Bill was now seen to come from moderate men and not from extreme temperance reformers, their main demand being for a time limit. This constituted a strong reason for taking the compensation clause first. The matter had become more important since the Solicitor-General had by gesture intimated that he had not suggested that the Government would yield on the question of a time limit. Perhaps they had not made up their minds and were still open to persuasion. In that case let them at once proceed to discuss what, after all, was the most important part of the Bill.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 116; Noes, 227. (Division List No. 134.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William, (Cork, N.E.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Leng, Sir John

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Allen, Charles P.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Lloyd-George, David

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Lough, Thomas

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herb. John

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Grant, Corrie

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

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

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Norman, Henry

  Burns, John

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Burt, Thomas

  Harcourt, Rt Hn. Sir W (Monm't

  Hussey, Thomas Willans

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Hayter, Rt. Hon Sir Arthur D.

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Caldwell, James

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Malley, William

  Cameron, Robert

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

  Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Perks, Robert William

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Price, Robert John

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Rea, Russell

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Joicey, Sir James

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Rigg, Richard

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Labouchere, Henry

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Edwards, Frank

  Lambert, George

  Rose, Charles Day

  Ellice,Capt. E. C (SAndrw'sBghs

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Runciman, Walter

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Russell, T. W.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Tomkinson, James

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Toulmin, George

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Ure, Alexander

  Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

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

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Weir, James Galloway

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES,—Mr. Trevelyan and Mr. Slack.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

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

  Aird, Sir John

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

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

  Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Forster, Henry William

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Austin, Sir John

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

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lowe, Francis William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Garfit, William

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

  Gore, Hn G.R.C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Gore, Hon. S.F. Ormsby-(Linc)

  Mac Veagh, Jeremiah

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Boland, John

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

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Brassey, Albert

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Gretton, John

  Milvain, Thomas

  Burke E. Haviland

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Butcher, John George

  Groves, James Grimble

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Campbell, J.H.M. (Dublin Uuiv.)

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Mooney, John J.

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Moore, William

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc.

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Chapman, Edward

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Mount, William Arthur

  Charrington, Spencer

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

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

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

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

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hobhouse, Rt Hn H (Somers't, E

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Horner, Frederick William

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham

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

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Cullinan, J.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hunt, Rowland

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.)

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Percy, Earl

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Delany, William

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Kerr, John

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Kimber, Henry

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Doughty, George

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lambton, Hon. Ferderick Wm.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Randles, John S.

  820

  821

  Rankin, Sir James

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Spear, John Ward

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

  Redshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon, John Lloyd

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und.Lyne

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Robinson, Brooke

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Stock, James Henry

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh., N.)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Stroyan, John

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H.(Yorks.)

  Rothschld, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Sullivan, Donal

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Tuff, Charles

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Valentia, Viscount

  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH moved to insert at the beginning of the clause, "During the period of seven years after the passing of this Act." The question of a time limit, which was raised by this Amendment, was one of the most important matters that would come up in connection with the Committee stage of the Bill, and he had hoped the Government would have an open mind on the matter. He trusted that even now the Committee would be allowed to decide the matter without any pressure from the Government Whips, in which case he believed a time limit would be inserted in the Bill. He was in the unusual position of having the whole Bench of Bishops on his side, and the Houses of Convocation had unanimously passed a resolution in favour of some such proposal as he was now putting forward. The particular period of seven years was not to be considered as in any way a vital portion of the Amendment; it might be ten or any other number of years; he desired to draw attention to the principle of a time limit without reference to the number of years concerned. In the Minority Report of the Royal Commission signed by Lord Peel and the Archbishop of Canterbury, a time limit of seven years was suggested. He understood the Prime Minister's attitude was that, although he was somewhat friendly in theory to the principle of a time limit, he thought it was quite alien to the, principle of this measure. He could not see why this Bill should not be put into operation for seven years.
  According to the Prime Minister, there were two theories. One was that a licence
  822
  had the attributes of property and must not be taken away, without compensation, from the licensee, and the other theory was that the right hon. Gentleman was clearly of opinion that no trade was likely to be carried on under an uncertain tenure. They had already urged this question from a farmer's point of I view, but the Prime Minister was not quite so emphatic about that, and he said that public-houses could not be conducted properly without some substantial system of tenure. He wished to point out that from 1830 to 1869 there was security of tenure, and that was just the time when public-houses were very badly managed. The metropolitan figures went back to the year 1844. These figures were very remarkable from the point of view that the more security they had the worse were public-houses conducted. For the three years 1844–45–46 the summonses averaged 907, but for 1867–68–69 the average rose to 1,233, so that free trade in beerhouses was a bad thing as far, as the number of summonses was concerned. In 1869, after the power of magistrates was established, the number of summonses dropped from 1,233 to 444, whilst for 1897–98–99 they dropped to 391. The Prime Minister's view on this, point was not one which commended itself to most hon. Members sitting on the Opposition side of the House, because they thought there was no legal right—and many of them thought that there was no moral right—to compensation, and they believed that this Bill would create a perpetual vested interest in licensed property. Many of them held the opinion that

  823
  between the two extremes there was a medium course, and he thought the Amendment he proposed would meet the views of the moderates on both sides of the House. He was not committed to seven years limit, having given the licence-holders compensation for a certain number of years, after that period the justices should have unfettered discretion over the remaining public-houses.
  The Prime Minister desired to prevent a loss to the trade, but temperance reform meant drinking less and that necessarily meant a loss to the trade and they could not get out of it. If this was to be a great temperance measure they must not complain if it should result in a little loss to the trade. The Prime Minister complained that if a time limit of seven years was accepted one man might lose his licence in the sixth year and another in the eighth year. No doubt there would be hard cases, but they should remember that the man who lost his licence in the eighth year had had possession of it for seven years. If they went back to the year of the decision given in "Sharpe v. Wakefield" and added the limit of seven years which he was proposing, the licensee would have had a period of enjoyment of his licence for twenty years. That, he thought, was a reasonable time, and a man could not complain after that if he lost his licence in the public interest. Without a time limit, instead of promoting temperance, this Bill would make the reduction of licences more difficult. To bring the number of licences in Wales and Monmouthshire down to the limit mentioned in the Minority Report, based upon the revenue provided for in this Bill, would take three-quarters of a century. He submitted that if the Government were really in earnest in this matter they would take this into their serious consideration. There was a large body of public opinion in this country in favour of a time limit. The Archbishop of Canterbury had declared himself in favour of it, and there was a great body inside the Church of England, as well as outside, who thought that a great deal of harm would be done unless some such Amendment as he had proposed were adopted. He asked the Prime Minister to leave this an open question, and, if he would do so, he believed the Committee, by a great majority, would
  824
  come to the conclusion that this Bill would be improved, and its chance of doing good would be greatly magnified by the introduction of some such Amendment as he had proposed. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 5, to insert, at the beginning, the words 'During the period of seven years after the passing of this Act.'"—(Mr. Ellis Griffith.)
  Question proposed, That those words be there inserted."
  SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTHasked if this Amendment would preclude the Committee from raising the question of the time limit for compensation at a later stage.
  SIR JOHN GORSTthought if the words of the Amendment were inserted they would apply to Clause 1 and to that clause only, and they would not limit the time for compensation to subsequent clauses, but only to the machinery of Clause 1.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think that is quite so, because Clause 1 contains three principles. The first is that the jurisdiction shall be vested in quarter sessions instead of the justices; the second, that it shall only be exercised on a reference from those justices; and the third, that it shall only be exercised on payment of compensation. If a time limit is inserted it will apply to all of these principles, and no Amendment in Clause 2 will have to be made with reference to the time limit inserted in Clause 1. Therefore no Amendment either diminishing or increasing the time limit of this Amendment, if it is inserted, would be in order on Clause 2.
  MR. ASQUITH: Supposing the Amendment of my hon. friend is rejected, would it then be out of order to move an Amendment on Clause 2 confining it to compensation only.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: That will largely depend upon the character of the debate. If the debate follows the line opened by the hon. Member it must be assumed that the Committee will either accept or

  825
  reject the time limit as applied to compensation, and that being so it could not be raised again on the second clause.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid according to the ruling the time limit to the clause proposed by the hon. Member would be a limit upon three things. In case the Committee should reject the limit upon those three things, surely they might consistently accept a limit upon one of those things. Was it not in order that the Committee should have an opportunity of saying on the second clause, or elsewhere, that although they were not prepared to limit the period daring which the transfer of jurisdiction should take place nor the period during which there should be a reference from the petty sessions, yet they were prepared to insert a limit in other respects.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid the clause now under consideration, which was to be limited by the words proposed by the hon. Member, said that the refusal to renew a licence should be subject to "payment of compensation in accordance with this Act." If the clause were passed without any limitation, would it not be open to any hon. Member to move a restriction upon the payment of compensation under the Act—that was to say, that compensation should be paid only down to a certain date?
  *THE CHAIRMAN: If no Amendment were made on the first clause, that would be so, but if the Committee now engages in a discussion which ranges over the question of the time limit, I think I should be precluded by the Rules of the House from allowing the same question to be opened up on a subsequent Amendment. If the House spends its time to-day, and possibly part of to-morrow, on that question it would be a pure loss of time to start the same question and discuss it all over again when the second clause is reached.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid that in view of what had been stated by the Chairman, it would be far better that this Amendment should be withdrawn, and that the question of the time limit should be discussed later on.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: After the appeal of my right hon. friend, and as I understand it would meet the wishes of the Committee [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: If this Motion is negatived what happens?
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn? [Cries of "No."]
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid that if the Amendment should not be withdrawn it would, as he understood the ruling of the Chairman, apply to the three principles contained in the first clause. If there was a general desire to take the opinion of the Committee on the time limit for compensation, would it not be possible, if the Amendment were not withdrawn, that the debate should be confined to that point?
  THE CHAIRMANwas understood to say that the debate could not be confined in that way.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Then it seems to me that we should be precluded from having it discussed at all.
  MR. HALDANE: As I understand your ruling it is this. It is not the wording of the Amendment that causes the difficulty, but the substance of the debate that follows on the Amendment. If the Amendment is negatived I submit to you the question whether it would not be possible to raise the whole question on a subsequent clause.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I think, looking to the Amendments placed on the Paper, that the general view of the Committee is that the time limit should be discussed on the first clause. I have looked through the Amendments, and I say that obviously that is what the Committee expected. There are twelve or fifteen Amendments raising the question of the time limit on the first clause, and there are two or three on the second clause. I cannot undertake to say that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Anglesey is out of order, but it is possible that some

  827
  skilled draftsman might be able to devise some means by which the time limit for compensation might be better raised; I do say, however, that it is raised by the Amendment of the hon. Member, and if the Committee desires to discuss it now, and does discuss it now, I do not think that it can be discussed a second time. I do not wish to commit myself any further than that.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The question is whether if the Amendment is negatived now a discussion on the question of the time limit for compensation can arise later on.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I think there is something in what has fallen from the hon. Member, because the words of the Amendment are applicable to the three principles contained in the clause. If the Committee now says that it means the time limit shall not be applied to the three principles, it would be possible, I think, to raise the question at a later stage; but again I repeat, what I am afraid I have already said twice, that if the discussion in the Committee covers the whole ground, then I do not think I should be justified in allowing a repetition of the same arguments.
  SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTHasked whether the case would be met by putting the words of the Amendment in line eleven before the words "on payment of compensation." The greater proportion of the fifteen Amendments to the first clause referred to line eleven and not to the first part of the clause.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I must put the Amendment which is moved provided it is in order, and I cannot undertake to say that it is not in order. Therefore, I must leave the Committee to decide in what manner the question is to be raised.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid that on previous occasions the Chairman had ruled that no words could be inserted before the first line in a clause. In view of these rulings, was his hon. friend's Amendment in order?
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think I have gone so far as that. I have depre-
  828
  cated the inserting of Amendments before the first words, but I have never gone so far as to say that it cannot be done. I know of some cases in which it has been done. I have carefully considered the hon. Member's Amendment, and I do not think I should be justified in saying it is not in order, although some draftsmen might have drafted an Amendment which would have carried out the views of its supporters better.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid Clause 1 consisted of two sub-clauses. There were no words in the clause itself which applied to the whole clause. If the words of the Amendment were inserted they would apply only to the first paragraph and not to the second sub-clause.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: If it became necessary to insert these words at the beginning of the clause they would be read right through the Bill. The second sub-clause of the first clause is really only the machinery by which the first sub-clause is carried out.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORasked whether the Amendments to Clause 1 put down by himself and others, and affecting merely the question of the exercise of the power with respect to the payment of compensation, would be ruled out of order under the ruling now given if the general principle in regard to the time limit was rejected by the House.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to repeat again what I have already said. The question is raised by the Amendment now before the Committee. If it is discussed by the Committee at the present stage it cannot be discussed again.
  *MR. WHITTAKERsaid he understood the ruling of the Chairman was that if they now discussed the Amendment proposed by his hon. friend, the three points contained in the clause would be decided. It was possible that the Committee might be against putting in a time limit on one of the points and in favour of a time limit on others. Many hon. Members wished only to deal with, the time limit at present on the point of compensation.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: It must depend very largely on the course of the debate whether this question can be discussed again.
  SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid the question before the Committee was whether the Amendment should be withdrawn. He was afraid he was not quite in harmony with some of his hon. friends in thinking that they should negative the proposal. He did not think they should gain anything by taking a decision on a false issue. The desire was that they should decide whether compensation should be limited to a certain number of years. They would gain nothing by avoiding a decision on that point, and complicating it by the question of jurisdiction which the other side did not desire at present to raise. He ventured to suggest to his hon. friends that they ought not to resist the request for leave to withdraw the Amendment. It could then be taken at a time when the real question could he submitted.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid he did not see what the difficulty was of his right hon. friend. There was every opportunity of discussing this question now. Nobody ever said that this question was to be passed without any discussion. It was stated for days that this question was to be discussed on the first clause and everybody understood that that was to be so. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had suddenly discovered that it might not altogether suit their tactics, but he saw no reason why the discussion should not go on when all arrangements had been made for doing so. He heartily hoped that the Committee would insist on the discussion being proceeded with.
  COLONEL WILLIAMSsaid that many hon. Members on that side of the House were of opinion that the time limit ought to apply to compensation and to compensation alone. He and others would naturally vote against the time limit being applied to the other two principles of the Bill. The time limit applied to compensation could be raised not on line 1 but on line 11.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he wanted to know where the Committee stood. The right hon. Gentleman opposite was obviously anxious that the discussion on this Amendment should be proceeded with at once; while there were others on both sides who wished it postponed, the reason being that the Amendment did not raise the specific points they wished to debate. He understood that by the ruling of the Chairman, even if this Amendment were negatived that would not preclude other Amendments in which a very large number of hon. Members were interested from being raised on a later clause. Surely it was not the desire of the Leader of the House, or of the Committee itself, that the discussion of one of the most important and far-reaching questions that was to come before the House, should be hampered by a technicality! He appealed to the Prime Minister to define the course which he desired the debate to take.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: It was not I who put down the Amendments providing for a time limit, nor do I admit any responsibility, direct or indirect, for the difficulty, if there be a difficulty, in which the Committee finds itself placed. Frankly, I do not think there is a difficulty. Has any human being ever doubted that the real and only point on which those who desire to see a time limit introduced into the Bill is the point raised by the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman? Everybody regards that as probably involving the greatest fight of the Bill. There is a prima facie objection to upsetting any general expectation of that sort, because it does interfere with the conduct of our debates. What is the theory? It is that there are a certain number of Gentlemen in this House who are anxious that the machinery in the Bill for distributing compensation should be made perpetual, but there are others who are anxious that the compensation to be distributed should be limited in time, and that we should not deliberate these matters as one. But does anybody, either on platforms or in newspapers, inside or outside this House, suggest that we should be

  831
  called upon to make the dispossession of the brewster sessions of their present privileges and qualifications perpetual, whilst the reason for this change—the distribution of compensation—should be limited? Hon. Gentlemen opposite have always said that this dispossession of the privileges and qualifications of the brewster sessions was the last thing they wished for, but we have always associated the two things with the time limit, and I do not see why we should put the Committee to the great inconvenience, for the first time in all these debates, of making this unnatural divorce. I hope hon. Gentlemen will see that this Amendment raises questions which have been debated in this House and outside in the most convenient way.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid he did not think the Prime Minister gauged the point raised. He did not believe that they on that side of the House objected to take the discussion on the Amendment as it stood; but the objection to take it at the present moment came from the right hon. Gentleman's own side of the House. [An HON. MEMBER: From the Home Secretary.] Surely it was an unnecessary objection to insist that the discussion on the question of a time limit for compensation should be taken at a time inconvenient to many hon. Members, when it was perfectly possible to take it at another time.
  *SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTHsaid he ventured to make an appeal to the Prime Minister. The difficulty in which hon. Members were placed was that a considerable number of the supporters of the Prime Minister had a very strong opinion as to the necessity for a time limit for compensation, but were not at all anxious to disturb the general framework of the Bill. They would be precluded altogether from indicating their opinions on the time limit if the Amendment was taken now. They wanted to discuss every part of the Bill on its merits. He was certain that the Government had not introduced this Bill simply and solely for the purpose of giving compensation to the trade; it was introduced to provide for a general improvement of the trade. He
  832
  was afraid many of them on that side of the House would have to express their opinions very strongly as regarded compensation without a time limit.
  Ms. LOUGHsaid that before the question was settled he would give another reason. The Chairman had said it all depended upon the character of the discussion, but the Prime Minister could not absolutely dictate the character of any discussion. Therefore if they took the discussion now it would be very inadequate and inconclusive.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The Question is that the Amendment be withdrawn. [Loud cries of "No"]
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should have liked, before making any argumentative statement to the House, to have heard the opinions of other hon. Gentlemen opposite, besides the able speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who introduced the Amendment. I gather that the Committee would like to heart he opinion of the Government upon the general question raised by the suggestion that the provisions of the Bill should be limited in their character. I am well aware that there are a certain number of hon. Members behind me who are in favour of this Amendment, and I am well aware that outside this House authorities who justly carry great weight have thrown in that great weight in favour of the time limit. I think the hon. and learned Member himself has made allusion to Convocation and to the line taken up by a very large body of clergy. Now, I am the last person in the world to speak with the smallest shade of disrespect of the clergy of any denomination in connection with the temperance question. I believe there is no class of the community which from the circumstances of their position are brought more closely into touch with the appalling evils which excess in drink produces in the community at large, and all the clergy who work among the poor must, if it be possible, have a livelier feeling upon this subject than the ordinary layman. They come even more closely than we do into connection with the evils which we and they desire to see mitigated by temperance reform. The ardour of their passion for the reform

  833
  of this great evil, I think, deserves and has received the full sympathy and approval of every man in every part of the House; but when they come to discuss the purely secular methods by which this House—this Parliament—ought to deal with questions of legislation affecting the public at large, affecting questions of property, and all the varied and complicated interests of society, I do not think that any special training which the clergy may have had gives them any special title to give an opinion upon such matters. In the employment of spiritual weapons, in the endeavour to raise the moral tone of all classes of the community, upon which ultimately every great reform must be based, the services of the clergy are invaluable and cannot be dispensed with. But when they come to tell us without, as far as I know, any critical examination of the subject at all, exactly what provision this House should introduce into Bills dealing with temperance questions, then, Sir, I think we must all feel that, however much individual clergy by their ability or special knowledge of this subject may be qualified to help us, the clergy, as such, of any denomination have no peculiar title to be heard.
  Let us turn, as behoves this Committee, to know exactly what it is we should gain or lose by endeavouring to introduce into this Bill the question of a time limit. I do not know whether hon. Members who advocate that have made up their minds what precisely is to happen when the time limit comes to an end. I gather from the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment that his view of what would happen is that we should return to the status quo, so far as the law is concerned, but that there will be a great change in the equities of the case because at the end of the time limit, although the law will be precisely what it is now, and although at present the licence-holder may have some title to compensation, at the end of the period the law will again revert to its present position, and that then that equitable title will have lapsed. That is the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not quite see how that is to happen. What is there in the mere lapse of time under this Bill which will take away the equitable right to compensation which, not by the universal
  834
  consent of this House, but in the view of the great majority of this House, the licence-holder now possesses. Let the House observe that I do not at all deny that you might continue a time limit which would altogether obliterate any further equitable title to compensation which the licence-holder might possess. I do not say whether it would be wise to have such a time limit or not. I think there are strong reasons, or reasons of considerable substance, against it. At all events, a time limit might be conceived. For example, the licence-holder has, and after this Bill will continue to have, in spite of what fell from the hon. and learned Gentleman, not a freehold at all, but, as it seems to me, an equitable right to consideration. If you chose to have a time limit during which you give him what he has not got now, absolute security of tenure, which this Bill will not give him, why, of course, at the end of that time, if you make the time of adequate length, he will have had compensation, because you will have given him something in return for what he loses by the fact that his property becomes absolutely subject to the magistrates' jurisdiction. Does anyone propose that? Is there any Amendment put down proposing that? Does anyone desire to see during the seven, fourteen, twenty-one, or thirty years—because all these periods are mentioned in various Amendments—that during any of those terms of years the licence-holder shall be free from interference except for misconduct. That is not proposed; and, therefore, the kind of compensation which a time limit may possibly give will not be given if you simply gradually introduce a time limit into this Bill as it is now framed.
  Again, I can perfectly understand that a time limit might be equitable—I am not now discussing its expediency—if you did not give this absolute security of tenure for the period before the time limit came to an end but if you paid compensation to anyone dispossessed during that period out of public funds. But, there again, you do not do that; and I am perfectly unable I to understand why, in the seven, fourteen, twenty-one, or thirty years, for which the time limit is proposed the mere fact that the licence-holders and the trade have been paying what amounts to an

  835
  insurance for that period—I am quite unable to see how, when that insurance comes to an end with the time limit, any equitable right they now possess to consideration should vanish with the vanishing of the period during which this Bill is to last. Those are arguments based on the pure equities of the case; and I would earnestly ask my friends on this side of the House who are anxious to deal equitably with the trade whether they can see any answer to that argument. I have turned it every way in my mind; and I am unable to find any answer. If they came forward and proposed that the public should pay this insurance or proposed that without any payment of insurance there should be at all events fixity of tenure for a certain period, then I should understand the position; but at present I find it very difficult to see how they justify the attitude they take up on this question with their general view that the trade deserves equitable, though I quite admit not more than equitable, treatment.
  Let me turn from the equities of the case to the expediencies of the case, because the expediencies of the case may, at all events, appeal to those who are deaf to the arguments I have endeavoured to base on the equities of the case. What are you going to do for the cause of temperance or the better conduct of public-houses by introducing a time limit? In the first place let it be noted that by introducing a time limit into your compensation you reduce the fund out of which compensation is to be given, and by reducing that fund you reduce the amount which can be immediately applied to the purpose of compensation. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] Of course you cannot borrow on a seven years term a capital sum at all comparable to that which the local authority can now borrow and instantly apply to the diminution of public-houses. I should have thought, from that point of view, those who are interested in this measure as temperance reformers would hesitate before accepting a time limit.
  MR. WHITTAKER: May I suggest that the time for making the levy on the trade need not be the same as the time for making compensation to the trade.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then I quite believe that the hon. Gentleman, who takes a somewhat different view from many on this side of the House, would be responsible for a proposition that would require the trade to insure themselves for all time, but to get the benefit of the insurance for only seven years. I hardly think he will find many supporters on our side, and even on his own side of the House there may be some who will shrink from so very drastic a proceeding. Then I take up another point, based on what I may call the temperance expediency of this question. Who is going to take a public-house or enter the trade during the last few years before the time limit expires? The hon. Gentleman proposes seven years. Who in the last three years of this period is going to take a public-house, or, if he takes a public house, is going to conduct it or spend capital upon it in order to fit it for the purpose for which it is intended? You will clearly only get into the trade on those terms and with such a period the very men whom you do not want, the men who are irresponsible, who do not either themselves possess or cannot command the capital to carry it on; who live from hand to mouth, and who, living from hand to mouth, have no sense of the responsibility which attaches and which ought to attach to the conduct of a trade which, whatever else you may say of it, is carried on under extremely difficult conditions. The third point based on the question of temperance expediency to which I will call attention is, what are you going to do with the beerhouses? I used to be told in the earlier days of the discussions on this Bill that as between beerhouses and ordinary public-houses, it was the beerhouse that was the great difficulty, the great scandal, and the great obstacle to temperance reform, and that it was the freehold tenure of the beerhouses, which of course you cannot take away, and which was established by Mr. Gladstone in 1869, which has always been the obstacle in the way of temperance reform in dealing with licensed houses. If yon have a time limit, at the end of the time limit your insurance stops, your power of taking away any licence without compensation stops, your power of taking away beerhouse licences stops also, because although inequitably but legally

  837
  you can take away a public-house licence at the end of the term, you cannot take away a beerhouse licence. That reverts to its existing condition, a stumbling block in the way of temperance reform, unless you are prepared to find funds for its extinction—the class of house which has been the despair of everybody who has endeavoured to deal with this question. The hon. Gentleman has not made a suggestion of how to deal with this difficult problem. I do not see how you can deal with it at all if you insist on mutilating the Bill in the sense in which the hon. Gentleman proposes. You may say that, provided the trade gets a sufficiently long period in which the Bill is to be in operation, whether it is to be the hon. Gentleman's seven years or the Archbishop's twenty years, they could insure the whole of their property against the expiration of that period. But then you will be imposing a double insurance upon the trade—you compel them under this Bill to insure out of their funds, and if you adopt a time limit you make it necessary for them to prepare for the evil day by insuring against the magistrates making havoc with their property. Again, if you come to the conclusion that the trade ought to bear that additional burden—which, as I have said, I do not think just—you ought to put that second insurance into the schedule of the Bill, for then you will place in the hands of the local authorities a larger sum of money for the abolition of licences. But in my view, unless you mean to inflict a considerable injustice upon the trade, it would be far better, in the interest of temperance, that the Bill should remain as it stands.
  Then how about the magistrates? What position do you put them in? At the end of the period of the time limit they will be exactly in the same difficulty that they find themselves in now. The difficulty of the magistrates—as I have more than once pointed out—is that they have to compare and balance two things which cannot be compared and balanced—the interest of the general community of a particular locality in regard to the number of public-houses in that locality, and the hardship they must inflict upon a publican by turning him out of his holding into the street. I do not know
  838
  whether you will ever get rid of that difficulty. It is perfectly true that in regard to new public-houses the magistrates I will be able, and it will be their duty, so to arrange matters that none of the monopoly value of the license goes to the licence-holder, but that it all goes to the public in some form or other. Bat there is a part of the value of the licence which represents the capital the licence-holder must expend if he is to have a public-house at all. Of course, if the magistrates gave a lease to such a man, that would be compensation, or if they paid him compensation for the capital which he expended upon the public-house that would be a fair way of dealing with him. But so long as there are men whom you require to spend in this business capital which they may lose, you must, either in the form of the tenure you give them, or in the form of the compansation you give them, compensate them, and so you will never escape from the problem of compensation. One other observation occurs to me. If the local authorities do their duty, by the end of a long period of fifteen or twenty years I do not believe that the number of public-houses will be in excess of the requirements of the district. If that be so, what is the object of throwing everything into confusion before the end of the period, and at the end of the period leaving these people, who, after all, are carrying out a public necessity, to hold under a tenure which you do not require any other business to hold under? I think that after what I have said the Committee will feel that it is not without serious consideration, and not without grave and adequate reasons, that the Government think that a time limit ought not to be introduced. I can assure them that the matter has been subjected by us to the most careful and critical examination, and if in the speech which I have just made I have not convinced the Committee that we had real and sound reasons for the decision which we have arrived at, that is the defect of my oratory, and not the defect of the case which we defend.
  MR. LLOYD WHARTONsaid it had been stated in the course of the debate that those who signed the Majority Report of the Royal Commission which sat to consider this

  839
  question were in favour of a time limit. He was the only representative now in the House of the seventeen men who signed that Report, and he begged leave to state that the whole seventeen were utterly and absolutely opposed to any time limit whatever. Of the seven Gentlemen who drew up the Majority Report two had passed away but the five who remained, of whom he himself was one, were absolutely agreed as to the question of a time limit. His own notion was that if this time limit was introduced into the Bill it would kill all good the Bill desired to do. His firm conviction and belief was that by this Bill the magistrates would be enabled to do the justice which they could not now do. Over and over again magistrates would, as it were, have supported the Court below had they been able to give compensation and justice, and it was the inability to give compensation that very often prevented them from doing what they believed to be their duty. The proposition laid down in the Majority Report was that an annual sum of £500,000 a year should be raised; this Bill proposed to raise £1,200,000, a very different thing, and consequently there was no necessity to provide large borrowing powers. What would happen at the expiration of the time limit if there was a considerable sum of money in the hands of the country? Who would take that? This Bill was a good Bill as it stood. To leave out compensation would leave the Bill like "Hamlet" with the Prince of Denmark left out, but to insert a time limit would kill the Bill.
  MR. HENRY CHAPLINsaid no Member of the House was more anxious to see reform in favour of temperance than himself. He had himself never hesitated, when he thought the public-houses on his own estate were in excess of what was required, to close them when he found he could do so with honesty and justice. He had been a Member of that House for a longer period than many hon. Members, but he never remembered a time when the question of temperance reform was not before them, yet nothing whatever had been done. There was an opportunity of doing something at last and he appealed to the Committee not to lose that opportunity.
  840
  The Bill contained provision for compensation, and an Amendment had been moved for the purpose of inserting a time limit. If the Opposition could find a time limit that would work and that would not have the effect of making the Bill practically a dead letter, he would be perfectly ready to consider it, but the House had had no enlightenment whatever on that point. He was unable to see how any proposal of the kind could work consistently with the Bill. He asked the hon. Gentlemen who supported the Amendment to offer some explanation, to the House. They knew perfectly well that the men who were to contribute for the purposes of compensation were those in the trade, and how could they be expected to make any contribution, if there was to be a time limit for either a short or long period? If a time limit, was inserted it would be impossible to give compensation, because if it was known that at the end of a certain period they would receive no compensation, the people would not contribute to the fund. He began to suspect that hon. Gentlemen opposite were finding out that there was very little indeed to be said for their proposals, otherwise they would tell the Committee how the Amendment would work. If any Member could tell him of a reasonable scheme for a time limit, not only would he most carefully consider it—because he had an open mind on the question—but he would support it. He did not, however, think any such scheme was possible. In view of the absence of any explanation of the probable working of a time limit, the only inference to be drawn was that the real object of the Amendment was not so much to have a time limit as to devise a means by which the Bill could be wrecked.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAYsaid he had listened with great interest to the arguments of the Prime Minister, but he had come to the conclusion that the difficulties mentioned, although great, were not so insurmountable as they were made out to be. It might not be unfairly stated that a licensee who paid £10 a year for fifteen or twenty years would receive adequate consideration in the security he would enjoy during that period, and that as the time approached for the expiry of

  841
  compensation he would able to make arrangements, by insurance or otherwise, to meet a possible crisis. He was not, however, wedded to a time limit. His feeling was that, as they were making a very great experiment by which they would create vested interests which it would be very difficult indeed afterwards to deal with, there should be some time for reconsideration of the scheme after they had embarked upon it. If the scheme were found to be good there would be no difficulty in continuing it, but if they passed the Bill just as it was without any time limit or alternative to a time limit, they would place themselves in a position from which there would be no retreat, however great might be the mistake they had made. He did not despair that they might in some way or other find a means whereby the working of the Bill could be reviewed after a certain time without doing any injustice. There had been so many mistakes in temperance legislation, which had been passed with the best intentions, that he felt there should be something not absolutely final in the Bill until they had seen how it worked.
  *SIR WALTER THORBURNsaid he had clearly stated to his constituents that under no circumstances would he vote for a Bill in which compensation was not given in the shape either of a time limit or of a monetary grant contributed by the trade itself, and he had also declared most emphatically that he would never support a measure under which compensation was to be paid to licence-holders out of the rates or taxes of the country. The Government had adopted one of the two alternatives he had always suggested, and he thought their decision was a wise one, because under the present proposals the reduction of licences would be rapidly proceeded with, whereas, if a time limit was given, practically no reduction whatever would be effected during the period of that limit. The Amendment before the Committee was absolutely impracticable, and, inasmuch as it was inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, he failed to see how it could be supported by any of his hon. friends who voted in favour of the Second Reading of the measure. It was possible to have a time
  842
  limit without compensation, or compensation without a time limit, but in his opinion it was impossible in the same Bill to have both. He regarded the as a mutual insurance scheme on the part of the trade, in which the premiums were collected by the Government and if any man was unwilling or failed to pay his premium, his business automatically ceased. He asked the House to look at the proposal as practical men of business. Take for example the insurance of a ship. If underwriters, when a proposal was made to them stipulated that unless the ship was lost or damaged within a certain period, they should be relieved of all liability, the shipowner would not insure except at a very low premium. But what would be the position of the licence-holders under the Bill if a time limit was inserted? The licence-holder would be unable to insure after the period of the time limit unless at an impossible premium to an Insurance Company, and, after having paid his premiums for a series of years, he would be liable to lose his business without a penny of compensation. In this matter he wished to do as he would like to be done by. He had no interest whatever in any business connected with the licensed trade, but he contended that the licence-holder was entitled to the same treatment as any other legalised trade. Upon this question he respected the feelings of teetotalers, although he did not take their extreme view. He considered the Bill a just and good one and one which would tend very largely to decrease the number of licensed houses, and as he believed it was impossible to engraft on it a time limit he must vote against the Amendment.
  SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTHsaid he had listened with great interest to the statement of the Prime Minister upon this question. It appeared to him that they were proceeding upon a basis which he did not think was well founded. The case of each licence depanded upon the proposition that the present licensee in the country had some sort of a vested interest of a freehold character, and if the right hon. Gentleman did not say this in so many words, at any rate his arguments were

  843
  based upon some latent assumption of that kind. He was in favour of compensation, but he believed that there ought to be compensation and consideration. In the interests of temperance he felt strongly the position in which the magistrates were Paced and their hands would be very much strengthened if they were able to give cooperation in cases where they took away licences without misconduct on the part of the holder. At the same time they must very seriously consider what they were doing if there was anytime limit. They were entirely altering the tenure of the licence-holders and for all time they were altering their position m the country. They all knew that legally and equitably the licence-holders had taken these licences on a yearly tenancy, and when they heard of the large sums paid for these licences—unless they were rash and reckless speculations, which he was afraid in some eases they were, for ulterior purposes—there must be in the mind of a person who bought one of these houses some idea of the value based upon the profit-earning power, and he must to a certain extent take into account the possibility that the licence might be ultimately terminated. The only justification for consideration—though he thought it would be a great advantage and would promote temperance—was that Parliament was proposing, with the assent of the country, to place the magistrates in a position which would enable them to reduce the number of public-houses to a much greater extent and much more rapidly than appeared to be possible under the present system. But that did not justify in the slightest degree a Bill which would confer a permanent vested interest and a freehold property on men who at present had nothing of the kind. He was anxious to promote this compensation Bill, but he and his friends were also anxious to leave the door open for other temperance reforms to take place. There was a great deal going on in the country besides this Bill, which the Prime Minister claimed was a temperance measure. It to a certain extent extent was so, but a grea many other temperance reforms were going on, and efforts were being made to institute public-houses which would do much less injury to the people, because
  844
  they would not be maintained for profit personal gain. He alluded to that great movement organised by the public-house Trust Association. He believed that there was a great future before that association, and it seemed to him that this Bill as it stood would militate very much against the progress of that body. There were also other temperance proposals which he thought it would be unfair for then to make impossible of consideration. There was the question of popular control and other mpvements which if these houses got a permanent vested interest would be very seriously affected in the future. They were in a great difficulty in dealing with this matter on the spur of the moment, and under the position in which they were placed by this Amendment. It might be possible to limit this Amendment to the question of compensation and that would get one difficulty out of the way; but there was another difficulty, and it was that rainy of them were strongly in favour of a time limit and would carry their support of that principle to very great lengths, but they were not prepared to subscribe to a seven years limit, which they thought was too short. In an addendum which he put to the Minority Report he stated that he felt that seven years was too short and he suggested twelve years. Consequently he believed that fourteen or fifteen years would be a fair compromise which would carry with it temperance reformers on the one hand, and would not be oppressive to licence-holders on the other hand. Unfortunately they had to argue this matter upon this Amendment and they did not know what form it would take at the end of the discussion. At any rate, he and a number of his friends felt absolutely committed to a time limit for compensation, and they would be bound to support that view in the division lobby.
  MR. ASQUITHasked the Chairman if he would be good enough to give the Committee a definite ruling upon this point—whether, having regard to the manner in which the Amendment had been debated and to the obvious desire of hon. Gentlemen who were in favour of a time limit confined to compensation, and to compensation alone, to reserve

  845
  their arguments and their votes until that specific issue was raised, the negativing of the present Amendment would necessarily preclude the raising of the question of confining it to compensation.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The debate has not yet concluded and therefore it is difficult to pronounce a judgment upon it. Although the majority of those who have taken part in the debate have been so far against the Amendment, the Amendment has been supported by at least three hon. Gentlemen. I do not think I can hold, I therefore, that the question has not been debated. I would also remind the Committee that there are no fewer than ten Amendments, nine of them coming from hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches, all raising the question of a time limit at this stage. Therefore, in coming to any conclusion in regard to the character of the debate, I think I shall have to take into consideration the fact that these Amendments were given notice of, although they may not be supported by speeches.
  MR. ASQUITH: Are we to take it, then, Sir, that you hold that, in view of the fact that the Amendment has been supported and opposed, if this Amendment were negatived it would not be competent for hon. Gentlemen to raise the same question, confining it to the limited point of compensation, either upon this or upon any subsequent clause?
  *MR. MILVAINsaid he would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife that the mover of the Amendment dealt with nothing else except the question of compensation. Personally he could not understand why, after so much had been made of this question of compensation on both sides of the House, and after it had been known for weeks that the first Amendment on the Paper was one affecting the principle of the Bill, hon. Members opposite should, if he might use the term, go down to avoid punishment. That was not facing the audience. Either they had no arguments to face the audience with, or they were afraid of the division lobby, or possibly both. He could not help thinking that the question of a time limit was altogether
  846
  inconsistent with the nature of this Bill. On that side of the House he had heard hon. Members, in referring to the property held by licence-holders, describe it as not a vested interest. He had heard it described as an interest which was tenable only for one year. That might be so according to the letter of the law, but it was not so in the administration of the law. It had not been so regarded by the collectors of revenue who had levied rates and taxes as though a licensee had a right to the continuance of his licence during good behaviour.
  There was one point which had not been mentioned in the House and which ought at all events to appeal to the hon. Members connected with the legal profession. It was this: When a person applied for a licence he had to show cause why the licence should be granted to him, and those who opposed the application had to show cause why it should not be granted. Whilst he was the holder of a licence, if any person objected to its being continued it was the objector who had to show cause why it should not be continued, leaving the inference that the licensee was entitled to continue to hold the licence until it was shown that it should be taken away. He was aware of the case of "Sharpe v. Wakefield," and everybody was aware that the magistrates had a discretion, but it was a discretion which must be exercised judicially, and not from caprice. It must be exercised discreetly, and if it was not exercised discreetly it was not exercised judicially. There was a feeling in a section of the community that licence-holders did not receive at the hands of licensing sessions such justice as was usually extended to the holders of other kinds of property. If in a district there were two public-houses, one on one side of the street and the other on the other side, and one was required for the carrying out of a local improvement, the licensee of that house received compensation for his property as a going concern, while the licensce of the other house would receive no compensation if his licence was refused for purposes of public policy. He wanted to know whether that was consistent, and he would ask any conscientious man where the difference existed between the two cases. If the licensee, subject to the judicial discretion

  847
  of the justices, was entitled to a continuance of his licence; then it was property of a certain nature. If it was property of a certain nature why was it to be treated in any respect differently from other property? He would ask any hon. Member who was in favour of a time limit whether, if he held a leasehold property for sixty years, he would be content if told at the end of twenty years that it was to cease to have its value. Another consideration in connection with this matter was that a large number of these houses were mortgaged. What was to happen at the end of seven years if they said that then these mortgaged properties were to cease to have the value they had to-day? The result would naturally be that there would be foreclosure on the property, and again the trade would be put to a very severe and, in his opinion, a very unfair strain.
  So much for inconsistency. He wanted to put another question as to expediency. What was going to be the result of the time limit? It was not, as the Prime Minister had said already, a matter where the public found the funds. The trade found the funds. It was not public money. It was compulsory insurance by the trade. The licence-holders were bound to subscribe. There might be insurance now, but all the members of the trade could not be got to go into it, and the result was that the premium charged to those who insured was heavier than it otherwise would be. But if they had a time limit they would have the anomalous position that the public-houses bought out would be the worst and probably the smallest. The licensee who was undesirable, though there might be against him nothing that could be shown to be legally wrong, would be bought out. He would receive his compensation, while the good man who conducted his house well would until the expiry of the time limit continue to subscribe to his insurance and at the end he would get nothing. But in addition to that the licensees would be obliged to enter upon a voluntary insurance at a higher premium to cover the risks after the time had expired. The Bill would have a result which was exceptionally desirable, namely, to drive the unscrupulous man out of
  848
  the trade, and it would be an inducement to good men to enter it. He had heard of some clergymen conducting public-houses for the benefit of the community, and in order to supply good drink. There were also private gentlemen who conducted public-houses on the same principle. The Bill would encourage the sale of good stuff, and licensed victuallers would be so in fact and not in word only. A time limit would result in driving good men out of the trade, and men not so scrupulous would be tempted to take the risk of making money in the shortest possible time either by the sale of bad liquor or by illicit means. He thought it was an admitted fact that drinking was a decreasing vice. He thought experience justified the conclusion that the existence of too many public-houses was an encouragement of drinking. On the other hand, he thought it was equally true to say that if there were too few public-houses the evil was driven under the surface. What they ought to do was to find the mean, and the only way to find the mean was to approach the question and find what the result was over a term of years. [Laughter.] Not a limited term of years. He thought possibly after a very few years indeed they would find a very large and desirable reduction in the number of public-houses.
  *COLONEL WILLIAMSsaid he thought it was time that something should be said about the Amendment itself, and specially about the term of years for which this Amendment was supposed to run. With all respect to his hon. friend below him, he always thought that a term of years must have an end, and to speak of an indefinite term waft a contradiction in terms. Many hon. Members on that side of the House thought seven years was much too short a time limit, and he desired by his Amendment to substitute for the word "seven" the word "fourteen." He took fourteen as the term, because in questions of compensation, and in settlements as to the amount of death duties, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue adopted that term. It had been said that if a time limit were inserted, the owners of licensed premises had to enter into a double insurance; but there were

  849
  many forms of insurance which were divided into two parts—one at one rate to insure for fourteen years, and another at a lower rate for a longer period afterwards. There was no difficulty as long as a man knew these conditions beforehand. It had been said that by making the insurance compulsory they were not converting an annual licence into a freehold licence, because the money came from the publicans; but so long as the insurance was compulsory, and so long as the publican paid the premium, so long did he get the right to have his annual licence renewed. Therefore, that made the licence practically a freehold. He contended that a time limit was necessary if it was wanted to maintain the annual character of the licence. In the course of years the annual licence had come to be practically regarded as renewable of right, but he wanted to revert to the old legal theory that it was only an annual licence still. In the course of years a certain vested interest had been allowed to grow up, and that, he admitted, should be bought out, and the vested interest done for. It had been said that if a period to compensation was imposed, in the last few years of that period inferior men would enter the trade and that nobody would spend money in keeping the houses in repair and be careful to maintain good order. His answer to that was that an annual licence conferred a very substantial bonus on the owner for which he had never paid a penny, and if he did not keep his house in good order he would lose the licence for these few years. That would compel him to conduct his house properly. For these reasons he thought a fourteen years limit was sufficient and would bring down the number of licences to the ratio which would be considered by moderate men as appropriate to the whole population.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "To leave out the word 'seven,' insert the word 'fourteen.'"—(Colonel Williams.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'seven' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  *MR. WHITTAKERsaid he was sorry to take part to the debate in this incon-
  850
  venient way, but he was not responsible for having put down the Amendment to the first clause. It seemed to him that the key to the position was that the licence-holder had no right to a renewal. The State had carefully and specially reserved the power to refuse a renewal each year—so carefully that it required the licence-holder to specially apply each year for renewal to remind him that he held a precarious licence and that he might be refused it any year. All he had got was, as Lord Selborne had said, a locus standi for renewal. The market value of a licence was only the chance that the holder would get a renewal; but that was not property in any proper sense of the term. It should be borne in mind that every licence-holder had all along known the law and the risk he ran. He had deliberately and willingly taken that risk for the sake of the profits which he would get through being protected from competition. The Prime Minister dwelt an the fact that the licence-holders had to pity taxes and death duties. That was no argument. The Inland Revenue demanded taxes on the market value of anything a man held, but that did not imply that the Inland Revenue guaranteed that that was a reasonable value. Take the case of a gold mine, the shares of which might be worth £5. If the owner died these shares would be assessed at £5 each for death duties, but the shares might, in three or four years, not be worth 1s. or a penny. The Inland Revenue did not guarantee that they would always remain at a value of £5. Or the case of a racehorse; at the time of the owner's death it might be worth hundreds of pounds, but die in a few months. The Inland Revenue did not guarantee that the horse would live and win races. Or the case of pictures, which might be of exceedingly great value at the time of the owner's death; fashions, however, changed in pictures as in many things else, and the value might go down in a few years, but what the Inland Revenue took at the time was the market value. The successor took his chance.
  It had been said that municipal corporations gave full compensation when a licence was taken away to effect public improvements, but the municipal authority had no power to interfere with the licence, and if they took it away they should pay

  851
  compensation. It was the licensing justices who conferred the right and who could take it away at the end of a year—a very different case indeed. It had been said that the Lord Chancellor had decided that the licensing magistrates must exercise judicial discretion in refusing a licence, but the Lord Chancellor took occasion in a later discussion to explain what he had said and to point out that it had been misunderstood. If the magistrates took away a licence capriciously, and if that was proved to be the case, the licence-holder had a remedy. Therefore, that was no reason for giving compensation to licence-holders whose annual licence was taken away in the exercise of judicial discretion. He was one of those who was quite willing that some consideration should be shown to a a licence-holder, but that was not a matter of legal or moral right, but of grace to facilitate temperance reform. He was in favour of compensation being given to the trade from the trade, for f the public advantage in clearing away unnecessary licences. The Prime I Minister said that it would be all right to give a licence-holder absolute security for a considerable term, subject to good behaviour, but that this Bill did not do that. His contention, however, was that it did give absolute security, and a pretty good security too, for the holder was to be handsomely paid for it if he lost it. The Prime Minister also said that the right which a licence-holder now had should not end with the end of the insurance; if the public paid the insurance it would be different. He (Mr. Whittaker) contended that the licence-holder bad no right at present and therefore he would have none under this Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid if he used I the word "right" he used it in the sense of an equitable claim.
  *MR. WHITTAKERcontended that if an equitable claim was something less than a right, and the tenure something less than a freehold, then it was reasonable to terminate it by a notice. The real difficulty that had to be faced was that when they wanted to reduce a number of licences the justices found a great difficulty in selection. They found a dozen
  852
  licences in a small area and thought three or four of them ought to disappear, but there was nothing that could be said against one of them that could not be said against the rest, and there was nothing that could be said in favour of one that could not be equally well said in favour of all. They felt that if they took away a licence they would inflict financial loss on the person whose licence they suppressed, and would confer a financial benefit on those whose licences were renewed. He himself favoured compensation to be paid by the licence-holders who were left, in which case it was easy to get over the difficulty of selection.
  The Prime Minister had asked what benefit to temperance reform would accrue from a time limit. The right hon. Gentleman said, "Who would take a house for the last year of that period?" and developed an argument which he had to a small extent expounded on the Second Reading of the Bill, "At the end of the time1, limit you would get irresponsible men, living from hand to mouth, and the house would go to rack and ruin and no house would be worth anything at all." He ventured to say that precisely the contrary would be the result. The 1869 beerhouses had been referred to. They were the very worst houses in existence and the most difficult to deal with, but they were the houses with a security of tenure, and that fact alone should have shown the right hon. Gentleman that he had a weak point in his argument. That weak point was this, that the only thing that kept a house efficient and kept it well-conducted was the fear of losing the licence. In a locality where the time was running out the anxiety of every licence-holder would be that his should be the house whose licence would be renewed, and the result would be that there would be a competition between the licence-holders as to whose house should be best kept. There was no danger that the character of a house would deteriorate by the introduction of a time limit. It would improve. He had been informed by a justice on the Liverpool Bench only recently that when the Liverpool Bench first refused the renewal of its licence to a large house that was badly conducted no one could conceive the effect which it had upon other houses in the district. The prospect that a badly-managed house

  853
  would lose its licence at the end of the time limit period would do more than anything else to insure its being properly conducted. The 1869 beerhouse stood in a different position to the ordinary public-house, but nobody would contend that it should have a licence for all time. It had a licence granted by Parliament for the benefit of the public, but it was in the power of Parliament to revise and reverse its decision with regard to it. It was not a freehold—an absolute property [An HON. MEMBER: It is a freehold now.] It was merely a Parliamentary grant and subject to revision. An instance of that was seen in the case of the off-licences for beer. "Off-beerhouses" were in precisely the same position. The Act of 1869 put "off-beer" licences in exactly the same position as the 1869 beerhouses; but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the instigation of the trade itself, passed a Bill through this House without discussion, which gave the magistrates full and free discretion in the case of the "off"-licences. What was fair for "off-beer" could not be unfair for "on-beer," and they could not now claim that the 1869 licences were exempt.
  The Prime Minister had suggested that under a time limit the trade would be put in the position of paying an insurance against the risk of non-renewal of the licences, and then paying an insurance for the purpose of insuring the capital value of the licences at the end of the time limit. It must be remembered that these licence-holders held an extremely profitable monopoly. It had been said they would get nothing by such an insurance, but he would venture to point out that for the premium paid they would get protection against the risk of the non-renewal of their licence. Then they would have to set up a sinking fund to redeem the value of the licence at the end of the time limit, and thus deal with it as every other wasting security was dealt with by a wise man. The object of this compensation in this Bill was to reduce the number of licences, but the effect of reducing the number of licences would be to make those that remained much more profitable; it meant that in the future the licences would not increase in proportion to the population of a district,
  854
  and the great additional value which would be given to those houses would be more than sufficient to pay the sinking fund. They could not have temperance reform without less profit being made out of drink, but that process could be made easier by spreading the loss over the whole trade for a considerable time. All these brewery companies—and four-fifths of the licensed houses were in the hands of the brewers—had either provided large reserves out of profit, or sinking fund, for the redemption of the loans, or they ought to have done so. They knew they had a wasting security and were prepared for it, and therefore the losses would not be much to them.
  The right hon. Gentleman had also said the justices would be in the same difficulty at the end of the period as they were now; that there would still be the difficulty of selection. They had been giving people this valuable privilege and charging them a nominal sum for it. That was the whole difficulty. If they charged the full value for a licence it would have no market value, and no compensation difficulty would arise. Take an illustration. If a man rented a house worth £100 for £100, there was no market value in that tenancy, and no one would give him anything for the right to live in that house. But if the landlord let that £100 house for £20, then the tenancy would have a market value and the tenant could sell it. That was the position with regard to licences. They let people have licences of great value for a nominal sum, and, therefore, they acquired a market value. If at the end of the time limit, Parliament continued to allow licences to be issued at a nominal sum, certainly compensation value would accrue again, and they would have the same difficulty to face as they had to-day. But he thought that sane, business-like men would at the end of the time limit put the issue of licences on an altogether different footing. They would at once begin to issue licences at their full market value. That did not mean that men holding licences should not continue to hold them, but they would have to pay full value for them. There would be no compensation difficulty, no market value, and that was the answer to the Prime Minister when he said that the

  855
  licensing justices would at the end of the time limit have the same difficulty to face as now. First, let them get the number of licences down to something like a reasonable number in proportion to population, and then they would be readily insurable at a very low rate, because everyone would know that further reductions would be few indeed, It should be remembered in the whole of this discussion that a licence was not a freehold. Licences were not bought and sold in the market as if they were a freehold. A licence was a wasting security, and there should be a time limit when the equity of the matter could be arranged. The prices of licensed houses varied very much; but he believed it was a fair estimate to say that a good price would be twelve or fourteen years purchase. Every one knew that fourteen years purchase was equivalent to a twenty-five years run. £1 a year for twenty-five years at 5 per cent. was worth £14 to-day; and fourteen years purchase would represent a twenty-five years run. His point was that a licence was a terminable security, not a freehold; and it was essential that there should be a time limit. The Inland Revenue dealt with licences on the basis of something like twelve or fourteen years purchase. It did not assess them as if they were to continue for ever, but assessed them as terminable securities which had a fair chance of a considerable run.
  As regarded the length of the time limit, he would be quite amenable; but what he felt anxious about was that the levy should be a national levy. The local levy was the seat of much difficulty in this matter. Clause 1 would never be required if a local levy were not proposed; and if a national levy were substituted they would get over a great deal of their difficulty. Further, he would have no objection to supplement the levy with a Certain amount of additional taxation on liquor. An addition of 5 per cent. to the amount which the trade now paid would be more than ample to bring about any reduction which the most sanguine person had ever thought of. It would manage everything and would sweep away the greatest number of licences that anyone had ever spoken about. But under this Bill they were not
  856
  going to get any substantial reduction; the value of the licences would increase, and the difficulties they now had to contend with would be intensified.
  Something was said by an hon. Gentleman opposite with which he cordially agreed, and that was that whatever might be their views as to certain reforms that were suggested, certain facilities for popular control and disinterested management, they ought not to close the door against them in the future. This Bill did fatally close the door; and that was, in his judgment, a great objection to the measure. At the present time, with licences which might be refused renewal, they were in a position, whenever Parliament deemed it advisable, to institute any method of controlling the liquor trade they might wish. He felt more than some people recognised the enormous difficulty of dealing with the liquor question. It was one of the most difficult problems they ever had to deal with, and he attached an enormous importance to allowing localities to make experiments and to work out their own salvation in their own way. If they did that they might in the course of time discover some method, not antagonistic to the national sentiment, which would enable them to grapple with this question in a satisfactory way. They could not have those experiments without giving the fullest freedom to the localities; and whatever their opinion might be as to this, that, or the other reform, they ought not to close the door to the possibility of their being introduced. The Prime Minister did not think that the Bill would close the door to further reform. Might he take local veto as a test? That was a remedy which was widely resorted to in every English-speaking country in the world except this country. Hon. Members opposite might be of the opinion that this country was not ripe for it; but they should not close the door against that remedy. Local veto would be absolutely impossible under this Bill, because if the compensation levy was to be made on houses in the locality, houses must be retained in order to pay it. If they were all swept away compensation would have to be paid by the public; and the Bill admitted that there was no claim against the public and no right to compensation in the ordinary sense.

  857
  Compensation was not the proper word. This was a levy on the trade itself to find money for itself. If anyone had a right to compensation, would it not be an insult to ask him to put his hand into his own pocket? Therefore, the fact that the Government proposed that the compensation should be paid by the trade was proof enough that the trade had no claim whatever on the public; and that it was not compensation in any sense. Further, it would be a gross wrong if, in order to introduce some other methods of reform, they were to put this money on the rates or taxes, and give the trade a claim to which this Bill admitted they had no right. Therefore, the Bill blocked the way as regarded local veto; and it also blocked the way with regard to any satisfactory measure of distinterested management. The keynote of disinterested management was that they should get rid of the stimulus of private profit; but they would be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire if they transferred private profit into public profit. If they had to raise a large sum of money in order to buy out licences they would be blocking the way to disinterested management. Under disinterested management, the amount of money invested was extremely small; but if they could only have philanthropic management at the cost of scores and hundreds of millions sterling to buy up the trade it would cease to be disinterested management and would be only another form of speculation. Therefore the Bill blocked the way to the two methods of reform which were most prominently before the country at the present time.
  He contended there ought to be a time limit, in order that there might be full freedom and ability to introduce any measure of reform they might desire. The Bill would stereotype monopoly. The Prime Minister expressed his desire to end this monopoly, but the Bill would increase it. The Bill would increase and intensify that monopoly, and stereotype the tied-house system, which was one of the most objectionable features of the business. A different method should be tried. The present monopoly had been in existence long enough. It had had protection from competition, and had made enormous profits. He doubted whether the Com-
  858
  mittee realised how great were the profits which had accrued to the trade by virtue of its monopoly, and thos3 excessive profits were the real compensation. In 1802 to 1830 the liquor trade paid two and a half times as much taxation per barrel of beer as they now paid. They were taxed to the extent of 10s. per barrel of beer; 4s. 5d. per bushel of malt (and two bushels of malt were required for one barrel of beer); and this, together with the impost on hops, made the taxation on the beer trade range from 12s. to 20s. per barrel. The tax of 10s. per barrel was taken off when the Beer Act of 1830 was passed and had never been reimposed, but the consumer still paid just as much for his glass of beer, every penny of the relief from taxation having gone into the pockets of the liquor sellers. Moreover, the cost of the grain out of which she the liquor was made was only a fractional part of what it used to be, and scientific improvements had enabled brewers to get five barrels of beer out of the material formerly used for four. This monopoly had prevented the working of the ordinary economic laws. Lower taxation, cheaper material and improved scientific methods, instead of resulting in a cheaper article had simply enabled the makers of the article greatly to enhance their profits, and now, forsooth, because those profits had rendered the houses in which the liquor was sold enormously valuable they asked for compensation! The monopoly had been its own compensation; it had been long enjoyed, and there was no claim, legal or moral, for any compensation whatever.
  The only ground on which he supported compensation was as a matter of expediency to facilitate a great public reform. Those who had enjoyed this great privilege had no right whatever to its continuance; and certainly they had no legal right to its continuance at the present licence fee. Parliament had always retained full right to fix the licence fee at any amount it chose, and whatever might be said about the liquor seller's equity in the renewal of his licence, he had no equity whatever in the present licence fee. With perfect justice and considerable ease Parliament could raise the licence fee, and the bottom would be knocked out of the compensation claim within twenty-four hours. He, therefore,

  859
  reminded members of the liquor trade that if this Bill were forced upon this country in its present form and by this Parliament there were more ways of killing a cat than by banging it. Liquor sellers had no right to licences at the present rate of duty; they had no moral or legal right to object to anybody else having a licence; the value of their; licences depended upon the monopoly; and if everybody who desired one could have a licence on the same terms there could be no market or compensation value. If Parliament fixed the licence fee sufficiently high, and declared that every man of suitable character with suitable premises might have a licence, he believed the number of licences would be reduced and there would be no compensation value attaching to any. They would then get rid of all the obnoxious—
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member has rather forgotten the Amendment that is now before the Committee. That Amendment deals with a time limit, but the hon. Member is ranging over the whole subject.
  *MR. WHITTAKERadmitted that he had gone somewhat beyond the Amendment, and apologised for so doing. His point was that the holders had no claim, legal or moral, to these licences; that they were not entitled to anything like full compensation, inasmuch as Parliament had certain rights in reserve which would cut down the value of the licence; that the licence was not a freehold or a permanency; and that, therefore, Parliament was entitled to impose a time limit. Possibly his argument was somewhat involved, but he thought it was relevant in the long run. An hon. Member on the other side had given the real name for what ought to be done, when he said the Bill was a mutual insurance scheme under which the payment of premiums was compulsory. That was what it ought to be. What was the position in which Parliament found itself? There had grown up in licences a market value to which the holders had no legal right, and the existence of that value placed a serious difficulty in the way of the administration of the licensing laws, of securing such a reduction of licences as was necessary, and of obtaining that free-
  860
  dom to deal with licences which everybody desired. The practical question with which Parliament had to deal was how should that difficulty be dealt with as a matter of expediency and practical politics? One thing was perfectly clear, viz., that the proper way to deal with it was not to turn the licence into a freehold.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!
  *MR. WHITTAKER: But that is practically what you are doing.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURdissented.
  *MR. WHITTAKERsubmitted that if full value were paid the licence would practically be turned into a freehold. He suggested that substantial notice should be given, that a substantial time limit should be fixed, during which compensation should be paid to the trade; and at the end of that period licences should be issued on entirely new conditions. Parliament would then have a clear field to introduce whatever reforms it chose, and no wrong would be done to anybody. In some way, at some time, Parliament must recover full liberty to deal with the trade, and that could not possibly be done unless a time limit was fixed: the Bill as it stood would block the way. That was a serious position; in his judgment it was intolerable, and should the Bill in its present form be passed it could never be accepted as a final settlement of the question.
  *SIR FREDERICK MILNERsaid there was another side to this question to that which had been taken by the hon. Member for the Spen Valley. He had heard with great pleasure the decisive line taken by the Prime Minister with regard to the question of a time limit, and he hoped he would remain firm upon that point. If the Government accepted a time limit they might as well drop this Bill altogether. How could it reasonably be argued that this Bill was creating a freehold or a vested interest in licences, when at any time a licence might be taken away for transgressions under the Act? How could they be giving the licence-holder a freehold when they had

  861
  power at any time to deprive him of his means of livelihood; and the compensation they would give would be fixed by the State, and provided by the licence-holder himself? That provision alone would prevent any increase in the value of licences. If any person was foolish enough to give an increased price for a licence on account of this Bill he did so entirely at his own risk and he would receive nothing extra as compensation. The compensation would be ealculated as if this Act had not been passed, and therefore this Bill did not create either a freehold or a vested interest in the licence. The procedure adopted in this measure was the only way in which they could get this question settled. Temperance reformers had been pledged up to the hilt for the last fifty years to pass some drastic reform, but they could never do this until the question of compensation was settled. It had always been recognised as a principle in this country that they ought not to take away a man's property by an Act of Parliament without compensation by the State. In this case, however, the whole of the compensation was provided by the trade, and the only way to settle it was to adopt this clause without any time limit. If this Bill was passed he thought they would certainly see a steady, automatic reduction in the number of public-houses, a reform which was much needed. He hoped the Government would firmly stand by the attitude they had taken up on this question and remember the fiascoes of 1888 and 1890. With reasonable. Amendments this Bill would effect whit they all desired, namely, a steady reduction of the worse class of beer-shops and steady progress intemperance.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he wished to say a few words in support of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for West Dorset. He recognised the enormous value of real temperance legislation, and whether they called it an equitable claim or, to use the phrase of his hon. friend, a locus standi for having his licence renewed, the publican had some claim to com-pen nation. But tin licence ought not to be a freehold and the compensation ought to have some term put to it. Although he thought fourteen years was
  862
  hardly long enough and should prefer twenty-one, he hoped the former period would be accepted as a compromise. Seven years was evidently inadequate, and he trusted his hon. friends on the opposite side would accept fourteen years. At the end of fourteen years the number of licences would have been so reduced that the fear of a licence-holder losing his licence would have disappeared and the Government could accept this compromise without injuring the licence-holder. In the interests of the cause of temperance there ought to be a time limit, and they ought not to tie the hands of posterity by adopting any hard-and-fast rule of compensation.
  MR. CRIPPSsaid hon. Members opposite were under a misapprehension as to the effect of a time limit upon compensation, because that question was entirely outside the freehold question altogether. If the Bill was left in its present form without a time limit all that the licence-holder would be entitled to was what he would receive in an ordinary compensation case and neither more nor loss than that. No licence-holder had ever been entitled to compensation as a freeholder, and all he was entitled to was what all property owners were entitled to when questions of compensation arose. A licence-holder was compensated as regarded the fair expectation of renewal he had in connection with the licensed premisas, and that was the view on which this Bill was framed. The hon. Member opposite said that the time limit might be for twenty years. If they introduced a time limit in the way proposed by the hon. Member the first effect would be, not to diminish the amount to the licence-holder, but to give him an unfair amount of compensation to which he was not entitled at ail. They wanted to see how the Bill would work out as between the public on the one side and the licence-holders on the other. The Bill, in his opinion, made fair provision in regard to the temperance question. With a time limit such as that suggested by the hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division the licence-holder would get a far larger measure of compensation than he could possibly get under the Bill as it stood.

  863
  If he did not mean that, the one argument of the hon. Member was that in regard to grace and propriety which, as he understood him, were both immoral and illegal. That was a matter for the consideration of the hon. Member. The true answer was that the question of the time limit had to be divorced from the question of compensation. They were not really dealing with the same subject-matter. By introducing a time limit they were not proposing that the licence-holder should have a certain number of years purchase. They were really diminishing the fund, and thereby decreasing the opportunities for temperance. They were reducing the fund which could be used under this Bill for the purpose of compensation in order to get rid of unnecessary public-houses. That would be the real result of introducing a time limit as proposed by hon. Members opposite and supported by some hon. Members on his side of the House. The hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division took as an illustration the ease of fire insurance, and said they did not necessarily want the house to be burned down while the insurance was running. That was if the insurance was effected in perpetuity, but according to the time limit proposal there would only be compensation if the house was burned down in the first seven years.
  What was the equity of a provision of that kind? These compensation questions were difficult and complicated. In the county of Buckingham, in which he was interested, an effort was made to work out a scheme on the same lines as those proposed in this Bill, but they were prevented because some of the brewers would not come into the scheme. Under this Bill they would be able to raise sufficient money as capital in the first instance to get rid of supernumerary public-houses, which they thought in the cause of temperance ought to be abolished. Supposing they had a time limit of seven, or fifteen, years they would be unable to raise a sufficient sum to carry out a proper temperance scheme. He wanted to know why the advocates of temperance on the other side should seek to put in a limitation of that sort. By doing so they would limit the fund from which compensation could be got and in that way they would make the Bill less effective for the purpose of temperance reform.
  864
  If they wanted to make the anticipations of the enemies of the Bill true, they would put in a time limit, because, with that time limit, they would never get sufficient funds to enable them to carry out this measure of temperance reform. He saw from one of the numerous pamphlets which had been sent to him that in regard to the ante-1869 houses, which practically could not be dealt with at the present moment, it would take thirty years of this fund to get rid of them from the temperance point of view. He asked the Committee to consider that if they had this fund in perpetuity they would probably be able to raise money to get rid of the supernumerary houses in the first year. The scheme of the Bill was not to wait for thirty years. The scheme was that they might capitalise the sum required in order to bring about as soon as possible a great measure of temperance reform. The time limit made that absolutely impossible. He could not understand why the advocates of temperance wanted to mutilate a scheme of this sort, and make it a bad scheme, by crippling the compensation fund, which was really the basis of the whole question of temperance reform. He thought the real fact of the matter was that there was a prejudice, more or less openly avowed by the opponents of the Bill, against giving any compensation to the trade at all. They seemed not to realise that this compensation was not to be given from the public funds; it was simply a compulsory insurance provided by the trade itself. One could easily pick to pieces this provision, because there was not the slightest doubt that the houses to be shut first would be the worst, and the big hotels would have to contribute large amounts for compensation, whereas the risk of their being shut up would be very slight. The funds required to carry out this great scheme of temperance reform could not be raised without a perpetuity tax on which to raise a sufficient capital sum in the first instance to enable the local authorities to get rid of unnecessary licences. He could not understand why the advocates of temperance reform opposite wanted to mutilate a Bill of this sort. The fact was that there was a prejudice more or less openly avowed by the opponents of the Bill against giving any compensation

  865
  the trade at all. He appealed to Gentlemen who were anxious for temperance reform to see what they were doing. They were reducing the amount to be obtained for granting compensation for the reduction of the unnecessary licences. The question of freehold had nothing whatever to do with compensation. If anyone could show that the compensation to be given under the scheme of the Bill would be on the scale of a freehold, he would be the first to oppose it. The time limit would only introduce confusion, create great difficulties as far as the magistrates were concerned, and cripple the funds necessary to advance the desires of the temperance reformers.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he had listened to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, and he confessed that his argument a little puzzled him. The position of the hon. Gentleman was that unless a tenure of a perpetuity character were given, there would not be any capitalised source of income from which to proceed with the work of reform.
  MR. CRIPPS: No sufficient capital.
  MR. HALDANEsaid that that meant that it was of the essence of the Bill to give a perpetuity tenure to a very large number of licences. That would be so. Now the Committee knew where they stood, and he contended that it would be perfectly impossible, under the scheme of the Bill, for any effective work to be done in reducing the number of public-houses. The hon. and learned Member was not contemplating any considerable addition to existing licences. They could not have their cake and eat it at one and the same time. If the number of licences came down the fund for compensation would disappear. That meant that the operation of the Bill would be confined to comparatively small limits. The proper conception of the use of a time limit was that it should lead to the general liquidation of the whole existing system. The existing licence-holders would have their title to consideration at the hands of the Legislature recognised, and would be given a certain time in which to recoup themselves for what they had expended in
  866
  the purchase of their licences, but they would be warned that the character of their tenure, as laid down by the highest Court in the land, could not be altered. This Bill, however, did alter the tenure, and made the work of the temperance reformer one of enormously greater difficulty than before. Those of them who felt great misapprehension with regard to this Bill did so on more than one ground. It was not that they had any fanatical desire to use hardly people who were engaged in a trade which the law of the land had caused to grow up, and which was recognised as legitimate; but they felt that there were very great evils connected with that trade which ought to have been dealt with long ago; and that this measure, framed as it was, would make the work of the reformer enormously more difficult than it was before. His hon. friend the Member for the Spen Valley pointed out that not only one reform movement but every reform movement would be hampered. The Bill would create a new situation with which people would have to deal in the future; and it would be very difficult to apply remedies which could be applied comparatively easily without this Bill. They felt that the Bill blocked the avenue to further reform; and it was on that ground that they regarded it as a retrograde step, and that he ventured to express disagreement with the theory of his hon. and learned friend opposite, a theory which his hon. and learned friend regarded as a good theory, but which, to his mind, marked out the Bill as a step which was really retrograde, and one which would retard the cause of reform.
  *MR DUKEsaid that on the other side of the House there was a great readiness to put upon some future House of Commons or upon the justices at some future time the invidious task of abolishing licences without compensation. It was agreed that for today the ordinary principles of fair play and justice should apply, that they should not takeaway a licence to-day, some said within seven years, or as others said fourteen years, or as others again said twenty-one years, without giving something in lien of the licence. He submitted, however,

  867
  that the moral question which raised the real difficulty in this case would be the same whether it arose this year, or in seven years, or any other number of years time, and if the object of the Bill were really to provide a means for dealing with the greatest difficulty there was at the present time in the way of temperance reform, they would not serve it by making their measure of such a temporary character that it failed for the present to have any effective operation by reason of the trammels they put upon it, and in the future, and early future, would inflict upon everybody who remained in the trade what at present was felt to be a measure of injustice. The real question was what was to be done to liberate the conscience of the country from the fetters which had been put upon it in getting rid of the redundant supply of licensed houses at the present time. If there had been no difficulty of the kind, a difficulty not in point of law, but in point of morals and fair play, all these redundant public-houses would have ceased to exist. It was not because the justices of England were indisposed to get rid of them that the controversy arose. The cry of hon. Members on the opposite side of the House at the present time was, "Leave this matter to the unfettered discretion of the justices"; but the justices refused to take upon themselves the task of depriving fellow citizens of—whether they called it property or not—something which, in fact, belonged to them, and leaving them nothing in the place of it. This was the real difficulty, and how was it to be lessened in the least by the course proposed by hon. Members on the other side of the House.
  The hon. Member for the Spen Valley had spoken of the course which would be taken during the period of his time limit. He said that within that period they would get rid of the undesirable houses and that they would get rid of them with compensation. But they would leave the whole number of the useful and deserving houses and, when the hon. Member's time limit had come into operation, they would get rid of them without compensation. Well, we had heard of equal treatment for the evil and the just, but we had never heard of meting out compensation to a less deserving
  868
  claimant and keeping the more deserving claimant for the future when there was to be no compensation. The hon. Member proposed at the end of seven, fourteen, or twenty-one years to introduce some system of local veto, philanthropic management, or high licence, or One or other of those various panaceas which had been before the country as long as he had been conscious of anything having been before it, and which were, he had no doubt, in full blast before that, and which had always been rejected by the common sense of the people. If local veto had been a real and practical remedy for the difficulties of the problem, it had had a generation or a generation and a half to commend itself to the people of the country, and it was more recognised as a myth to-day than it was when it was discussed on every platform thirty or forty years ago. Why should this Bill be framed to work with a system of local veto? Then there was a new sort of idea of philanthropic management of public-houses. There was nothing at the present time to prevent every Bench of justices in the country from licensing public-houses to come into existence and be carried on under philanthropic management. It was another notion and figment of the imagination, and nobody dreamed that the philanthropic public-house was going to replace the commercial public-house.
  Further there was the proposal of a high licence in lieu of the proposal of His Majesty's Government. He was not going to discuss it, but, in the form in which the hon. Member for the Spen Valley put it, it was a mere proposal for confiscation. The Bill ought not to be hampered with these projects. He submitted that the real difficulty was to find terms upon which they could prevent licence-holders who had embarked their capital in their business from continuing that business where there was no sort of moral complaint against them; and in his opinion His Majesty's Government had found fair terms in this Bill. If, however, fair terms had not been found in it, what would be thought of those proposed from the other side of the House, where they compensated the undeserving and penalised the deserving; and what would be thought of

  869
  a system, if it were proposed by His Majesty's Government, under which for seven, fourteen, or twenty-one years a man paid compensation to licensees when it was desirable in the public interest to get rid of although, at the end of that period, his own property was to be extinguished without compensation? He desired to support the proposal of His Majesty's Government as a practical proposal which really introduced temperance reform at once, and did not postpone it until the hon. Member for the Spen Valley and his friends had persuaded the public to reconsider local option, and which was a proposal, upon the admission of those who criticised the measure, which would within a measurable time get rid of the class of houses of which it was to the interest of the public to get rid.
  MR. MARKHAMcomplained that in the Bill not one single effort was made or would be made in the true interests of temperance. It could not be called a temperance measure at all, for it was nothing more nor less than a compensation Bill. He was wholly opposed to any time limit, and, therefore, he could not vote for either Amendment before the House. The publicans were only legitimately entitled to an annual interest in their licences, and therefore he proposed at a later stage to move an Amendment restricting his right to a year only. Since the case of "Sharpe v. Wakefield", in the district where he lived the value of licences had risen in many instances no less than 150 or 200 per cent. Where there was a commodity which cost something like 7d. and was retailed at something like 2s. to the general public—and that owing to the monopoly under which that beer was sold—speculative brewery companies came into the market and put up the price of the licences, well knowing what the law was and depending on Ministerialist Members to give them compensation. It had been a pure speculation on the part of the brewers, and now they came to Parliament and asked for full compensation for the value of the licences they had been speculating in, well knowing what the state of the law was. Now the Government absolutely refused to accept any time limit whatsoever, and
  870
  those licences were to become freehold. Where the value of public-houses had been so enormously increased by speculative brewery companies it was wholly wrong that the House should compensate the brewers. His objection to the scheme was that it would not reduce licences to any material extent. He lived in a village where 4,500 gallons of beer were drunk every week, representing a sum of something like £400 a week, and he would like to know how the Bill was going to decrease drinking there? It would not touch that evil. The value of the houses was over £25,000. How were they going to deal with licences like that? They would not have the money to deal with them.
  *MAJOR JAMESONsaid it appeared to him that very few Members grasped what this Amendment meant.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1: —
  Amendment proposed —
  "In page 1, line 5, to insert, at the beginning, the words "During the period of seven years after the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Ellis Griffith.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "To leave out the word 'seven' and insert the word 'fourteen.'"—(Colonel Williams).
  Question again proposed. "That the word 'seven' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  *MAJOR JAMESONcontinuing his speech said, until the Amendment was moved, to make the time limit fourteen

  871
  years, nobody in the House had any knowledge of what the reasons were for proposing a time limit. Then they were told that one reason was that compensation should not be granted at all, that compensation was not granted to shareholders in goldmines which did not happen to prosper, and that compensation should not be granted to those whose licences were suppressed. But he would point out that there could be any number of gold mines, while the number of public-houses was limited. He did not think the hon. Member for the Spen Valley could nave been serious when he compared public-houses with gold mines. He could not understand the objection of the hon. Member to what was practically a perpetual fund raised for the purpose of securing that those public-houses which were superfluous should be done away with. Did the hon. Member mean that this time limit was required, or did he think that the end of all public-houses would come at the end of this time limit. At the end of fourteen years justice would be the same as to-day. It was only towards the end of the hon. Member's speech that the Committee discovered that the real reason for a time limit was their old friend local option which had been so often before the House, and which had been scouted by the House whenever it came before it. The hon. Gentleman should remember that whenever he had the power and had the people behind him he could always introduce local option. This Bill simply created a perpetual fund for the purpose of redeeming superfluous licences. Why should the Committee consider a time limit was necessary? If they desired to put a time limit on what was right and just then all he could say was that the temperance and Liberal Party was attempting to do a thing which they would not have thought of doing ten years ago. The Government by this Bill had given the Committee a chance of doing a great stroke for temperance reform; the magistrates had always had the power to deal with superfluous licences and the Government now came forward and said, "You always had the power to deal with licences, now here is this fund from which you may compensate the licence-holder; get along and get rid of all these superfluous
  872
  licences." Why should it be said that there should be a time limit in which to compensate the man whose licence was suppressed. In Ireland, when all the superfluous licences had gone, it became the law that a man should not have his licence taken away unless he broke the law, and that should be the law here. It worked very well in Ireland. Those in favour of a time limit being introduced into this Bill seemed to have overlooked or forgotten the fact that this Bill practically stopped for ever the granting of any new licences. They appeared to forget that the money which passed as compensation to dispossessed licence-holders was only equivalent to the value of a new licence being paid for the surrender of an old licence. It was a most extraordinary argument to put forward that a Bill which practically prevented new licences being granted should only be in force for fourteen years and that it should then expire. This Bill, if passed into law, would deal with all the old 1869 beerhouse licences and bring them into line with the others, and he himself believed that the only reason why the temperance party were opposed to this Bill was that it was introduced by the present Government. He opposed the Amendment.
  *MR. ROWLAND HUNTsaid "time limit," in his opinion was little more than a catchword, like "efficiency" and "free trade." Hon. Members seemed to forget that for many years it had been the custom of the justices to renew licences as a matter of course, and it would be admitted that the custom of the country continued for many years became to a great extent a law of itself. Licences had been renewed under this custom for a great number of years, and, in his opinion, it would be a very wrong thing indeed to take them away without giving the holders some compensation for them. With this time limit they were going to compel the trade to pay a large sum of money year after year, and at the end of the seven, four teen, or twenty-one years, whichever was suggested. The remaining licence-holders would find that they had paid all this money and got nothing for it, and, in

  873
  addition, could have their licences arbitrarily taken away. Even with local option he did not think the people of this country would be willing to subject these licence-holders to such unfair conditions. If they had a time limit they would be in a far worse position respecting the reduction of licences than they were at present. The only time limit which he felt they ought to recognise in the Bill was one which provided that no new licences should be granted to brewers. Brewers naturally tried to sell as much beer as they could, and consequently pressed the sale of their commodities at the public-houses controlled by them, and the English people were quite ready enough to drink alcholic liquors without extra inducements. What he should like to see was the prevention of the granting of new licences, except to associations similar to that of Lord Grey, which gave every opportunity to the people to be able to have good food and tea and coffee, as well as really good sound alcoholic liquors. He regarded the Bill as a real temperance reform, with nothing of grandmotherly legislation about it, and if this proposal could be inserted in the measure he believed it would be a thoroughly good one.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid the Amendment was one of which he heartily disapproved. It put a time limit on the operation of the first clause of the Bill, which was a clause chiefly relating to the machinery under which licences should be granted. The Committee did not yet know what particular form Clause I was likely to assume, and under those circumstances it appeared to him to be a somewhat foolish thing to put a limit to machinery the precise nature of which was not yet determined. It would be far better for the Committee to set up proper machinery for granting licences and not to enact that this Bill should not last more than seven years, the only result of which would be that it would, as everybody knew perfectly well, be put into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill at the end of each session, and go on year after year, but if the clause was passed as it now stood and the House found it necessary to amend the machinery, it could be easily amended. There was nothing,
  874
  therefore, to be said in favour of the particular Amendment before the Committee But when they came to a time limit up to which compensation was to be paid out of this Bill, then he did not agree that this was an attempt on the part of those who advocated a time limit to deal with the licence-holders in an unfair manner. The situation was this. It was admitted by everybody that there was no legal right to compensation, but owing to the weakness of the authorities there had grown up a custom of renewing licences, which had created in them some value, and it was thought to be a hard thing to take away a licence from a man without compensating him for his loss, and for his own part he thought it. I was better that they should buy back the right to deal with licences in the interest of the public.
  The main question was how much compensation was to be given, and in what form was it to be given. All were agreed that there must be compensation, but not as to the amount, and under this Bill it was very difficult to estimate the amount. It had been stated by the hon. and learned I Member for the Stretford Division that in his long experience he had never known a case in which more than ten years purchase was given for a licence in compensation cases. Would the Government say whether that was the meaning of the clause? If it was not, would they make the clause bear that interpretation? Because undoubtedly the trade itself—the brewers—put upon the Bill a very different interpretation to that which was put upon it by the hon. and learned Member for Stretford. The brewers, at any rate, expected to be compensated on a very different computation. If compensation I was to be quite just to the custom that had grown up, it was perfectly certain I that the value of the property should neither be raised nor depreciated by this Bill, but what had been the result? This was the kind of property which could be estimated in the gross, because it was admitted that 85 per cent. of the public-house licences were in the hands of brewery and distillery companies, by the quotations on the Stock Exchange. A friend of his had been good enough to make out an estimate of the value of all the ordinary stocks and shares of the brewery and distillery companies quoted

  875
  on the Stock Exchange before and after the introduction of the Bill. On 1st March, 1904, before the introduction of the Bill, the value of these ordinary stocks and shares was £24,629,000; on 1st June last the value of this same property was £25,812,000, an increase of about £1,200,000, or nearly 5 per cent. It was quite true that during the interval gilt - edged securities had considerably appreciated, but these were not gilt-edged securities, they were ordinary stocks and shares; such a thing might account for a rise in debentures, but not in ordinary stock. Consols had not risen 5 per cent. What had caused that rise? The introduction of the Bill; and no doubt when the Bill passed into law the rise would be greater still. That was what induced many people to think that the brewers and distillers were securing under the Bill, not only adequate and legitimate compensation for what they were asked to give up, but something more. The object of a time limit was to make a bargain now as to how much the so-called rights and equities of the publicans were worth and to make them a present of it. Some said that the value of a licence was ten years purchase; others said it was fourteen years, and others again said it was twenty years. He was Dot qualified to say which was the legitimate period, but whatever number of years purchase it was, let Parliament endow the publicans at once with the right to have that number of years purchase, and then as time went on compensate any owner of a licence whose licence was taken away for any reason other than misconduct, by giving him the value of the residue of that period. No one would be damnified by such a course, and at the end of the period the nation would be entitled to resume control of all licences, and the way would be open for the adoption of such system of temperance reform as the advanced opinion of the time suggested, by which the terrible sale of drink would be reduced. Such a scheme could not be described even by brewery and distillery I owners as anything but fair and equitable, and it would restore to the public the power they had now lost, possibly through the laches of the licensing justices, of dealing annually, triennially, or quinquennially, with the licences according to the interests not of the holders,
  876
  but of the public at large. The Bill appeared to provide for a new monopoly from the time new licences were granted—a monopoly that was to be put up to auction and sold to the highest bidder. That, in his opinion, was the most pernicious method of dealing with new licences that could possibly be devised, and later clauses of the Bill would have to be carefully considered. In the meantime, he failed to see anything unjust in such a time limit as he had described, and he greatly regretted that the curious manner in which the Rules of the House had operated would prevent Members from expressing by their votes their opinions in favour of a time limit.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid he concurred generally in the broad theory laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University. With regard to the particular Amendment before the Committee, whatever might be its effect upon the future working of the licensing system in England generally, Wales was especially interested in the question. His view was that the question of compensation was one for the settlement of those financially interested in the licences, though he agreed as to the advisability of supporting a scheme of compensation which would have the effect of facilitating the reduction of licences, such compensation to be levied on the trade and to have a distinct limit. The Licensing Commission, of which he had the honour of being a member, considered every phase of the time limit question, and, in the chairman's Report, there was recommended a scheme of compensation the dominant conditions of which were that it should not in any way interfere with the discretion of magistrates, that it should have the effect of reducing the number of licences to a statutory maximum, and that there should be a time limit. There was also an addendum to the effect that, having regard to the special position of the Principality, at the end of seven years Wales should have a large measure of popular control. Doubtless the opinion of the country as a whole was not ripe for such a settlement of the question, but, judged by every possible test, the popular feeling in Wales was overwhelmingly in favour of giving the Principality a large measure of popular control over licences; and, unless the Amendment were adopted, that settlement of

  877
  the licensing question on those lines, so far as Wales was concerned, would be shut out for a great many years. That being so, the Committee could not be surprised that it was the determination of Welsh Members to do their utmost to secure the Amendment of the Bill in this particular. Many circumstances in connection with licensing administration made the Amendment of especial importance to Wales. There was the question of the relation of the magistrates to the general opinion of the country, and also that of the somewhat exceptional position occupied by quarter sessions. Moreover, it must be evident that any scheme of compensation must be in the way of experiment, and, therefore, it was necessary that a time limit should be introduced. Public opinion altered, and in ten or fifteen years there might be a totally different situation. The operation of the Bill would be to reduce the number of licences and enhance the value of those that remained. These, he contended, were strong reasons for the insertion of a time limit. He hoped this question would not be settled entirely on Party considerations. He had always pleaded that in the settlement of important questions directly concerning the welfare of the community at large Party differences should be as far as possible forgotten, and the interests of the public alone considered, and he hoped that that course would be followed upon the present occasion.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYthought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University had made a mistake in confining the rise in value of stocks to which he had referred to brewery shares and gilt-edged securities, because in the period mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman there had generally been a considerable rise in English securities quoted on the Stock Exchange. As to the argument that the absence of a time limit would convert an insecure tenure, dependent upon the caprice or judgment of a Bench of magistrates, into a freehold, that was disproved by the right hon. Gentleman himself, because, if the value in brewery shares had been increased by 5 per cent., that meant that a house formerly worth £5,000 was now worth an additional £250, an infinitesimal increase which certainly did not represent the difference between
  878
  an insecure tenure and a freehold. Hon Members opposite seemed to have enhanced value of licences on the brain. He did not believe that temperance reform would be either encouraged or discouraged simply because somebody was going to get a little more for his property, but hon. Members by their arguments in support of the Amendment seemed more anxious to prevent publicans getting some increase in the value of their property than to promote the cause of temperance. The fear had also been expressed that public-house associations, such as Lord Grey's Trust, would not be encouraged, and that consequently the profits of the trade would continue to go to private individuals. What had that to do with the cause of temperance? Surely private individuals had as much right as anybody else to make profits, and if it ever became the intention of Parliament to prevent their so doing he would be sorry for the future of the country.
  *MR. EMMOTTsaid the hon. Baronet the Member for Peckham did not seem to grasp the elementary considerations which influenced Members on the Opposition side who were not fanatical teetotalers but who believed that there was a system to which they ought to approximate and work, and that that system was the elimination of private property without anything in the way of confiscation. There were two views in regard to licences—either they must keep to the present system under which the whole of the profit went to private individuals who were granted a monopoly under certain conditions; or they must have a system by which the interest in the sale of drink and the profits from the sale of drink should not belong to private individuals at all. If they were to have a perfect system of licences—perhaps it might be a long time before they got it—it must be a system in which no single person was interested in increasing the sale of drink for his own private profit. It was because this Bill was drawn without a time limit, and must make temperance reform more difficult, that they were anxious to introduce a time limit. The Prime Minister had deplored the system of monopoly in the drink traffic which at present existed. This Bill riveted that monopoly upon the

  879
  neck of the public for an indefinite time, and that was why the Opposition strongly objected to it. It gave—whether they called it a freehold or not—something like perpetuity of tenure to the present holders of licences subject only to their being dispossessed on payment of full compensation. To those who believed that it was desirable to get rid of the present monopoly, the elimination of private property seemed necessary. On this question the Bill was on the wrong line, and presented a permanent block to those who wished to approach the question from the point of view of public interest alone. The only way to avoid that in a Bill drawn like the present was to introduce the time limit for which they were now pleading—the system of a time limit plus compensation for those dispossessed during the period of that limit.
  With regard to the equity of the case, surely the idea of a time limit was an equitable compromise under present conditions. The present system was that no licence need be renewed if the magistrates did not desire to renew it. But the present practice, on the other hand, was that only three houses out of every 1,000 were on the average suppressed in a year. The time limit with compensation seemed to him to be an equitable compromise for the actual position in which they found themselves. What was the value of a licence? The hon. and learned Member for the Stretford Division had told them that the actual value of a licence was not what it would be if it were a freehold at all, but at least ten or twelve years purchase. Therefore he contended that for that a reasonable time limit—ten, twelve, fourteen, or he would give even more years in order to settle the question—would meet the equity of the case. With regard to the question of expediency the Prime Minister had said it would be unwise to introduce a time limit because the justices would not be able to borrow, and at once to expropriate a large number of licences. He believed it was the hon. and learned Member for the Stretford Division who said that if only they capitalised the annual sum that Manchester would receive under this Bill, they could at once dimmish the number of licences in Manchester to the scale recommended by the Minority Report of the Royal Commission.
  880
  But the hon. and learned Member forgot to point out that if such a course were adopted the number of licences then remaining in Manchester would be stereotyped for all time, and must remain whether the people wished it or not. Then with regard to expediency and equity, the Prime Minister had raised the question of the double insurance. He (Mr. Emmott) thought the double insurance could be managed by a trade which had been so enormously profitable as had the liquor trade during the last twenty or thirty years.
  But they were told the insecurity of the present system wassuch—an insecurity which would be intensified if a time limit were introduced—that no respectable man would undertake the trade of a publican. Where did the real insecurity of tenure of the public-houses exist? Did it exist in free houses or in tied houses? Everyone who had studied the question even in the most elementary way knew that the tenants of tied houses remained a far shorter time than the tenantsof free houses. He had seen the figures in regard to Leeds. Out of 379 tied houses in Leeds there were during the year 165 transfers, whereas out of 788 free houses there were only 109 transfers. What about the security of tenure there? It was a matter of common report that some owners of tied houses actually encouraged changes of tenants because they believed that by bringing in a new tenant they would bring in a new clientele with-out losing the old one. Insecurity of tenure did not arise from the present licensing system except so far as it had been with the system of tied houses, the existence of which many Members deplored. The Bill did nothing whatever to remedy the system of tied houses, at any rate it did not alter it for the better. The reason why he pleaded so strongly for this Amendment was that if a time limit were introduced they could deal with the question again de novo when the time limit had expired. Then they would have had more experience and they would be able to tell upon what line they could most equitably advance. He felt sure that this course would be for the benefit of the temperance cause. His hon. friend the Member for the Spen Valley Division said that if this Bill was passed without a time limit, the Liberal Party, when it

  881
  came into office and desired to deal with this question, would be forced to look for some direction in which to deal with the question in a satisfactory way. What direction would be left? First and principally the high tax. If the licensed houses in London paid the same taxes which they paid in New York then they would pay ten times as much as they were asked to pay to-day. He did not like the high-tax system at all, and he preferred a gradual approach in the direction of eliminating private profit from the trade. If they passed this Bill without a time limit they would put an absolute block in the way of any temperance reform in the future.
  LORD HUGH CECILsaid he ventured to address the Committee on this occasion with some diffidence, but he hoped with more brevity than had been shown in some of the very able speeches to which they had listened. He did not pretend to be able to exhaust the whole of the subjects which had been brought under review during the discussion of this Amendment. He noticed that the hon. Member for Spen Valley, in a very interesting speech, developed all kinds of theories, many of which to him appeared to go beyond the scope, not merely of this Amendment, but even of this Bill. The hon. Member for Spen Valley had conceded that there was something which belonged to the licensees which was not property, to which they had no legal right, and to which they had no moral right, but which he was prepared to pay them money for out of grace.
  MR. WHITTAKER: I said I was willing to arrange that they should pay one another.
  LORD HUGH CECILsaid he understood the hon. Member's theory was that they were not morally entitled to anything.
  MR. WHITTAKER: From us.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: From no one. They were entitled of grace, which the hon. Member distinguished from morality. He thought the distinction was unsound. When Portia said that the quality of mercy was not strained, she certainly did not intend to imply that there was no
  882
  moral claim upon Shylock. At any rate, the hon. Member concede I that there was something—and it did not really matter whit they called it—which was worth money; and what they had to determine was not what the publicans had a right to, but what it was the duty of the community to see that they got. It seamed to him it would be unfair for them to require that persons who were pursuing a trade which they had always assumed was an honest trade should be deprived in a larger measure than heretofore of something which was admittedly worth money. The hon. Member went on to say that he did not believe that security of property made any improvement in the management of public-houses. He confessed that that seemed to him to be one of those propositions which had an interesting bearing beyond the scope of this Bill, and he should like to know how the hon. Member would apply that proposition to land reform. Did the hon. Member mean that fixity of tenure which was given to the Irish tenants had not improved the cultivation of the land? He thought the Chief Secretary for Ireland might take a hint from this argument, for there were many points strikingly illustrated by it. Contrast how the Irish tenant, who had no legal right at all, had been treated in the controversy with his landlord and the way it was proposed the holders of licences should be treated in respect of the State. The Ulster tenant, for example, before 1881 had a thing called tenant right which was worth money. Was that a moral right, or a legal right, or an equitable claim, or something which deserve I compensation by grace or favour? It was evident that the real question was whether, as a matter of fact, the licence-holders would feel aggrieved and, according to the general standard of morality of the community, ought to feel aggrieved. He thought it had always been admitted that if a person had fixity of tenure he managed things better and made more improvements than if he was simply a tenant at will. That was the view of the hon. Member for Oldham, who maintained that this Bill would add to the security and implied that if it did it would have an increased claim upon his support.

  883
  His right hon. friend the Member for Cambridge University developed, with characteristic force and lucidity, a very interesting theory as to the proper manner of dealing with licences. He, too, admitted that there was a something which the State ought to compensate; but he said that that might be compensated by giving something to the whole class of licensees, a something which was to diminish year by year and finally expire at the end of the time limit. That might or might not be a just way of dealing with the subject, but it was not in the least within the scope of the Bill. The Bill did not buy out anybody or anything. What the State did was to, insist on the members of the trade themselves paying a certain amount of compensation to the particular individuals who, in the interest of the community generally, were compelled to abandon their licences. He had always thought that the Bill might be criticised with some severity from the point of view of the trade, on the ground that the compensation was not really paid by the State at all, but by the trade itself. But, whatever might be the force of his arguments, it was evident that the case of his right hon. friend did not really arise. If a time limit were introduced the persons engaged in the trade would suffer under this unfair disadvantage. They would pay their share of compensation which was paid to particular individuals during the duration of the time limit and they would afterwards have no security of tenure at all themselves. Therefore, they would, as it were, suffer twice over.
  But the real argument he was anxious to put before the Committee was the argument of duty, which, undoubtedly, was at the bottom of the great mass of demand for a time limit outside that House. An enormous number of people said "We do not mind this Bill unless it ties our hands for the future." He apprehended that the great mass of the Church of England temperance opposition to the Bill, as far as they were opposed to it, was upon those lines; but it seemed to him that it rested on a misconception of what the principle of the Bill was and what the Bill did. He did not think it tied the
  884
  hands of any temperance reformer in the least. He thought it only put into an Act of Parliament what every Member on that side of the House, and not a few on the other side, had always recognised as an equitable doctrine. This Bill did not stand in the way of municipalising the trade or of doing anything which the House of Commons might think was fair and just. The Bill did not say, it did not imply, that they were not to take away licences, after a period, with notice. The only principle involved in the Bill was that the licence was not to be taken away without notice and without compensation. It did not go an inch beyond that. It would be quite competent for the hon. Member for Spen Valley to bring in a Bill declaring that at some future date, say twenty or thirty years hence, every licence should cease in the country. This Bill did not deal with that question at all but it dealt with what were to be the rights of magistrates under the existing law as to refusing licences without compensation. It did not interfere in the least with the future right of Parliament to set up whatever time limit it might think proper under which licences might cease altogether and after due notice given. And why was that not fair? If they set up a certain limit which every licence-holder in the country knew, and at the end of which his right as a licensed victualler came to an end, he made his arrangements. If the time was long and reasonable enough, he was enabled to get back all the capital he had put into the business, and he would go out without losing a penny. But if they were going to have in the future a system of refusing licences from year to year, they maintained the element of uncertainty; and it was precisely that element of uncertainty which occasioned the unfairness. It was because people did not know whit they had to expect that they were not able to make their arrangements.
  What their real object should be was to carry some measure of reform without inflicting hardship on any class of the community; and, if the circumstance of hardship remained, the licensed victuallers would still have the moral ground of complaint that they had against the discretionary refusal of the magistrates at the present time. It seemed to

  885
  him that the House would have its hands as much untied in the future as in the past; but, in any case, could anything be more unskilful or unwise in legislation than to set up a time limit for the future and not to introduce into the Bill a plan for what they were going to do when the time limit came to an end? What a state of chaos would be introduced. The Committee knew very well how time limits operated, for they had had experience of that kind with regard to Irish land, for every fifteen years the land system in Ireland was turned upside down. Was the whole trade to be upset every fourteen or fifteen years because no one knew how Parliament was going to deal with this discretionary power of the magistrates? If there was no plan, at any rate which this Parliament could accept, why burden the Bill with a time limit which gave them nothing whatever, which was not in any respect necessary, but merely aggravated the sense of uncertainty and doubt for the future? The only way of dealing with the subject was to pass this Bill as it stood. Then, if public opinion developed and they saw a way of dealing with the question, nothing in this Bill would stop it. But do not let them interfere with the operation of this Bill, which was really a small and modest proposal, and merely designed to get over the present critical situation under which one bench of magistrates adopted one system and another bench a different system in dealing with licences. He believed that, if the critics outside the House would accept the view that this Bill was only intended to meet the exigency which had arisen in quite recent times owing to the action of a few benches of magistrates, and not fundamentally to alter or revolutionise the licensing system of the country the opposition to it would be very much diminshed. He was certain that the great cause of temperance was not advanced by those who threatened to kill a cat by some other way than hanging it.
  MR. ROBSONsaid the Committee were indebted to the noble Lord opposite for the admirable and lucid speech he had just delivered. A great politican and philosopher once said that all political problems were questions of
  886
  morals. He thought the noble Lord opposite had failed to realise that this was in a large measure a question of morals. He invited the Committee to look at some of the moral elements involved. He did not think there could be any doubt as to the existing right of the licensee, because his existing legal right was expressed every time they used the word "licence." The word "licence" had been used as though it were a property going beyond the year for which it was granted. It had been admitted that a licence was an interest which existed only for a year, and at the end of that year what was the duty of the community in regard to a licence? It was the duty of the community to consider whether, at the end of each year, it was necessary that a licence should be renewed. If the magistrates were of opinion that for any reason whatever the number of licences had become in excess of the legitimate demand of the population, it was not merely their right to refuse a renewal of any licence, but it was their duty. He knew no kind of judicial discretion or Tight which was not in proper circumstances a duty. No representative of the community was entrusted with rights unless in proper circumstances he performed the duty of exercising those rights. This Bill proposed to put a prohibitory limit on the exercise of a public duty. It seemed to him that those hon. Members who had taken part in this discussion had not considered the question sufficiently from that point of view.
  What did the history of licensing show? If they traced it from its earliest days they would find how readily it had conformed to public opinion upon the question of temperance. In the latter part of the eighteenth century the design of the Government was to raise money by increasing the consumption of spirituous liquors, and an evil state of things was brought about. Whit would have been the condition of things to-day if the magistrates had not become alive to their duty with regard to the then existing state of things? There was no question of right in those days when the magistrates came to the conclusion that it was necessary to diminish the number of gin shops. There was no question of compensation then, and they put the licences upon a proper footing. The licences had

  887
  been granted in the public interest, and it became a paramount interest to diminish them and the magistrates acted accordingly, and as soon as the great stress on the Revenue was taken off the licences were everywhere diminished with results extremely beneficial to the community. This Bill was deliberately designed to prevent the magistrates from exercising that duty and performing it freely without impediment according to the existing state of public opinion. The noble Lord's argument seemed to imply that they should prevent the magistrates from performing that which was their principal duty. The noble Lord also said that nothing so improved an industry as fixity of tenure; but that argument seemed to point to the conclusion that the whole system of annual licences was wrong, and that licences should be made freeholds. The third point raised by the noble Lord was undoubtedly expounded in a way that created an impression upon the House. That point was that the noble Lord thought the Bill did not tie the hands of any future Parliament. The noble Lord I seemed to regard it as a misconception on that side of the House to suppose that this Bill would limit the discretion of Parliament in dealing with licences hereafter. If that were so undoubtedly this Bill would meet with much less opposition. If it were really the case that in the next Parliament or next session they would be at liberty to propose a time limit and that the Bill did not tie the hands of Parliament, many hon. Members would not be so anxious for the result of the division. The Bill prevented the unconditional control of the magistrates. According to the law of England the magistrates had hitherto the right to refuse the renewal of a licence without cause shown. They would no longer be able to act on that uncontrolled discretion. What had the publican had up to now? A licence with a strong reasonable hope of renewal. It was only a hope, though it was a hope which had a market value, and it depended on the exercise of a discretion by a particular body. It was unreasonable, inequitable, and unfair, to deprive that body of the discretion with which it had been entrusted in the public interest.
  888
  Apparently it seemed to shock more or less the moral sense of some hon. Members opposite to put in any kind of limit whatever. One Member after another had said that the same difficulty would be found at the end of the time limit. He asked the Committee to consider what that involved. A publican approched the justices for a licence and they said to him that they would give him a licence for one year, or five, six, seven, or fourteen years. But if the magistrates said to him, "Remember at the end of fourteen years we will not renew the licence," and then, when the time limit expired, he approached the magistrates and asked a renewal of his licence was he to be supported in telling them that it was inequitable, unfair, and bad morals that they should keep their word and refuse the licence. The question had been treated on the other side as if the publicans had a permanent right of property in their licences. He would like to hear some definite declaration from some member of the Government as to what their view on this question of freehold in a licence was. He was somewhat puzzled why it was that they had not heard it from the Home Secretary, who was in charge of the Bill, or from the Solicitor-General, who was in charge of the Home Secretary. They were dealing now with the most vital point in the Bill, and he now thought they ought to hear from some member of the Government what in their opinion was the true state of the existing law in regard to licences. The learned Solicitor-General had said that there was something corresponding to a freehold, and that had been vigorously combated by the Prime Minister and his hon. and learned friend the Member for the Stretford Division-Ten years would be a very high scale of compensation in the case of a public-house taken under the Land Clauses Act. The licence was treated as having an element of risk in it, and the Government desired that it should continue on that footing, for the compensation was not to be assessed on the freehold value, but on the value of the house as it would have been if this Bill had not passed; in other words, the licence was subject to determination at the will of the local magistrates. They admitted that the licensee had no property rights, but only a moral

  889
  expectation to which the community it self might in its own interest put an end whenever it thought fit. A great right of public control was to be hampered and practically prohibited. That was the reply to the noble Lord who said the Bill would not tie their hands in the future. The instinct for reform, the desire for temperance, would be more than handicapped if the Bill passed, and he begged the Committee to consider this proposal carefully and well.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he was surprised to hear the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich say, if he understood him correctly, that the present position of the licensed trade and the situation which had led to the introduction of this Bill was that the monopoly of the licensed trade had been more or less threatened by the action of the magistrates in the exercise of their discretion. This Bill clearly stopped the magistrates from further dealing in their absolute discretion with licences, and imposed the limitation that they should take away no licence without paying compensation from a strictly limited fund. The noble Lord had said that this was merely a temporary expedient to reduce the magistrates to a sense of their duty, and that there was nothing to prevent Parliament from passing a measure under which all licences should terminate at the end of a certain period. He would welcome that declaration very much more from a member of the Government than from his noble friend. Certainly he had heard no indications of that kind from the Front Bench, and he should be extremely surprised to learn from any speech members of the Government might make that any ideas of that kind were floating in their minds. He confessed he did not understand why his noble friend was so inconsistent on the point as to say that, while it was perfectly legitimate to pass a general law bringing about the absolute termination of licences, he was entirely adverse to saying exactly the same thing within the four corners of this Bill. Although there might be certain difficulties about uniting the two ideas of paying compensation and the termination of licences on a time limit, yet if his noble friend was prepared to contemplate both ideas in different Bills, he could not conceive that it was beyond the ingenuity of the Front Bench to com-
  890
  bine them together in this Bill. He felt, and he was sure that many others on that side of the House felt, the very greatest difficulty in regard to the question of a time limit, and particularly the difficulty of including it in this measure. Those who desired, as he did very strongly, to deal fairly with a trade which had been led to expect the renewal of its licences, subject, of course, to good conduct, felt at the same time a sense of duty to the community which forbade them to welcome or endorse a Bill which closed the door to future measures of temperance reform. Under the existing system, by which the magistrates had an absolute discretion over redundant licences, there was a control over the trade which the passing of this Bill would inevitably tend to weaken, and while, perhaps, that was an inevitable consequence of any Bill which conferred the right of compensation upon the individual licensee, those who desired to see the cause of temperance advance must recognise the necessity for a review of the condition of affairs at the expiration of some definite period of years. A time limit of seven years was wholly unacceptable to those on that side of the House who desired to deal fairly with the question. For his part, he suggested, twenty years as a fair term for which to fix the limit, but an Amendment had been moved to convert seven years into fourteen, and that had his support. If it was not possible for those opposite to accept some modification of the extremely narrow term of years suggested in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Anglesey, he feared it would be impossible for many on that side of the House to support them by their votes.
  *MR. WORSLEY - TAYLORsaid he proposed to confine himself to the question whether there should be a time limit introduced into the Bill at all. There were two tests which ought to be applied to any proposition of this kind. The first was—Is it consistent with the public interest? and the second was—Is it consistent with justice to the individual? If it did not fulfil both of these conditions then the proposition must be rejected by the House. He thought the proposal of a time limit sinned against both, and he therefore, must record his vote against it. He was not, however, like his hon. friend

  891
  the Member for the Toxteth Division enamoured of the existing state of things. There ought to be a considerable reduction in the number of licensed houses, and this was the opinion of the country, but various schemes to bring this about had failed. Justices desirous of reducing the number of public-houses had got the owners together in different towns, and had tried to get them to agree on schemes of compensation among themselves. That had failed. There had been a system of insurance by public companies, and that had failed. There had been the system of mere suppression, and that had failed because the conscience of the country had risen against it. In his own personal experience in the last three years as an executor he had known the estate duties levied, not on ten years, but on twenty years purchase, and under conditions of that kind justices would not agree to confiscate such property, for that was what it would amount to. Everybody was dissatisfied with the present state of things, and was seeking for a remedy.
  The want of compensation had been the fatal stumbling-block in the way of the reduction of licences. It was that difficulty, together with the absence of control over the ante-1869 houses, that this Bill of the Government would remedy. Hon. Members opposite had used such expressions as that the Bill would "tie the hands" of the authorities, and that there would be "no effective reduction of licences," and that the Bill "would make reform more difficult." But would it? [Cries of "No," and "Yes."] He would apply the test of the figures the hon. Member for Oldham had given just now. He had said that in the present state of things the total number of reductions was three per 1,000, and as there were about 100,000 licences that meant a reduction of 300 in a year? That, he presumed, included reduction for all causes, misconduct, uusuitability, and so on; therefore the reductions on the ground of non-requirement would be less still. What did the Bill make possible? According to the latest figures they had an annual return of the compensation fund of £1,200,000. In the majority of cases ante-1869 houses would be the first to go, as they most pressingly required reduction, and as they
  892
  would be the cheapest to buy out, and it was over the mark to put a considerable number of them at £1,000 apiece. So that the immediate result of this Bill would be that the next year, after the compensation fund had been levied, something like 1,000 licences or more could be taken away, and steady reduction, more gradual no doubt, could continue year after year as long as it was necessary to take away licences on the ground of redundancy. How, then, was it possible to justify such expressions as hon. Members opposite had used? And that would be done without a shilling of expense to the country! That was not his idea of creating a vested interest in the trade; on the contrary, it would make it more easy and simple and less costly to dispossess larger numbers of houses which were not in accordance with the public interest. Why was it necessary to put a time limit to beneficent action of that kind?
  And if there were a time limit what was to happen at the end of it? At present a block existed, of which every one on both sides complained. Was that the status quo to which they were to revert? What would be the effect of the tenant coming before the justices and pleading that for seven or fourteen years he had been paying to the compensation fund a sum which appeared to him roughly about 15 per cent. on the annual value of his house in order to compensate people whose houses were not so well conducted? Would not the justices be likely to consider the strength of that plea? Every one who voted for a time limit would vote deliberately for increasing the difficulty which now existed. What would reversion to the status quo mean in the case of the ante-1869 houses? Were they going to put a provision in the Bill by which at the end of the time limit what were left of those houses should again enjoy their present immunity from control? Did any hon. Member opposite desire that? The alternative was even worse. Every man who had invested his money in an ante-1869 house had done so on the faith of the statute, which said that so long at the house was well conducted he should be absolutely irremovable on the ground of non-requirement. Could anybody say that it was right to

  893
  induce those people to come into this general scheme, to deprive them of their status of irremovability, ask them to contribute to this fund for seven or fourteen years, and then to turn round and confiscate their licences at the end of that period? A more monstrous piece of robbery had never been proposed. This time limit would be a time limit to the usefulness and justice of the Bill, and for the reasons he had stated he intended to oppose it.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down had made a great point of the difficulty which would be created, if this Amendment were carried, in dealing with the 1869 beerhouses. In his opinion the 1869 beerhouses were really a small matter in the whole question of temperance reform. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] What proportion were they to the whole? [MINISTERIAL cries of "One-third."] One-third of the value of the whole trade? [MINISTERIAL cries of "One-third of the total number."] If the value was not the important question, then the question of compensation became comparatively insignificant. There were two classes of these beerhouse licences—off and on—and the off-licences were abolished without a word of protest in the ordinary course of public legislation. If the community resumed the free control, which they ought never to have lost, of the whole licensing system, the position of the 1869 beerhouses would not be a real obstacle to complete reform. The main argument of the hon. and learned Member, persuasive as it sounded, was not, he thought really persuasive to the Committee, because it was based on an assumption which was diametrically opposed to the views of the majority of temperance reformers—namely, that our existing system of licensing was a thoroughly bad one and must be changed. The hon. and learned Member assumed that the existing system could never be changed; that it must go on, and that all that those who were looking to temperance reform could do was to get control of the existing system which could never be got rid of. The existing system was that of carrying on the liquor trade of the country for private profit, and there was not a word in the hon. and learned Mem-
  894
  ber's argument to show that he contemplated that system's ever being changed. Regarding that system as being incapable of change, the hon. and learned Menber said this Bill was the best they could possibly have. His objection to the Bill was that it made any change in the system impossible. They were told that a time limit was not suitable to the present Bill. No doubt that was because the Bill was solely adapted to the present system. It was a Bill to perpetuate the present system. The Amendment was intended to fix a date when the present system should come to an end. That was why there was so much opposition to the Amendment.
  The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich pleaded for the Bill because it was such a little one. Would any Member of the Government endorse the noble Lord's interpretation of the Bill? The noble Lord contended that, supposing this Bill were passed, there would be nothing to prevent another Government from introducing a Bill with a time limit in it that might entirely change our licensing system; that it was a small Bill for carrying on, and might be prefaced by the words "So long as the existing system remains unchanged the justices shall act in a certain method." But there was nothing of that kind in the Bill; it was not that which had won the support of the trade for this Bill. The Bill had been interpreted by the trade as giving them a title which it would be beyond the power of Parliament to take away. The noble Lord had told them that the Bill did nothing of the kind. Until a member of the Government would tell them which was the correct view, it seemed to him that the noble Lord had no case, according to his own argument, for resisting this Amendment. This Bill meant goodbye to temperance reform of any other kind. It was because he believed that they would have no real temperance reform under this Bill that he wished the time limit to be introduced. The existing licences under the existing system more than covered the ground. If they were established by law and if reduction were limited by this Bill, the ground would remained covered and there would be no room for the introduction of any other

  895
  system. At the end of a time limit, progressive communities would be free to try other systems, such as local option and the public-house trust system and municipalisation. Without such experiment the best system could not be found, and during the time limit what injustice was imposed on the licence holders? All that they were entitled to was the existing practice, and not the law, on the part of the licensing authorities; and that they would have.
  The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich compared the equitable claim of the licence holders to that of the Irish tenants. But when they talked of an equitable claim let them be quite clear that they compared like with like. The Irish tenant created his interest; while the licence holder had had his given to him by the State. That made all the difference. He was perfectly prepared to consider equity provided there were any prospect that the community would, after a reasonable time, resume its rights. The exact number of years of a time limit was a small circumstance in the great question of whether the community was ever to have its hands free. The prospects of temperance reform were never brighter if only they wore given a chance. The hon. and learned Member said that the conscience of the country had risen against the action of the licensing authorities. It was the stirring of the conscience of the country that produced that action; and that action had produced this Bill. It was not a Bill to enable licences to be reduced, but a Bill to prevent licences from being reduced. Did any one suppose that this Bill would have been introduced but for the Prime Minister's speech of a year ago, and every one knew what was the origin of that speech. If the Bill were for a limited time, then the objections to it would largely disappear; but the trade only supported the Bill because it shut the door in the face of any other system. The trade was bound up with the sale of drink for private profit. There were two parties to this matter—the community and the trade. All were prepared to admit certain claims on behalf of the trade; but only on condition that in the long run the rights of the community were restored. This Bill would give away those rights; and the Government
  896
  were to that extent guilty of a breach of trust.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,)said that he should I vote for the Amendment if he believed that the consequences which the right hon. Gentleman had set forth would ensue from the Bill. But he did not believe that the measure would arrest all future temperance reform. But they required to look rather closely at the Bill and see what its true character was before that proposition could be made out. He agreed that if it could be really said that the Bill stereotyped for all time the existing opinion with regard to temperance reform there would be a genuine objection to it. But the measure simply dealt with the state of facts which an experience of thirty years had proved—namely, that magistrates would not reduce licences as fast as many temperance reformers wished, because to do so would involve hardship and injustice on many persons. It was an injustice which stopped a reform which was dear to the hearts of many Members on both sides of the House. The Bill enabled justices without violating their sense of justice to reduce licences more rapidly and freely at the expense of the trade, whom it compelled to set up a system of compulsory mutual insurance and to pay compulsory premiums. The means adopted were analogous to the principle lying at the root of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The loss was diffused over the industry in which the individuals were engaged and not on the individual. The Bill enabled the justices to reduce licences without hardship; it diffused the loss resulting from reduction over the whole trade instead of making it fall inequitably and harshly on the individuals whose licences were taken away. He repudiated the idea that the Bill would stereotype all licences for the future, and denied that it deprived the people of the power of introducing licensing reform in the future. It would be competent for hon. Members opposite, notwithstanding this Bill, to institute some system of municipalisation or local option if the opinion of the country liked those reforms, combined with the granting of fair terms of compensation. If, on the other

  897
  hand, hon. Members could persuade the people to favour spoliation without compensation in twenty years time there was nothing to prevent them. It would involve another Bill, but this Bill would not tie the hands of the country for all time. But hon. Members were now asking the House to postpone an act of confiscation. What was suggested from that point of view would, to his mind, be a gross injustice. What was worse was to attempt to subject those who entered into an insurance fund to what would be little less than spoliation. He could not see that that would be right or just from any point of view. Those who were in favour of that policy and wished to carry it into effect must get the public to agree with them and then they would find nothing in this Bill to prevent them.
  The Bill simply provided facilities for the reduction of licences and for the creation of a compulsory insurance fund, and it avoided injustice by spreading the contribution to the fund over the whole of the trade. He therefore asked hon. Members to address themselves to this question. What was there in the Bill which imposed a fatal barrier to temperance reform? That was the whole point. [OPPOSITION ironical laughter."] Well, he did not think that any one disputed that the Bill would, under present circumstances, facilitate the reduction of licences. ["OPPOSITION cries of "Oh," and MINISTERIAL cheers.] The hon. Members who had preceded him had not disputed that; on the contrary they had admitted that there would be a large reduction of licences. It had been estimated by Mr. Sidney Webb that the reduction in London alone would be 25 percent. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh," and an HON. MEMBER: Does that not mean if the contributions are continuous?] Of course there was to be no limit of time in the Bill; if there was a limit of time there would be an end of the fund. He had already pointed out the power which remained hereafter to revive the question, if the country was prepared for it. The arguments in favour of the Bill, as he had tried to state them, were, first, the reduction of licences; second, the removal of the great obstacle which at present existed to temperance reform—namely, the obstacle to the reduction of licences; third, the diffusion of the loss by
  898
  spreading it over the trade, and, further, that the compulsory insurance would not interfere with future reforms. He could see nothing to prevent any future reform provided it were not a reform without compensation, which in the eyes of the Government meant confiscation, but a reform with compensation, which could always be fairly argued.
  *MR. NUSSEYsaid that the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken practically admitted that this Bill created a vested interest, and gave the licensed holders something they did not possess at the present time. It would, therefore, be admitted that the Bill was a new obstacle to temperance reform, and would make a new present to the trade. The right hon. Gentleman was very careful not to define the nature of a licence at the present time. He treated it as a vested interest; but looking at the nature of a licence it was quite impossible to hold that view. A licence was not in any sense a freehold property. It could not be given away; it was limited as regarded time and restrictions, and in a great many other ways in which freehold property was not limited. From that point of view certainly a licence was not in the nature of a vested interest. From the legal point of view it was not in the nature of a vested interest or freehold property, according to the law as laid down in "Sharpe v. Wakefield". It was a question of the custom, of renewal; and it seemed to him that when a licence holder came before a bench of magistrates and asked for the renewal of his licence, he was in very much the same position as a man whose lease had expired and who was asking his landlord to renew it. If the man was a good tenant, and if he paid his rent, the landlord would probably renew the lease. In the same way, the bench of magistrates would ascertain if the licence holder had conducted his business properly, and if he had the licence was again granted; but otherwise it was refused. The whole case for compensation was argued on the basis that the custom of renewal had existed almost from time immemorial. It was admitted on all hands that the licence holder could have no legal expectation; and if it were said that he had a good expectation that could only be because it was customary. As had been pointed out, an expectation in business could be sold if it were a

  899
  hopeful and sanguine expectation. How much was the licence holder entitled to by way of compensation; how much was his expectation, worth? It was worth much, less than a freehold or a vested interest; but that it was worth something he was ready to admit. He thought it was worth something on the ground of expediency alone. It seemed to him to be a case of employer and employed. A man was employed from year to year, and when the employer wished to exercise his power to turn that man out, the case was put to him as one of hardship. Then the employer would say that he would give the man three months' extra notice so as to enable him to rind a new situation. That was as much as could be expected by a licence holder whose licence was not to be renewed, so much compensation as would enable him to find some other equally good employment and to turn his attention to a new trade in which he would be in no worse position than he was before. The Minority Report recommended seven years; an hon. Gentleman opposite proposed fourteen years; he himself had also an Amendment on the subject. But whatever the length of the time limit was, at the expiration of it they would be face to face with a very grave position. A man would ask why his licence was taken away without compensation after the time limit, when it could have been taken the year before with compensation. He thought, however, there were several ways of meeting the difficulty. Depend upon it, at the end of any time limit they would be face to face with a very grave state of affairs. At the same time he was in favour of some time limit, because he thought it placed the whole question of the right to compensation on an entirely different basis, and did not regard a licence as either a vested interest or a freehold. For his part, he should certainly vote for the Amendment; and he sincerely hoped that the Government would see their way not to endow this wealthy trade with still greater wealth than they had already. Further, if the Bill were passed in its present form, it would place a barrier for ever against a great many
  900
  schemes for temperance reform which he hoped the country would deal with in the future.
  *MR. BOUSFIELDsaid he had an Amendment on the Paper, the object of which was to introduce a new clause to the effect that after the 31st December, 1904, the compensation fund should become, as it were, a private fund administered by a board elected by publicans, brewers, and others interested in the trade, which should have power to levy, collect, distribute, and manage the fund privately. In a sense, it might be called a time limit; and in another sense its object was to provide, after the Bill had done its work, that the machinery should remain, but in private hands. He wished to ask if that Amendment could be discussed apart from the present Amendment.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member will be precluded from raising his Amendment, assuming the Committee negatives the present Amendment, because that will mean that the Committee has decided that there shall be no time limit; and if there is to be no time limit, obviously the proposal of the hon. Member would be contrary to the decision of the Committee.
  *MR. BOUSFIELDsaid he was much obliged to the Chairman, and that being so he would shortly state the nature of his Amendment. He ventured to submit that his proposal would not make any difference in the machinery of the Bill, or in the security which those interested in the liquor trade would have. It would not make any difference in the power of magistrates to utilise the machinery of the Bill to diminish the number of licences, but he felt certain that as regarded public opinion it would make a very great difference indeed. He ventured to say it would be impossible to get out of the minds of a large section of the public the notion which existed that under this Bill the liquor trade would get something they had not got

  901
  now—namely, a security of tenure, the value of which was measured by a very large sum of money, and which would be inimical to the interests of temperance. They had to meet under this Bill a state of things which in its essence was, after all only temporary. They had to meet a demand by the magistrates and by the public behind the magistrates for a change of policy with reference to public-houses. For a great many years past the magistrates had not been doing their, duty; and the public had not considered it the duty of magistrates to keep down the number of public-houses to the limit of public requirements. The consequence had been that public-houses had grown until their numbers were out of proportion to the requirements of the public; and that tended to the spread of intemperance in this country. A change had now come over public opinion, and a consequent change in the practice of the magistrates; and he ventured to think that the Government would have been justified in making compensation out of public funds instead of out of trade funds, because public opinion ought to pay something for the change which it demanded; and they ought not to change a policy, which was long established, without seeing that persons who suffered hardship thereby were compensated. The point he wished to make was, that the general necessity which had arisen only needed temporary machinery to meet it; and that they would not be justified in electing any other than temporary machinery for the purpose. They now had hundreds of public-houses more than they ought to have in proportion to the population; and they were all agreed that there should be a steady diminution in their number until they got back to something like the right proportion.
  902
  That necessarily involved some hardship, some compensation, and some special machinery. But it was hoped that within a certain number of years that machinery would practically have done its work; and that the number of public-housed would be reduced to a fair proportion in comparison with the population. There was not, however, the slightest doubt that when tie number of public-houses was reduced to some fixed proportion, question would be constantly crop nine up as to whether there were too many public houses in one locality, owing to a change in population, or too few in another. It seemed to him that the proper course was to use public machinery in order to grapple with the only difficulty they now had to grapple with—namely, to reduce the public-houses to a right proportion; and, after that, to put the machinery under private control. The fund could still be a compulsory fund; but it could be collected and managed by the trade, so that magistrates might have full and unfettered discretion after the expiration of a certain time to close any public-house they pleased, within certain limits, without any reference to the question of compensation, knowing fall well; that there would be compensation. The compensation being for the trade, that seemed to him to he a very hopeful solution of the question of the time limit and the other difficulties they had before them. There was a very widespread feeling in the country against making the machinery proposal in the Bill permanent. The object which the Government had in view would be achieved in a limited number of years. There was no necessity for permanent machinery; and his proposal would satisfy public sentiment, which was manifested

  903
  very keenly day by day, against permanently restraining the discretion of the magistrates.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid they had heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary a speech full of singular plausibility. The right hon. Gentlemen asked them to explain how they could, without committing injustice upon people who might be well-to-do or might be poor, lake from them by legislation the licences which they at present enjoyed; and secondly what in justice this Bill perpetrates in the way of preventing future legislation on the subject. The attitude of hon. Members on that side of the House had been admirably expressed by his hon. friend the Member for the Sped Valley. They regarded the position of the holders of licences from the proper legal standpoint as merely licensees; and they contended that this Bill entirely destroyed the legal position which, as licensees, they had occupied for a very long series of years. In other words, the Bill created a vested interest which never existed before; and by creating that vested interest they were preventing the Legislature from dealing with licences in the future, either by way of extinction, or by the reduction of their number, or by any other method which might act prejudicially to the present holders of licences. That was he answer to the right hon. Gentlemant. It was entirely begging the question, if he might say so, for the right hon. Gentleman to say that hon. Members on that side were proposing a sort of prospective confiscation. Prospective confiscation could only be made possible by the operation of the Bill. As the law stood, there could be no confiscation in refusing the renewal of a licence on any ground
  904
  which the law at present provided; but the Bill put Parliament in this position, that whenever it dealt with licences in the future it would be not only morally but legally blind compensate the holders of such licences. Without the operation of this Bill there need be no compensation, and what he wished to press on the Committee was, that not only from the legal standpoint mercy, put also from the standpoint of practical experience and common sense there had never been any vested interest in the enjoyment of a licensed house. If ever there had grown up the idea among licenses that they had some vested interest, and that they had a moral right to the renewal of their licences, that was rudely shattered many years ago in the case of "Sharpe v. Wakefield." He was not contending and he thought his hon. friend the Member for Spen Valley would agree with him, that there might not be cases in which a man had invested his savings in public-house property, and probably exceptional provision might be made for such cases in any large scheme dealing with licences. There might be cases of hardship; but it was idle to contend that the brewers of this country had not had ample notice, not merely by the case of "Sharpe v. Wakefield," but by other decisions, that their relation to the ownership of public-houses was that of licensees and nothing more.
  And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.
  Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.