§ Considered in Committee;—
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
§ Clause 1:—
§
Amendment again 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 again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§
Amendment again 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 proposed Amendment."
§ *Mr. A. K. LOYD (Berkshire, Abingdon)said if only those who were against this Bill were in favour of a time limit, he, being in favour of the Bill, would have been content to give a silent vote against a time limit. But he had been much impressed by the fact that many of those who agreed with this measure in its principle and its scope were desirous of seeing a time limit engrafted on it. The argument in favour of a time limit proceeded on the assumption that a time limit for compensation for the non-renewal of a licence was exactly similar in its effects to a notice to terminate an agreement. The proposition of the right hon. Member for Aberdeen that the claim for compensation rested entirely on expectation, and if only a reasonable 995 notice to terminate that expectation could be given no hardship could arise was based on entirely fallacious reasoning, because, in the first place, a great deal of the claim rested on the compulsory outlay and continued outlay up to the very end of the period. Moreover, under a notice to terminate an agreement or expectation the person under notice knew the exact date of the end of his interest, and as it approached could curtail his expenditure, withdraw, and, re-invest his capital and minimise his losses in every way; but under a time limit for compensation for non-renewal of a licence a totally different position was presented. The licence-holder was ignorant as to whether he would or would not be deprived of all further interest, and, until the blow fell, would be not only unable to curtail outlay and withdraw his capital, but compelled to continue his outlay in order to keep his premises suitable for their purpose. Under those circumstances it was not possible for the licence-holder to regard a time limit as an opportunity given to him to enable him to minimise his losses and so protect himself from a fixed future disability. Here, both the fixed date and the liberty to curtail outlay would be wanting. So much, for the underlying fallacy of treating a time limit to compensation as equivalent to a notice to end an agreement. Now what were the arguments for the time limit itself? It had been argued that there was no right to compensation at all, and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen had frequently said that there was "no right," "no property," "no vested interest." The Government had been accused of conferring for the first time a right and creating vested interests where none existed. But the people of this country believed a great injustice was being done; that a loss was being sustained by the licence-holder for the public good through no fault of his own, and it was that which was the basis of the compensation which was being called for throughout the country. The public cared no more for these distinctions as to "vested interests," "rights," or "properties," than they did for a metaphysical discussion, and if the Committee could be spared all these refinements about vested rights, property, and the like, an immense deal of time and labour would be saved.
996 Another argument adduced was that this Bill interfered with the discretion the magistrates had exercised from time immemorial; and that was a plausible argument because, in a way, the discretion to which it was now found necessary to append this compensation was the same discretionary power which had long been exercised without any such compensation. But what was left out of sight was the fact that the discretion of the magistrates up to within recent years was exercised on grounds entirely different to those on which it bad come to be exercised since. Thirty years ago and till recently, the only grounds upon which magistrates refused to renew an existing licence were either that the house was grossly misconducted or unfit, or that the premises were "unnecessary.". In those days, "unnecessary" meant that the premises were no longer required to be used as a public-house, because business had receded from them; population had moved away from the locality, and the expense of police supervision was out of proportion to the public convenience to be served by the renewal. Those facts used to be brought to the attention of the magistrates by the police, and the magistrates found as a fact that the premises were unnecessary and refused; the licence. Nobody ever suggested that a licence refused under such circumstances should be compensated for. But in recent years the discretion of the magistrates had begun to be exercised under a lively sense of responsibility for the moral well-being of the community, and from a very high sense of the importance of the reduction of licences as a step in that direction. Thus it was that their discretion was not only used in the case of what might be called those derelict houses from which trade had receded, but in connection with those which though doing a good business were "not required" in the sense that they bore too large a proportion to the population. His sole ground for wishing to see this matter settled was that now this discretion was being exercised as part of a great temperance movement and the magistrates were only prevented from exercising it to a larger extent by the fact that they felt that it must now be exercised on going concerns and not those which were in the old sense of the word 997 "unnecessary," and that they could not exercise it without inflicting very grave loss on the man whom they damnified, and who had done nothing to deserve it. Their sense of justice was outraged by the fact that they could not exercise their descretion on modern lines without inflicting harm on a very deserving class of men.
He did not agree with the hard terms that were flung at the licensed victualler's trade. The trade existed to meet a public demand and was carried on under police and magisterial supervision and he doubted whether there was a man in the House who at some time or another had not been glad to avail himself of the shelter of a public-house or an hotel either at home or abroad. It was not fair only to dwell upon the black side of the case and describe all these houses as being engaged in a "hellish traffic." This sort of bitter and unjust abuse could only be directed to creating prejudice and making the Committee indifferent to the question of whether injury and injustice was inflicted upon the persons so spoken of. He associated himself most earnestly with every attempt to see this traffic carried on under proper conditions, but he objected to these men being described as following any but a respectable calling. Exception had been taken to the Government speaking of this Bill as a temperance measure. Nobody had suggested that the deputation from the trade which waited on the Prime Minister was actuated in so doing by a desire to promote temperance. But the deputation was caused by the fact that the discretionary power of the justices was being exercised not merely upon "unnecessary" licences in the old sense of the term, where business was extinct, but upon houses in the full swing of business which were "unnecessary" only in the modern temperance reform sense by the population scale. And temperance reform (on modern lines) was being retarded owing to the magistrates feeling the difficulty of applying their discretion to "unnecessary" public-houses, in the new sense of the term. Now when this was brought to the attention of the Government why were they not entitled to say they would produce a measure to remedy the existing state of things, and by releasing the dead-lock give a fresh impetus to temperance reform. It was argued in favour of the time limit that this Bill as it stood would tie the 998 hands of future Parliaments. That was an absolute impossibility. Any Member who did not like an Act was at liberty to try and change the law. If public opinion called for a change in the licensing laws, it would be as open to Parliament to make that change as it was to them to make the present change. All that this Bill did was to put the publican, who had been up to now in a most anomalous position, into a position of being compensated for any damage he might sustain on public ground and without fault from a refusal to renew his licence. It was also said that after a time all the redundant licences would be suppressed, and that there would be no further occasion to reduce licences; and, therefore, no occasion to compensate. If that were so, the time limit now asked for would be automatically applied and therefore it was not necessary to incorporate it in the Bill. But if the need for reduction continued he could not understand the argument that something was to be done now to relieve the magistrates of a dilemma but that we should enact that at the end of a certain time that dilemma should be revived. The Bill was modelled on the principles of elementary justice and no time would come in the future when it would be just to insist upon continuous outlay and a high standard of excellence up to the moment of deprivation and then suddenly destroy the business on public grounds only, without any compensation. The compensation was to be raised from the trade itself. To put a time limit on the Bill was, he thought, a great mistake, and he should feel compelled to vote against it.
§ MR. HARWOOD (Bolton)said the hon. Member who had just sat down seemed to have spoken under an entire misapprehension. He had said that they did not care about rights or property. But the whole thing was a matter of property. It was a matter of money, and whilst hon. Members on that side of the House were perfectly prepared to do what was right to the publican they had also to consider the public. It was all very well to say that they did not care about rights, but that was exactly what they were there to discuss. He believed in public-houses and he would be very sorry to live in a country where no public-houses existed. He was opposed to local 999 veto; and was of Dr. Johnson's opinion that an inn was the only place in the world where one could be absolutely certain of having a welcome when one came and where they would be sorry to see one leave. This discussion had shown the delicacy of the position in which the Opposition were placed in arguing this question, because there were two senses to the term "time limit," and they had been confused throughout the debate—the first was applied to the Bill and the second was applied to compensation. The Amendment technically before the House referred to the time limit in connection with the Bill and suggested that the Bill should be for seven, fourteen, or other number of years. It had been said if there was a time limit it would be unfair to the licence-holders, who would pay for along time upon their licences and then when the time came for them to be got rid of they would get nothing in return, but that was the question of the time limit with reference to compensation. It was most unfair to talk about a time limit as if it would do some injustice. The question was whether the Bill should be for seven years or other period or for an indefinite time. No time limit in that sense could cause injustice to be done to anybody. Those who had been compensated would have gone and those who had not would have remained in a better position than they were before, because they would have gone through the zone of fire and would have got a reputation for respectability and good conduct which would enable them to obtain licences far more easily than now. He was perfectly certain that it would be an immense relief to great bodies of the Government's own supporters—he could speak for those in his own constituency—who had faith in the experiment if they could feel that it would not commit them in perpetuity. The Prime Minister had said that there had been a great mistake made in the past in dealing with the licensing question generally and that it would be very difficult to go back upon what the nation had done wrong in the past. In the past they had allowed a number of people to have the use of valuable property without paying enough for it, and now the Bill proposed to hand over the fee simple of the property to them. The time limit was at the very 1000 genesis of the Bill itself. They were going to do away with bad houses, but there would come a time when they would have reduced licensed houses sufficiently. He warned hon. Members on the Liberal side that the public would not stand unlimited reduction of public-houses. Within a reasonable time the licences would have been reduced to a sufficient extent and what was going to happen after that?
It had been said that the reduction of licences had been proceeding very slowly. The majority of the reductions made in the last few years had been made by the voluntary giving up of poor houses by the trade. The tied-house system had altered the whole character of licences. Brewers had got a number of houses that did not pay and they were getting rid of these, or only keeping them on to prevent other people having houses. Since, however, these brewers had heard the words of the Prime Minister, promising to bring in a Bill, they had recognised that these non-paying houses had a value. This was a very serious aspect of this question. They would have a great number of wretched and worthless houses perpetuated because they had a value under the Bill. They would have got them for nothing if they had waited, but under the Bill they would have to pay a preposterous price for them. The result of the Bill would be that the public in the future would have to buy back from the trade the licences, which they now proposed to make freehold, at their enhanced value, and in that way it would be the public who would have to pay compensation in the end. The public, in fact, were going to be done. He did not say they were going to be done intentionally, but that would be the result.
It was a possibility that the great masses of the people might in the future take this matter into their own hands. The working classes were the customers now, and they were the managers, but in the future the working classes would want to manage as well as be customers, and would want better public-houses and better liquors. He wanted to see liquor sold at an honest, 1001 decent, and fair price, and the Government by this Bill were putting a barrier in the way of that. They were saying that the people should never have facilities to take the matter into their own hands, and the people would feel resentment and anger when they discovered the hedge which had been set up round their freedom of action. The Prime Minister stood up like Jane Shore in a white garment to defend his illogical position which they were now trying to remedy. Well, he remembered, when he was a boy, a man being granted a licence in the neighbourhood in which he lived. His father was one of the magistrates, and the man came to him afterwards and said, "Mr. Harwood, you put £3,000 into my pocket." It turned out to be rather more, but that remark induced him to ask himself why they should put thousands of pounds into people's pockets in this way. He wanted to put the same question to the First Lord of the Treasury now. For his own part, he felt so strongly the undesirability of making elasticity impossible in the future, that, out of consideration for those who had invested their money in the business, he was prepared to go a long way in the matter of compensation—even to the length of finding compensation out of national funds—rather than have the time limit done away with, for that would make it impossible to have elasticity in the future. He begged the Government not to make it impossible in the future to remedy the mistakes of the past, but to put this business at last on a sound footing.
§ SIR PHILIP MUNTZ (Warwickshire, Tamworth)said that having during the last few weeks studied this question very closely, he should support the Bill, which he considered would promote temperance reform. If he were to say what he thought about the time limit, he would not be able to confine himself to Parliamentary language. He thought it was one of the most discreditable suggestions that had ever been made in that House. Under it, after a given period a man who made the insurance would be robbed of the benefit of the premiums he had paid. He could not conceive how such a proposal could be made by any fair-minded man. If a time limit were in- 1002 troduced this question would not be disposed of now. It would come up again. The trade was a great power. It would ask who had passed the Bill containing the time limit which robbed it of its premium; and it would answer, "The Unionist Party" That was why hon. Members opposite had introduced the Amendment They had introduced it to create a split between the Unionist Party and the trade. The publicans would blame the Unionist Party. That was the strongest argument—one of the strongest arguments—against passing the time limit. If the Unionist Party did not reject the limit they would suffer, and justly suffer, for having consented to one of the most dishonest Suggestions ever made in that House.
§ Mr. THOMAS SHAW (Hawick Burghs)said that judging from the speech to which they had just listened, this debate had lasted none too long. The Committes were gradually getting at the truth of the situation. According to the hon. Gentleman who had so powerfully and so incisively addressed them, and who had been rendered practically speechless by the proposal, Parliamentary language was not sufficient to convey the full force of his sentiments to the House. The offence of the time limit was that it would cause a split—Oh, sad disaster!—between the Unionist Party and the liquor trade. No wonder the hon. Gentleman was well nigh speechless. The Unionist Party was in danger of being disrupted from top to bottom. A split with the trade meant wreck and political ruin, and anything which savoured of a bait to detach any Member of the Unionist Party from that alliance between a sectional interest and the State alarmed the hon. Gentleman whose speech had formed so interesting a contribution to the debate. But the remarks of the hon. Member who had just sat down had little to do with the merits of the time limit itself. They were rather concerned with tactical considerations affecting the Unionist Party. The time limit went down to the root of the situation, and involved no less a question than whether the trade was to be the master of this Government and country, or the Government and the country were to be masters of the trade. He hoped he would be able 1003 to express his views in Parliamentary language, but he was bound to say he much regretted the attitude of the Prime Minister, who had definitely announced that there was to be no compromise on this matter. One satisfactory feature of this debate was that, so far as the law on the matter was concerned, nobody was in doubt. His hon. and learned friend the Member for Dumfries had stated the whole situation with regard to the question of compensation and with regard to the legal position of the licensed victualler, and he confessed he heard with not a little satisfaction the speech of the Solicitor-General, because it did not controvert by one iota the proposition laid down by his hon. and learned friend, What the right hon. Gentleman did say was that there was no right of property, and that there was only a licence. The right hon. Gentleman quoted with approval, and if he might presume to say so, he entirely assented to the citation from that distinguished judge Lord Lindley, who declared that the nature and quality of the thing on which he was inquiring was a certain expectation on the part of the licensee that his licence would be continued. How had that expectation arisen? It had not arisen from the action of Parliament, and he would put the matter in this way: Suppose Parliament wished to-day to confer on any person the right to carry on a business, and to make it clear that it was not a right in perpetuity, or in the nature of property, it could only be done by Parliament declaring on the face of the document that it was a licence, and, if it was desired to make it clear beyond all question that there was no perpetuity, by stating on the face of the document that the licence was for one year only. That was what Parliament had done in this case, and he saw no legal or moral ground for a person whose licence was thus limited by Parliament claiming compensation as if it were a perpetual right.
The Prime Minister said that at the end of the time limit the same question would emerge. He perfectly appreciated the position taken up by the Prime Minister in his speech. His own view of the time limit was simply this: Owing to what had been done in the history of the licensing question, the local 1004 authorities had, so to speak, conducted themselves with such exuberant confidence in the trade, and with such a constant desire not to injure the trade, that gradually the trade had conceived the notion that it had, as against the Government and as against this House, a right which it ought to be compensated for. In short Parliament had in practice been disabled in this matter, but that disablement did not exist in law, and it never existed in imagination until a short time ago. What was the answer made in the discussions on local veto? It was that the present law, if properly administered, was sufficient. The Unionist Party, now in danger of this split, announced that principle so continuously and so vehemently that at last the justices thought there might be something in it, and they began to administer the law as they found it. They discovered certain overlapping, a certain over-supply in particular districts of the country. Then they were checkmated by the Prime Minister. That was the situation and nothing else than that. The Prime Minister scolded the justices of the country for the exercise of their rights. The announcement of the right hon. Gentleman produced an instant arrest of the reduction of licences, and now he came forward with this Bill, backed by the entire power of the trade, for temperance reform. All the strong language, "uttered or unexpressed," about temperance reform, about the avoidance of robbery and the like, made no impression when they considered that what was proposed to be done was simply to carry on the campaign started by the Prime Minister, who was checkmating the actual and steady and growing reduction of licences by a measure of this kind. What did the time limit mean? It might appear to many minds that from the practice that had gone on Parliament was in a measure disabled from revoking the licences it had granted. The meaning of the time limit was simply that it was a notice to the licence-holders that at the end of a fixed time they must consider that disablement had disappeared and that Parliament had resumed the absolute freedom to recall what it had an absolute freedom to grant. The time limit seemed to him to be the only convenient method by which 1005 Parliament and the local authorities under Parliament could revindicate and reassert for themselves that power which was contained on the very face of the licence—the power of declaring that a thing granted for a year should never be relied upon, against the funds of this country or of anybody, for more than a year.
He was against the idea of compensation, believing there was nothing to give compensation for. He did not think the Bill was a compensation Bill. It had been rightly described as a compulsory insurance Bill; and that was what made the Bill, to his mind, a perfect surplusage in legislation, because if Parliament chose to effect its reform and not to compel insurance, the trade was astute enough, clever enough, and well advised enough to insure itself up to the hilt. Still, when compensation was in the field he wished the question to be fairly treated, and he would vote for fourteen years. His hon. and learned friend the Member for Stretford had given the Committee the advantage of his experience in arbitration, and had said that under the Lands Clauses Act these licences had been valued, roughly, at about ten years purchase. In the North he might say that that figure was not reached. It was considerably less than that, and he was told that in Ireland it was still less. He would take it at ten years purchase. He would put this question to the Government: If Parliament is getting quit by ample notice of its disablement, how can there be any claim to a longer notice than four years beyond the full purchase price of any licence? The time limit was simply a declaration by Parliament that at the end of that time the state of matters existing before the action of the justices was arrested at the hands of the Prime Minister would be resumed. He had great difficulty in understanding the language of the Prime Minister with regard to the clergy of all denominations, of whom he said that when they came to discuss the purely secular methods by which Parliament ought to deal with questions of legislation affecting the public at large, their training gave them no special title to be heard. The employment of spiritual weapons was their sphere. This he said with regard to a 1006 body of men who were dealing with what he himself described as the reform of a great moral evil. It would be a bad day for this country when the clergy of all denominations were specially disfranchised from giving a hint to Parliament as to how it should act.
§ Mr. A. J, BALFOURI never said that.
§ Mr. THOMAS SHAWThe Prime Minister said they had no special title to give an opinion.
§ Mr. BALFOURNo special title—the title of all of us.
§ Mr. THOMAS SHAWthought the clergy, as such, had a special title in regard to a moral evil. He did not wish in the slightest degree to over-strain the view presented by the right hon, Gentleman. But the view which he himself presented was that there were two forces with which the Prime Minister had been confronted; one apparently was legitimate, the other he considered, as proceeding from the churches, had no special title to be heard in the region of secular methods affecting legislation. What were the secular methods that had been used in other quarters? A brewer at a recent meeting said to his fellow-brewers: "In your just resentment and revenge even the most powerful Government of modern times may feel your hand heavy upon them." That was a secular method. This kind of language the Government would attend to. "All Governments depend on votes, and if the Government wants the votes of licence-holders they must promise us the protection we demand." There was a good deal of secular method about that; it was the method which this Government alone understood—the bludgeon in the hands of a powerful and overmastering interest like the liquor trade. The liquor trade had not been idle in recent weeks. It had tried public meeting? but with all the engineering that had taken place it could not have them. It had made most elaborate arrangements for public meetings being crowded with the supporters of the trade before anybody else could get in, but no public meetings that one had heard of had been 1007 held. This was what was now announced by circular dated April this year—
The entire work of many years of organisation, and the whole future of the trade, will depend upon a few weeks activity at the present time.That was a secular method. They now saw exactly the force that had come upon the Prime Minister. He had adjured the Bishops, but he succumbed to the secular methods of the brewers. Why was there to be no compromise even on the time limit? The trade had intimated that they would not have it. Two interests were concerned in this matter, and during these discussions too much attention had been paid to the one and too little to the other. There was the interest of the trade, strong, powerful, clever, well organised, and full of money, and this interest had been well attended to the Government were on its side. The other interest was that of millions of people who, by ignorance, by poverty, and misfortune, were beset by the temptations of the greatest social curse in our midst. It was poltroonery on the part of the Government of this country to do nothing to protect them against this powerful interest. By accepting the Amendment Parliament would give the power of closing the chapter of temptation in localities, but the Government protected the strong and oppressed the weak by resisting any idea of compromise.He would now venture very humbly to express his difference from certain opinions which had been delivered in the course of the debate as to the finality of this measure. He quite agreed with the Colonial Secretary that the omnipotence of Parliament could not be impaired, and with regard to the obstacle to reform he was not sure that he quite agreed with his right hon. friend the Member for Berwick, who said the Bill closed the door against reform; the resistance to this time limit seemed to him to open a door. If they were by their constitutional position confronted by a steadily hostile attitude in another place, if the Liberal Party were prevented from repealing the Act, then they would have to look around and find some other way of checkmating this powerful interest, and they would do it by imposing a heavy charge on this monopoly. With a time 1008 limit Parliament would not attack the question with the same force, but if there was to be no compromise, if perpetuity was to be maintained, if from the passing of this Bill there was to be a perpetual right in the licensee as against the public, then the public would call for the prompt and effective imposition of such a tax as would restore to the public their right. The triumph of no compromise would be short-lived. It might provoke at a very early time the imposition of such a tax as would restore to the State its mastery over the trade. The trade was powerful beyond all computation. He had seen passages in which it declared that it put this Government in, and that if the Government did not do its behests it would chuck this Government out. That was the language not of Britons but of Tammany. Tammany knew the men it had to deal with. According to its own view the trade held the Government in the hollow of its hand. In this time limit discussion the House had reached a point when those who were pleading for it asked that a restoration should be effected which would give Parliament mastery over a trade whose methods, unabashed and openly avowed, were methods of public political corruption.
§ Mr. GEORGE WHITE (Norfolk, N.W.)said he was sure that the Committee would sympathise with him in the position in which he found himself after the very eloquent speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down. He would not delay the House at any very great length, because the hon. and learned Gentleman had put before the Committee, in language which he could not be expected to imitate, many of the things he desired to say. He felt that they had had far too much discussion upon the mere trivialities of this question, but the hon. and learned Gentleman had placed the subject on a higher level than before, and he would be only too glad if the discussion could be kept on that level until the end of the debate. After all, this was a great moral question, and he, for one, felt that the position was such that the plain speaking in which the hon. and learned Gentleman had indulged was the kind of speaking which the subject merited from the Opposition. Some hon. Members opposite 1009 might think that the country looked with complacency at the way in which the question had been brought forward; bet he, for one, felt that the atmosphere outside was very different from the atmosphere inside the House. Some of them on that side of the House had had a good deal of opportunity of knowing what the public feeling was in regard to this matter, and he ventured to say that there had been no question before the public for many years on which there had been such a determined expression of opinion on one side only in regard to the issues involved in this struggle. There had been no records of any public meeting throughout the length and breadth of the land, expressing an opinion in favour of the Bill now before the House, while hon. Members on both sides of the House had had plenty of opportunities of learning the opinion of large assemblies of their fellow citizens, and also of a great number of those who had to do with the moral welfare of the country. The sooner they got rid of the sham idea that this Bill originated, as was pretended, on the other side, with the desire to limit the number of public-houses, the sooner they should assume the attitude of honest men in face of the public at large.
The claim of the Colonial Secretary, that the origin of the Bill was a desire to aid the magistrates to reduce the number of public-houses was one of the most extraordinary that could be submitted to an intelligent assembly. They knew perfectly well that it was meant to prevent the magistrates reducing the number of public-houses to a larger extent than at present. After having refused to receive a deputation of those interested in temperance reform, the Prime Minister received a deputation of those interested in a trade which was inimical to the best interests of the nation, whether considered from a commercial, social, or moral point of view. After the speech made by the Prime Minister to that deputation of the trade, to pretend that this Bill was a measure of temperance reform was a great sham. Having been introduced at the call of the trade, it was not to be expected, on the face of it, that it was calculated to promoted temperance. It was not too much to say that this movement was a 1010 grossly corrupt political act, and an act which was quite unworthy of the Prime Minister and of the Government of which he was the head. Strong opinions had been expressed about this trade by leading statesmen in the past generation or two, and he would read one of these from a leading statesman to which hon. Members on the other side of the House ought to pay some attention. The right hon. Gentleman said—
A priest-ridden nation is much to be pitied, but a publican-ridden nation is very much to be despised, and we look forward to the time when all political Parties shall proclaim war to the knife against this swollen social tyranny.Those were the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham; and he thought he might venture to appeal to the Committee whether that tyranny was less swollen now than when those words were uttered. The extension of the tied-house system had swollen that social tyranny still more than a generation ago.It had been assumed, but not proved, in the two interesting speeches delivered by the hon. Member for Exeter and the hon. Member for East Islington, that this Bill would reduce the number of licences by 25 per cent in ten years. If such a reduction could be proved, then hon. Members interested in temperance reform would not oppose the Bill. But they could not accept such a statement because it was not backed up by figures. He would take his own city in order to show the position in which they were placed. The city of Norwich had more fully licensed houses than any other city in the kingdom irrespective of population, except Liverpool and Birmingham. Of course he excluded London. Leicester had just half the fully licensed houses which Norwich had, and yet it had three times the population, and he would like to know how long it would take under the Bill to bring the position of Norwich to that of Leicester. He could give example after example to show that the number of licences which had been reduced from one cause or another in many cities and towns was larger, in his judgment, under the present system than this Bill could effect. It had been assumed that the maximum sum which could be raised under the Bill would be raised—an assumption of which he had great 1011 doubts. In various parts of the country there were magistrates who would be only too glad to put the Bill into action, but in other parts of the country where they would not. Even if the maximum sum were raised, it seemed to him that the process of reduction would be so extremely slow that it could not at all answer the expectation of those Gentlemen opposite who had argued that a great reduction in the number of public-houses would be effected.
They were told that one advantage of the Bill would be that it would give fixity of tenure, and that the tenants of the houses would be a much more respectable body of men than at present. As a licensing magistrate he could assure the Committee that they did their duty and only granted licences to respectable men, and he did not know how they were going to improve their quality. Fixity of tenure to a publican was not dependent on an Act of Parliament, but on an agreement between him and the brewer. It was true that the publican was supposed to enter into that agreement as a voluntary agent, but they knew that he was anything but that. If they were to deal with fixity of tenure, they must deal with the tied-house system. He did not know to whom the hon. Member for Berkshire was referring when he said that many hard things had been spoken about the publicans in the debate. He had not heard anything against them. It was not the individual they complained of, but the trade and the outcome of the trade; and in this respect the publican might fairly exclaim "Save me from my friends." He could not see how the publican was to get much advantage from the Bill. If he believed that there was any probability of a large reduction of licences from the operation of this measure he would not be so strong in opposition to it as he found himself at the present moment. While he admitted that the bringing in of the principle of compensation was dangerous, if he felt that the Bill was in any sense a temperance reform measure, he would give it support instead of opposition. The country was ripe for temperance reform and the Government were throwing away a golden opportunity of dealing with this great social question. It could not be supposed that the trade wished to 1012 reduce drinking, because the greatest profits of the business were made from excessive drinking, and therefore it would be contrary to human nature to suppose that they would be in favour of a Bill which would largely reduce those profits. He hoped this question would not be considered as one of £ s. d., but that something would be done to limit instead of increasing temptations for the people; and it was because he felt that this Bill would do nothing of the kind that he supported the Amendment.
§ Mr. ALEXANDER CROSS (Glasgow, Camlachie)said he would not venture to say a word to the hon. Members on the other side of the House, but he would ask hon. Gentlemen beside him to consider that in the vote they gave that night they would decide between the interests of the public and the publican. It was generally admitted that a situation had arisen under which some allowance for compensation ought to be given to publicans who were deprived of their licences. He was himself in favour of some time limit by which after a certain period the public would be able to assert a right to its own, and he felt that those who voted with the Government on this question would be voting to deprive the public of their interest in this property of licences. He wished to submit this point—was it wise to hand over an important trade like the liquor trade to a monopoly, and to part for ever with the right to deal with it in the public interest? The present system involved tied houses, monopolies, and the suppression of small interests; and it was not for this Parliament to pass over every interest in the trade to any body of men whatever. Up till now, the whole licensing business had been in the hands of the local justices of the peace and quarter sessions, both of which were non-elective bodies, and irresponsible to the people. The question was, how long the country would allow the conduct of the liquor trade to be in the hands of non-elected bodies. If this Bill passed, the trade would be placed in the Lands of the non-elected quarter sessions, and he did not think that that would be safe. He did not believe any temporary advantage to be obtained from a small reduction of licences could be compared with the injury that would be inflicted by handing over this great trade to a non-elective body to the betrayal of the 1013 public interest. He did not know personally how the public in England regarded this subject; but he had gone up and down Scotland to find out how this measure was viewed by the people in the North. The result of his inquiry was, that the feeling prevailed that a more unpopular measure than this had never been brought forward by a Government. The Scottish people believed it to be unjust in conception and wrong in principle. His hon. friend had referred to the opinion of the Church Courts in Scotland. He had had the privilege of testing that opinion, and he ventured to say that the Prime Minister had strained the loyalty of many men who had been his devoted followers by the introduction of this measure, and it would lead to serious and great difficulty to some of those who supported it when they went down for re-election at the dissolution, whenever it came. He heard no part of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for the Border Burghs with more satisfaction than his declaration that it would be necessary for the nation to resume its right over its property, and that the Government soon to be in power would adopt such an addition to the tax on licences as to have the effect of sweeping away the improper premium given to the trade which this Bill granted. If he was spared to that time, he would give such a measure his hearty support.
§ Mr. A. J. BALFOURMy hon. friend who has just sat down told the House that in his opinion this was the most unpopular measure ever proposed by any Government. I do not know whether he is right or wrong. I do not pretend to have his insight into the movements and currents of temporary popular opinion; but, at all events, I should have thought he would have realised that that accusation entirely disposed of the speech which he appeared so much to admire—the speech of the hon. and learned Member for the Border Burghs, who explained that it was a purely electioneering measure. I do not know which of those twin brethren, who agree apparently absolutely on this question, is right, but it is quite clear that the accusation brought so freely against us that we have been animated by no motive more dignified or more worthy than the lowest form of electioneering tactics is hardly consistent 1014 with the other accusation that we have brought forward the most unpopular Bill which any Government has succeeded in fathering. I do not mean to waste the time of the House at this late hour, at the end of a second day's debate on a single Amendment, by dealing with the personal aspect of the question at any length. But as so large a number of speakers have professed to judge the Bill as a whole, and this Amendment in particular, from what they were pleased to term the origin of the Bill in a speech which I made to a deputation representing the licensed victuallers, perhaps I may be allowed to say one or two words on that subject. It is quite true that that deputation waited upon me. It is quite true that I made a speech on the subject, in which I see nothing to regret, to qualify, or withdraw. Hon. Gentlemen appear to suppose that it was that deputation which first brought into existence the idea that the publican was, even as other citizens in this country, a man who deserved compensation when he was deprived of property. [Cries of "It is no property."] I will come to the question of property in a moment, but my view is that he does possess property, and that view was not invented and did not begin with the deputation to which reference has been made. It has always, so far as I know, been the view of the Unionist Party that true temperance reform was only possible if you recognised that the trade should not be deprived of that which equity demanded should be given to them, that temperance reform could only be carried out on those lines; and I think we may claim to be the true temperance reformers. Hon. Members laugh. I thought it probable that that would be contested; but now I will make a proposition which will not be contested, which is that hon. Gentlemen opposite have never done a single thing for temperance reform except to make platform speeches outside this House, and have resisted every reasonable attempt to carry out temperance reform within it. They have been violent critics but barren critics, a union of qualities not unknown in other departments of human activity.
Now I do not wish to say more about the personal aspect of the matter than that. I have always been in 1015 favour, in dealing with the question of licences, of giving adequate, equitable compensation to the licence-holder. I have always counted myself—I know I am not counted by hon. Gentleman opposite—I have always counted myself among temperance reformers; but I honestly confess that when I hear speakers of the authority and ability of the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs and the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke recently—the one with considerable wit and the other with considerable solemnity—accuse me individually and the Government to which I belong collectively of being animated by nothing but the smallest, pettiest, and meanest motives in bringing forward this Bill, I do not resent the charge even from such high authorities as themselves, but I confess I do form a somewhat lower opinion of the general motives which actuate hon. Members opposite. They themselves will not, I presume, suggest that they never consider electioneering motives in some of the speeches, some of the representations or misrepresentations which they make of their opponents' actions. I do not wish to bring it specially before their notice on the present occasion, but I, at all events—though I doubt not that their motives, like the motives of others, may be mixed—I have never doubted that in their speeches upon the temperance question they have a strain of genuine, earnest desire for the improvement of their countrymen in the matter of temperance. Well, I give them credit for that. If they refuse credit to me for similar motives I make no complaint, but I do think it casts rather a lurid light on the manner in which they consider the great political questions which have been and may be handed over to their charge, and I think that little is to be gained either inside or outside this House by this persistent and, as I think, utterly contemptible method of controversy, of finding it absolutely inconceivable that among the motives, the mixed motives, the bad motives, if you please, of your political opponents there may be occasionally some small, faint glimmer of conscientious convictions.
I will not pursue the personal topic any further, and as I desire to give the right hon. Gentleman who, I presume, will reply to me full opportunity for the 1016 exercise of his great dialectical gifts I do not propose to survey in any detail the arguments that have been advanced in the course of this debate. But I may perhaps be allowed to point out one or two singular fallacies into which even the hon. and learned Member for the Border Burghs tumbled accidentally in the course of his speech. He actually advanced the argument, which has been advanced by a good many other Gentlemen opposite but which I did not expect from him, that you are to estimate the justice or injustice of the number of years for which the time limit was to be fixed by the number of years purchase of the business with which you are dealing. He said the Amendment to the Amendment gave a time limit of fourteen years. He quoted an hon. and learned friend behind me, who said that the average number of years purchase given to the trade in arbitration cases was ten. "Therefore," said the hon. and learned Member for the Border Burghs, "if only ten years purchase is given, what reason have you to complain of a fourteen years limit to the Bill?" I never heard such an argument. It implies a profound confusion of ideas which I cannot think prevails generally on the Benches opposite. But even if the property of a man was worth only two years purchase, it would not console him to say that at the end of fourteen years you would take it away from him altogether without any compensation. To say to a man whose business is worth only two years purchase, "I will allow you to enjoy your property for only fourteen years, and you must take that enjoyment, not only as sufficient payment, but as seven times more payment," involves a confusion of ideas which even the hon. and learned Gentleman, when he comes to think over it, must be bound to admit.
It has also been frequently stated by hon. Gentlemen opposite that because we do not insert a time limit in this Bill we give a freehold value to the holder of a publican's licence. That, again, is a profound confusion between the length of time during which compensation may be asked for and the amount of compensation which may be given. You can always, by varying the amount of the compensation, deal with an everlasting; tenure, which is a freehold tenure, or 1017 with a short tenure. The Committee will see this in the separate treatment of beerhouse licences from ordinary public-house licences under the Bill. A beerhouse licence may be, in sufficiently intelligible language, described as a freehold. Of course, value for value, the owners of beerhouse licences will get a larger number of years purchase than the owners of ordinary publicans' licences. [HON. MEMBERS: No!] But they will, and they do. We are not now dealing with hypothetical values. We are dealing with actual values upon which the owners are rated. There is no doubt that the fact that publicans have not the same kind of security in their licences as the owners of beerhouses have will, of course, make their compensation much less; but that is no reason why you should bring the process of giving that compensation more rapidly to an end. As I have said, the compensation given to them will be less, value for value, than that given for a freehold tenure. But that does not carry with it the inference that while a freehold should have no time limit you may put a time limit on the short tenure. We do not desire to endow, and I believe we do not endow, any trade or portion of a trade by this Bill. What we endeavour to do is not to endow the publicans with something which they have not got, but to give them security in something that they have got, and what they have got is something less than a freehold, which is not, on that account, undeserving of the name of property. I am not going to argue with the lawyers opposite, who seems satisfied with the way the law now stands, under which a man, in the same breath, is said to possess something that may be rated and taxed but something that is not property. They are quite happy over that, and I do not wish to disturb their complacency. But I will venture respectfully to say that a thing which can be valued, a thing which can be bought, a thing which can be sold, a thing which can be taxed, and a thing which can be rated is not wholly unworthy of the name of property.
Well, if we do not endow this trade, if we give it nothing which it is not barely entitled to, if we do not, as I am sure we do not, give it freehold tenure, what are the objections which have been raised to our scheme? One thing which it does is never referred 1018 to by these Gentlemen who denounce it as the most wicked, most unpopular, and most foolish attempt to deal with the temperance question ever known—not one of them has ever referred to the beer-house question, with which this Bill attempts to deal. They are going to reject that. They have never attempted to deal with the monopoly question; this Bill, as far as regards future licences, does attempt to deal with it. I think that the language of Clause 4 may be still further improved in that direction. But the intention of the framers of the Bill was that future licences should not constitute a monopoly, and should be subject to those experiments which hon. Gentlemen opposite are so anxious to see tried seven or fourteen years hence, but are so reluctant to see tried at the present moment. Then this Bill, which deals with beerhouses and which deals with the monopoly question, does most undoubtedly deal, and in a very large fashion, with the reduction of licences. There have been some Members who in their ardour of advocacy have denied that any large reduction would be made by this Bill. How you can expend £1,200,000 a year on the purchase of licences without materially reducing them I do not know. We live in an age of large figures, but I really do not know how you are going to achieve that result. If I may without offence distinguish the Party opposition to this Bill from the more genuine elements of opposition which I have no doubt exist in the breast of Gentlemen opposite and in the breasts of some of my hon. friends on this side, I believe their anxiety about the time limit, in so far as it arises from those motives, is due to a fear lest we are shutting the door on any kind of temperance reform in the future other than the present Bill. I believe the more moderate and reasonable opponents of the Bill are prepared to say that this Bill is good as far as it goes, I that it will reduce licences, that it will deal with the beerhouses and with the future monopoly question, but that those benefits, great though they may be, are too dearly purchased if they are purchased at the cost of preventing this House at any future period from touching the question of temperance again. Well, I do not know whether if even that statement were true I should agree with the 1019 conclusions drawn from it; but I can assure my hon. friends, and those on the other side of the House who feel as they do, that this is a pure illusion. There is nothing I know in this Bill which is going to stand in the way of any future reform.
May I recall the Committee for a moment to arguments addressed to it by the right hon. Member for Aberdeen when it was much thinner, at about six o'clock? The right hon. Gentleman made a speech in favour of the Amendment, and he said—
Why should not you have a time limit; how would it hurt the trade, when you remember that at the end of fourteen years by the operation of this Bill you will have greatly diminished licences, and that the houses which remain will presumably be the houses that are necessary, and the houses whose security of tenure from that fact is so great that they will without difficulty be able to insure themselves? Why should you under those circumstances have this general system of compulsory insurance proposed by the Bill?And then the right hon. Gentleman, having finished that section of his argument, apparently forgot it, and went on at a later stage of his speech to say that at the end of fourteen years we ought to be able to try every kind of experiment, local veto, and all the other schemes, possible and impossible, which have been from time to time suggested. Do let the Committee consider those arguments. The houses that are left after fourteen years are to be so necessary and so useful to the community that it would be easy for them to insure themselves, because of the difficulty of dispossessing them, and at the same time they are to be the subject of general experiment, they are to be abolished at a sweep by the advocates of local veto, they are to be municipalised, or they are to be conducted without profit, in accordance with the principles of a third scheme. And all this with reference to houses which, if they are to be subject to this kind of confiscation, would not be able to insure themselves at all. Obviously no insurance office not managed by lunatics would insure public-houses which the vote of the locality could abolish without compensation that day week. I mention that casually in order to bring me up to this point. Parliament is omnipotent now and it will be omnipotent in the future with regard to 1020 this and every other trade. If Parliament desires to try any new experiments justly, it can do so if it chooses to pay the compensation justly required. If it desires to do so unjustly, it can carry out these experiments without paying any compensation. There is nothing in this Bill which prevents just or unjust treatment of the trade by some future Parliament, and there is no way by which any Parliament can bind its successors. For my part, I should resist to the utmost anything in the nature of unjust treatment of the trade, and so far as I understand some of the schemes advocated here and there by hon. Gentlemen opposite, I should resist them even though they included adequate compensation to the trade, because I believe they are absurd, but whether they are absurd or whether they are not, the liberty of future Parliament is in no way bound.I hope every Parliament will be bound by the laws of equity and will not try in future experiments at the cost of any trade in this country without paying adequate compensation to those who carry on that trade. That liberty Parliament has; the liberty of injustice it also has; both remain untouched and undiminished by anything the House may do in connection with this Bill. May I ask my hon. friends on this side and hon. Gentlemen, if there are any, on the other side, whoso votes still hang in the balance, whether they seriously think that it would be wise in the interests of temperance to destroy a Bill which is going in the immediate future to do a great good, because, possibly, fourteen years hence Gentlemen opposite who are not agreed upon any of these alternative schemes may perhaps come to some agreement upon an unknown and unforeseen plan not now before us? If we brought in a Bill for municipalisation would they have supported it? They would not. If we had brought in a Bill with compensation for the working of the liquor traffic without profit, would they have supported it? Well I cannot imagine it; but if we had brought in a local veto Bill many of them might have supported it; but they are absolutely divided amongst themselves as to any alternative to the present system, Surely it would be folly on our part, when we have for the first time within our reach, and almost within our 1021 grasp, something which will, without inflicting injustice upon any man, woman, or child in the community, immediately effect a great and beneficent change in our licensing laws and which will not fetter the discretion of future Parliaments in anything they may desire to do in the same direction—surely we should be almost criminal in our negligence if we were to add yet another to the many failures which Parliament has already made in dealing with this question. Let the barren critics of whom I spoke earlier in my speech make what clamour they like on the present occasion; they have been too powerful in the past; they have found too great an echo for their criticisms and their opposition; but at all events let us insist, in the course of this Parliament, if we are to carry into effect that which is a practical and effective addition to the temperance forces of this country, and which is, I believe, not less in favour of temperance, not less in favour of higher morality, in that great branch of national morals because it also endeavours, I hope not imperfectly, to follow the dictates of eternal justice.
§ *MR. SLACK (Hertfordshire, St. Albans)said he had considerable diffidence in following the eloquent speech of the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether, in the interests of temperance, it would be wise to destroy this Bill. He would answer that question—"A thousand times, yes." He regarded the Bill as the most serious attack on temperance and sobriety made in this House in our time. He had listened with great interest to the speech of the Prime Minister, and contrasted it with the speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman on the Second Reading, because some of the utterances in the latter speech seemed to him to be unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman, his history, and the great position he occupied. The speech the right hon. Gentleman had just delivered seemed to him to be singularly inconsistent with the position he assumed yesterday, when he was so strenuous in resisting a clear issue being submitted to the House, namely, the application of a time limit to compensation under the Bill. The Prime Minister referred to himself and his Party as temperance reformers. That seemed to him to be the most amazing 1022 and—he would use the word in no objectionable sense—the most ridiculous proposal that could possibly be put before the House. The right hon. Gentleman asked what efforts had been made by the Liberal Party to deal with a traffic described by a great Conservative statesman as "devilish and destructive." Such efforts had constantly been made, but they had been as constantly checkmated by hon. Members on the other side. The proposals of the Liberal Party had been on lines diametrically opposite to those embodied in the present Bill, because the Party believed in extending, and not limiting, local control over the liquor traffic. This Bill not only crippled and confined local control, but transferred it from the local justices who knew the local circumstances to the Court of quarter sessions at a distance. In the view of thoughtful, serious, and moderate men, no more unpopular measure had ever been introduced into the House of Commons by a responsible Government, but having regard to the threats which had been uttered by the powerful brewery interest he was not surprised the Government had brought it in. The existence of 100,000 brewery shareholders in the country was a factor to be taken into account when a general election was approaching; those votes were cast solidly for the Unionist Party at the last election, and the Government were naturally anxious to secure a continuance of that support. As to the Prime Minister's contention that a licence was property because it was something which had a market value and could be taxed, patents and copyrights had a market value and could be taxed, but they nevertheless were subject to a time limit, being temporary monopolies granted for only a limited number of years.
He objected to the Bill root and branch; it fundamentally altered and revolutionised our licensing system; and there had been no mandate or demand of any kind for the injurious changes it proposed. The absence of a time limit was a cardinal defect. The compensation proposal was not a terminable arrangement; it established a permanent claim wherever a licence was proved to be unnecessary; it assumed what the law denied that a licence granted for only one year was entitled to a perpetual 1023 renewal, and conceded a value based upon that assumption. If the Government had said, "It has become customary to renew these licences, and so an expectation has arisen that they will be renewed, and accordingly capital has been invested in them, therefore we should allow a compassionate consideration;" then they would have secured a large public support for this Bill. But the Bill ignored the legal status of the licence, and created a value of an estate in the licence which it did not legally possess. The State had created a monopoly and given it to an individual. The brewer had acquired this at a fancy and swollen price, and now the State was asked to buy it back at a price fixed by its present owner. The licence was originally created to supply a public need, and the Bill provided that where a licence was taken away because it was no longer needed compensation should be paid. That was a bad principle, because if granted on the ground that the public required it—and taken away on the ground that the public did not require it—that was the best possible reason why no compensation whatever should be paid, or if paid at all, only for a limited period. It was a case for a temporary remedy, one limited in the durations of its operation. The opponents of the Bill and those who advocated a time limit had no personal interest to serve. They supported it merely because they believed the Bill to be subversive of the moral and social progress of the country. The benefits claimed for the Bill by the Solicitor-General were illusory. In Birmingham last year 80 per cent, of the suppressed licences were those of pre-1869 beerhouses. By their full control over the full licences the justices were able to get rid of these beerhouses. The existing system was really begining to work well, because in 1903, 539 licences were finally refused and over 300 were surrendered, and that notwithstanding the fact that this legislation was threatened, and I after the Prime Minister's lecture to the magistrates. As to the effect of the Bill, in Cumberland last year twenty-three licences were refused renewal; valuing the licences at £1,000 each, only eight could have been refused under the Bill. In Liverpool last year the number of 1024 licences was reduced by twenty-four. Under this Bill, putting their value at £2,000 each, there would have been a reduction of only eighteen. In Manchester forty licences were suppressed last year, while under this Bill the number could only have been fifteen. It was unseemly and improper that this Government should make such violent assaults on the Constitution of the country as they had done. He was convinced that they would never have been returned in 1900 if they had made known their intention to bring in Bills like this and others they had passed.
Much had been heard about "spoliation" and "confiscation," but there was no spoliation in taking from a man at the end of a year that which was given him for one year only, and property which did not exist could not be confiscated. The Bill would block the way for future reform. At present there was an absolute right in the justices to refuse a licence without compensation, but immediately the Bill was passed the trade might properly say there was confiscation if the licences were refused without compensation.
§ Mr. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place and claimed to move that the Question be now put.
§ Question proposed, "That the Question be now put."
§ Mr. CROOKS (Woolwich)endeavoured to speak while the Question was being put from the Chair.
*The CHAIRMANIf the hon. Gentleman wishes to address me on a point of order he can do so during the division if he will sit covered.
§ MR. CROOKS (sitting covered)said—Mr. Chairman, I desire to know whether you intend to put the closure in operation when a Member is on his feet and speaking. I am anxious to address the House on this most important subject before the vote is taken. That I claim I am entitled to do, having regard to the fact that I represent a very large working-class constituency.
*The CHAIRMANI have accepted the Motion for the closure. If that 1025 Motion is rejected the hon. Member will have an opportunity of addressing the Committee.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 289; Noes, 205. (Division List No. 135.)
1029| AYES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W. |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Davenport, William Bromley | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. |
| Aird, Sir John | Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham) | Hickman, Sir Alfred |
| Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden | Denny, Colonel | Hoare, Sir Samuel |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Dewar, Sir T.R. (Tower Hamlets | Hobhouse, Rt Hn. H (Somers't, E |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Dickinson, Robert Edmond | Hogg, Lindsay |
| Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O | Dickson, Charles Scott | Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside |
| Arrol, Sir William | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Hornby, Sir William Henry |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- | Horner, Frederick William |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. | Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C. | Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry |
| Austin, Sir John | Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham |
| Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy | Dixon-Hartland, Sir F Dixon | Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E | Hudson, George Bickersteth |
| Balcarres, Lord | Doughty, George | Hunt, Rowland |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J.(Manch'r | Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Jameson, Major J. Eustace |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Duke, Henry Edward | Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds | Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart | Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton |
| Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. | Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Faber, Edmund B. (Hants., W. | Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh |
| Bartley, Sir George C. T. | Fardell, Sir T. George | Kerr, John |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r | Keswick, William |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Kimber, Henry |
| Bignold, Arthur | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Knowles, Sir Lees |
| Bigwood, James | Fisher, William Hayes | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose | Laurie, Lieut.-General |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith | Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) |
| Boulnois, Edmund | Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Flower, Sir Ernest | Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N.R. |
| Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F (Middlesex | Forster, Henry William | Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham) |
| Brassey, Albert | Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.) | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Galloway, William Johnson | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage |
| Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.) | Gardner, Ernest | Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. |
| Brymer, William Ernest | Garfit, William | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine |
| Bull, William James | Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. | Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham) |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn) | Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.) |
| Butcher, John George | Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets) | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Carlile, William Walter | Gore, Hn G.R.C. Ormsby-(Salop | Lowe, Francis William |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.) | Loyd, Archie Kirkman |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Goschen, Hon. George Joachim | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) |
| Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Graham, Henry Robert | Macdona, John Cumming |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | MacIver, David (Liverpool) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm. | Greene, Sir E. W (B'rySEdm'nds | Maconochie, A. W. |
| Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc. | Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) |
| Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton | Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.) | M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W. |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Grenfell, William Henry | M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) |
| Chapman, Edward | Gretton, John | Majendie, James A. H. |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Greville, Hon. Ronald | Malcom, Ian |
| Coates, Edward Feetham | Groves, James Grimble | Manners, Lord Cecil |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Guthrie, Walter Murray | Martin, Richard Biddulph |
| Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Hain, Edward | Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh. |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Hall, Edward Marshall | Melville, Beresford Valentine |
| Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C.R. | Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. | Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. |
| Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Hamilton, Marq of(L'nd'nderry | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Compton, Lord Alwyne | Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford) | Milvain, Thomas |
| Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas | Hare, Thomas Leigh | Molesworth, Sir Lewis |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) |
| Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich | Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants |
| Cripps, Charles Alfred | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy |
| Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) | Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. | Moore, William |
| Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Cust, Henry John C. | Heath, James (Staffords., N.W. | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Heaton, John Henniker | Morrison, James Archibald |
| Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer | Robinson, Brooke | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Mount, William Arthur | Rolleston, Sir John F. L. | Thorburn, Sir Walter |
| Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Muntz, Sir Philip A. | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert | Tollemache, Henry James |
| Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. |
| Newdegate, Francis A. N. | Round, Rt. Hon. James | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Nicholson, William Graham | Royds, Clement Molyneux | Tuff, Charles |
| Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.) | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford | Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter) |
| Parker, Sir Gilbert | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington) | Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse) | Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H. |
| Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley | Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles | Wanklyn, James Leslie |
| Percy, Earl | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Pierpoint, Robert | Seton-Karr, Sir Henry | Webb, Colonel William George |
| Pilkington, Colonel Richard | Sharpe, William Edward T. | Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunton |
| Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Simeon, Sir Barrington | Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts. |
| Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Sinclair, Louis (Romford) | Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd |
| Pretyman Ernest George | Skewes-Cox, Thomas | Whiteley, H.(Ashton und Lyne |
| Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Pym, C. Guy | Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.) | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Quilter, Sir Cuthbert | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Randles, John S. | Spear, John Ward | Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks.) |
| Rankin, Sir James | Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich) | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath |
| Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne | Stanley, Hn. Arthur Ormskirk) | Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson |
| Ratcliff, R. F. | Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart |
| Reid, James (Greenock) | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs. | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Remnant, James Farquharson | Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Renwick, George | Stock, James Henry | Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong |
| Richards, Henry Charles | Stone, Sir Benjamin | |
| Ridley, Hon M.W.(Stalybridge | Stroyan, John | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes. |
| Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thornson | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley | |
| Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | |
| Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'd Univ. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) | Hobhouse, C.E.H. (Bristol, E.) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Holland, Sir William Henry |
| Allen, Charles P. | Dobbie, Joseph | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Donelan, Captain A. | Horniman, Frederick John |
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry | Duncan, J. Hastings | Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Dunn, Sir William | Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. |
| Barlow, John Emmott | Elibank, Master of | Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Ellice, Capt E. C (SAndrw'sBghs | Jacoby, James Alfred |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) | Johnson, John (Gateshead) |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Emmott, Alfred | Joicey, Sir James |
| Bell, Richard | Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone) | Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea) |
| Boland, John | Eve, Harry Trelawney | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire |
| Bolton, Thomas Dolling | Farquharson, Dr. Robert | Jordan, Jeremiah |
| Brigg, John | Fenwick, Charles | Kearley, Hudson E. |
| Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) | Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | Kennedy, Patrick James |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Ffrench, Peter | Kilbride, Denis |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Field, William | Kitson, Sir James |
| Burns, John | Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond | Labouchere, Henry |
| Burt, Thomas | Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) | Lambert, George |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Langley, Batty |
| Caldwell, James | Fuller, J. M. F. | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) |
| Cameron, Robert | Furness, Sir Christopher | Layland-Barratt, Francis |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington) |
| Cawley, Frederick | Grant, Corrie | Leigh, Sir Joseph |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick | Leng, Sir John |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Levy, Maurice |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) | Hammond, John | Lloyd-George, David |
| Cremer, William Randal | Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale | Lough, Thomas |
| Crooks, William | Harcourt, Rt Hn Sir W (Monm'th | Lundon, W. |
| Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) | Harmsworth, R. Leicester | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Cullinan, J. | Harwood, George | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Hayden, John Patrick | MacVeagh, Jeremiah |
| Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. | M'Crae, George |
| Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan) | Helme, Norval Watson | M'Kenna, Reginald |
| Delany, William | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. | M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) |
| Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin |
| Mansfield, Horace Rendall | Reddy, M. | Tennant, Harold John |
| Markham, Arthur Basil | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William | Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E. |
| Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.) | Rickett, J. Compton | Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr) |
| Mooney, John J. | Rigg, Richard | Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower |
| Morley, Charles (Breconshire) | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.) |
| Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose | Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) | Tomkinson, James |
| Moulton, John Fletcher | Robson, William Snowdon | Toulmin, George |
| Murphy, John | Roche, John | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Nannetti, Joseph P. | Roe, Sir Thomas | Wallace, Robert |
| Newnes, Sir George | Rose, Charles Day | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Runciman, Walter | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Norman, Henry | Russell, T. W. | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Nussey, Thomas Willans | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Weir, James Galloway |
| O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.) | Schwann, Charles E. | White, George (Norfolk) |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh) | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight | Whiteley, George (York, W.R.) |
| O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. | Shackleton, David James | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| O'Doherty, William | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| O'Malley, William | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham) | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel | Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid. |
| Parrott, William | Sheehy, David | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.) |
| Partington, Oswald | Shipman, Dr. John G. | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Paulton, James Mellor | Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) | Slack, John Bamford | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh., N.) |
| Perks, Robert William | Sloan, Thomas Henry | Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd |
| Philipps, John Wynford | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Pirie, Duncan V. | Soares, Ernest J. | |
| Power, Patrick Joseph | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. Robert Spencer. |
| Price, Robert John | Strachey, Sir Edward | |
| Priestley, Arthur | Sullivan, Donal | |
| Rea, Russell | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he desired to raise a point of order before the Question was put from the Chair. He submitted that this Amendment was contrary to the Standing Orders, and was, therefore, completely out of order. He was basing his point of order on the Chairman's own ruling. He submitted that the effect of the Amendment was to convert this Bill into a temporary Act. This must necessarily be the effect of this Amendment coming at the beginning, because it made the machinery temporary, it made the compensation temporary, and they were told that the two principles of the Bill were contained in the first clause. Therefore it converted the law into a temporary law, and was contrary to the Standing Orders. Standing Order No. 45 said—
The precise duration of every temporary law shall be expressed in a distinct clause at the end of the Bill.If the words of the Amendment were inserted there was no provision in the Bill which could continue at the end of seven years.
*THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member has overlooked Clause 4. The point which he has raised has been in my mind, and 1030 if Clause 4 were not in the Bill, then I think the hon. Member would be right. But with regard to new licences it has not been suggested that it is only a temporary Bill. After a two days debate it is rather late to raise this point. My attention had already been called by one or two Members to the point referred to, and I had pointed out to them the distinction I have just named.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid a two days debate did not make the Amendment in order if it was contrary to the Standing Orders. He submitted that if these words were inserted the whole Act would be a temporary one.
*The CHAIRMANI do not agree. The clauses to which they would refer would be Clauses 1, 2, and 3, and not Clause 4.
§ MR. J. H. LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)asked whether in those circumstances it would be in order to limit the length of time during which the provision relating to new licences should apply.
*The CHAIRMANProbably, but I should like to see the hon. Member's Amendment when we reach the clause.
§ Question put accordingly, "That the word 'seven' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
1032§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 306; Noes, 187. (Division List, No. 136.)
1035| AYES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Cust, Henry John C. | Heath, James (Staffords., N. W. |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Dalkeith, Earl of | Heaton, John Henniker |
| Aird, Sir John | Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W. |
| Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden | Davenport, W. Bromley | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham) | Hickman, Sir Alfred |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) | Hoare, Sir Samuel |
| Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O. | Dewar, Sir T.R. (Tower Hamlets | Hogg, Lindsay |
| Arrol, Sir William | Dickinson, Robert Edmond | Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Dickson, Charles Scott | Horner, Frederick William |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. | Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C. | Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham |
| Austin, Sir John | Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil |
| Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy | Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon | Hudson, George Bickersteth |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E. | Hunt, Rowland |
| Balcarres, Lord | Doughty, George | Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.) |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Jameson, Major J. Eustace |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J.(Manch'r | Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Duke, Henry Edward | Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds | Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart | Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop |
| Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. | Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Kerr, John |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Faber, Edmund B. (Hants., W.) | Keswick, William |
| Bartley, Sir George C. T. | Fardell, Sir T. George | Kimber, Henry |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r | Knowles, Sir Lees |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Ffrench, Peter | Labouchere, Henry |
| Bignold, Arthur | Field, William | Laurie, Lieut.-General |
| Bigwood, James | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith | Fisher, William Hayes | Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N.R. |
| Boulnois, Edmund | FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- | Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham) |
| Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F (Middlesex | Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) |
| Brassey, Albert | Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Flower, Sir Ernest | Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Forster, Henry William | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine |
| Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.) | Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.) | Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham) |
| Brymer, William Ernest | Galloway, William Johnson | Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.) |
| Bull, William James | Gardner, Ernest | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Garfit, William | Lowe, Francis William |
| Butcher, John George | Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. | Loyd, Archie Kirkman |
| Carlile, William Walter | Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn) | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'rHamlets | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop | Macdona, John Cumming |
| Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire | Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.) | MacIver, David (Liverpool) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Goschen, Hon. George Joachim | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Maconochie, A. W. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) | Graham, Henry Robert | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) |
| Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc. | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | M'Iver, Sir Lewis-Edinburgh, W |
| Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton | Greene, Sir E. W (B'ry S Edm'nds | M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury) | M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) |
| Chapman, Edward | Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.) | Majendie, James A. H. |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Grenfell, William Henry | Malcolm, Ian |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Gretton, John | Manners, Lord Cecil |
| Coates, Edward Feetham | Greville, Hon. Ronald | Martin, Richard Biddulph |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Groves, James Grimble | Melville, Beresford Valentine |
| Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Guthrie, Walter Murray | Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Hall, Edward Marshall | Milvain, Thomas |
| Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R. | Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. | Molesworth, Sir Lewis |
| Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) |
| Compton, Lord Alwyne | Hammond, John | Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford) | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy |
| Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas | Hare, Thomas Leigh | Mooney, John J. |
| Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th | Moore, William |
| Cremer, William Randal | Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich | Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) |
| Cripps, Charles Alfred | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. | Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose |
| Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) | Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Hayden, John Patrick | Morrison, James Archibald |
| Cullinan, J. | Heath, A. Howard (Hanley) | Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer |
| Moulton, John Fletcher | Richards, Henry Charles | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Mount, William Arthur | Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ |
| Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson | Thorburn, Sir Walter |
| Muntz, Sir Philip A. | Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) | Tollemache, Henry James |
| Nannetti, Joseph P. | Robinson, Brooke | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. |
| Newdegate, Francis A. N. | Roche, John | Tuff, Charles |
| Nicholson, William Graham | Rolleston, Sir John F. L. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.) | Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye | Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter) |
| Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Norman, Henry | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter | Wallace, Robert |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Round, Rt. Hon. James | Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H. |
| O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | Royds, Clement Molyneux | Wanklyn, James Leslie |
| O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| O'Doherty, William | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford | Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney) |
| O'Malley, William | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander | Webb, Colonel William George |
| Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) | Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse | Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunton |
| Parker, Sir Gilbert | Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles | Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts. |
| Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington) | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert | Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd |
| Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley | Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight | Whiteley, George (York, W.R.) |
| Percy, Earl | Seton-Karr, Sir Henry | Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne |
| Pierpoint, Robert | Sharpe, William Edward T. | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Pirie, Duncan V. | Sheehy, David | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Simeon, Sir Barrington | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Sinclair, Louis (Romford) | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Pretyman, Ernest George | Skewes-Cox, Thomas | Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.) |
| Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | Sloan, Thomas Henry | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath |
| Pym, C. Guy | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) | Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson |
| Quilter, Sir Cuthbert | Smith, James Parker (Lanarks. | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart |
| Randles, John S. | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Rankin, Sir James | Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne | Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk | Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong |
| Ratcliff, R. F. | Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset | |
| Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord(Lancs.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes. |
| Reid, James (Greenock) | Stock, James Henry | |
| Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries | Stone, Sir Benjamin | |
| Remnant, James Farquharson | Stroyan, John | |
| Renwick, George | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Delany, William | Harwood, George |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Denny, Colonel | Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. |
| Allen, Charles P. | Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway | Helme, Norval Watson |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. |
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry | Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Hobhouse, C.E.H.(Bristol, E. |
| Barlow, John Emmott | Dobbie, Joseph | Hobhouse, Rt Hn. H (Somers't, E |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Duncan, J. Hastings | Holland, Sir William Henry |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Dunn, Sir William | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Elibank, Master of | Hornby, Sir William Henry |
| Bell, Richard | Ellice, Capt E.C(SAndrw'sBghs | Horniman, Frederick John |
| Boland, John | Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) | Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. |
| Bolton, Thomas Dolling | Emmott, Alfred | Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone) | Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) |
| Brigg, John | Eve, Harry Trelawney | Jacoby, James Alfred |
| Brown, George M. (Edinburgh | Farquharson, Dr. Robert | Johnson, John (Gateshead) |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Fenwick, Charles | Joicey, Sir James |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea) |
| Burns, John | Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire |
| Burt, Thomas | Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) | Jordan, Jeremiah |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Kearley, Hudson E. |
| Caldwell, James | Furness, Sir Christopher | Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John | Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. |
| Cawley, Frederick | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Kennedy, Patrick James |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Grant, Corrie | Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick | Kilbride, Denis |
| Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Kitson, Sir James |
| Crooks, William | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Lambert, George |
| Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) | Hain, Edward | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Langley, Batty |
| Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) |
| Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan) | Harms worth, R. Leicester | Layland-Barratt, Francis |
| Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington) | Pilkington, Colonel Richard | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Leigh, Sir Joseph | Power, Patrick Joseph | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Leng, Sir John | Price, Robert John | Tennant, Harold John |
| Levy, Maurice | Priestley, Arthur | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Rea, Russell | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Lloyd-George, David | Reddy, M. | Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr) |
| Lough, Thomas | Rickett, J. Compton | Thomas, J. A. (Glamorgan, Gow'r |
| Lundon, W. | Rigg, Richard | Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.) |
| Lyell, Charles Henry | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | Tomkinson, James |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Robson, William Snowdon | Toulmin, George |
| M'Crae, George | Roe, Sir Thomas | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| M'Kenna, Reginald | Rose, Charles Day | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin | Runciman, Walter | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Mansfield, Horace Rendall | Russell, T. W. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Markham, Arthur Basil | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Weir, James Galloway |
| Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William | Schwann, Charles E. | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh) | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N. | Shackleton, David James | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Morley, Charles (Breconshire) | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Murphy, John | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Newnes, Sir George | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel | Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid. |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Shipman, Dr. John G. | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.) |
| Nussey, Thomas Willans | Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) | Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh., N.) |
| O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.) | Slack, John Bamford | Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd |
| Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Parrott, William | Soares, Ernest J. | |
| Partington, Oswald | Spear, John Ward | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Colonel Williams and Sir William Houldsworth. |
| Paulton, James Mellor | Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants | |
| Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) | Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart | |
| Perks, Robert William | Strachey, Sir Edward | |
| Philipps, John Wynford | Sullivan, Donal |
§ Whereupon Mr. A. J. BALFOUR claimed, "That the Main Question be now put."
§ Question put accordingly, "That the words 'During the period of seven years
1036§ after the passing of this Act' be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 192; Noes, 290. (Division List No 137.)
1039| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | Harmsworth, R. Leicester |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan) | Harwood, George |
| Allen, Charles P. | Delany, William | Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Denny, Colonel | Heath, A. Howard (Hanley) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry | Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway | Helme, Norval Watson |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. |
| Barlow, John Emmott | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Dobbie, Joseph | Hobhouse, C.E.H. (Bristol, E.) |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire | Duncan, J. Hastings | Holland, Sir William Henry |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Dunn, Sir William | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) |
| Bell Richard | Elibank, Master of | Hornby, Sir William Henry |
| Bolton, Thomas Dolling | Ellice, Capt E. C (SAndrw'sBghs | Horniman, Frederick John |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) | Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry |
| Brigg, John | Emmott, Alfred | Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. |
| Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) | Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone) | Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Eve, Harry Trelawney | Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Farquharson, Dr. Robert | Jacoby, James Alfred |
| Burns, John | Fenwick, Charles | Johnson, John (Gateshead) |
| Burt, Thomas | Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | Joicey, Sir James |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond | Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea) |
| Caldwell, James | Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) | Jones, William(Carnarvonshire |
| Cameron, Robert | Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Jordan, Jeremiah |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Furness, Sir Christopher | Kearley, Hudson E. |
| Cawley, Frederick | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Grant, Corrie | Kennedy, Patrick James |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick | Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh) |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Kilbride, Denis |
| Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Kitson, Sir James |
| Cremer, William Randal | Hain, Edward | Labouchere, Henry |
| Crooks, William | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Lambert, George |
| Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) | Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale | Langley, Batty |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Harcourt, Rt Hn. Sir W (Monm't | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) |
| Layland-Barratt, Francis | Philipps, John Wynford | Tennant, Harold John |
| Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington | Pirie, Duncan V. | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Leigh, Sir Joseph | Price, Robert John | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Leng, Sir John | Priestley, Arthur | Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr) |
| Levy, Maurice | Rea, Russell | Thomas, J. A (Glamorgan, Gower |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Reddy, M. | Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.) |
| Lloyd-George, David | Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries | Tomkinson, James |
| Lough, Thomas | Rickett, J. Compton | Toulmin, George |
| Lundon, W. | Rigg, Richard | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Lyell, Charles Henry | Roberts, John H (Denbighs.) | Wallace, Robert |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Robson, William Snowdon | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Roche, John | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| M'Crae, George | Roe, Sir Thomas | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| M'Kenna, Reginald | Rose, Charles Day | Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney) |
| M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin | Runciman, Walter | Weir, James Galloway |
| Mansfield, Horace Rendall | Russell, T. W. | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Markham, Arthur Basil | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Whiteley, George (York, W.R.) |
| Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William | Schwann, Charles E. | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh'N. | Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh) | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Morley, Charles (Breconshire) | Seely, Maj. J.E.B. (Isle of Wight | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose | Shackleton, David James | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Moulton, John Fletcher | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) | Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid. |
| Murphy, John | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.) |
| Newnes, Sir George | Shipman, Dr. John G. | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Norman, Henry | Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Slack, John Bamford | Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd |
| Nussey, Thomas Willans | Sloan, Thomas Henry | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | |
| Parrott, William | Soares, Ernest J. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. Robert Spencer. |
| Partington, Oswald | Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart | |
| Paulton, James Mellor | Strachey, Sir Edward | |
| Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) | Sullivan, Donal | |
| Perks, Robert William | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Cautley, Henry Strother | Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E. |
| Aird, Sir John | Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire | Doughty, George |
| Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Doxford, Sir William Theodore |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm. | Duke, Henry Edward |
| Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O | Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc. | Dyke, Rt.Hn.Sir William Hart |
| Arrol, Sir William | Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton | Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Faber, Edmund B. (Hants., W. |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. | Chapman, Edward | Fardell, Sir T. George |
| Austin, Sir John | Clive, Captain Percy A. | Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r |
| Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy | Coates, Edward Feetham | Ffrench, Peter |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Field, William |
| Balcarres, Lord | Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Finch, Rt Hon. George H. |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r | Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R. | Fisher, William Hayes |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds | Compton, Lord Alwyne | Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon |
| Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Flannery, Sir Fortescue |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas | Flower, Sir Ernest |
| Bartley, Sir George C. T. | Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Forster, Henry William |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Cripps, Charles Alfred | Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.) |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) | Galloway, William Johnson |
| Bignold, Arthur | Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Gardner, Ernest |
| Bigwood, James | Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Garfit, William |
| Boland, John | Cullman, J. | Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith | Cust, Henry John C. | Gordon, Hn. E.(Elgin & Nairn) |
| Boulnois, Edmund | Dalkeith, Earl of | Gordon, Maj. E. (Tr. Hamlets) |
| Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F (Middlesex | Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Gore, Hn G.R.C. Ormsby-(Salop |
| Brassey, Albert | Davenport, William Bromley | Gore, Hon. S.F. Ormsby-(Linc.) |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham) | Goschen, Hon. George Joachim |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) | Goulding, Edward Alfred |
| Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.) | Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tr. Haml'ts) | Graham, Henry Robert |
| Brymer, William Ernest | Dickinson, Robert Edmond | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) |
| Bull, William James | Dickson, Charles Scott | Greene, Sir E. W (B'rySEdm'nds |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- | Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury) |
| Butcher, John George | Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C. | Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.) |
| Carlile, William Walter | Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Grenfell, William Henry |
| Gretton, John | Majendie, James A. H. | Rolleston, Sir John F. L. |
| Greville, Hon. Ronald | Malcolm, Ian | Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye |
| Groves, James Grimble | Manners, Lord Cecil | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert |
| Guthrie, Walter Murray | Martin, Richard Biddulph | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter |
| Hall, Edward Marshall | Melville, Beresford Valentine | Round, Rt. Hon. James |
| Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. | Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry | Mildraay, Francis Bingham | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Hammond, John | Milvain, Thomas | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford |
| Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford) | Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander |
| Hare, Thomas Leigh | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse) |
| Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th | Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.) | Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles |
| Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Haslam, Sir Alfred S. | Mooney, John J. | Seton-Karr, Sir Henry |
| Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. | Moore, William | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Hay, Hon. Claude George | Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Morpeth, Viscount | Sheehy, David |
| Heath, James (Staffords., N.W. | Morrell, George Herbert | Simeon, Sir Barrington |
| Heaton, John Henniker | Morrison, James Archibald | Sinclair, Louis (Romford) |
| Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W. | Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer | Skewes-Cox, Thomas |
| Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. | Mount, William Arthur | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford,East). |
| Hickman, Sir Alfred | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | Smith, James Parker (Lanarks. |
| Hoare, Sir Samuel | Muntz, Sir Philip A. | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand). |
| Hogg, Lindsay | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) | Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich). |
| Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk |
| Horner, Frederick William | Newdegate, Francis A. N. | Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset |
| Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham | Nicholson, William Graham | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs. |
| Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil | Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.) | Stock, James Henry |
| Hudson, George Bickersteth | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Hunt, Rowland | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.) | Stroyan, John |
| Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Jameson, Major J. Eustace | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ |
| Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton | O'Doherty, William | Thorburn, Sir Walter |
| Kenyon-Slancy, Col. W. (Salop. | O'Malley, William | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Kerr, John | Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) | Tollemache, Henry James |
| Keswick, William | Parker, Sir Gilbert | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. |
| Kimber, Henry | Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington) | Tuff, Charles |
| Knowles, Sir Lees | Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley | Valentia, Viscount |
| Laurie, Lieut.-General | Percy, Earl | Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter) |
| Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Pierpoint, Robert | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) | Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H. |
| Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N. R. | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Wanklyn, James Leslie |
| Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham) | Pretyman, Ernest George | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | Webb, Colonel William George- |
| Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Pym, C. Guy | Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunton |
| Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. | Quilter, Sir Cuthbert | Welby, Sir Charles G. E.(Notts |
| Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Randles, John S. | Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd |
| Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham) | Rankin, Sir James | Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne |
| Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.) | Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Lowe, Francis William | Ratcliff, R. F. | Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.) |
| Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath |
| Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) | Reid, James (Greenock) | Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson |
| Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Remnant, James Farquharson | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart |
| Macdona, John dimming | Renwick, George | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| MacIver, David (Liverpool) | Richards, Henry Charles | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Maconochie, A. W. | Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge | Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong |
| M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson | |
| M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W. | Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes. |
| M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) | |
| M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | Robinson, Brooke |
§ And, it being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.