Commons Sitting of 27 June 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
South Western and Isle of Wight Junction Railway (Extension of Time) Bill. Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.
Bexhill Water and Gas Bill; Harrow Road and Paddington Tramways Bill; London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Leicestershire and Warwickshire Electric Power Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill. As amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Matlock and District Gas Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
King's College Hospital Bill [Lords]; Manchester Ship Canal Bill [Lords]; Trafford Park Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
Education Board Provisional Order (Cardiff) Bill; Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill. As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
Glasgow Corporation (Police) Order Confirmation. Bill to confirm a Provisional Order, under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Glasgow Corporation (Police), ordered to be brought in by The Lord Advocate and Mr. A. Graham Murray.
Glasgow Corporation (Police) Order Confirmation Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order, under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Glasgow Corporation (Police)," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 5th July, and to be printed. [Bill 240.]
Milwr and District Mines Drainage Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
County of Suffolk Bill. Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the County of Suffolk Bill with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills. —(Sir Cuthbert Quilter.)

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Education Board Provisional Order (Swansea) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders

1217
(No. 5) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 15) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas) Bill; Donegal Railway Bill; Mullingar, Kells, and Drogheda Railway Bill, without Amendment.
Great Northern Railway Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, An Act to amend The Married Women's Property Act, 1882." [Married Women's Property Act (1882) Amendment Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to regulate and restrict the wearing of Naval and Military Medals and Decorations." [Naval and Military Medals Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made lay the Board of Trade under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Grays Gas, Hedon Gas, Northampton Gas, Rochford Gas, and Romford Gas." [Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under The Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to St. Margaret's Gas, Stirling Gas, Waltham Abbey and Cheshunt Gas, Worsbroughdale and Worsbrough Gas, and Worthing Gas." [Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Barry Railway Company to provide and work Steam Vessels and to subscribe to the funds of any Steamship Company; to raise additional capital; and for other purposes." [Barry Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to constitute and incorporate a joint water board consisting of representatives of the Oakengates and Dawley Urban District Councils in the county of Salop; and for
1218
other purposes." [Oakengates and Dawley Joint Water Board Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Corporation of Manchester to construct tramways and street widenings within and beyond the city; to confer further powers upon the Corporation and neighbouring authorities with respect to the exercise of powers relating to tramways works and electricity within and beyond the city; and for other purposes." [Manchester Corporation Tramways Bill [Lords.]
Leith Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation Bill. That they have appointed a Committee consisting of Three Members to join with a Committee of the Commons to consider the Leith Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation Bill, pursuant to Message of this House.
Barry Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill [Lords]; Oakengates and Dawley Joint Water Board Bill [Lords]; Manchester Corporation Tramways Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 241.]
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 242.]

PETITIONS.
  BOROUGH COUNCIL ELECTIONS (HOURS OF POLLING).
  Petition from Battersea, for legislation; to he upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Abberfraw; Ainstable; Anglesey; Battersea; Bedminster; Billesdon; Birmingham; Bishop's Froome; Bishopthorpe; Bolen-owe; Bollington; Bolton (two); Braith-waite; Brampton (two); Bridgend; Bridlington; Broad Chalk; Brough; Bury St. Edmunds; Camborne; Clapham Common; Chorley; Clayton West; Cockermouth; Croglin; Danby; Darcy

  1219
  Lever; Downham Market; Dowlais; Earlsfield; Feltwell; Glasgow; Gorton; Greenock; Guisborough; Hessle; High Barnet; Hornsey; Hull; Hyde Park (sixteen); Illogan; Ulogan Downs; Kehelland; Kingsland; Kilwinning; Kirkoswald; Lancaster; Llandensant; Llanelly; Llanfachreth; Low Row; Luston; Merthyr Tydfil; Merton; Monk-seaton; Morecambe; Mountain Ash; Newcastle-on-Tyne; Newcastle Town Moor; Nine Elms; Northwold; Open-shaw; Pengegon; Penponds; Penzance; Peterborough; Perranarworthal; Plymouth; Pontypool; Pool; Poppleton; Eathmell; Eenwick; Bhondda Fawr (two); Eisbury; Eochdale (two); Run-corn; Sancred; Scaling; Shobdon; Sker-ton; Southampton (eleven); South Molton; South Wales Temperance Union; South-West London; Springville; Sutton Bonnington; Swansea; Tucking-mill; Troon; Walkden (two); Whittle-brook; Winchester; Winkleigh; Wix; Woodford Green (two); Wrington; and Yarpole; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from London (two); Rochester; Shrewsbury; and Wells; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (TAXATION AND PURCHASE OF LAND) BILL.
  Petition from Battersea, in favour; to lie upon the able.
  RE-VACCINATION BILL.
  Petition from Cardigan, against; to lie upon the Table.
  VALUATION BILL.
  Petitions against; from Rochdale; and Thirsk; to lie upon the Table.
  VALUATION BILL.
  Petition from North Wales, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC
  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 21st June; Mr. Mount]; to he upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 224.]
  REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 12th April; Mr. Lough]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 225.]
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS (SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS-MEAL HOURS IN IRON AND STEEL FOUNDRIES).
  Copy presented, of Order, dated 23rd June, 1904, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in pursuance of Section 40 (4) of The Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, extending the Special Exceptions as to Meal Hours to male young persons-employed in Iron and Steel Foundries, and repealing the Order of the 14th July, 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND; ACT, 1889 (ORDINANCE).
  Copy presented, of University Court Ordinance No. X. (Aberdeen No. 2) (Regulations for the Degree of Doctor of Science in Agriculture, D. Sc. (Agr.) [by Act]; to Me upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 226.]
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS, 1882 TO 1902 (PROCEEDINGS).
  Copy presented, of Report by the-Board of Trade respecting the Applications to and Proceedings of the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 to 1902, during the past year [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 227.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3194 to 3197 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  1. Inquiry into Charities (County of Lancaster). Further Return relative thereto [ordered 3rd August, 1898; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to be printed. [No. 228.]
  2. Public Records (War Office). Copy of Sixth Schedule containing a List and Particulars of Classes of Documents pertaining to the office of His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the War Department, and deposited in the Public Record Office, but which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation therein [by Act].

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Floggings by Police—Weight of Birch.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the weight of the birch used by the police in the infliction of floggings.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Alters-Douglas.) It doss not rest with me to prescribe a standard of weight for birches to be used by police under the direction of magistrates, and my information as to the practice in the matter is confined to the Metropolitan Police District, where I understand the weight of the birches used (for boys under fourteen years of age) does not exceed six ounces.

  Schull Mail Service.
  MR. GILHOOLY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the mails for Schull, county Cork, arriving at Skibbereen at 2.15 p.m., are not delivered at Schull until the next morning, though a train leaves Skibbereen at 6.30 p.m. by which they could be conveyed; and, if so, whether, in view of the importance of Schull as a fishing station, he will arrange for an evening postal delivery there.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am aware that there is no day mail service to Schull. When the question of improving the service was last considered it was found that additional expense for the purpose would not be warranted, but I will have fresh inquiry made with a view of ascertaining whether there has been any change in the circumstances, and I will acquaint the hon. Member with the result.

  South African War Contribution.
  MR. WHITLEY: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if His Majesty's Government still adheres to the statement of the Member for West Birmingham on 6th May, 1£03, that the arrangements made by him with regard to the thirty millions War Contribution were connected with and conditional upon the thirty-five millions Guaranteed
  1222
  Loan, and that the whole arrangement was to be treated together; and, if so, what action is proposed to be taken.
  (Answered by Mr. A.J. Balfour.) His-Majesty's Government does adhere to the statement referred to, and when the time appears to be opportune for the fulfillment of the conditions under which the arrangement was made such steps for giving effect to it as may be expedient will be taken.

  Length of Speeches.
  SIR CARNE RASCH: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that two speeches occupied three hours of Parliamentary time on Friday, 17th June, leaving two hours only for the remaining 677 Members; and whether he will propose such Amendments to the Standing Orders as will insure a more equitable distribution of the time on days on which non-Government Bills or Notices of Motion have precedence.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I am aware that on the Committee stage of various Bills, speeches of considerable length have recently been delivered. They have not been on all occasions in conformity with the spirit of Committee discussion but, as my hon. friend knows, though, admitting the evil of which he complains, I have never been able to satisfy myself as to the remedy which should be applied.

  The Finance Bill and Trade in Tobacco Strips.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he his aware that the trade in tobacco strips in the United Kingdom is entirely suspended in view of the Budget proposals, and that merchants are thereby involved in loss; and whether, in view of the necessity for concluding transactions which are now arrested, he will fix an early day for continuing the consideration of the Finance Bill.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I am quite aware that great inconvenience has been caused to the trade by the prolongation of the Debates on the Finance

  1223
  Bill. I had fully hoped that a decision would have been reached on Wednesday last; but, unfortunately, that was postponed, and I may remind the hon. Gentleman that the postponement took place at his own suggestion.

  Bight of British-Indian Subjects to Trade in the Transvaal.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS (Denbighshire, W.): To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the decision of the Chief Justice in the Transvaal Supreme Court with reference to the right of British-Indian subjects to trade in any part of the Transvaal, he is now in a position to state what steps will be taken to give effect to this decision by the removal of existing restrictions upon their trade.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I am in telegraphic communication with Lord Milner on the subject, but I cannot at present add anything to the Answer which I gave on Thursday last to the ton. Member for Bethnal Green.†

  Outbreak of Beri-Beri amongst Chinese Coolies in South Africa.
  MR. JOHNSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is yet able to give any information as to the extent and the cause of the outbreak of beri-beri among the Chinese coolies engaged for the Rand mines.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I desire to answer at the same time a Question of which I have received private notice from the hon. Member for West Newington. I have not yet received the information for which I telegraphed to Lord Milner, and I regret, therefore, that I am unable to answer the hon. Member's inquiries. I telegraphed again on Saturday. The first telegram was "written on the 22nd, but owing to an accident did not leave the office until the 23rd.

  Treatment of Chinese Labourers at Durban
  MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the
  † See Page 987.
  1224
  Colonies by whose authority and under what Act the Chinese labourers recently imported into South Africa have been confined in compounds guarded by special police at Durban in the colony of Natal.
  (Answered by Mi. Secretary Lyttelton.) The action has no doubt been taken under the authority of the Natal Government, and under Natal Legislation. I have inquired of the Officer Administering the Government as to the Act under which action has been taken.

  Chinese Labour in South Africa-Local Protest.
  MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that at a congress held in Pretoria on 23rd of May, attended by about 150 delegates, representing a large proportion of the white inhabitants of the Transvaal, a resolution protesting against the importation of Chinese labour into the Transvaal was passed without a single dissentient speech or vote; and, if so, whether, in view of these circumstances, he will now direct that a vote of the white inhabitants be taken in order to decide the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) My attention has been drawn to the proceedings of the congress and to the resolution referred to, which approves the message from the Boer leaders printed at page 21 of Cd. 1899. I am not prepared to take the action suggested, for the reasons given in my reply to the message which is printed at page 22.

  Stornaway and Mallaig Mail Delays.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will state on how many occasions during the present year the Stornaway mail steamer has been late in her arrival at Stornaway and Mallaig, respectively; and will he say how often the delay exceeded half an hour.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) During the period from the 1st January last to the 16th instant the mail steamer from Kyle was late in arrival at Stornaway on 120 occasions, although in some cases the delay was only a very few minutes. The

  1225
  lateness exceeded half an hour on twenty-three occasions. With regard to the inward voyage the contract service ends at Kyle, and during the period in question the steamer was late in arrival at that place on four occasions, on each of which the lateness exceeded half an hour. I have no control whatever over the voyage south of Kyle.

  Book-Post Bates to Canada.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether it has been brought to his notice that the postage of printed matter from New Orleans to Alaska costs only one cent per pound, while the charge from London to Montreal is eight cents par pound; if so, whether, seeing that the difference in postage is such as practically to double the price of British publications in Canada as against similiar American publications and so lead to a much larger circulation of the latter, and in view of the desire of the Canadian people to receive British and American publications on equal terms, he will consider the expediency of equalising British with American postage.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am aware that certain kinds of printed matter, posted under specified conditions by publishers or newsagents in the United States of America, are subject to a postage of one cent per pound. Papers sent from New Orleans to Alaska would, like papers sent between other parts of the United States, and also from those States to Canada, have the advantage of this inland rate. Printed matter sent from London to Montreal is subject to the rate ½d. per two ounces) which applies not only to printed papers, other than registered newspapers, sent from one part of the United Kingdom to another, but to those sent to any other part of the world. Any reduction of this rate would necessarily have to be of a general character; and I am not prepared to recommend it in view of the serious loss of revenue which would be involved.

  Postal Servants and Trade Unions.
  MR. BELL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the repeated assurances made to postal telegraphists that they have perfect freedom with reference to joining trade
  1226
  unions, and that officials of the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association are not treated differently to others, he will direct that an investigation be made into the administration of the telegraph service at Hanley with a view to preventing the treatment meted out to members of the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I have had special inquiry made on the subject, and I am satisfied that, in the treatment of the officers of the telegraph staff at Hanley, no difference whatever is made between those who are members of the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association and those who are not.

  American Mail Routes.
  MR. TANKERVILLE CHAMBER-LAYNE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that the German mails have frequently been carried, as from Southampton to New York, more expeditiously than the English mails via Queenstown, he wiil consider the advisability of sending a regular weekly mail by the Southampton route.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) It is already the practice to send mails to New York by the weekly German and American packets from Southampton, there being always cases in which the senders indicate their washes to that effect on the covers. It is not proposed to depart from this practice nor to divert unsuperscribed letters, etc., from the Queenstown route unless, in individual cases, there are good reasons for doing so.

  Inverness Mails.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Postmaster - General whether any fresh arrangements have been made with the West Coast Railways with the object of ensuring that the down night mails from London to Scotland shall be delivered at Inverness at schedule time.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am at present in communication not only with the West Coast Railway Companies, but also with the Highland Railway Company with regard to the working of the night mail train from London to the North of

  1227
  Scotland. I will inform the hon. Member of the result.

  Post Office Savings Bank Deposits.
  ME. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the Postmaster-General has there been any considerable falling off in the amounts deposited in the Post Office Savings Banks in recent months; and will he state the total amounts of deposits therein made respectively in 1903 and in 1904 for each of the months from January to May, both inclusive.

  1903.

  1904.

  Month.

  Deposits.

  Withdrawals.

  Deposits.

  Withdrawals.

  Number.

  Amount.

  Number.

  Amount.

  Number.

  Amount.

  Number.

  Amount.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  January

  1,690,707

  4,602,950

  487,076

  3,527,301

  1,637,815

  4,313,873

  469,250

  3,419,157

  February

  1,401,120

  3,200,257

  415,346

  3,116,501

  1,457,189

  3,261,178

  426,029

  3,138,875

  March

  1,387,607

  3,249,884

  480,194

  3,728,337

  1,307,408

  3,154,827

  553,551

  3,880,426

  April

  1,116,944

  3,048,193

  526,339

  3,344,554

  1,183,957

  3,054,219

  500,035

  3,119,904

  May

  1,151,742

  2,968,837

  565,673

  3,519,362

  1,083,948

  2,824,123

  544,474

  3,366,863

  Totals

  6,748,120

  17,070,121

  2,474,628

  17,236,055

  6,670,317

  16,608,220

  2,493,339

  16,925,225

  Mail Trains calling at Grey stones Station.
  MR. COGAN (Wicklow, E.): To ask the Postmaster-General whether the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Company were requested by the Post Office to cease stopping the down and up mail trains, morning and evening, at Greystones Station; and whether he would have any objection to the railway company starting the morning mail train five minutes earlier from Westland Row and allowing the company to put back by five minutes the arrival of the evening mail train at Westland Row in order to admit of each train stopping at Grey-stones Station as hitherto.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I will have inquiry made as to the mail trains on the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway stopping at Greystones Station, and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  Sub-Post Offices Changing Hands.
  MR. BROTHERTON: To ask the Postmaster-General how many sub-post offices have changed hands since
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) There has been a slight decline in the amount deposited in the Post Office Savings Banks in the last five months as compared with the amount deposited in the corresponding months of last year. The number and total amount of the deposits during each of the months in question are given in the attached table; to which have been added, for convenience of reference, the number and total amount of the withdrawals in each month:—
  the introduction of the new series of postal orders; and whether there are any offices now vacant.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Since the 1st July, 1903, when the new series of Postal Orders was introduced, 1,573 sub-post offices have changed hands. 346 sub-post offices are at present vacant, or about to become so on the expiration of the customary three months notice, and the usual steps are being taken for filling the vacancies. These numbers are not, I believe, in any way exceptional.
  NOTE.—It is believed that these numbers are in no way exceptional. No increase in the number of resignations has-been observed, but the cause of resignation is not usually stated.

  Pay of Sub-Postmasters.
  MR. BROTHERTON: To ask the Postmaster-General what additions or increases in the scale of payment of sub-postmasters have been made during the past twenty years.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) To answer the hon. Member's Question fully and

  1229
  accurately it will be necessary to examine the records carefully. This is being done, and I will let the hon. Member know the result as soon as possible.

  Promotion of Senior Postman to Overseers Class at General Post Office.
  CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.): To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state the date in which the last vacancy occurred in the overseers class at the Eastern Central Section of the General Post Office, which has been filled by the appointment of a senior postman and lobby officer, and also the date of the Controller's recommendation for that officer's promotion.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The last vacancy on the class of overseers in the London postal service which was filled by the promotion of a senior postman and lobby officer was created by the promotion of an overseer on the 13th instant and was filled on the same day. The Controller's report recommending the officer promoted was made on the 8th instant in anticipation of the vacancy.

  Pension of Mr. Papworth, Letter Sorter.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the Postmaster General if he is aware that a letter sorter named Papworth, employed at the General Post Office, has been on sick leave, due to an accident on duty, without any pay, pending pension settlement, since 25th February last; and, if BO, whether, in view of Mr. Papworth's circumstances, he will take steps to have his pension settled at once.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) After an accident on duty in December, 1902, Mr. Papworth was granted sick pay during sick absence for the full period allowed by the regulations, and the authority of the Treasury has been obtained for the grant of further sick pay at the rate he would have received if he were pensioned. The medical officer to my Department has expressed the opinion that Mr. Papworth cannot at present be certified to be permanently incapacitated for further duty, and this opinion is shared by Dr. Lionel Beale, the Treasury medical referee, who also examined him. In these circumstances Mr. Papworth's superannuation cannot be proceeded with at
  1230
  present. The sick pay will date from 25th of February last. I may say that in November last Mr. Papworth obtained £830 damages from the South Eastern and Chatham Railway, in respect of the injuries he received in December, 1902.

  Accidents on the Glasgow Corporation Tramways.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the number of accidents which have occurred on the Glasgow Corporation Electric Tramway system during the year ending the 1st June last, distinguishing fatal accidents to persons from injuries to persons not resulting in death; and will he quote the number of accidents causing damage to goods, vehicles, animals, and other property.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The Glasgow Corporation have informed me that the number of accidents causing injuries to persons on their tramway system in the year ended the 31st ultimo was 100, of which nineteen were fatal. During the same period there were twenty-eight accidents causing material injury to property. The corporation add that in the year in question their cars ran 16,291,082 miles, and carried 188,982,610 passengers.

  Exhibition of Automatic Couplings and Either-side Brakes.
  MR. BELL: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that an exhibition of models of automatic couplings and either-side brakes is to be held at the Agricultural Hall, Islington, from the 25th inst. to 2nd July; and if he will arrange for some of his inspecting officers to visit it and report on the models as to their practicability for adoption on the railways of this country.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The assistant inspecting officers have been asked to visit the exhibition to which the hon. Member refers. An inspection of models would not be sufficient to enable an opinion to be formed whether the adoption of any particular invention would be practicable.

  Diplomatic and Consular Trade Reports.
  MR. FENWICK: To ask the President of the

  1231
  Board of Trade whether it is intended to publish this year extracts from the Reports of His Majesty's Diplomatic and Consular Officers abroad, relating to particular trades and industries received during the year 1903, if so, can he state when the extracts will appear in relation to coal, in continuation of Parliamentary Paper [Cd. 1409], 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) Extracts from Reports of His Majesty's Diplomatic and Consular Officers on matters of special interest to British traders are published on receipt in the weekly Board of Trade Journal. The information contained in these Reports with regard to particular trades and industries is also collated for convenient reference in the Commercial Intelligence Branch, and if the hon. Member will move for the publication of a collection of such extracts as refer to coal in the Reports received for the year 1903, I shall be prepared to grant the Return. The question of publishing annual summaries of these extracts for all important groups of trade is receiving consideration, but it is feared that the length of time that must necessarily elapse before such summaries could be completed and issued would tend to diminish their practical value.

  Sunday Trading.
  MR. YOXALL (Nottingham, W.): To: ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any reports or statistics are in his possession which show that an increase in the amount of trading on Sundays has taken place in England and Wales; and, if so, whether he will lay them on the Table.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I have no information which would show whether there has been an increase in Sunday trading in England and Wales. Figures as to prosecutions for Sunday trading appear in the annual volumes of Criminal Statistics; but, of course, they do not afford any means of judging the amount of Sunday trading which actually takes place.

  Explosion at Rosemount Police Barracks, Londonderry—Report of Inspector.
  MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home
  1232
  Department if he will state upon whose information the Inspector of Explosives states in his Twenty-eight Annual Report, at page 63 thereof, that the explosion at Rosemount Police Barracks, Londonderry, on 17th March, 1903. was an impudent method of celebrating the national festival; and whether, seeing that the explosion was caused by a local Orangeman well known to the police, who was afterwards prosecuted therefor, and that this explosion has never been attributed by the authorities to the celebrants of St. Patrick's Day, he will take care that in future similar reports are truthfully given by His Majesty's Inspector of Explosives.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The man who was arrested on the charge of having caused this explosion, to whom I presume the hon. Member refers, was, as a fact, discharged by the magistrates, as the boy who was the only witness against him swore that the deposition which he had himself made was false. That incident does not, therefore, afford any ground for doubting the accuracy of the Inspector's Report, which merely stated what appeared on a review of all the circumstances, and in the opinion, as I am informed, of the local police, to be the probable origin of the explosion.

  Municipal Trading—Standard Form of Accounts.
  SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTH (Manchester, N.W.): To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether any steps have been taken for the summoning of a conference of the Institute of Chartered Accountants and other societies, referred to in Section 9 of the Report of the Joint Select Committee on Municipal Trading; and whether he can undertake that such a conference shall be held at an early date, in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) As I stated last week in reply to a Question by my hon. friend the Member for Gravesend,† I have received communications from some of these societies offering
  † See page 997.

  1233
  to co-operate in the consideration of the subject referred to by the Committee. No conference has taken glace, but I have been giving attention to the practicability of a standard form of accounts of local authorities being prescribed, and I am disposed to think that the best course will be to appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into the system upon which the accounts should be kept.

  Fees of Public Vaccinators.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received any protests against the amount of the minimum fees payable to public vaccinators under the Vaccination Order of the Local Government Board of 1898; whether he is aware that in the Gateshead Union there were, during the four years previous to the passing of the Act, 6,378 primary and 230 re-vaccinations by public vaccinators, in respect to which fees were paid amounting to £753 12s. 6d., and during the four years since the passing of the Act there have been 10,574 primary vaccinations and 1,048 re-vaccinations by public vaccinators, fees paid to them amounting to £3,637 5s. 6d.; whether a Departmental Committee, which was appointed to inquire into and report on the subject of the costs and expenses borne by Poor Law guardians in connection with vaccination, has yet completed its inquiry; and, if so, whether any suggestion has been made likely to abate the burden imposed on boards of guardians by the existing fees.
  (Answered by Mr. Waller Long.) I have received representations on the subject of the fees payable to public vaccinators, and I am aware of the fees paid in the case of the Gateshead Union. It was in consequence of the representations made to me that I appointed the Departmental Committee referred to in the Question. The Committee have now made their Report and their recommendations are receiving my consideration.

  Constitution of the Consular Service—Recommendations of Committee.
  MR. MOON: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign
  1234
  Affairs whether he can state what steps have now been taken to effectuate the recommendations, as modified by the Secretary of State, of the Report presented last July of the Committee appointed to inquire into the constitution of the Consular Service.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) Regulations have been framed, subject to slight modifications by the Secretary of State, on the lines of the recommendations of the Committee, and it is intended to introduce them at once.

  Government Concessions of Land or Rights to Explore for Gold.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the text of all concessions of land or rights to explore for gold granted respectively to individuals or to syndicates, or to other limited liability companies, together with, in the case of each of the two latter, a list of their shareholders and a statement of their nominal capital, the number of their shares which have been paid for in cash, and the number that have been issued without cash payment to individuals, together with the names of such individuals.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) It will be impossible to lay the text of all the numerous contracts for the sale and lease of land in East Africa and Uganda. So far as I am aware no concessions for mining are in existence. The permits to prospect for minerals which were issued in 1902 and 1903 under the Mining Regulations have not resulted in applications for mining rights. The details asked for as to limited companies registered in this country can be seen at Somerset House.

  Fitzgerald Estate, County Mayo.
  DR. AMBROSE (Mayo, W.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how far the negotiations have proceeded with regard to the sale of the Fitzgerald Estate, situate at Turlough, county Mayo; and whether any portions of it have been sold to graziers.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) No originating application has yet been

  1235
  received in respect of the sale of this estate.

  Applications from Evicted Tenants on the White Estate, County Cork.
  MR. GILHOOLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of applications that have been received from -evicted tenants on the White Estate, county Cork, by the Estates Commissioners, and whether their cases will be dealt with before the agreements are signed by the tenants in occupation; and what provision is to be made for these evicted tenants.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Ten such applications have been received in respect of the estate of R. H. White, and one application in respect to the estate of Elizabeth White. These applications will be duly considered by the Commissioners before sanctioning advances.

  Expenditure upon Brennan Torpedoes.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the total! capital expenditure upon Brennan torpedoes, including provision of stations and necessary appliances, since their adoption; what is the number of these stations; and what proportion of the £507,000, shown in Return No. 238, Session 1903, as expended on provision for aquatic and submarine service out of Army Estimates, 1903–4, was for Brennan torpedo establishments.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The total expenditure upon Brennan torpedoes since their adoption, including provision of stations and necessary appliances, has been £483,000. This includes the sum paid for the invention and all expenditure in the factory. The number of stations is confidential and cannot be stated. Of the sum of £507,000 mentioned, £32,000 was for Brennan establishments.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Gun Sights of H.M.S. "Prince of Wales"
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty
    1236
    whether the gun sights of H.M.S. "Prince of Wales" at her gunnery trials were pronounced unsatisfactory; whether, since going into commission, the ship's artificers have been engaged under the gunnery lieutenant, with such material as exists on board, in altering the sights of the 6-inch guns; and whether the captain has decided that the 12-inch guns must remain as they are, it being impossible to make them efficient with the means at his disposal.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): As to the first part of the Question, I must refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Caithness on this subject on 26th February. † As to the latter part of the Question, no such report has been received from the captain of the "Prince of Wales"; but the sight fittings of the ship are not exactly what would now be supplied, and the alterations that the artificers are said to be carrying out are no doubt cross connecting them, and probably fitting large range discs. It has some months ago been decided to do this for the whole service, and trial sets of sights are now being distributed to different ships for report. If favourably reported on, all ships will be supplied. Many ships already have temporary fittings for cross connecting.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then is it proposed to alter the whole of the sights?
    MR. PRETYMAN: It is not a question of sights. It is a question of fittings. Improvements are being constantly made which involve small alterations. We are now considering the whole matter in the light of a Report from a Committee.

    Ventilation of Pressing Room at the Army Clothing Factory — Case of Alice Wright.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is now aware that a private deputation from the employees of the Army Clothing Department, introduced to the then Secretary of State and
    † See (4) Debates cxxx, 1154

    1237
    Financial Secretary by the Member for the Forest of Dean, brought to the knowledge of those officials and of the head of the Army Clothing Department eleven months ago, the subject of the ventilation of the pressing rooms at the Army Clothing Factory; whether a promise was then given that the ventilation should be attended to; whether since that time the matter has been again brought to the knowledge of himself by letters enclosing complaints as to the ventilation of at least two of the pressing rooms, and further assurances have been given to the effect that, while the matter has unfortunately not yet been dealt with, it is to be dealt with shortly.
    The following Questions bearing on the same subject also appeared on the Paper:—
    MR. THEODORE TAYLOR: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the death of Alice Wright, a tailoress, lately employed at the Army Clothing Factory at Pimlico, and to the evidence given at the inquest regarding the arrangements made in the pressing room affecting the health of the workers; and whether he will take early steps to secure that the condition of the workshop in question shall be made quite sanitary.
    CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.): To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the recent sudden death of a tailoress after working in the pressing room of the Army Clothing Factory, coupled with the failure of the Government to carry out in the said department the improved ventilation promised during the debate on the Army Clothing Vote last year, which promise it does not appear from the record of was renewed at a private deputation sub that deputation made at the War Office, sequently received by the Secretary of State for War and the Financial Secretary he will give the House an early opportunities of discussing the Army Clothing Vote.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): Perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words in explanation of an answer given in the name of my hon. friend the Finan-
    1238
    cial Secretary on Thursday last, and which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean has complained of as being incorrect and misleading. The fault, if there be one, lies with me. The Question, which was an unstarred one, was brought down to me at the House late on Thursday afternoon, and under the impression that the answer had been seen by the Financial Secretary, I passed it to the printers. My hon. friend informed me immediately he saw the answer that it was incorrect in one particular, that personal correspondence and interviews had taken place between himself and the right hon. Gentleman, of which I was quite unaware, hence I was led to convey an erroneous impression to the House, which I greatly regret. With regard to the subject matter of the right hon. Gentleman's Question, and of other Questions on the Paper to-day, I should like to say that I regard the matter as a very serious one, and well worthy of attention. Prior to the right hon. Gentleman's Question, I had already arranged to visit the Pimlico factory, and under the best guidance I could obtain to investigate the condition of things myself. I am not fully satisfied that the arrangements for improving the ventilation and accommodation have been carried out with sufficient rapidity, though I do not desire to form a definite opinion on this point until I have made full inquiry. I will reply at the same time to the Questions put by the hon. Members for West Newington and Lancashire, Radcliffe. My hon. friend is aware that a private deputation from the employees of the Army Clothing Department was introduced to the Secretary of State and Financial Secretary by the right hon. Gentleman on the 7th August, 1903, but it does not appear from the record of that deputation made at the War Office, or in the Journal called The Government Workers Advocate, which also had an account of the proceedings, that a complaint was made by the deputation with regard to ventilation, and no promise appears to have been asked for or given with regard to this matter. As a, matter of fact, however, there were defects in the ventilation, though not in the rooms particularly referred to. The Department concerned, acting on its own initiative,

    1239
    took measures some time ago with the object of remedying these defects, and electric fans were ordered, for which money was provided in the current year's Estimates. The installation is not yet complete, but it is hoped that it may be finished by the end of this month. The fans are to be placed in one of the top galleries. My hon. friend has recently received the letters from the right hon. Gentleman in which he refers to the question of ventilation, and he was informed in reply that the work was in progress, as I have already stated. There are about 000 girls working on the ground floor where Alice Wright herself worked, but the pressing room is a small room attached to the main building, and the girls only go there occasionally to press the garments. Many of the windows are made to open. I have not yet had time to examine the report of the evidence which reached the Office this morning, out I shall be happy to answer a further Question with respect to it, if necessary. I may repeat that I am very sensible of the importance of taking proper precautions for the health of those working in this and other Government factories, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the matter has already been attended to, and that the officials of the Department are thoroughly alive to the necessity of doing all that is possible for the comfort of the workers.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: It would not be in order for me to comment on the curious fact of the Answer having been given in the circumstances described; but by way of personal explanation may I be allowed to say, in reference to the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the note of the deputation does not show that the matter was specifically dealt with that in my own note it does appear that the matter was brought forward, and I think the noble Lord, now the Postmaster-General, but at that time Financial Secretary to the War Office, will remember that ventilation by fans was mentioned.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I quite accept the right hon. Baronet's explanation. I have examined the official record and the trade record and I do not find the statement, and that is probably a justifi-
    1240
    cation for the answer being drawn in the way it was.

    Military Service in India.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India how many men have been sent to India since 1902 who were enlisted for a period of three years only; how many of these men have extended their services; what has been the cost of returning those men who declined to extend their services; and whether the whole of this cost falls upon the Indian revenues.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this. The numbers of men sent to India sent 1902 who were enlisted for three years only cannot be obtained without reference to each unit. There were, however, on the 1st June 5,799 men (rank and file) in India whose original engagement was for three years, and of this number 2,325 men extended their service. It is not possible to calculate the extra cost involved by the return of those declining to extend, which will fall on British revenues.

    Drafts for the Indian Army.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state whether the Home Government has agreed to defray the entire cost of the passage to and from India of the 1,000 men now serving there, who, should they not extend their term of service, complete their three-year engagement prior to the close of the trooping season 1904–5; and, if so, what will be the cost to the British taxpayer; also, of the 11,300 men required by India next trooping season, how many upon embarkation will have not less than eight years to serve.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: As regards the cost of the passage the Army Estimates will only bear the excess charge, that may be involved by the non-extension of the men referred to. It is at present impossible to calculate what that excess cost will be. As regards the drafts for next Indian trooping season it is not possible to give at this moment any calculation as to the length of service of the men at the time of embarkation.

    Sir Charles Eliot's Resignation.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will lay upon the Table of the House the despatches from Sir Charles Eliot approving of an alien autonomous settlement in East Africa, and the despatches of Sir Charles Eliot disapproving of an alien autonomous settlement in East Africa. I will also ask the noble Earl at the same time whether the Government intend to appoint a Committee to investigate the charges which have been made in connection with the East Africa Company.
    The following Question on the same subject also appeared on the Paper.
    MR. TREVELYAN: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table the Papers and Correspondence relating to the resignation of Sir Charles Eliot.
    THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): The last Question of the hon. Member for Orkney, should. I think, be addressed to the Prime Minister. In reply to the Question on the Paper I have to say that in view of the interpretations which have been placed on Sir, Charles Eliot's telegram to the Prime Minister and the misunderstanding to which it has already given rise, the Secretary of State has decided to publish the Papers. The Secretary of State would prefer not to lay Papers at the present stage of the negotiations with the Jewish Colonisation Trust, but the Correspondence will in any case be laid before a final decision is arrived at.

    Cigar Smuggling in 1903.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of persons summarily convicted for smuggling cigars in 1903.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.). The number of persons summarily dealt with by the Board of Customs or before magistrates in the year 1903 for smuggling cigars was
    1242
    559, of whom 242 were concerned with cigars only and 317 with cigars and other goods.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the number of cases of smuggling tobacco dealt with?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have not the figures here, but if the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question I will get them.

    Authorisation of Public Expenditure.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether money voted on Supply can be placed at the disposal of the Departments concerned before the grants are made good by a Consolidated Fund Act.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Resolutions in Supply authorise expenditure. The money technically called "ways and means" required for meeting the expenditure is granted by Consolidated Funds Act. Money so granted can be used to defray the expenditure authorised by any Vote in Supply in the same session for the same financial year. If at the time when a Vote is taken the whole of the money granted by a previous Consolidated Fund Act has not been issued, the balance of that money can be made available for the expenditure authorised by the Vote, and it is not, therefore, necessary to wait for the passing of a further Act.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Then am I to understand that money voted in Supply since the last Consolidated Fund Act will not be available to the Departments until another Consolidated Fund Act has been passed?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman had better wait and see my Answer in print and then he may be able to understand it. It is rather difficult to explain these matters across the floor of the House.

    Examining Officers of Customs— Compensation for Loss of Prospects.
    MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary to

    1243
    the Treasury whether, in considering the subject of compensation for loss of prospects to be paid to examining officers of Customs, the Board of Customs will inquire into the salary of the officers of less than twenty years service, with a view to placing these officers on an equal footing with the latest entrants to the service.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY or THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.): The whole question of the compensation to examining officers, 2nd class, is at present under consideration and, it is hoped, will be decided at an early date.

    Commission to Sub-Postmasters on Postal Orders.
    MR. SCHWANN (Manchester, N.): I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if, in view of the fact that the number of postal orders paid during the past year has decreased 2,420,000 and the amount of money paid for postal orders in the same period has increased £1,250,000, he is now prepared to increase the rate of the commission paid to sub-postmasters who deal with postal orders.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,: The new denominations of postal orders have not been issued sufficiently long to enable me to form an opinion as to the effect, which they will probably have on the remuneration of sub-postmasters for this work. Experience may show that the increased demand for postal orders may make up for any loss, by way of commission, owing to one order now being issued where two or more were formerly required.

    Telegraphists and Appointments on the Engineering Staff.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, although successive Postmasters-General in dealing with the salaries of telegraphists have stated that telegraphists receive a number of appointments on the engineering staff and official witnesses made the same statement before the Wages Commission, the Civil Service Commission now state that for the position of a second - class engineer it is necessary that a candidate should have
    1244
    at least two years training, either in a suitable workshop attached to a college or University or under a firm of electrical or mechanical engineers of good standing; whether he can state the date upon which he was acquainted with this alteration; and whether, in view of the fact that no telegraphists can now secure these positions, he is prepared to consider some arrangements for compensating them for loss of these appointments promised to them by the Department.
    LORD STANLEY: The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. The recent decision to throw open a small proportion (at present one-fourth) of the appointments as second-class engineer to public competition does not exclude telegraphists from promotion to the class through the classes of junior clerks in the engineering department and sub-engineers as at present. I approved the scheme regulating the conditions of admission to the competition, after consultation with the Civil Service Commissioners on the 16th ultimo.

    Roscrea Post Office.
    MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will state what was the amount expended by the late postmaster, Mr. H. A. Acres, in fitting up and furnishing the Roscrea, county Tipperary, Post Office, in the year 1893; whether a percentage, and how much, was annually paid him in respect of his outlay on such fittings and furniture; whether the percentage was apportioned in any manner; whether, on Mr. Acres being pensioned in 1902, was he compensated for his outlay, whether any portion of his outlay, on which the Department was paying him 5 per cent, per annum, has not been refunded to him, and permission refused to him to dispose of the fittings and furniture, which are at present in use in the post office; and, if so, whether, seeing that Mr. Acres complains of the nonpayment for a portion of the fittings and furniture retained by the post office, an inquiry will be made into the case, with a view to the payment of his claim.
    LORD STANLEY: Mr. Acres appears to have expended about £70 upon adapting and fitting up the post office at

    1245
    Roscrea, in 1893. Of this amount £24 was for structural alterations and £46 for office fittings and furniture. He received 5 per cent, per annum in respect of the structural alterations and 10 per cent, in respect of the office fittings, according to the usual practice. In December, 1902, the office fittings were purchased from Mr. Acres at a price which had been agreed upon with him. He has, therefore, no claim to the fittings and furniture in use in the post office, and I do not understand that any such claim has been made. A claim has been made for the return of the amount expended on structural alterations, but such a claim could not be admitted.

    The Post Office Wages Committee.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he can give any definite idea as to the date of the publication of the Report of the Bradford Wages Inquiry; if, in view of the fact that a conference of the members of the Irish service will be held on the 15th and 16th July, he will endeavour, if possible, to have the Report and the decision of the Treasury published before that time to enable the delegates at that conference to discuss the same.
    LORD STANLEY: I hope that it will be possible to lay the Report of Sir Edward Bradford's Committee before the date named by the hon. Member; but I am unable to undertake that the decision of the Government as to the action to be taken upon it can be announced so soon.

    Foreign Seamen on British Ships—Case of the "Southern Cross"
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that Messrs. Houlder Brothers, shipowners, and owners of the s.s. "Southern Cross," have employed a man named Bethel at Antwerp to engage and supply thirty-five sailors and firemen for the steamer "Southero Cross," which is at' present lying in the port of the Tyne; and, if so, whether he can state the nationality of those seamen, if they are able to speak the English language, and the wages these men are to receive per month, and whether, in view of the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act with regard to the engagement and supply of crews
    1246
    to British ships by persons not licensed by the Board of Trade, he intends to take any action in the matter; and whether he is aware that there is a large number of sailors and firemen unemployed at the Tyne ports.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,: I am having inquiry made into the matter to which the hon. Member refers, but I am not yet in posses din of information which would enable me to reply on the various points raised in the Question. If the hon. Member will repeat his Question in a few days I shall be happy to answer it.

    The Small Dwellings Act.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN (Kilkenny, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that the number of applications received for advances under the Small Dwellings Act, 1899, has fallen short of what was anticipated in consequence of the lack of knowledge of the working classes of the provisions of the Act relating to the issue by the local authorities of loans up to four-fifths of the amount of the purchase money of a house, to the rate of interest on the sum advanced, and to the term of repayments; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of causing notices to be exhibited at the post offices throughout the country, setting forth the main provisions of the Act, for the benefit of the working classes generally and of Savings Bank depositors in particular.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this. My right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board will carefully consider the suggestion made by the hon. Member, and will communicate with the Postmaster-General on the subject.

    Sea Fisheries Bill.
    SIR EDWARD BASSOON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the Board of Agriculture, whether the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries has considered the representations which hive been made to him on

    1247
    behalf of the longshore fishermen in regard to the Fisheries Bill; and whether the Bill will be so amended as to make it clear that its provisions will not affect the coastwise fisheries of the British Islands.
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWBS: In the opinion of my noble friend the fears entertained by the longshore fishermen that their interests will be prejudicially affected by the Sea Fisheries Bill are groundless, in that he has always undertaken that Orders passed by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries under the Bill shall affect only steam trawlers, carriers, and such large sailing vessels as are able to go out as far as the nursery grounds on the eastern side of the North Sea, the locality of which is well known and can easily be defined. In view, however, of the apprehensions still expressed my noble friend at the recent annual conference of the sea fishery authorities stated that he was willing to accept an Amendment to the effect that no Order of the Board under the Bill should be applicable to any sailing vessel unless and until the Board is satisfied that such sailing vessel has been engaged in trawling on the eastern grounds as defined in a schedule to be added to the Bill.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that alrge meetings of fishermen at Aldeburgh and King's Lynn have resolved that the suggested Amendment would not remove the objections of fishermen to the Bill.
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: I am afraid I have not heard that.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: It is so.

    Motor Traffic in the Mall.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of I Works, if he is aware that motors are constantly being driven in the Mall at a furious pace, and if the police will now be instructed to prosecute offenders of any degree.
    LORD BALCARRES: Steps are being taken in con-
    1248
    junction with the police to prosecute-any person infringing the rule which, limits the speed to ten miles an hour.

    Religious Instruction in Non-Provided Schools.
    DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his Department has taken objection to the regulation of: 20th April by the Radnorshire Education Committee providing for the fixing of religious instruction at the end of each morning school session in the non-provided schools of the county, and similar regulations adopted by the Education Committees for Breconshire and Glamorganshire respectively; and whether,, having regard to the terms of Section 7,. sub-section (2), of the Education Act of 1870, and of Section 7, Sub-section (1) (a), of the Education Act of 1902, he will issue a general circular to local education authorities stating what their powers are in respect of the fixing of the hours of religious instruction in the non-provided schools within their respective areas.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): The matter referred to in the first part of the hon. Member's Question has been the subject of communications from managers of individual schools; these are under consideration, and, as they may come before the Board under Section 7 (3) for judicial decision, it would not be desirable that I should make any statement on the subject at present. If only for this reason, the Board do not propose to issue any such circular as is suggested in the second part of the Question.
    DR. MACNAMARA: Will the hon. Baronet lay the Papers when the correspondence is complete.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: We must await its completion before we can decide whether we shall be justified in laying it.

    Overton School Headmastership.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the-Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been called

    1249
    to a printed list of vacancies for teachers issued by the Hampshire Education Committee, in which applicants are invited for the post of headmastership of the Overton non-provided school, with the word "organ" added to the remarks column; and, if so, will he say whether this is not an infringement of Article 15 (1) of the Education Code, which prohibits the imposition of extraneous tasks; and whether he proposes to communicate with the Hampshire Education Committee upon the matter.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I find that applicants for vacancies for teachers very frequently inquire if there are opportunities of increasing their income by such work as playing the organ in church. Information given on this point tends to increase the number of applicants, and so to enlarge the range of choice for the benefit of the managers. No condition as to the performance of extraneous duties is thereby imposed, otherwise the Board would at once intervene, and the local authority may be trusted to veto an appointment which is made on other than educational grounds. So long as the Board and the local authorities are satisfied that the conditions of the Code are being kept, the Board are reluctant to interfere with this supply of information by local authorities and managers.

    School Accommodation at Barton on Humber
    MR. HAROLD RECKITT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if he will explain why the Board of Education have decided that there is no sufficient evideace that a council school is required at Barton-on-Humber, in view of the report of the inspector who held the public inquiry that such a school was required in the interests of secular education, of economy of the rates, and to meet the wishes of the parents.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The hon. Member would appear to have been misinformed as to the findings of the Commissioner sent by the Board to conduct this inquiry. The local education authority, after careful inquiry, determined to accept the proposed voluntary school, and the Board, acting on the
    1250
    report of their Commissioner, saw no reason to differ from this conclusion.

    Blocking Motions.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Coventry when he proposes to bring on his Motion in regard to Chinese labour in the Transvaal; and whether he will consider the advisability of removing it from the Order-book of the House.
    MR. MURRAY: I would ask the indulgence of the House in view of the fact that the Question contains an absolute misdescription of the Motion placed on the Paper. The Motion is not with regard to Chinese labour it covers far more important matters, such as the mortality amongst Central African labourers in South Africa and also covers the question of the sufferings of Cape labourers, which has been a matter of investigation and report in the House, and, naturally, as it refers to other labourers working in these regions, it also covers those Chinese labourers who have arrived in South Africa. I would, therefore, appeal to the hon. Gentleman, whose benevolence is only exceeded by his experience, to give his assistance in securing from the Leader of the House an early date for the discussion of this matter. With regard to the second point of the Question, I think the hon. Member will appreciate the point I have raised, and will agree with me that the Motion is one which he himself would not think should be removed from the Order Paper.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked when the hon. Gentleman proposed to bring the Motion on?
    MR. MURRAY: Unfortunately, or fortunately, the conduct of the proceedings of this House is in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Manchester and not of the hon. Member for Coventry, but the hon. Member could perhaps assist by curtailing the discussion of the Licensing Bill in obtaining an early day for the discussion.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I will address a Question to the Prime Minister on the subject.

    Sale of Butter Bill.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to recent appeals at Ennis Quarter Sessions, before the County Court Judge, against convictions at petty sessions, at which two farmers were fined by the magistrates for selling butter containing excess of moisture, viz., 17·3 per cent, and 18 per cent, respectively; is he aware that the County Court Judge reversed the decisions of the magistrates, on the ground that the batter was genuine and not injurious to health; and whether, in view of the injury to the reputation of the bulk of Irish butter, which is caused by the sale of some Irish firkin butter containing an excess of moisture, he will take steps to deal with the question, either by expediting the passage of the Sale of Butter Bill now before the House, or by amendment of the Order in Council.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): At my hon. friend's request, I will reply to this Question. The decisions of the magistrates were reversed on technical grounds. In one case the County Court Judge held that the summons was bad; and in the second case he decided that the order of the magistrates directing payment of the fine to the secretary of the county council was wrong.
    MR. FLYNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman amend the Order in Council?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I understand that my hon. friend hopes to pass the Bill.

    Labourers' Cottages in the Clogher Union.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, two years since, representations signed by twelve of the highest ratepayers in the Clogher Union were made to the Clogher District Council to have labourers' cottages erected in that union; that the consideration of these representations came before the Clogher Council several times; that the council declined to put the Acts into
    1252
    force, basing their action on a report of a relieving officer; and that the Local Government Board has been requested to hold a public inquiry; and, if so, will he explain why the inquiry has not been held; and what steps the Local Government Board propose to take so as to make the Labourers Acts operative in the Clogher Union.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The facts generally are as stated, but no formal application for an inquiry in accordance with Section 4 of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1891, has been received by the Local Government Board. Apart, however, from this consideration, the Board deem it advisable, in view of pending legislation, to defer taking action in the matter. One of the clauses of the Labourers Bill now before Parliament, if passed, will enable the Board to deal more effectively with cases in which the local authorities refuse to put the Acts into operation.

    Ballinasloe Asylum Medical Staff.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Dr. P. Kerley, who has been elected by the Ballinasloe Asylum Committee to the position of second assistant medical officer, is married; and whether, seeing that the rules of the Privy Council governing such appointments provide that the second assistant medical officer must I be unmarried, he proposes to take any, I and if any, what action in the matter.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir. The rule prohibiting a married man from being appointed to the position of assistant medical officer of a district lunatic asylum is of universal application throughout the United Kingdom. It is embodied in an Order of the Lord-Lieutenant in Council dated the 28th April, 1898. I am advised that it would be most undesirable in the interests of the public service to depart from the rule, and that the Lord-Lieutenant has no power to dispense with its observance.

    Irish Assistant School Teachers.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL (Kerry, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when will the reduction in the average attendance required for the first assistant in Irish

    1253
    national schools from sixty to fifty come into operation; whether assistants whose salaries have been withdrawn during the past twelve months owing to the fall of the average below sixty will then be paid; whether the reduction in the first assistant will apply also to the second assistant.
    MR. SLOAN (Belfast, S.): I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state when the reduction of the average attendance from sixty to fifty, qualifying an additional teacher in each school, will come into operation.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The provision for effecting this reduction cannot take effect until funds have been placed at the disposal of the Commissioners. I have stated that the matter is one for consideration in connection with the Development Grant Estimate. The sum of £24.000, or any lesser sum, would cover the estimated cost, for one year only, of the additional number of assistants that might be appointed or continued in the service under an average of fifty. On the assumption that provision for this amount will be made in the Development Grant Estimate for the current year I am inquiring whether it can take effect from the 1st April last. The question of reducing the average for more than one assistant has not been specially considered.

    J. C. Blake's Galway Estate.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG (Antrim, S): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to a poster posted in a number of places on or near the estate of J. C. Blake, in the county of Galway, for the sale of which to the Congested Districts Board negotiations are now in progress, stating that the winning of Irish independence and the land for the people was the object of the tenants on the estate, and threatening the lives of persons if the estate in question was allowed to pass into the hands of a grazier; and, if so, what steps he intends to take with reference to the matter.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir. I have seen one of the notices referred to which were taken down by the police. The property, of which the grazing farm in
    1254
    question forms part, was recently purchased by the Congested Districts Board, who decided to let the farm for grazing until arrangements could be completed for enlarging the small holdings on the estate. It is true that the posting of the notices and the assembling of a crowd of persons frustrated the action of the Board's agent who attended on the 15th instant to receive offers for the grazing. If such offers are not locally forthcoming, the Board will stock the farm with its own cattle, and will indefinitely postpone its intention to enlarge the holdings on the estate. There is not sufficient evidence to sustain proceedings against the persons who assembled on the 15th instant. But the police are giving the matter their close attention. The notice is of a particularly gross character, containing, as it does, references to the years 1881 and 1882 in which outrages were prevalent. It is also quite irrational, since the Board purchased the land with the intention of enlarging all the holdings on the estate. Action of this unlawful and insensate character can only lead to a postponement of the work of relieving congestion; in the first place, because it encourages lawlessness; in the second, because the Congested Districts Board cannot buy untenanted land in order to enlarge small holdings if it is prevented from earning interest on capital sums borrowed for purchase, pending the allocation of such land. Those who framed and posted the notice are acting as the enemies of all who occupy uneconomic holdings.

    Delay in Construction of Cork in Fermoy Railway.
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution from the Cork County Council calling attention to the failure of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company, jointly with the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Company, to carry out the engagements given by them at the passing of the Railway Amalgamation Act, 1900, to construct a direct line from Cork to Fermoy and also to construct a bridge connecting the railway lines south of the Lee with the

    1255
    Great Southern and Western Railway Company's system; and whether the Government have taken, or will take, any action to secure the fulfillment of the conditions laid down by Parliament in this matter.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The engagement to construct the bridge was conditional upon the co-operation of the local authorities and the railway companies west of Cork. I am not aware that the Fishguard and Rosslare Company has made any efforts to obtain such co-operation. The obligation to construct the Cork and Fermoy line has not been carried out. Parliament was asked in 1902 to sanction the substitution of another scheme, but the Bill was not passed. No further steps have since been taken. The period for completion of the Cork to Fermoy line will expire on the 1st August next, when the Company's powers to build the railway must necessarily lapse. I will confer with my hon. friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the subject.

    Congestion in County Kerry.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many parishes in the county Kerry are scheduled as congested; how many parish committees are at work in the county; whether district councillors who are shopkeepers are objected to by the Board as members of those committees; and, if so, for what reason.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Fifteen parishes are entirely comprised in scheduled areas, and fourteen partially. Grants have been offered in respect to thirteen of these parishes during the current year. In nine committees have already been formed. Under one of the Board's rules no shopkeeper is eligible for membership. This rule was made by the Board in the interests of the impartial administration of the grants.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Is the rule of general application?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I believe it applies throughout Ireland.
    MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.): Arising out of the Answer—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Question has been fully answered.
    MR. FLAVIN: Am I not entitled to ask a Question arising out of the Answer?
    MR. SPEAKER: The Question having been fully answered notice must be given of further Questions.
    MR. FLAVIN: Then I will put one down.

    Training of Teachers in the Irish Language.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the National Board has brought forward any scheme for the proper training of teachers in Irish to meet the present demand of managers and people throughout the country.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Commissioners have brought forward no general scheme for the training of national teachers in Irish. Irish is taught to the teachers in some of the training colleges and the Commissioners hold annual examinations in Irish to enable dational teachers to obtain certificates of proficiency in Irish.

    Irish Language in Courts of Justice.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland by what authority did Mr. James Gray, R.M., of Enniskillen, object to the evidence of Mr. Nethercott in a recent case because it was given in Irish.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Irish statute of 11 George II., cap. 6, requires that the proceedings in a Court of Justice shall be conducted in English. The witness in this case admitted that he spoke English, and under the circumstances the resident magistrate was justified in requiring him to comply with the provisions of the statute. The resident magistrate states that as a matter of fact he rebuked the witness, not for his desire to give his evidence in Irish, but for the levity he displayed in the witness box.

    Appointment or Analysts under the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act.
    MR, POWER (Waterford, E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutentant of Ireland whether he will take steps to give effect to the resolution of the County Waterford Committee of Agriculture and Technical Instruction asking that power should be given to county councils, in conjunction wth the Department of Agriculture in Ireland, to appoint independent analysts to carry out the duties under the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act instead of compelling the appointment of the analyst already performing the duties under the Food and Drugs Act.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Legislation would be necessary to effect this object, and I cannot give any undertaking in the matter.

    Labourers' Allotments in Waterford and Munster
    MR. O'SHEE (Waterford, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the average cost in county Waterford and in Munster of providing an additional half-acre where a cottage and one half-acre had already been provided under the Labourers Acts; and how many additional half-acres have been provided in county Waterford and in Munster.
    MR. WYNDHAM: There is no information available on the first part of the Question. The legal, engineering, and other incidental expenses are not separately allocated as between schemes for new cottages with half-acre or acre allotments, and those for additional half-acre allotments only. The number of additional half-acres authorised to be provided to Waterford and Munster are 264 and 1,824 respectively.

    Congested Districts Board s Expenditure in Sligo.
    MR. O'DOWD (Sligo, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the total amount expended by the Congested Districts Board in the scheduled districts of the county Sligo during the past twelve months.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Board's expenditure in the past twelve months was £2,177. The Board also agreed, in the same period, to purchase two estates for £48,412.

    Owenmore River Drainage.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the report of the inspector in regard to the drainage of the Owenmore River, in the county Sligo, has yet been received; if so, what are the-recommendations contained in it; and can he say what steps the Department of Agriculture contemplate taking in the matter.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Department of Agriculture caused an inspection of the district to be made. The inspector's report has been received and a copy of it will be communicated to the hon. Member. In 1886 the county surveyor estimated that the cost of draining the district would amount to about £17,000. No later estimate is available. The initiation of a scheme must rest with the persons locally interested under the Arterial Drainage Acts. The Department of Agriculture has no funds available for the purpose.

    King-Harman Estate, Ballymote, Sligo.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the sale of that portion of the King-Harman Estate, situate at Ballymote, county Sligo, has been sanctioned; whether a large farm on this estate, which the small tenants and labourers of the locality have been using as an accommodation farm for a number of years, has been sold to a stranger named Nuttall; and, if so, whether inquiries will be made by the Land Commission into the circumstances of this transaction.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The sale has not yet been sanctioned. The inspectors are on the estate inspecting it; they will report on the circumstances of this and all other holdings.

    Irish Society's Balance Sheets.
    MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed by

    1259
    the Londonderry Corporation, as representing the citizens of Londonderry, requesting the Irish Government to grant a Return showing the receipts and disbursements of the Honourable the Irish Society for the past five years, in the administration of their trust; and if so, whether, seeing that similar Returns have been in the past granted by his predecessors in the office of Irish Secretary, he will state why he now objects, as all information on this point has been refused the corporation by the society.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir. I have again communicated with the Irish Society on the subject, and am assured that the preparation of a Return in the form suggested would impose an expenditure of time and labour which would be quite incommensurate with results. The society's accounts are published annually, and copies are sent every year to the Londonderry newspapers. I see no sufficient reason, therefore, for granting the Return. I may add that I am informed that a deputation from the society will shortly visit Londonderry, when an opportunity will be afforded the corporation to discuss with the society any matters they may desire to bring forward.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: Have they not departed from the practice of publishing the balance sheet this year?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am not aware of that.

    Clogher School Dispute.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a case in the High Court of Justice in Ireland, in which Mr. William Coote, J.P., of Clogher, county Tyrone, was the defendant, the charge being one of conspiracy to boycott a national school, and to intimidate the manager who had appointed a Roman Catholic mistress in manual instruction; whether on the case going to trial Coote compromised the action by paying the sum of £275 on account of the plaintiff's expenses, thus admitting his guilt, and signing a document agreeing not to repeat his conduct; and if the attention
    1260
    of the Lord Chancellor has been or will be called to his action.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have seen a newspaper report of this case. Both parties to the action are Presbyterians, and the manager of the school belongs to the same religious persuasion. The case was settled on terms which counsel for the plaintiff stated would commend themselves to every right-thinking person. The parties mutually agreed that all controversy should cease and good will take its place, and the defendant paid a sum of £75 (not £275) in respect of the plaintiff's costs. This being so, no useful object would be served by referring the matter to the Lord Chancellor.

    Vacancies on Board of National Education in Ireland.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when it is intended to fill the vacancies on the Board of National Education in Ireland, caused by the resignation of the Very Reverend the Dean of St. Patrick's and the Most Reverend Archbishop Walsh.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Sir, I shall not be able to give this matter the consideration it demands until the autumn.

    Necessity for Findlater's Act at Edgeworthstown.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL (Longford, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is proposed to put Findlater's Act into operation in the Edgeworthstown police district, so as to prevent licensed traders being robbed by the collection of their bottles by unlicensed persons.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Act is already operative throughout Ireland. If there are any general dealers in Edgeworthstown, who carry on business without being licensed, they will be proceeded against. But no applications for licences have been made, and no infringement of the provisions of the Act has yet come under the observation of the local police.

    Edgeworthstown Loan Fund Society.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant

    1261
    of Ireland on what grounds the Loan Fund Board for Ireland refused to pay the dividend on shares in the Edgeworthstown Loan Fund Society held by William and Ellen McDermott, of Tinnyar, who hold two debentures in the society. I beg, also, to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that James Cullen, of Kilcoursey, and Michael Kerrigan, of Clonwhelan, invested their savings in the Edgeworthstown Loan Fund Society, and lost them on the breakdown of this society; and whether he can state the grounds upon which their application for a share of the assets realised by the receiver has not been attended to; and will he direct that same be now paid.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Board has not refused to pay; but as the title of the applicants is not free from doubt it has referred the claims to counsel for legal opinion.

    King Harman Estate, County Longford.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the sale of the King-Harman (Kenagh), county Longford, Estate, has yet come before the Estates Commissioners for approval; and whether the application of a planter tenant named William Jones, of Creagh, against whom the landlord is about proceeding for £250 dilapidation damages, is included in the number of sales on this estate for sanction.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The estate is before the Commissioners. I have no information on the second part of the Question, but I am making inquiry.

    The Post Office and the Irish Dual Workers' Association.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that recently a request for a change of duty made for the purpose of enabling a sorting clerk and telegraphist in Dublin to attend to business in connection with the Dual Workers' Association, was forwarded to the Dublin Secretary for his approval; can he say why this departure from the usual custom was made; if he is aware that the Secretary refused the exchange on the ground that such a course would establish a dangerous precedent; and
    1262
    will he say whether this action of the Dublin Secretary has his sanction, in view of his own and his predecessor's statements that no hindrance would be placed in the way of sorting clerks and telegraphists performing the work of their various associations.
    LORD STANLEY: I am not aware of the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member. The matter appears to be one entirely within the competence of the Secretary to the Post Office in Dublin.

    Railway Development in Waterford.
    MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Dungarvan Urban Council, the Dungarvan Board of Guardians, and other public bodies have passed resolutions strongly urging that the sum of £93,000 which the Treasury agreed to ask Parliament to vote for the construction of the Cork to Fermoy direct line, should be granted for the construction of a loop line from Cappagh to Clonmel, which would open up an agricultural country, and enable the fishing industry to be largely developed, by providing increased facilities of transit; and whether, having regard to the sacrifices made by the ratepayers of Dungarvan and the barony of Decies without Drum for railway development in the past and present, this project will receive the favourable consideration of the Treasury.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.): As the hon. Member is doubtless aware, the Treasury is bound, in a certain event, to pay the £93,000 to the Fishguard and Rosslare Company under their Act of 1898 and the agreement scheduled thereto. Even if this were not the case, the money is not available, nor is there any power to apply it, for the purpose indicated in the Question.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is it the case that the three years limit has not yet expired?
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: If the hon. and learned Member will consult me privately I may be able to explain the position of affairs.

    Undersized Fish Bill.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether in view of the alarm and hostility excited among the coast fishermen by the Undersized Fish Bill, he can undertake that this Bill shall not be further proceeded with during the present session.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I understand from my hon. friend the Member for North Huntingdonshire that a compromise has been agreed to. I am not aware of its exact nature but I understand that the President of the Board of Agriculture is prepared to accept an Amendment that no Order of the Board under the Bill shall be applicable to any sailing vessel unless and until the Board is satisfied that such sailing vessel has been engaged in trawling on the eastern grounds as defined in a schedule to be added to the Bill.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Yes, but that compromise has been rejected at large meetings of fishermen at Aldeburgh and at King's Lynn, where it has been resolved that no such Amendment would remove their objections to the Bill.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, I can only say I hope it will prove satisfactory and that the Bill will be proceeded with without further delay.

    Foreign Competition—Suggested Commercial Defence Committee.
    MR. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, referring to a reply which he gave on 24th March, 1903, † any further action has been taken towards establishing a small permanent Committee or Commercial Defence Committee, consisting of members of the Admiralty, Board of Trade, Colonial Office, and Post Office, and trade representatives, to watch the development of foreign competition, and consider from time to time what steps are required to meet it.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have great sympathy with the objects of my hon. friend; but I confess that at present,
    † See (4) Debates, cxx., 64.
    1264
    without giving a definite pledge on the subject, I am not able to convince myself that the machinery which he proposes would be effective for the object which he desires to carry out.

    The Medical Profession and the Licensing Bill.
    SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has received a copy of the declaration of a number of eminent physicians, founders of settlements in the East End of London, heads of colleges in the Universities, and ladies deeply interested in social welfare, who are seriously concerned at the provisions of the Licensing Bill now before Parliament; whether their objections to the proposals of the Bill have modified the intentions of the Government, and whether those proposals will be withdrawn.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have seen the declaration to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I do not know how far the signatories to that declaration believe that a reduction in the number of licences would have any great effect upon the higher interests of temperance; but, if they do think it would have any such effect, I confess I am unable to understand their position.

    Army Reorganisation Scheme.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government is now able to make the promised statement as to Army policy; and whether, in order to enable that statement to be made, Army Estimates will be taken on Thursday.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid we cannot take this statement next Thursday because, unfortunately, it appears to be necessary for Treasury reasons to take the Reports of two Army and Navy Votes. I may add that I do not think next Thursday would be a very convenient day for discussing any large questions, because I am given to understand that most of the time in the second part of our sitting will be occupied with an important private Bill.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an idea, as definite as may be, when this statement will be made? The right hon. Gentleman must realise the fact that the Government set great store by their Army reorganisation policy, and they have not been questioned about it. They themselves, fixed the day for making that statement to the House, and they themselves, for some reason or other, postponed it. I think the right hon. Gentleman should see that it is hardly treating the House of Commons with due respect to adjourn a matter to which he himself has attributed such vital importance.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I agree with almost everything that has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman except the single statement that what we have done is in any sense treating the House of Commons with disrespect. I hope the statement will not be long delayed, but it cannot take place next Thursday.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: What are the Votes to which the right hon. Gentleman refers?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: They are the Reports of Army Vote No. 9 and Navy Vote No. 8, Sections 1 and 2, and the remaining Navy Votes which have passed the Committee. They will be put down as the first Order. The Civil Service Estimates, Class 1, will be put down as the second Order.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: What are the Treasury reasons?
    MR. A.J. BALFOUR: Money is required to carry on the services of the country.

    The Order of Questions.
    At five minutes to Three, under the Rules of the House, Questions were stopped, although a considerable number remained unanswered.
    DR. MACNAMARAasked the Speaker, as a point of order, whether any arrangement could be made whereby they could reach the Questions to the Colonial Secretary before five minutes to Three o'clock.
    MR. SPEAKER: That is not a question of order.
    DR. MACNAMARAasked whether the Speaker could direct him to the Standing Order under which the arrangement was made.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will find the only Standing Order under the head of Questions.
    SIR HENRY FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.): May I ask with whom rests the responsibility of appointing the time to the Questions. They are shifted about day by day. Sometimes the First Lord of the Treasury's Questions are very early, and sometimes very late.
    MR. SPEAKER: They are not arranged by me. That is all I can say. I believe it is an arrangement made by Ministers, subject to requests from the other side.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The only request that has been made on the subject, so far as I know, has been in respect of my own Questions. The old practice was to put the Questions to the Leader of the House, whoever he might be, at the end of the other Questions. Under the new Question Rule it was found that when the Questions reached a certain number the House was prevented from asking me any Questions except those that referred under the Standing Order to matters of urgency or to the business of the House, and a request was made to me to try so to arrange that the starred Questions addressed to me should be answered before the conclusion of the Question hour. I came to the conclusion that if my Questions came on at number fifty I would always be safe. But hon. Gentlemen have become more inquisitive since that arrangement was made ["No, no!"] or the Answers have been longer, or more supplementary Questions have been put, and to-day we have only been fortunate enough to get to half of the starred Questions put to me. I will therefore request the clerks at the Table to put my Questions a little earlier; at number forty-five, which I hope will I be safe. I shall be glad to make the arrangement of Questions as convenient to the House and to Ministers as can

    1267
    possibly be done, but up to the present I have only attempted to deal with my own Questions.
    MR. BLAKE (Longford, S.)asked whether, in view of the circumstances which debarred the House from other action in regard to foreign and Colonial affairs, it was not important that Ministers should suggest an arrangement which would ensure the Questions addressed to the Colonial Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs being reached at a time when Answers could be given.
    MR. SPEAKER: I can hardly take upon myself to dictate the order in which Questions shall appear on the Paper. I may say that the arrangement made by the First Lord of the Treasury was one which was submitted to me before it was adopted. Possibly after what has been said some better arrangement may be made; but at the same time I think hon. Members will see that the importance of a Question addressed to a particular Minister necessarily varies at different times.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE COLONIAL VOTE.
Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state when it is proposed to take the Colonial Office Vote.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have made inquiries on this subject. My right hon. friend informs me that the financial Blue-book will be issued next Thursday, and the general Blue-book on the following Thursday. Therefore I do not suppose that the House will desire to take the Colonial Office Vote before Thursday, 14th July.
MR. DALZIBL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Finance Bill will be resumed?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, I cannot.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I point out to the Prime Minister that Army Estimates must necessarily have two days. There will be the statement of the Secretary for War, and then
1268
there must be an interval before the discussion takes place. As to the Colonial Vote, the right hon. Gentleman knows that at least two great subjects will be largely discussed on it, and it appears to me extremely unlikely that one day will be sufficient for the discussion. The result would be that these two important branches of the Estimates will be relegated to what I may call the dog days, and may be so long delayed that there will be no opportunity of discussing them at all.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think the gloomy consequences which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn from my Answer are really legitimate inferences from it. All I said was that next Thursday, for financial reasons, could not be devoted to anything but supplying the Treasury with the necessary funds for carrying on the day-to-day business of the country. I made no Answer as regarded later Thursdays, except to point out that, as the House will not have for a fortnight the Blue-books promised by my right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary, they will probably desire to put off the Colonial Vote until they have the Blue-books.
SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: The cause of that is the undue and unexpected postponement of the Papers on the question.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Not undue.

LICENSING BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
MR. LLOYD-GEORGErose to move to report Progress, having special regard to the circumstances in which the Bill was being taken that day. The Committee stage of the

1269
Bill was begun about three weeks ago, and, being the great Bill of the session, it was generally expected that it would be proceeded with from day to day. But in the next week its progress was interrupted and the Scotch Education Bill was taken, nobody knew why—except it was to provide a counter-attraction to Ascot. Then, in the middle of Clause 31 of that Bill, the Government suddenly knocked it off, and took up the Finance Bill, assigning as a reason that they were bound to proceed with it because of the great inconvenience its delay was causing to the tea, tobacco, and other industries. After proceeding with it for three days, they suddenly broke off again in the middle of a debate on an Amendment, without even taking a division. And the next thing the House heard was that the Bill which was urgent in the interests of trade and industry had been put off until after the Licensing Bill. No one knew how long that would take—it depended on the comfort and satisfaction of hon. Members opposite. He did not believe the House had ever been treated in this way. It was absolutely without precedent, as the Government itself was without precedent. It was solely because of the exigencies of the Government, which could not get their supporters there. Everybody was sick of the Government. The country was sick of them, their own supporters were sick of them, they were sick of each other. It was very hard that the House of Commons should suffer in that way. He thought it was time they had a change for the benefit of their health. They were told that this chopping and changing was going on because of obstruction. Obstruction by whom, he should like to know? He heard an hon. Member opposite speaking the other day simply in order to occupy time. So pleased were the Government with him that the following morning he was a Privy Councillor. The Government themselves were responsible. They were absolutely encouraging obstruction. They had half-an-hour of the Member for Sheffield one night, half-an-hour of the Member for Peckham, and twenty minutes of the hon. Member for Partick, and yet the Government expected to have a House. If the curtain piece was to be kept going
1270
at the beginning of each sitting, the Government must improve the cast. He ventured to submit that this sort of thing was bringing discredit on the House of Commons. The Government really ought to have regard, he would not say for their self-respect, because it was too late to appeal to that, but to the respect due to the House of Commons. They ought to have respect for the institutions of the country. It was perfectly discreditable that the Government should use, he would not say their majority, but the position they had got in order to press through a Bill which the country had, by every means in its power, protested against. In order to invite an expression of opinion from the House of Commons as to the conduct of the Government in the transaction of their business, he moved that the Chairman do report Progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Lloyd-George).
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I am not greatly surprised, seeing what has already occurred in the present session, that a Motion to report Progress should be made at the very beginning of business, at the time when, I think, the House is anxious to proceed with the matters before it. But, though i am not surprised at the Motion, I confess I am rather surprised at the speech with which the Motion was introduced. The hon. Gentleman's very characteristic remarks seemed to me more appropriate to a vote of censure on the Government for the manner in which they are conducting the business of the House than to the question of whether this Bill should or should not be gone on with this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman has discussed the impropriety of leaving off the Finance Bill in the middle, and he has quarrelled with the general arrangement of business. I think there was no reason for quarrelling with the general arrangement of business, and I think it was perfectly right that we should leave off the Finance Bill where we did. The Finance Bill is a Bill that must be passed,

1271
but it does not matter whether it be passed early or late in the session—
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: What about dislocating industry?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Early or late in the session, so far as the actual conduct of the business of the House of Lords is concerned, because the House of Lords have, as everybody knows, nothing whatever to do with the Budget. But, in my opinion, it would be extremely inconvenient if a measure like the Licensing Bill were sent up to the House of Lords at a time when that Assembly would be unable, through the lateness of the session, to give it adequate consideration. That alone would, I think, be sufficient justification for our not deferring until a later week the continuation of our discussion of the Committee stage. I do not deny that it was extremely unfortunate that the Budget Bill was not fortunate last week; I do not deny that it was unfortunate that, at all events, we could not get the assent of the House to all the proposals of my right hon. friend. But I do entirely deny that those misfortunes, which I do not profess to minimise, were in any sense due to mismanagement on the part of His Majesty's Government. In these circumstances, without going into all the controversial
matters which, as I have already said, are rather appropriate to a vote of censure than to a Motion to report Progress upon the details of a particular Bill being considered in Committee—passing those by, I would simply request the House, if the matter of complaint against the Government be that Government business does not proceed fast enough, not to effect the very result of which the hon. Gentleman complains by having a long discussion on what is, after all, a dilatory Motion. The hon. Gentleman says that Government business has been going too slow; he says it is he fault of hon. Gentlemen sitting on this side. Well, we will not quarrel as to where the fault lies; that it has been going too slow I entirely and fully admit; and the best way of preventing that evil being continued is at once to dismiss the Motion which the hon. Gentleman has brought forward, which is and can be but a waste of time, and to proceed at once to the consideration of the Bill, which, as the hon. Gentleman truly says, is one of the most important which the Government has brought forward in the course of the present session.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 164; Noes, 202. (Division List No. 175.)

AYES.

Abraham, William Cork, N.E.)

Crooks, William

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Ashton, Thomas

Cullinan, J.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

Dalziel, James Henry

Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Harwood, George

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

Hayden. John Patrick

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Delany, William

Hayter, Rt. Hon.Sir Arthur D.

Bell, RicWhard

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Helme, Norval Watson

Bonn, John Williams

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hemphill, Bt. Hon. Charles H.

Black, Alexander William

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Blake. Edward

Donelan, Captain A.

Holland, Sir William Henry-

Boland, John

Doogan, P. C.

Hope, John Dean (Fife, West)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Edwards, Frank

Horniman, Frederick John

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Ellice,Capt. E.C(SAndrw'sBghs

Jacoby, James Alfred

Burke, E. Haviland

Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Burns, John

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

Burt, Thomas

Farrell, James Patrick

Jordan, Jeremiah

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Fenwick, Charles

Joyce, Michael

Caldwell, James

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Ffrench, Peter

Kennedy, Vincent V.(Cavan, W.

Causton, Richard Knight

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Kitson, Sir James

Charming, Francis Allston

Flynn, James Christopher

Labouchere, Henry

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lambert, George

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

Langley, Batty

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Gilhooly, James

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Grant, Corrie

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall).

Crombie, John William

Griffith, Ellis J.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Soares, Ernest J.

Leigh, Sir Joseph

O'Dowd, John

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R(Northants

Leng, Sir John

O'Malley, William

Stanhope, Hon Philip James

Levy, Maurice

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Lewis, John Herbert

Parrott, William

Sullivan, Donal

Lloyd-George, David

Partington, Oswald

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E)

Lough, Thomas

Pirie, Duncan V.

Thomas, Sir A (Glamorgan, E)

Lundon, W.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Thomas, D Alfred (Merthyr)

Lyell, Chares Henry

Price, Robert John

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

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Rea, Russell

Tillet, Louis John

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Reckitt, Harold James

Toulmin, George

M'Crae, George

Reddy, M.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

M'Fadden, Edward

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Ure, Alexander

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries

Wallace, Robert

M'Kenna, Reginald

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Mansfield, Horace Kendall

Roe, Sir Thomas

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Rose, Charles Day

White, George (Norfolk)

Mooney, John J.

Runciman, Walter

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Morley, Rt.Hn. John(Montrose

Russell, T. W.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Murphy, John

Samuel, Herbert L (Cleveland)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Schwann, Charles E.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Norman, Henry

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

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

Norton, ('apt. Cecil William

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B)

Woodhouse,Sir J.T(Huddersf'd

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

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Yoxall, James Henry

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Sheehy, David

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

Shipman, Dr. John G.

TELLEKS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

O'Connor. James (Wicklow, W.

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

O'Doherty, William

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

William M 'Arthur.

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Craig, CharlesCurtis (Antrim,S.)

Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Allhusen. Augustus HenryEden

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Davenport, William Bromley

Hay, Hon Claude George

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Dewar,Sir T.R.(Tower Hamlets

Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Helder, Augustus

Atkinson. Rt. Hon. John

Dickson, Charles Scott

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Austin, Sir John

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Hogg, Lindsay

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. D.

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Baird, John George Alexander

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Homer, Frederick William

Balcarres, Lord

Duke, Henry Edward

Houldsworth, Sir Win, Henry

Baldwin, Alfred

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Howard, Jn.(Kent, Faversham

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

Dyke, Rt.Hn.Sir William Hart

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

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

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants.,W.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fardell, Sir T. George

Hunt, Rowland

Hartley, Sir George C. T.

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

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Beckett, Ernest William

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Kennaway, Rt.Hn.Sir John H.

Bignold, Arthur

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Fson, Frederick William

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

Bond, Edward

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Kimber, Henry

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Boulnois, Edmund

Flower, Sir Ernest

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Bowles, Lt.-Col.H.F(Middlesex

Forster, Henry William

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

Bowles, T.Gibson(King's Lynn

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

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

Brassey, Albert

Calloway, William Johnson

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Bull, William James

Gardner, Ernest

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Campbell. Rt,Hn.J.A.(Glasgow

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

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

Campbell, J.H.M(Dublin Univ.

Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets)

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Carson, Rt. Hon Sir Edw H.

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Long, Col.Chas. W. (Evesham)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Graham, Henry Robert

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Chamberlain, RtHn.J.A(Worc.

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

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Chapman, Edward

Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Gretton, John

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Maclver, David (Liverpool)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Groves, James Grimble

Maconochie- A. W.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Gunter, Sir Robert

M'lver,Sir Lewis(Edinburgh,W

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hain, Edward

Malcolm, Ian

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Manners, Lord Cecil

1274

1275

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Tuff, Charles

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Richards, Henry Charles

Valentia, Viscount

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green

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

Moore, William

Ritchie, Rt.Hn.Chas. Thomson

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Morrison, James Archibald

Roberts, Samuel Sheffield)

Walrond, Rt.Hn.Sir William H.

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Mount, William Arthur

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Warde, Colonel C. E.

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

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Webb, Colonel William George

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

Myers, William Henry

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

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

Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

Palmer, Walter Salisbury)

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

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

Pemberton, John S. G.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Wodehouse. Rt.Hn. E.R.(Bath

Percy, Earl

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Wortley, Rt, Hon. C. B. Stuart

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Plummer, Walter R.

Stanley, Edward Jas. Somerset

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.

Young, Samuel

Pretyman, Ernest George

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Younger, William

Purvis, Robert

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

Pym, C. Guy

Thorburn, Sir Walter

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Thornton, Percy M.

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Tollemache, Henry James

Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 1.
Amendment again proposed—
"In page 1, line 5, to leave out the words 'an on,' and insert the word 'a.'" —(Mr. Griffith Boscawen.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'an on' stand part of the clause."
MR. WHITTAKERreminded the Committee that when the Bill was last under consideration the hon. Member for the Tunbridge Division moved an Amendment to bring off-licences within the scope of the Bill, in order that all licences should be under the same jurisdiction, but suggested that only off beer licences should be compensated. The hon. and learned Member for the Stretford Division also supported the Amendment from the point of view of placing all licences under the same jurisdiction, but he strongly objected to compensation being given to any off-licences whatever. The Solicitor-General, while refusing to accept the Amendment because it would bring in licences connected with other business, intimated that the Government would be prepared to consider the advisability of bringing in off beer licences only. The real question before the Committee was whether or
1276
not off-licences should receive compensation. Personally, he was against the proposal. He was against the proposal to compensate on-licences on the basis of the Bill, therefore he was against introducing off-licences into the scheme. But looking at the question from the point of view of the Government, if on-licences were to be compensated, why should not off-licences be similarly treated? What reason could be given in support of compensation for on-licences which was not equally strong in favour of compensation for off-licences? Or, to put it another way, what reason could be given against compensation for off-licences which would not be fatal to the proposal of the Government with regard to on-licences? The Government contended that it would be grossly unjust and inequitable to take away an on-licence, other than for misconduct, because it had a value. So also had the off-licence, and surely the eternal verities did not alter simply because the licence was an off-licence instead of an on-licence.
Everybody admitted the desirability of reducing the number of off-licences, and according to the Government the present Bill was to facilitate the reduction of licences: why, then, should not the same process be applied to both classes of licence? The hon. and learned

1277
Gentleman had stated that the Government would be prepared to consider the inclusion of beer licences, but that this clause was not the proper place for the Amendment. The Committee had a right to know clearly what was the position of the Government on the question of off-licences. To differentiate licences connected with some other business was to bring in an extraordinary distinction. Justice and equity could not depend upon whether or not a person carried on two businesses. Justice was not a matter of the amount of the damage done or of the loss sustained. A grocer, a large part of whose business was connected with his off-licence, might be much more dependent for his livelihood upon the licensed part of his business than a smaller on licence-holder who transacted some other business. In Ireland three-fourths or probably four-fifths of the public-houses were carried on in establishments in which the licensed business was dealt with on one side of the shop and a retail business on the other, so that Irish Members who were supporting the Bill would probably find that they were leaning on a very broken reed indeed. Theatres, music halls, and railway refreshment rooms all came within the scope of the Bill, but the selling of liquor in those places was but a small portion of a gigantic business. Upon what principle, then, was compensation to be given? If it was to be given only to those who had no other business, why was the brewer to come in at all? because if the licence of one house was taken away he would have any number more left to him. Brewery shareholders, too had other sources of income, and therefore, on the theory applied to off-licences, they were not entitled to compensation. Whatever the principle of the Bill might be, it clearly was not that a valuable privilege was being taken away, because an off-licence was a valuable privilege, but the dispossessed holder was not to be compensated. As to the off beer licences, if there was any holder who held his licence with the fullest knowledge that it was subject to the discretion of the justices, it was the off licence holder. The Act of 1882, even more clearly than the Act of 1828, laid it down that the re-
1278
newal was to be at the absolute discretion of the justices. In the year after the passage of the Act 850 off beer licences were refused renewal, but nobody's soul was troubled about compensation or about the injustice done, and yet that was the one particular class of off-licence which the Solicitor-General now said the Government would be prepared to consider. It seemed to him that the only principle at the bottom of the Bill was that the brewer should be compensated, and the suggestion that off beer licences should have exceptional treatment was due to the fact that the off beer house was frequently a tied house and was the only off-licence business in which the brewer was really interested. It simply showed how fully and thoroughly the present measure was not a licence-holders' Bill but a brewers' Bill.
As to jurisdiction, that would be an anomaly throughout the Bill. The renewal of off-licences would not be dealt with by the same authority as the renewal of on-licences, and he agreed that that was a retrograde step. But the inclusion of beerhouses would not remove the confusion, inasmuch as all other off-licences would have to go before a different tribunal. He submitted that the portion of the Bill under consideration was the proper place for such an Amendment; therefore the Committee were entitled to an immediate statement from the Government as to their position in the matter.
MR. CATHCART WASONdid not think the hon. Member for Spen Valley had hardly been fair to the Government, because the Solicitor-General, when he addressed the House some weeks ago, was very careful not to make any promise as to whether the Government would accept this Amendment. He rather treated it in a callous, hard-hearted manner, and not in the sympathetic manner which the speech of the mover deserved to be treated. He intended to give all the support he could to this proposal, because it was nothing short of a pure measure of justice. Why should not the persons for whom the hon. Member for Tunbridge pleaded so ably receive some of the benefit? In vulgar parlance, why should they not have their "little bit" when so many millions of public money

1279
were flying about, because their case was just as strong as the holders of on-licences. The Solicitor-General did not treat this Amendment with the smallest respect, and this argument was that great stores like the Army and Navy Stores or Harrods' Stores could not distinguish in their business between the profits due to the sale of spirituous liquor and what applied to other business. That was an absolutely absurd argument, for there was not the slightest difficulty on the part of the smallest store-keeper in stating clearly what proportion of his profits were derived from the sale of drink and what portion were derived from other goods. He did not think there was a single word in the speech of the hon. and learned Member the Solicitor-General which would bear the construction put upon it by the hon. Member for Spen Valley. He agreed that this was the time when they ought to know how much further the Government were going in regard to this question. The holders of on-licences knew that they were being treated with more than justice and consideration by the Government, and it was a great pity that the hon. Member for Tunbridge had not received more support in pressing for pure and simple justice to the off-licence holders. He wished to make the Bill as little harmful as possible. The public were going to pay this compensation money,and the sooner they fixed their minds upon that point the better it would be for a proper understanding of the Bill. He submitted that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Tunbridge was worthy of every consideration.
MR. RITCHIEsaid he hoped his hon. friend the Member for Tunbridge would not press this Amendment, and if he did he hoped the Government would not assent to it. This was a very large and complicated Bill, and he was sure that the Government would be wise in restricting it to its present limits and not extending it to another part of licensing. Off and on-licenses stood upon absolutely different lines. Allusion had been made to the Act of 1882,which placed off-licences under magisterial control. Something had been said about there having been no compensation included in that
1280
measure, but the reason for that was very plain. Previous to the passing of the Act of 1882, for which he was responsible, every house in every street, if it could be shown that it was rated above a certain amount, might become an off-beerhouse, and there was absolutely no restriction. What compensation could be due to those who were granted licences under circumstances of that kind? Words were put into the Act of 1882 which were intended to make it quite plain that under no circumstances was there to be any doubt about the justices having full and complete control over those licences. Those words showed clearly what the intention of Parliament was, and every person who was then in possession of an off-licence, and every person who had obtained one since that time, knew that there was no claim, moral or otherwise, for compensation. That was totally different to the position of on-licences which, whatever might be the law, according to practice had always been renewed from year to year; and although there was no vested interest in them, there was a real substantial interest in them. Nothing of the kind could be said to exist in the case of off-beerhouses. This Amendment would not only add a great deal of complication, but it was wholly unnecessary and there was no such claim for compensation as existed in regard to on-licences. He earnestly hoped that with regard to off-licences and grocers' licences the Government would set themselves steadily against any extension of this measure to licences of that kind. By accepting this proposal they would add to their difficulties, and it would be a most unnecessary extension having regard to previous legislation.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid that in regard to these off-licences the story was a very simple one. They were free houses under the Act of 1834, and as his right hon. friend opposite had just said, anybody could open a beershop with one of those licences if he had certain qualifications. That was their position; but in 1869 they had bestowed upon them what was practically a freehold, and they could only be dispossessed upon one of four grounds. The on-licences were in exactly a similar position. In 1882 the right hon. Gentleman

1281
the Member for Croydon introduced a Bill for the purpose of taking these off-licences out of the category of freehold licences and placing them in the absolute unqualified discretion of the magistrates, making it clear to every human being that they might be discontinued at the discretion of the magistrates. That was done because these off-licences up to 1882 had proved competitive to the was brewers. The brewers themselves were the persons who destroyed the freehold existing before in order to put them the absolute discretion of the magistrates, That was how the liquor interest treated their rivals in 1882. After they had placed these licences in the unfettered discretion of the magistrates they began to buy them up. Those houses—which were the subject of the present discussion, had the freehold destroyed in 1882 by the brewers, and which, after being bought out by the brewers, became tied houses—were the only type of off-licences which existed, and the Committee was now being asked to bring them under the compensation scheme. His hon. friend the Member for Spen Valley said the case for these particular off-licences was as strong as the case for on-licences, If this were a good Bill they might contemplate the bringing in of these off- licence holders, but if, as they thought, this was not a good Bill, and that compensation should not be applied in this form at all, where was the reason for asking them to extend it to a set of licences to which in no sort of equity the provisions of the Bill should be extended. The observation of the right hon. Gentleman as to the reason why no compensation was provided in 1882 was very significant and pregnant. He said the reason was that anybody might take out one of these licences who had qualifying premises, and he was perfectly right. It was because a monopoly was granted to others that it now was proposed compensation should be granted to them. What it was desirable the Committee should appreciate was that compensation was the child of monopoly.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,)said the hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division on this question
1282
had reminded the House of the discussion which took place on the occasion when the matter was last discussed in Committee. He stated that he himself was strongly opposed to the inclusion of these off-licences in this Bill, but the he proceeded to show many reasons why these licences should come in. His own reason for rising now was to carry out what he thought was the general wish of the Committee, and to ask his hon. friend the Member for Tunbridge to withdraw this Amendment. If he could not withdraw the Amendment it would be the duty of the Government to vote against it. The compensation under the Bill was for pensons who had invested considerable sums of money in licensed premises as such. This principle did not apply in the same way to off-licences. [AN HON. MEMBER: WHY?] Nobody invested his money in premises simply because they held an off-licence. Mostly, as was pointed out by the Solicitor-General the other night, an off-licence was attached to the house which, quite apart from the licence, was fit for the business for which it was desired to use it. Compensation was given in respect of off-licences not on the loss of business profits, but on depreciation of the premises arising from the fact that the extinction of the licence prevented the house from being used for the purpose for which it was most adapted. There were other reasons given by the Solicitor-General the other night. His hon. and learned friend pointed out that in a certain sense an off-licence might be said to be attached to the person, as under the Act of 1902 a large number of the holders of these licences had personal protection which did not exist in the case of on-licences Therefore there was a considerable distinction between the two classes of licences, and in view of the principles on which this Bill had been prepared the Government did not feel that they could include the off-licences. He would ask his hon. friend whether, seeing that this view had been so strongly expressed to the Committee, he would not withdraw his Amendment.
MR. ASQUITH (Fifeshire, E.)said the right hon. Gentleman had twitted his hon. friend the Member for the Spen Valley Division for defending this proposition. He thought the right hon.

1283
Gentleman had made a mistake. The hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division was really replying to the argument of the Solicitor-General, who sought to establish the differentiation of these different classes of licence-holders on the basis that some licences, such as grocers, were carried on in connection with other businesses. His hon. friend the Member for the Spen Valley Division stated that if the Government were going to make the carrying on or the non-carrying on of other businesses the test of the right to compensation, then there were a good many licences not entitled to compensation. There was the case of a hotel, a music hall, and many other cases that might be cited. That was really the point of his hon. friend's remark. He welcomed with satisfaction the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman that the Government were not in favour of this Amendment. He thought it would be a much more convenient course to have the Amendment negatived and not withdrawn. It would save a great deal of trouble afterwards. He wished to understand clearly whether the Government adhered to the reservation stated by the Solicitor-General in favour of beer licences, and whether the other class of off-licences were not to come within the scope of the clause either in regard to jurisdiction or compensation. If the Committee had a distinct assurance on that point he thought they might proceed to negative the Amendment.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)said three weeks ago the Solicitor-General told them that certain classes of licences held by men who carried on off-businesses were not entitled to compensation. At the time this language was used exception was taken by Members for Ireland. The Bill did not apply to Ireland at present, but if it were passed no doubt its extension must come, and he wished to point out to Irish Members that if compensation was only given to those who carried on business as publicans alone, the limits within which it would be applied would be very small. As the Solicitor-General would know, there was scarcely a public-house in Ireland where some other business was not carried out. If the principle was to be laid down that
1284
licences in these circumstances were not entitled to compensation, he hoped Irish Members who supported the Bill would, make a note of it.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the last speaker seemed to have expected the Government would stick to something they said three weeks ago. He could not possibly himself hold that expectation. Far more interesting, however, than the attitude of the Government was the reason given for it. The Home Secretary said he drew a broad distinction between off and on-licences, and the reason he gave was that compensation was to be in respect of capital expended in adapting the building for the business. If compensation was only to be granted for that purpose he did not think there would be very much opposition to it. The opposition was because it was nothing of the kind. The compensation they were asked to give was not compensation for capital expended. It was compensation in respect of public property and not the money which licences had sunk. A parallel had been drawn with the case of 1882 off-licences, and it had been suggested that after 1882 off-licensees had had full notice of their legal position. The on-licence holders, however, had had full notice since the case of "Sharpe v. Wakefield," and the case was even stronger, for they had never had any such permanent right as was taken from the off-licence holder in 1882. It was clear the Government were not proceeding upon any principles at all. They talked of equity and justice. It was all like the shifting sand. The form of the Amendment was to insert the word "a" in the clause, and he supposed the hon. Member thought on general grounds that the Government would sympathise with any indefinite article.
MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid he was the last person to attempt to stand in the way of the convenience of the House, but at the same time he thought the attitude taken up by the Government made the position rather difficult for him. When he moved the Amendment three weeks ago, the Solicitor-General said the Government would be prepared to consider the question of including off-licences

1285
of a certain class. He relied on the I statement ol the hon. and learned Gentleman that if he withdrew his Amendment the Government would consider the possibility of introducing or supporting something—he would not say it went beyond a promise to consider—at a later stage. On those conditions he was prepared at once to withdraw the Amendment, but he rather gathered from what had been said by the Home Secretary that the Government did not quite take the same line now. Before withdrawing it, therefore, he wished to ask the Home Secretary whether by so doing he would be absolutely precluded from raising the question later, and whether the Government were prepared to consider the matter as the Solicitor-General had promised.
MR. MCKENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)said if the Government were not inclined to consider what had been urged from the Opposition side of the House, he hoped they would consider what had been said by their thick-and-thin supporter on their own side. It was rather hard on the hon. Member that he should be condemned to silence, so to speak, and asked to withdraw his Amendment. He shared entirely the view of the hon. and learned Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs that they could not expect the Government to have the same mind for more than three weeks at a time. What the Committee were entitled to know was the mind of the Government at the present moment. The Solicitor-General, in reply to the hon. Member opposite, said it was evident to anybody that the Government could not accept the Amendment in the form in which it stood. If it was a mere question of form, he understood that the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment. On the other hand, if the Government were in the position they were three weeks ago, when they suggested that off-licences would come in for compensation, then they would be opposed. The Home Secretary said that some people had invested the whole of their capital in turning their premises into a condition to facilitate the conduct of one business alone. That was not a question of principle but one of expediency. A grocer might have adapted his premises to carry on part of his business as a retailer of
1286
wines and spirits. They, on that side of the House, were against all compensation in respect of those licences, whoever held them and on whatever premises. They were entitled to know whether the Government were finally going, either at the behest of the brewers or any other association, to extend the evil principle of this Bill giving compensation on the extinction of licences. He hoped the Home Secretary would tell the Committee what their intentions really were.
MR. WHITLEYsaid he did not think the Home Secretary quite realised how far the Solicitor-General went some time since, when he said the reason why compensation was not due to off-licences was because they carried on I another business at the same time. In the remote country districts of Yorkshire he should say a substantial proportion of the on-licence holders carried on another business as well. It was usual for a man who was a more or less substantial farmer to run a business in connection with a licensed house and he believed if their books were examined it would be found that the profits they made out of their business as licensed holders would be a very small fraction of their whole income. If the Government were going to rely upon the principles of what the Prime Minister had called "eternal equity "some further explanation should be given, but not a shifty explanation, not an explanation that varied from week to week.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CARSON,said that the hon. Member had rather misrepresented what he had stated earlier in this debate. He did not think it was very important, nor that it was very unusual. But he might be allowed to say that he held exactly the same view now which he held then. What he stated was that the question of whether the off-licences should be dealt with had not been raised in a manner appropriate to the occasion, and he quoted different kinds of licences as to which he showed that the Bill would not be appropriate. What he did say was that, in his view, the question would only arise really in regard to beer off-licences. If it was thought worth while, by any section of the House, that

1287
these off beer licences should be reduced, he suggested that the clause defining the restrictions should be made applicable to them. His hon. friend opposite said that he had given a half-promise that the off beer licences would be included in this Bill. He did not give any such promise, nor did he suggest that the Government were going to introduce any such Amendment. His own view was that the question of the off-licences was absolutely different from that of the on-licences—a difference essential in their existence and historically. The hon. Member had gone into the history of the matter, and had shown that there had been various alterations of the law as to off-licences without any question of compensation ever having arisen. He thought he said that in 1902, when the grocers were put on an entirely new basis, there was no question of compensation Raised at all. If he remembered rightly as regarded various other off-licences—such as for the sale of cider and spirits—not beer—these were attached to the person, and not to the premises, as in the case of all on-licences. Therefore the two cases were absolutely different. He had always understood that the real reasons proposed for the reduction of these on-licences was that a large number of them were in the streets and the villages, and offered a standing temptation to persons passing by to go in and drink on the premises. A very different consideration applied to the privilege of giving beer to persons standing in the bar, and to supplying beer to persons for consumption off the premises. No very acute question as to the necessity for the reduction of those latter houses had arisen at all, and there had been very little agitation in regard to them. That observation answered, to some extent, the Question put by the hon. Member for South Tyrone. What that hon. Member was dealing with was on-licences in premises where other business was carried on as well as the licensed business. But in Ireland the question was much more complicated. There they had an absolute freehold in the licence given under an Act of Parliament. What he did say was that he hoped the House would understand that in his view the question of the off-licence was entirely
1288
different from that of the on-licence; and all he meant when he said that the question might be raised in a more convenient form was that, if it was thought fit to raise it, it should be when they were discussing the off-licences. It was most inconvenient to have a debate on the question of the off-licences mixed up with the on-licences. He hoped he had made it clear that the Government did not intend to include in their Bill any of these off-licences; they proposed to confine it to the question of on-licences.
MR. ASQUITHsaid he found it difficult to grasp what the meaning of the Government was. He certainly understood the Solicitor-General to take the view that there was a distinction to be drawn between the two classes of licences—the one being where the main business carried on was a licensed business, and the other where it was carried on in connection with other business. Now, in the speech which the Solicitor - General had just delivered, he seemed to have adumbrated a new policy of compensation. The right hon. Gentleman said that the on-licence provided facilities for temptation which the off-licence did not, and then he proceeded to say that the on-licence was entitled to compensation to which the off-licence was not entitled. In other words, that the right of compensation was to extend to those who had greater capacity to offer temptation to the public.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid he was quite sure the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to misrepresent him. The reason which he gave for the proposal in the Bill was that there was a desire on the part of the public to get rid of a number of on-licences because these provided a temptation which the off-licences did not.
MR. ASQUITHsaid that what they had been discussing was the liability for compensation and the right hon. Gentleman's observations were totally irrelevant if the proposal in the Bill would have the effect mentioned. But he rose for the purpose of taking notice formally of the declaration which the Solicitor-General had made on behalf of the Government, that it was not their intention to include, either on their own initiative, or at the

1289
suggestion of anyone else, any question of the off-licences. He thought the Committee ought to proceed to negative the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite.
MR. WHITLEYsaid that the Amendment he desired to move was that the Act should only apply to a person whose tenancy of licensed premises was not subject to conditions requiring him to purchase only from a particular firm or particular firms. When the Home Secretary introduced the Bill, he said it was intended to protect the trade. The Amendment would have the effect of safeguarding the tenant of a public-house as against the brewer. The Bill would bring about an immense revolution in the condition of the licensed trade of the country, and he asked the Committee to declare that this great change should not be brought about without laying down, at the earliest possible opportunity, the principle that the State did not intend to recognise, as regarded I this particular trade, a practice, which had grown up in recent years on the part of great brewers, of buying up licensed houses and taking away that freedom and responsibility which it was intended should attach to the conduct of licensed houses. It was perfectly plain that it was the intention of the Legislature that the person who was granted a licence should be responsible to the magistrates on the one hand, and the public on the other, for the proper conduct of his business. During the last ten or fifteen years, however, the position had been altered very much for the worse. He believed that it was correct to say that now eight out of every ten licences were under the control of the great brewery companies. That, of course, meant that the actual person whose name appeared on the licence was merely a dummy and a man of straw. His whole position was altered, and he was only a tenant at will. It was not, therefore, too much to ask, when the House was considering such a great change in the position of the liquor traffic, that it should, at the very outset, declare that the first essential was that the trade should revert to the position
1290
which it was always intended by the House should be maintained.
It was not necessary for him to revert to the system which had grown up in connection with the tied-house system. He would only draw attention to the worst of those evils, and that was the way in which this system had been used to force the sale of drink. The discount allowed to the unfortunate tenant was so screwed down that he was unable to make a reasonable living without selling more beer than the legitimate requirements of the neighbourhood called for. The result was that practices were introduced, such as giving sweets to children, and the encouragement of as much betting as could be safely carried on, which were against the interests of the public. It was only by such practices that the tenant could make a living out of a tied house. In his own neighbourhood a large proportion of the tied houses went by the name of "man-traps." They were used to induce a steady working man who, after twenty or twenty-five years of labour in a skilled trade, had accumulated savings to the amount of £200, or £300, or £400, to put his money into one of them. That man went in without any knowledge of the real condition of things; and in the course of two or three years he found that the whole of his savings were lost, and that he had to start life again. There was a very distressing case about twelve months ago. It was that of a man engaged in the highest form of skilled labour. He was an engine-driver on one of the express trains on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway. After a careful and steady life he had saved money; and he was induced to give up his arduous calling for what he thought was the easy life of a publican. His mother and a younger brother signed a promissory note on his behalf; but at the end of a few years he found that not only had he lost his entire savings, but that his aged mother had to pay a sum of £70, all her life's savings. That was an example of the way in which honest men were being swindled by these "mantraps." He appealed to hon. Gentlemen opposite who were honestly concerned for the welfare of the publican to support the Amendment. If it were accepted,

1291
brewers would not be interested in maintaining the tied house system, and the tenants would be given their Magna Charta of freedom. In Chester the magistrates had taken a firm stand on this question. They had, by courage and perseverance, been able to restore the tenants to a position of freedom. He asked the Committee to do for the publicans generally what the Chester magistrates were doing.
One important reason why he wished to press the Amendment was that unless it were accepted the owners of tied houses would receive double compensation, the secondary compensation being even greater than the primary. It was perfectly equitable to say that a man who was deprived of his business should be compensated for the loss of the profit he was making; but compensation should not be given twice over. That, however, was exactly what would happen unless a limitation were introduced. The brewer might not be affected to the extent of the sale of a single barrel of beer; and both on the ground of morals and of finance he commended the Amendment to the consideration of the Committee. When they were making a great change in the licensing laws they ought to be careful to recognise that the actual owner of the licence should be entitled to compensation. Let them restore the licence-holder to the position which he enjoyed years ago; and that would do more in the interests of temperance than any mere limitation of the number of licences.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 5, after the word 'licence,' to insert the words 'which is held by a person whose tenancy of the licensed premises is not subject to conditions requiring him to purchase only from a particular firm or particular firms.'"—(Mr. Whitley.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. YOXALL (Nottingham, W.)said this Amendment was about the most crucial Amendment of all to the Bill. It cast a searchlight on the Bill that hardly any other Amendment could do, and the answer to it of the Government would show whether the Bill was properly
1292
described as a Bill for the compensation of licence-holders or not. The first two clauses of the Bill dealt with holders of licences; but in the last part of Clause 2 the conditions were absolutely changed. In that clause it was said that compensation was to be paid to "persons interested in the licensed premises." Who were the "persons interested in the licensed premises?" Not as a rule the licence-holders, or not the licence-holders to any considerable extent. In the case of the free publican, the man whose house was his own freehold and whose capital was his own capital, and who relied on that capital and the pursuit of his trade for his livelihood, there was a good deal to be said for compensation when his licence came to be extinguished. But how far was that the case? It was the case up to the end of the eighteenth century, but at the present time 85 per cent. of the licences were held in respect of licensed premises that did not belong to the publican, and in many places, as in Manchester for instance, as many as 90 per cent. of the licensed premises were tied houses. In the county of Hertfordshire the percentage of tied houses was 93 per cent. So that compensation would not go appreciably to the licence-holders. To whom would it go? The money was to be paid ostensibly as compensation for the extinction of licences the property of the licence-holders. The whole object of the Bill was to compensate licence-holders, and if the Government now refused to draw a distinction between the man who was a bona-fide publican and the man who was a mere manager of a tied house then such a searchlight would be cast upon the Bill that the whole' country would be able to see that it was really and truly a Bill not for the compensation of licence-holders but for brewers and shareholders in brewery companies and for them alone.
The tied-house system was a fungoid growth which had grown up round our licensing system, and it was a system which this House ought to consider very seriously indeed. No section of the Royal Commission, which recently sat and reported on licensing questions, had avoided condemning the tied-house system, which they said was bad in itself and bad for the country. Under that system a tenant was obtained, who

1293
became nominally the licence-holder, advances were made to him sometimes in cash, small amounts, but mainly nominal advances for goodwill, and under the terms of his agreement with the freeholder—the brewers—he must sell in his house the commodity which those brewers provided. He must not go into the open market and purchase commodities, because if he abrogated in the least degree his agreement with the brewery company he had to give up the premises and agree to the transfer of the licence. By this system the licensing laws of this country were reduced to a farce. A bench of justices, for instance, sat to consider the granting of a licence to John Smith, who directly he obtained the licence became a bond-slave. He must buy his beer, his wine, his spirits, everything down to the sawdust on the floor from the persons with whom he made the agreement, and if he did not, then he must give up possession of his premises—at the instigation not of the State but the brewers. The Bill was concerned with the extinction of certain licences, and if they were to be extinguished on public grounds, then the brewers claimed that compensation must be given to them; but he submitted that unless the tied houses were exempted from the operation of this Bill a very great injustice would be done to the free publicans, the licence-holders themselves, at the instigation of brewery companies, who had in their grasp nearly all the licensed houses in the country, and compelled men to drink beer and spirits at a price not fixed by a definite market, of a quality not decided by competition, but at a price and of a quality fixed by the brewers themselves in the agreement made with that creature of slavery, the tenant of the tied house. This Bill proposed to take away from the justices their power of regulating these matters. The justices had been able to do something in that way in the past, and would be able to do something in the future, if their powers remained, to manage this trade, but that part of the powers of the justices was to pass away, and if in the transfer of licences the granting or extinguishing powers passed from the local justices to quarter sessions, the indirect, slight, but often efficacious, jurisdiction of the local justices was destroyed. The general effect of the tied-
1294
house system was to push the trade of liquor. The brewers, if their tied house were not doing well, would say, "You are not doing sufficient; cannot you do something more to push the trade? "The effect of the tied-house system was—
THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member was now discussing the merits and demerits of the tied-house system. This Amendment was to limit the compensation to the free houses.
MR. YOXALLexplained that as the claim for compensation on behalf of the tied houses was that they were held by licensees, and that when the licence was I taken away the holder was defrauded of his means of livelihood, and had his freedom to be a trader interfered with, he was endeavouring to show that the occupier of the tied house was not injured. However, he would not pursue the point. It was notorious that the tied house system led to great insecurity of tenure. It was impossible to ride on a tramcar or omnibus without noticing again and again on the signboards of licensed houses that the name of a tenant had been recently painted out and the name of a new tenant painted in. That was evidence that frequent changes took place, and proved also the little trade value which a great many of the smaller houses possessed. It was a notorious fact that a great many of them were kept open at a positive loss, and they had only been kept open for the last three or four years because of the hope of their owners, the brewery companies, that eventually some compensation would be derived in respect of those houses. If compensation was paid for such houses it would go into the wrong hands. In regard to tied houses there was also a great danger tint the claim for compensation would be inflated by the system of charging the tenant more for the beer than it was worth. If the amount of beer supplied to a tied house was nineteen barrels instead of twenty, so as to encourage the publican to water, if, as was nearly always the case with tied houses, the barrels were under measure, and if, further, the price charged was above the market price, it must follow that the compensation paid to a tied house in respect of those inflate quantities would not be a fair compensation. Therefore, if the Amendment were

1295
refused by the Government, it became clear that the real object of the Bill was not to compensate the licensee whose means of livelihood had been taken away, but to compensate the capitalist, the brewer, and the brewery shareholder. He hoped, therefore, that the Amendment would be supported, and that it would not be considered that in drawing a distinction between the tied house and the free house there was any attempt to support the Bill in the case of the one as against the other. Compensation was objectionable in any case, but it was less objectionable in the case of the man who was his own master and dealt with his own property than in the case of the freeholder of a tied house, who had absolutely not the shadow of a claim, either moral or legal, to compensation.
MR. CRIPPSsubmitted that, as a very large number of houses were held under the tied system, the acceptance of the Amendment would cut out a large amount of the fund available for compensation purposes. If the Bill were carried out loyally, a fund should be available sufficient to abolish at least one-third of the existing public-houses, and to carry out the temperance reform suggested by even the Minority Report of the Royal Commission. On the question of compensation, he had considerable sympathy with the last two speakers on the other side, though the question was not really appreciated. Under the Bill, as it stood, there was absolutely no trade compensation whatever. The Bill was not framed on that principle at all, otherwise the amount of compensation might be very large indeed, and the suppression of a large number of public-houses rendered practically impossible. The compensation under the Bill was to depend simply upon the difference in the value of the premises as licensed and unlicensed, and that was very different from trade compensation. According to the Bill, the licensee under the tied system would not be entitled to any compensation, because the amount was to be fixed by quarter sessions, but he had tabled an Amendment by which the licensee under these conditions would be given a title to have allotted to him a fair amount of the compensation.
1296
The Bill at present did not compensate the person most injured, viz., the licence-holder whose business was taken from him. He thought the compensation in the Bill was right but not the proposed allocation between the parties interested. The tenant of a tied house ought to have his full share of the compensation when the amount had been determined.
MR. WHITTAKER: He will notget it under the Bill.
MR. CRIPPSsaid he agreed with the hon. Member, and he had put down an Amendment in order to elicit the views of the Government on the point. He had never denied that the Bill required amendment in several respects, and he wished both sides could agree upon certain Amendments instead of indulging in mere Party discussions. It would be absolutely fatal to the Bill to introduce the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Halifax, whereas in a later portion of the Bill the whole matter could be dealt with, and a fair allocation of the compensation money secured. While he supported the Bill generally, there were many details with which he did not agree, and he certainly would not agree with a Bill which did not compensate the licence-holder. He hoped, therefore, the Government would state their views on that point.
MR. GUESTsaid he was sure Members on that side would welcome very much what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for the Stretford Division in regard to the distribution of the compensation money, and that there would be a general disposition to support the principle that the licensee should be entitled to a considerable amount of the compensation paid. He did not think however, that the hon. and learned Member's suggested Amendment would in the least affect the principle raised by the present Amendment. They were not considering how the compensation fund should be distributed, but whether there was not a certain class of house which in equity and justice was not entitled to any compensation at all. What was the principle of compensation? They on that side of the House held that neither as a matter of

1297
law nor as a matter of practice were the trade interests as a whole entitled to any sort of compensation whatever, but there was a disposition very widely entertained that if by compensation they could get over the difficulty of inflicting hardship upon individuals, and facilitate the reduction of licences, some sort of solatium or compensation might be paid to the licensee dispossessed. But on the question of the tied houses how could it be said there was any individual hardship involved? The whole principle of the tied-house system was that a certain brewery or brewery syndicate owned a great number of houses. If in the operation of this reduction the syndicate lost the licence of one house they were in a very different position from that man who owned only one house in which he might have invested the whole of his savings and who might be ruined by the Bill. The brewery companies would not be injured. On the contrary, it had been computed that from the saving on the management of the houses lost and the great amount of business done in the houses retained it was extremely probable they would be, on the whole, gainers. If that were the position it seemed very anomalous that they should be treated in exactly the same way as an individual who might lose the whole of his livelihood through the loss of his licence. The principle sought to be introduced into this Bill was that only the man whose name was over the door and who really held, as a result of his savings, the public-house ought to receive compensation and not the house belonging to the important brewing interest. That was a principle which might be generally adopted.
There was a general feeling that the trade was well able to look after itself. If the tied house was to receive no compensation those houses, it was hold, should be excluded from the houses upon which the contribution was to be levied. It seemed to him there was nothing unjust in calling upon the whole trade, irrespective of whether they were to receive compensation or not, because a comparatively small sum levied would be sufficient to compensate all the claims, as there were only 15 per cent, of houses in England not on the tied system. It was obvious that a very small sum would be needed
1298
to abolish them altogether, and he did not think it would be at all unfair to call upon the trade as a whole to contribute an amount which had for it object the removal of the individual hardship in 15 per cent, of the houses. If that were adopted they would easily effect the necessary reduction of the non-tied-house system and further achieve the greater advantage of leaving to the discretion of the licensing authorities the care of those houses which were tied. It was perfectly clear that this Bill was in the nature of a reply to the action of certain Licensing Benches recently. That was extremely objectionable in principle. He would like this Amendment to be carried if only for the fact that it would rehabilitate the licensing magistrates in dealing with the ordinary licensed houses which came under their control. If they admitted no hardship would be done by taking away a licence here and there in the public interest and that no compensation was necessary in the case of the trade as a whole, he could not see why they should not leave it to the magistrates to determine in each case whether the licence should be withheld or renewed. That principle seemed to be perfectly simple and intelligible and he believed they would get out of the great difficulty they were in, and the diminution of the unnecessary number of public-houses would proceed in the ordinary way.
MR. THEODORE TAYLORsaid it was generally agreed that the tied houses were the greatest blot on our licensing system. If the effect of the Amendment was to place tied houses in a less favourable position than those not tied, the remedy was very simple. Those who held the tied houses had nothing to do but to alter their system. It was in the interests of the consumer that the tenant should have freedom with whom to deal. Very little was heard about the interests of consumers, but they formed a large class of the community, and it was right their case should be considered. It was bad in any trade that the retailer should be bound to one producer, and the tied-house system, which had grown up as a practice, but had never been recognised by law, was contrary to public policy. What would be thought

1299
if the same system existed in the grocer} business? He was sure public opinion and the women of this country would be against all the groceries in one town coming from one wholesale dealer, because he could make the price what he liked. That was absolutely political economy. The system added a monopoly to a monopoly, and enhanced the money value on which compensation was to be paid. Take an example of a town with ten public-houses with a value of £1,000 each where this system did not exist. In another town with the same number of public-houses where the tied system prevailed there was an added value on the top of the £1,000, viz., the value obtained by the wholesale dealer in the right of controlling the retail dealers. This at least doubled the value of public-house property. In one town the public-house property would be worth £10,000, in the other £20,000.He put it to the Government seriously whether the town where the tied-house system prevailed was entitled to draw twice as much as the other town, where there was a competition between the public-house owners. He was trying to show that there was a substantial difference in financial equity between holders of licences which were freehold and those which were tied to a certain producer. It was not fair between one licence-holder and another that, contrary to the public interest, the value of certain licences should be swollen by crushing out competition. It was grossly unfair that by law, for the first time, this increased monopoly value should be given to these monopolists. He could quite concede that there should be a moderate amount of compensation to a man who had established a business and had carried it on without any complaint against him and had adapted his premises to these purposes, but that the Government should recognise the extra value of;, a monopoly upon a monopoly—a combination of monopolies—was almost incredible in view of the injury to public interests they had seen accrue from great monopolies in the United States of America. The artificial piling up of an aggregate of monopolies was not a fit subject for recognition as entitled to compensation, even granting for a moment, for the purposes of argument, that it was perfectly
1300
legitimate to give compensation for the a discontinuance of a year-to-year licence held by a publican.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid there was one point referred to by the hon. Member for Stretford which he would allude to, because he appeared to take a very different view of the amount of compensation in the case of these tied houses. The difference between the value of a house without a licence, and the value of one I with a licence, might be well illustrated ' I by the letter which was written by Earl Grey who, after having obtained a licence on some of his property, was informed I that the licensing magistrates had; bestowed upon him a present of £10.000. This proposal made the houses ten times I more valuable than they were before, therefore they were not dealing with a' trifle. The Amendment before the Committee said in effect that no compensation was to be given to tied houses. There was this much to be observed that compassionate reasons, which had played a large part in the discussion of this matter, could not really apply to tied houses. Tied houses were owned in groups by brewers, and while no one would say that they ought not to receive justice, he thought that when one of them had a licence extinguished, that brewer, be in the owner of many others, was often more than compensated by the amount of additional business which accrued to the remainder. In addition to that, in the case of tied houses, as he read the Bill, subjects which would come in for compensation, not directly but indirectly, would be the profits made on the brewing and the selling. The profit of the retailer was a perfectly different profit and a very much less profit. These considerations ought certainly to weigh. But his chief reason for supporting the Amendment was that in giving compensation the effect would be to make these licences permanent property. They were liable to be bought up, and so, for public reasons, was every piece of property in the country. Whatever might be said about the private owner of a house obtaining compensation under the ordinary forking of the law, it was a perfectly different thing in the case of the owner of a tied house. The idea of making that permanent was a very serious matter,

1301
because a tied house was an excrescence on the licensing law. He believed it was nearly 100 years ago that public attention was drawn to this evil, and it had teen condemned by Committees of Parliament very early in the last century. It was a thing that had grown up notwithstanding the disapproval of the Legislature by making use in some cases of many very discreditable shifts.
The system of one person owning and setting the profit and another unhappy person being put in to take charge of a licensed house was contrary to the policy and spirit of the Acts ever since the commencement of licensing. The policy of the statutes was that there should be a respectable person as licensee carrying on his business in the house which he owned. The results of the contrary system were deplorable. It had been little less than cruelty to a number of most decent, respectable people, no doubt in most cases, who had been placed in the management of public houses. The conditions of their employment were such as ought not to be permitted by law, especially in dealing with a dangerous trade like this. Some of these poor people were under a tenure of a few days. They were obliged to sign blank applications for transfers, to be filled in at the will and pleasure of the owners, and they were tied to such a degree that for hardly any article they could purchase were they free to go into the cheapest market. The result was that the prices charged by the owners of tied houses were admittedly extravagant— 20 and 25 percent, above the market price. They were liable to dismissal almost at a day's notice, and their condition had attracted the attention of not a few Licensing Benches, because it led to evil Results in the administrator of the licensing laws. In many instances the rents were very low, and in that way the rates were defrauded. He was only pointing out what was stated in the Minority Report, and he thought also the Majority Report. One of the consequences of the system was the pushing of the trade which everybody wanted to prevent. If the man [who was put in to manage a tied house did not give satisfaction—and satisfaction in the case of companies consisted' n paying large dividends—they were liable to dismissal, and the result
1302
was that they pushed trade. They often provided bad liquor. Those poor creatures were not able to buy what they liked, they were bound to buy what was provided for them under covenant. He had not heard so many complaints in England to which this Bill applied, but in Scotland the character of the drink supplied was scandalous. A comparatively small quantity of the spirits supplied very often in these shops was of such a kind as to produce bad health of all kinds, and drunkenness. All these things were the result of the tied system. In addition to that, it had been shown in the Minority Report of the Commission—he would not say always, as he did not wish to exaggerate—that in numerous cases there was strong ground for believing that the justices were imposed upon and defrauded by means of bogus agreements. It was an unpleasant thing to be obliged to say these things about men carrying on business, but he had warrant for what he said in the Report and the evidence of the Commission. He did not deny that there were good instances of tied houses. He hoped that many of the tied houses were well conducted, but the system laid itself open to gross abuses. He did not think anyone on the other side would dispute it. The proposal of the Government would not only stereotype the system of licensing, but it would bar the door against any improvements that might here after be suggested.
Another effect of what was proposed was that in regard to tied houses a freehold would be bestowed upon the owners. If the tied houses were excluded from the operation of the Bill, as the Amendment proposed, 80per cent, of the licensed houses would be disposed of, and it would bestow a great advantage upon the real persons who ought to be considered, if anybody was to be considered, namely, the persons who lived in and managed their own licensed houses. He was sorry to say that that did not appear to be the purpose of the Bill at all. It was not the publicans but the brewers who sent a deputation to the Prime Minister. It was to them that the promise was given. It was by them the promise was exacted. It was by their evil political influence that this Bill was being thrust through the House contrary, he believed, to the

1303
unbiassed wishes of most of the House, and contrary, he was certain, to the protest of the whole country outside. It was a brewers' Bill, and it was for that reason that he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.
ME. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid the mover of the Amendment desired to withdraw the tied houses from the operation of the Bill, and to give the local justices the power to destroy these "tied" agreements. These tied houses were variously estimated to be between 70 and 80 per cent, of the existing houses. A great deal had been heard in the debate of the objections to the tied system. Hon. Members who had taken part in the debate—certainly those on the other side—had talked of the tied system as though it applied to this particular trade only. Incidentally he would remind the House that there were many other trades in this country which were carried on on the principle of being tied. [An HON. MEMBER: Monopolies.] He only mentioned that incidentally. [An HON. MEMBER: What trades?] He knew instances of grocers who carried on business in a large number of places. There were bakers and other trades that did so also.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: You do not offer to give them compensation.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid if the principle of being tied was a bad one in regard to liquor it was not a good one in others. Hon. Members had quoted a good deal from the Minority Report of the Royal Commission in regard to the effect of the tied-house system being to push trade. It was perfectly true that the minority expressed an opinion to that effect. On the other hand, the majority did not seem to have taken so hostile an attitude with regard to this system. They said that the statement was not justified that the tied-house system led to more drinking. His hon. and learned friend the Member for Dumfries had been very hard on certain sections who were connected with the trade. The right hon. Gentleman had laid it down that respectable persons who carried on free houses were in a different category altogether from those who
1304
carried on tied houses. He should like-to protest, on behalf of many people in his own constituency and others, against the sweeping character of such a charge. There was no ground for it. There were a very large number of those who conducted and owned tied houses who did not come under the description of the right hon. Gentleman.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he did not want to be misunderstood. He did not think he had said anything at all against the persons who resided in and conducted the tied houses.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he was glad to have given the hon. Gentleman the opportunity of disabusing their minds of what many of them thought were his views. In regard to the tied system, if he remembered right, according to the Report of the Royal Commission, and in the opinion of many other authorities, there were tied houses and tied houses; and there were many directions in which the tied system was carried out, which certainly did not come under the condemnation of the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries Burgh. He understood that, especially in the Midlands, conditions prevailed in regard to the managerial system which were extremely good. An hon. Member had asked him as to the amount of compensation which would be given to the publican or occupier of the house. He entirely agreed with the hon. Gentleman that a fair share of the compensation money ought to go to the man who had carried on the business in a respectable manner. On the Second Reading of the Bill he had given an illustration of why that should be so, which he was sure would appeal to the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries as an old cricketer. Take for instance the case of a cricketer who, by his popularity and his excellent management of a public-house, had attracted a large amount of business to his house. Certainly that man's share in the amount of compensation to be provided under this Bill ought to be very considerable. He believed that that would be provided for under Clause 2. In answer to the hon. Member for Stretford, he might say that if it had

1305
not been made perfectly clear in the Bill that the occupier of the house would receive a proper share of the compensation money, the Government would be perfectly prepared to accept an Amendment in that direction.
Hon. Members had pointed out that between 70 and 80 per cent, of public-houses were tied. It would be impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment, if for no other reason than that they would lose 70 per cent, of the compensation fund. The hon. and learned Member for Dumfries said that the Government were building up a much greater monopoly by refusing to agree to the exception now proposed. On the contrary he quite thought the case might be as suggested by the right hon. Member for Oxford University. Supposing that compensation was not to be given to a tied house at all, and that in a given case the decision was left to the brewster sessions whether to take away the licence of a free house for which they might give compensation or that of a tied house without compensation. It was quite possible that the effect of that would be entirely opposed to the effect intended by the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries. The free house would probably go and the tied house remain. He did not think that it would be to the advantage of the public to exclude the tied houses from insuring themselves, while the amount of the compensation fund would be largely reduced.[OPPOSTION cries of "No"] If 70 per cent, of the houses were tied, 70 per cent, of the whole houses would be withdrawn from contributing to the compensation fund. Then it had been said that the occupiers of tied houses should receive proper compensation; but if the tied houses, i.e., 70 per cent, of the public-houses, were withdrawn from the operation of the Bill, and if it were left to the Brewster sessions to deal with them without compensation, what became of the sympathy of hon. Gentlemen opposite for the men who occupied those tied houses.
MR. WHITLEY: We want them to be free.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid that they must have compensation money for
1306
all houses including the tied houses, which would contribute a very valuable portion of the funds for compensation. The Government could not see the difference as regards this principle between the tied and the free houses, and they could not agree to accept the Amendment.
MR. ASQUITHsaid he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that both the object and the effect of the Amendment would be to withdraw the tied houses entirely from the scope of this Bill as regarded jurisdiction and compensation if any tied licence were suppressed. The right hon. Gentleman could not discern any real difference between the tie-houses and the free houses, and he referred to the analogy of other trades. But the right hon. Gentleman would forgive him if he said that he did not understand the A B C of the case. Let him point out to the Home Secretary that a licence to sell intoxicating liquors was a valuable market able commodity created by the State. It was a licence granted to a particular individual in regard to particular premises, and the essence of the consideration for the grant by the State: of this valuable privilege to one of its citizens was that the State must be satisfied that the person to whom that privilege was granted was a fit person and that the premises he was to occupy were a fit place. But the effect of the tied-house system was that the person really interested in the monopoly was not the licence-holder, and that the licence-holder was the person not really interested in the premises. Therefore, the whole licensing law had been completely undermined by the proposal in the Bill. When the right hon. Gentleman made the analogy between the grocer and the candlestick-maker and the tied public-house, he forgot two things. In the first place the State gave the former no monopoly, and, in the second place, if they were deprived of their premises none of the to came to this House to ask for compensation. It was suggested as a reason why compensation should be given to free houses, that some of the holders of them had embarked their saving sin this particular industry under a mistaken view of the law. That was not the case with the great brewers,

1307
who had been warned by their legal advisers for years that they had invested their capital m these houses in the knowledge that this was a precarious security. Another ground alleged for giving compensation to a particular individual tenant of a free house was that he was made a victim by the licensing magistrates when the public interest demanded a reduction of licences. But that did not apply in the slightest degree in the "case of a tied house. In that case the man was not a tenant at all. The managers of tied houses were for the must part persons with no savings. They had nothing to lose. The only person who could conceivably be represented as the victim of hardship was the brewer or distiller, and they knew perfectly well that he was not a victim at all; in all probability he would get through his other houses an increased trade, and he would effect a saving in the expenses and outlay of management in respect of the premises which were suppressed.
The only other ground on which the claim to consideration was made was the difficulty of insurance. But it was a matter of notoriety that the owners of tied houses insured on a very large scale, and were able to do so because they insured their premises as a whole, which sometimes were spread over a county, or even two or three counties. There was not the faintest difficulty in an insurance company calculating the premium which would sufficiently compensate them for insuring such property as that. The right hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to express a belief that the managers of tied houses would get something out of the fund, but, as far as he understood Clause 2, he very much doubted whether they would get a halfpenny of compensation. Very often the manager had not got more than the status of a weekly tenant, and in point of fact, and, he believed, in point of law, sometimes he was not a tenant at all. He would remind the Committee what the majority of the Commission said upon this point—
"We desire to express our general adhesion to the principle of compensation equivalent to a fair intrinsic selling value of the licence and goodwill, apart from the extreme inflation of prices caused in some cases by excessive competition,"
There was no cause which had done so much to produce that inflation of prices
1308
as this system of tied houses. It was the competition of the great brewery companies bidding against one another which had led to the excessive and ridiculous sums which in not a few cases were paid for premises of this kind. The Bill took no note of the intrinsic selling value; it took the actual, which was in many cases the inflated value, as the measure for compensation. They were told that to exclude tied houses from the scope of the Bill would diminish the compensation fund by 80 per cent. Yes; but it would diminish the area for the payment of compensation in precisely the same proportion. And he would not for a moment be taken to say that it would not be perfectly fair still to levy in the same way for the purposes of the compensation fund, because the tied houses would derive increased benefit from the suppression of their competitors. On all these grounds he thought the Amendment a most reasonable and proper one.
MR. REAsaid he would support the Amendment, because he desired that the discretion of the magistrates should remain undiminished. Many benches of magistrates now insisted on knowing the condition of the tenant in order to ascertain whether he was a man of substance or not. They even asked to see the agreement; and in many cases they found that the agreement was oppressive and contained clauses contrary to public interest and convenience, and even to public morality. That security would be lost under the Bill as it stood. It was quite true that only certain benches of magistrates acted in that manner; but: he believed that the sense of responsibility I of the magistrates was growing. It had been said that the Amendment would exclude almost the whole trade from the operation of the Bill, and reduce it to a dead letter. It had been stated that the number of tied houses was 70 per cent., 80 per cent., or 90 per cent, of the total number of licensed houses. His own impression was that the highest estimate was the most accurate. In his own constituency the tied houses numbered 95 per cent, of the total licensed houses. He did not, however, agree with his right hon. friend that the Amendment would necessarily exclude the tied houses. It was probable that, rather than

1309
forego the endowment which the Bill gave, the brewers would relax the tie and get a rack-rent for the houses, equal to the economic value of the monopoly which would cover the present rent and profits. He, therefore, did not believe that the acceptance of the Amendment would restrict the area of the Bill in any great degree; whereas the public advantage that would be gained would be very great. The brewers would be compelled to sell their beer on its merits; and that would be a novel situation for them.
Everyone would admit that a close monopoly led to the supply of an inferior article. He had received many letters stating that beer was being supplied to tied houses which would not be accepted in free houses; and a letter was published a few days ago by a gentleman who had been a Member of this House in which he stated that brewers endeavoured as far as they could to discourage the sale of cider in their tied houses. The monopoly thus maintained led to incessant drinking, because it kept open 15 or 20 per cent, of the houses that did not pay. They were kept open by the brewers, because they got rid of their stuff; kept open in the hope that sooner or later they would get compensation, and because the brewers knew that in the economic management of trade, as in land where the soil was poor and the industry was hardest to carry on, risks would be taken and that the tenants would do their utmost to keep their heads above water longer than they otherwise would do. They knew the tenants of these houses had to be mere drink-sellers and were not in the position of an owner of a free house who only sold drink as he sold any other commodity. The evidence given before the Royal Commission showed case after case where pressure was put upon the tenant to sell drink and nothing else. People could not get tea at a tied house. Why? Because the brewer exacted his sale of barrels of beer. These tied-house tenants had to sell liquor; they had to keep open their premises the greatest number of days in the year, and the greatest number of hours in the day. His hon. and learned friend had spoken of this system of tied houses defrauding the rates. There was no doubt about that. Many of these houses were let at
1310
rents of one-third or one-fourth of their value. There was a case of that kind brought to the House of Lords and Lord Macnaghten said—
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine himself to showing why it would be desirable to exclude the tied houses from the operations of this Bill.
MR. REAsaid he maintained, with his hon. friend the hon. Member for Dumfries, that this system was really an abuse—an evasion of the spirit of the law. The law gave a licence as a trust; to the individual, who became thereby a quasi-public servant and invested with a quasi-public monopoly. The law insisted on personal character and personal responsibility. He believed if this Amendment was adopted it would restore the economic and political personal freedom to some 100,000 good citizens and would restore healthy conditions to the trade itself.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid it could hardly be denied by anybody who had listened to this debate, that this was a most important Amendment. He regarded it as even more important than the Amendment which dealt with the time limit, because it offered a much more effectual method of limiting the compensation than the time limit. He had always been in favour of compensation in some cases, and he took what he thought was the popular view of the country with regard to compensation. He had always imagined that compensation really meant compensating the man who served in the public-house, and he was quite certain the people of the country who were in favour of compensation believed in it because they considered that the man they saw in the public-house would be unjustly treated if he were turned out of his house without notice and without compensation. That view was a logical and reasonable view, because, as the right hon. and learned Member for Fife pointed out, with the utmost clearness, a licence was granted to the occupier of the premises; he was the only person treating with the State, and there were only two persons to the bargain, the authority which gave the licence and the person who received it. Why, then,

1311
should it be assumed that the great brewers had any claim for compensation at all, or that there should be any obligation at all on the State? Legally, of course, there was no claim to compensation; but between the licensing authority and the individual occupier who received the licence it seemed to him that there was at any rate a moral claim to consideration of some sort or another. The publican kept his licence subject to good behaviour; there was a reasonable | see assumption that if his behaviour continued good his licence would continue. But where did the good behaviour of the great brewer come in? There was no bargain of the kind with him. Whatever argument they might raise on behalf of the individual occupier, the great brewer had no share whatever in those arguments. They heard a great deal when the Bill was introduced about persons of substance and the necessity for getting persons of substance to occupy public-houses, but now it appeared that eighty-five out of every hundred public-houses were not occupied by persons of substance at all, but by fleeting shadows, unsubstantial phantoms who were going to be removed at pleasure, without scarcely any notice, by the authority of the great brewing trust. He was perfectly convinced that the great masses of the people did not realise that the Bill proposed to give compensation almost entirely to the great power in the trade and to practically exclude from the benefits of the compensation fund the only class of people on whose behalf a logical argument in favour of compensation could be maintained.
It was said that the great brewers and distillers had a claim not to be excluded from any compensation, because their premises were rated at their highest value. What had that got to do with it? The rating authority found that the premises were worth so much, and rated them upon their actual value. If the value of the premises were reduced, they would be rated upon the lower value. In no wav could that involve the State in any liability as regarded the brewing and distilling interests. The State was concerned with the occupier alone. Supposing legislation were introduced altering the wine duties, in consequence of
1312
which there was a much larger importation of French wines—would anyone advocate that a claim should be advanced by the brewers and distillers of this country for the undoubted injury done to their business by an act of the Government? No; it was perfectly impossible to go behind the parties to the bargain, and deal with other interests which might be adversely affected. These were not very new views for one who had hitherto called him-a Tory Democrat to express. He had heard with some surprise that the Solicitor-General referred to the opinion of Lord Randolph Churchill on the subject of compensation, though he heard with pleasure that he referred to it with some respect. He would venture to read a quotation which bore exactly on the Amendment, because it marked conveniently a great change in the general consensus of opinion in the House of Commons on this question. Lord Randolph Churchill, speaking at Walsall in 1889, said—
"At any rate, this Parliament bas done some good. Although it did not succeed in entrusting local authorities with the duty of licensing, still it did undoubtedly establish this great principle, that the wholesale manufacturers of alcoholic drinks had no legal or moral title whatever I which Parliament is prepared to recognise for compensation in the event of their industry being largely restricted. "
SIR EDWARD CARSON: Would the hon. Member say whether that referred to State compensation?
MR. WHITTAKER: No; from the trade.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsubmitted that in any case it made no difference, because the compensation raised by the trade was only a form of taxation which the State had foregone, and a perfectly proper and substantial subject of compensation from which the State shut itself off. Therefore he was not prepared to admit that there was any real difference between State compensation and compensation from the trade. But to finish the quotation—
"In the case of the retail trader there is an equal agreement amongst all reasonable and moderate men that he does possess an equitable claim to compensation which should be met. This is the opinion of Parliament so strongly that no Government ever dare fly in

1313
the face of it—that the big bi ewers and the big distillers are not entitled to one sixpence in compensation in the event of a reform of the licensing law."
Fifteen years of progress had apparently somewhat altered the opinion of the House, and they now saw a Government that was prepared to fly in the face of public opinion by proposing a measure the compensation under which was almost entirely limited to that very class which fifteen years ago it was said that Parliament was of opinion should be almost entirely excluded from its operations. He thought it was preposterous that the great brewing interest, who brewed beer according to the demands of the public, should claim to have established a great system of 100,000 taps flowing all over the country, and should demand compensation for every tap that Was closed. The very argument used from the Government Benches revealed the' hollowness of the claim, because the Home Secretary himself and others had declared that a reduction of public-houses did not necessarily involve a reduction in the amount of liquor consumed. At an rate, he believed it to be strictly true the in so far as the consumption of beer was reduced by the extinction of licences, the 'loss was absolutely equated by the economies in administration as well as bath's partially increased supply for the houses that remained, and that absolutely no claim whatever that Parliament ought reasonably to consider could be advanced by the great brewing interests for any restriction which they might suffer in consequence of this measure. He would certainly support the Amendment if it went to a division.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid he desired to call the attention of the Committee to the real meaning of the Amendment, and how widely the discussion had digressed from the intention of the hon. Member re ponsible for it. Hon. Members on the other side were in a very anomalous position. They never ceased telling the Committee that the trade ought not to be allowed to insure for the purpose of obtaining compensation in the manner proposed by the Bill, thereby leaving the whole property of the trade liable to confiscation, and in the same breath they declared they had
1314
the deepest sympathy with the publican in possession of a licensed house. Having been unable to resist the Second Reading of the Bill, which set up the insurance, they; now tried to divide the two interests and to set the publican against the brewer as though their interests were something different. He did not think that the publican who understood that the object of the hon. Member opposite was to put an end to them altogether, would be very much taken in by that transaction. What was the present I Amendment? The hon. Member who moved it said it was in the interests of the publican, but its effect would be to deprive the publican of any claim to I compensation if he had entered into an I agreement to purchase only from a particular firm or firms.
MR. WHITTAKER: But he will not I get any under the Bill.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid that point that point he disagreed with the hon. Member. He wanted to know how I it could be in the interests of the publican to say to him that, because he had entered into a particular contract, he would not be allowed to get compensation under the Bill.
MR. WHITLEY: Because it would break up the tied-house system, and give back to the publican the freedom which I he ought never to have lost.
SIR EDWARD CARSONassured the hon. Member that he was under a delusion in regard to that point. All the Amendment as it stood did was practically to: say to the publican, "You have been foolish or wicked enough to enter into an agreement to purchase only from a particular firm or firms, and therefore you are so bad a man that you shall not be allowed to come into this compensation scheme." The hon. Member said that if they only passed this Amendment it would put an end to the tied-house system altogether. He assured the hon. Member that that was not so. The only result of this Amendment would be that in the case of short leases and short agreements the publican would be at the mercy of the brewer, who would immediately put an end to the agreement and put in a

1315
manager. They had been told that this Amendment would break up the whole system of combination under brewers, but he would point out to the Committee how little it did this. As he had said before, it did not touch the vast number of cases where brewers had put in managers. Did the hon. Member who moved this Amendment really think that he was doing the publican, who had the tenancy, a service by laying down that he was to receive no compensation? Was that his position? That was what the Amendment did. Was he going to lay that down as a proposition? There were cases of publicans with long leases, and there were a vast number of them both in London and elsewhere. Was the hon. Member in such cases going to say that the publican ought to get no compensation, although he was interested to a very large extent, and really had a greater interest in the premises than the owner?
MR. WHITLEY: I would make it to the interest of the owner to release him.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid that that was not the Amendment. Take, for example, a case where the tenant of licensed premises had been granted a mortgage on going into the premises, and borrowed money from the brewers upon a security. Under those circumstances— and there were many such cases in London—the tenant would feel under an obligation to trade with that brewery as on as the mortgage existed, and in on sequence of that transaction he would btain his goods from that particular Irm exactly as if he were tied. The Amendment would, in fact, do grave injustice to the men whose interests it was supposed to serve. What reason was there for drawing this distinction between tied houses and others? He would give as an example a case which had not infrequently arisen in connection with brewery companies buying up houses and tying them. Supposing that A leased a licensed house to B and the latter took possession. A brewery company might go round to him and offer him a considerable sum for his interest, and then relet the premises, and in that way get it tied. In that case, was the original lessor, who had had nothing whatever to say to the tie, to be driven outside the
1316
insurance scheme simply because that transaction had taken place? It was-assumed that the tied-house system was bad. That might or might not be so; but certainly the responsible Commission had not declared the system was bad— indeed, they had rather gone the other way, and said that under a good and careful brewer the system operated advantageously and had a good result. They went on to say that such a result was not secured under other conditions, but this Amendment would cut out the good and careful brewer from the system of insurance. Upon the whole, the Report of the majority of the Commission was more in favour of the system than against it. He thought it stood to reason that because of the very vast interests involved in these tied houses there was necessarily careful supervision on the part of the owners so that they might not lose the benefit attaching to tied houses. If I there was not at the bottom of this matter this great objection, what were the I reasons why they should be struck out of the insurance scheme under the Bill? He could see no reason.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife said that they were on an entirely different basis in point of law and in point of fact. He would call the attention of the Committee to what was said on the Second Reading of the Bill. It was said on behalf of the Government that a system had been allowed to grow up under which if licensed property was taken for the public interest it had to be fully compensated for. They said that they could not treat the same property for one purpose as having no value and for another purpose as having a value which could be estimated. His right hon. friend knew perfectly well that in many cases tied houses had come before compensation tribunals for the purpose of having their value estimated when they were taken away for public purposes. He did not think anyone had ventured to say in that case that there was any difference between a tied house and an ordinary public-house. But while they were asked to draw this distinction would anyone get up in this House and say that different death duties had been paid on tied and untied houses? That was another reason why

1317
the Government said that the tied houses should be allowed to contribute to the insurance and have the insurance paid on the same principle as the owner was assessed for death duties. They saw no reason whatever for drawing any distinction in this Bill between tied and untied houses. He would only remind the Committee of what the Home Secretary had already said, namely, that the houses owned by brewers constituted a very large proportion of the number in this country, and that they could not possibly tax the licence-holder for payment towards this insurance fund without giving him a share of it if he should lose his licence. If they eliminated from the Bill this particular class of licence-holders they would take away a large contribution from the compensation fund.
SIR HENRY FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)said the hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken of this as an insurant scheme, but certainly the House had not yet resolved that it was. When the proper time came he should be prepared to argue that it was in no sense a scheme of insurance. The hon. and learned Gentleman had misconceived the principle of the Amendment. A system of compensation could only be maintained on the ground that for public purposes a man's means of living was interfered with or his occupation taken away, but it was quite another thing to compensate speculating owners of property who bought that property with known risks, who had acquired large profits, and had thus provided then selves with ample insurance against loss. A portion of such property being taken away, the practical effect under the Bill would be to add to the value of what remained, and it was compensation under these conditions he objected to. There was no provision that would ensure that the publican, the bona-fide innkeeper, would receive a share of the compensation. The Home Secretary had however, admitted, in reply to the hon. Member for Stretford, that he was prepared to introduce words in the Bill that would make it clear that the publican was entitled to some compensation.
In Hampshire, with the view to carrying out temperance reforms, a census was carefully taken, a year before
1318
this Bill was introduced, by the county magistrates in investigating the conditions of the tenancies held by the brewers on the one hand, and of the ordinary tenants on the other. He would quote the figures in respect to one section of the county. He thought the figures were typical of what they would be throughout the whole Kingdom. In one rural area, out of 927 tenancies there were only twenty-nine held on yearly tenancies. 374 were quarterly, 137 monthly and the remainder chiefly half-yearly. What was the interest of a tenant who might be asked to quit at a week's notice? A week's wages, he presumed, would be ample to cover it; and these men were, he believed, paid at a very small figure. That: was the evil of the system. That class I was outside the Bill, and could never be brought under it. What was not brought in was the respectable publican whose licence was taken from him not because I he had conducted his house badly but because there was a surplusage of licensed houses. Of 741 licensed houses in the area referred to one brewery firm owned more than fifty, twelve owned from twenty to fifty, eight from ten to twenty, and about sixty owned fewer than ten houses. Where was the injury to even the smallest of these brewers if his houses were reduced to nine? The value of the remainder would be proportionately increased. The same brewers held the leases of 113 other houses, and they owned between them a very large proportion of the licensed houses in the other towns and districts of that county. What was proposed was not an insurance fund but legitimate taxation levied for a specific purpose and for the benefit of the people upon whom it was levied. The brewers, supposing they were shut out from the compensation fund, would share in the increased business which would accrue by the diminution in the number of houses; their annual expenditure would be reduced, and if there was a risk, it would be a small and diminishing risk against which they could and did insure. He had no objection to giving compensation to what might be called the legitimate traders, but he did object to giving compensation to the investors who had received large profits, out of which they had provided reserve

1319
funds, effected policies of insurance, and paid enormous dividends.
MR. GROVES (Salford, S.)said that, as representing the brewing trade, in which he had a very specific and material interest, he would endeavour to reply to certain inquiries made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton. He wished, in the first instance, to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he classed him, and those who were engaged in a similar business in the wholesale way, among the legitimate traders to whom he would extend simple justice and compensation. If that were so, then they would know exactly where they stood. Even brewers, much as they were vilified in that House, would appeal with confidence when they were there asking for a simple matter of justice.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: I was dealing with the licence-holders.
MR. GROVESsaid that the licence-holders were amply provided for in this Bill. The brewer would be a poor business man if he did not consider the prosperity of his business, and study to popularise it by looking after the interests of his tenants, as well as his own interests. Brewers, like other business men, depended for their success on the quality of the goods they sold, and they would be exceedingly short-sighted if, either by the quality of their product, or by their treatment of their tenants, they endeavoured to palm off on a discriminating public any article of an inferior character. The hon. Member for Oldham had referred to a speech made by a late illustrious statesman in that House. Assuming that that speech was delivered in 1888, and related to compensation, at that time it would be State compensation that was intended. If it was at a later period, when a certain Bill was before the House of a similar character to the present Bill, then it would be trade compensation that was intended. If that Bill had been carried in its entirety, they would not have been called upon now to consider the question of the reduction of licences, because the fund provided amply for a gradual and reasonable reduction, the compensation for which would have been paid for out of the pockets of the owners.
Although he had no desire to enter upon a disquisition on the tied-house system which was only dealt with in a very
1320
limited degree by the Amendment before the House, he would like to remind the House that that system had grown up during a period of years as the result of various circumstances. It was the natural result of the desire of brewery proprietors to extend their business. He was quite free to make the admission that thirty years ago the business with which he was connected did not own a single tied house, and yet to-day a very large proportion of their business was tied. Brewers acquired those houses under the reasonable expectation that if they came to be dealt with, as long as the brewers themselves provided funds for the reduction of licences, they might appeal to the House of Commons with confidence. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton had stated very correctly that the proportion of licensed premises owned and controlled by brewers was 70 per cent, or 80 per cent. If so, the Amendment limited the operations of the Bill to the remainder. He presumed the main object of those who agreed with the Amendment was that the Bill should be I as small and petty in its character as it was possible to make it; that it should not be an attempt to deal with the whole question on a large basis even though the funds were provided by the brewers, but that the Bill was to be whittled away until it became a very trifling thing indeed. The House now had an opportunity of dealing with this question on a broad basis, and as far as he was personally concerned he would welcome a satisfactory settlement t once and for all of this vexed question, not from the financial point of view at all, but in order that they might feel that those who were interested in the trade, and who desired to carry on this difficult business in a perfectly legitimate and honourable manner, would be free to do so without harassing interference with their arrangements. To carry on his business satisfactorily the brewer must display, the greatest amount of amiability and friendship towards his tenants, and that | being the case he intended to vote against the Amendment to exclude tied houses | from the operations of the Bill.
MR. LAWSON WALTON (Leeds, S.)said that the hon. Gentleman who had I just spoken had infused an air of candour I into the discussion which enabled the

1321
Committee to understand really more clearly what was the motive of the Bill, and also what was the object of the Amendment. The hon. Member told the Committee that the persons really interested in this Bill were behind the persons holding the licences, namely, the brewers, who had revolutionised the licensing trade of the country. The hon. Gentleman did not stop to defend the tied-house system; but everyone who knew anything of the administration of the licensing laws knew that in many parts of the country the most stringent conditions were imposed in order to prevent licences being in the of mere managers who were here to-day and away to-morrow, and who were merely agents in charge of depots "for the sale of drink under a system which was adopted, not with a view to carrying on a house as a house of refreshment, or an inn, or a hostel, as in the old days, but in order to secure the greatest possible consumption of drink. He knew a case within his own experience where a tenant was anxious to double the size of his house and was willing to contribute liberally towards the necessary capital for the operation. His proposal was, however, absolutely vetoed, because he could not show that the addition would result in a larger consumption of drink. The hon. Member told the Committee that there was an identical interest as between the manager and the brewery company. There was, however, an extreme diversity of interest. A licensee might be anxious to popularise his house and increase his accommodation for guests, but the brewery company, which sold nothing but beer, and which was indifferent to the accommodation which might be afforded, might say that unless it could be shown that the increased accommodation would lead to an increased consumption of beer they would not consent to it. That showed how far there was identical interest as between the brewery company and the licensee.
The hon. Gentleman asked why they were seeking to leave out of consideration the tied-house system which largely prevailed in this country. He would answer that question. In the first place, it was because they considered the system a mischievous one. Further, the vesting of legal responsibility in one person while the involved capital was vested in another
1322
person was a method of carrying on the licensed trade which was opposed to precedent and which was responsible for the evils mentioned in the Minority Report. It also showed how utterly fallacious was the sentiment which inspired the Bill. The poor cricketer whom the magistrates did not want to deprive of his licence without compensation was the picture drawn to excite sympathy in this House and out of it; but when they found that the poor cricketer was merely the manager of a tied house, that his tenancy might be determined at forty-eight hours notice, and that he would not be entitled to any compensation under the Bill at all, it followed that the great brewery companies were putting forward the injured cricketer as a misleading subject of sympathy.
SIR EDWARD CARSON: I have said that we intend that he should be compensated, and that we will make it clear in the Bill.
MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid they had to deal with the Bill as it stood. His hon. and learned friend did not indicate the alteration he proposed to make in order to meet the point.
SIR EDWARD CARSON: It would be out of order.
MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid he had heard his hon. and learned friend indulge in graver breaches of order. As the Bill stood, thousands of people who had a claim to compensation would be told that they were not interested in the licence, being merely agents, and that there was nothing for them. He supported the Amendment because it was a blow at the tied-house system. Besides, a Bill which left the holders of 85 per cent, of the licensed premises out of its scope was founded upon injustice and ought not to be passed.
Mr. SECRETARY AKERS-DOUGLAS Mr. SECRETARY AKERS-DOUGLAS rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is the dinner gag.
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 265; Noes, 184. (Division List No. 176.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

Allhusen Augustus Henry Eden

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Keswick, William

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Kimber, Henry

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Arnold-Forster Rt. Hn. Hugh O

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Knowles, Sir Lees

Atkinson, Rt. Hon John

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Austin, Sir John

Duke, Henry Edward

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

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

Bain. Colonel James Robert

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

Lee A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

Baird, John George Alexander

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Balcarres, Lord

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

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Baldwin, Alfred

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

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

Balfour, Capt. C.B. (Hornsey)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W(Leeds

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.

Fisher, William Hayes

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fison, Frederick William

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

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

Hartley, Sir George C. T.

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Beach, Rt. Hn Sir Michael Hieks

Flower, Sir Ernest

Lowe, Francis William

Beckett, Ernest William

Forster, Henry William

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

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

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Gardner, Ernest

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Bignold, Arthur

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

Bigwood, James

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

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Bond, Edward

Goulding, Edward Alfred

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Graham, Henry Robert

M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh, W

Bousfield, William Robert

Green, Walford D.(Wednesbury

Malcolm, Ian

Bowles, Lt-Col H. F (Middlesex

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

Manners, Lord Cecil

Brassey, Albert

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Bull, William James

Grenfell, William Henry

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Gretton, John

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Butcher, John George

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Campbell, Rt Hn J. A. (Glasgow

Groves, James Grimble

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Campbell, J.H.M(Dublin Univ

Gunter, Sir Robert

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Carson, Rt, Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Moore, William

Cavendish, V. CW. (Derbyshire

Hain, Edward

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Morpeth, Viscount

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

Morrell, George Herbert

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Morrison, James Archibald

Chamberlain, Rt Hn J.A (Worc.

Harris, F. Leverton (Tvnem'tn

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich)

Mount, William Arthur

Chapman, Edward

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Charrington, Spencer

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

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

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Coates, Edward Feetham

Heaton, John Henniker

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

Helder, Augustus

Myers, William Henry

Coddington, Sir William

Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.

Newdegate, Francis A. X.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Nicholson, William Graham

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hickman, Sir Alfred

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

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Hogg, Lindsay

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hope, J F (Sheffield, Brightside

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Cox, Irwin Edward Bain bridge

Horner, Frederick William

Pemberton, John S. G.

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Percy, Earl

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Houston, Robert Paterson

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Crossley, Rt, Hon. Sir Savile

Howard, Jn (Kent, Faversham

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Cust, Henry John C.

Hozier, Hn James Henry Cecil

Plummer, Walter R.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Davenport, William Bromley

Hunt, Rowland

Pretyman, Ernest George

Dewar, Sir T.R (Tower Hamlets

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Pym, C. Guy

Dickson, Charles Scott

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Ratcliff, R. F.

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Renwick, George

Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

Webb, Colonel William George

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

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

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

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

Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.)

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Robinson, Brooke

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Rollit, Sir Albeit Kaye

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

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

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Stroyan, John

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R (Bath

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Thornton, Percy M.

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Tollemache, Henry James

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Younger, William

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Tuff, Charles

TELLERS FOR. THE AYES—Sir

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Valentia Viscount

Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Simeon. Sir Barrington

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Wanklyn, James Leslie

NOES.

Abraham. William (Cork, N.E.)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Levy, Maurice

Allen, Charles P.

Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

Lewis, John Herbert

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Lloyd-George, David

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Lundon, W.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Farrell, James Patrick

Lyell, Charles Henry

Barlow, John Emmott

Fenwick, Charles

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

M'Crae, George

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Ffrench, Peter

M'Fadden, Edward

Bell, Richard

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Benn, John Williams

Flavin, Michael Joseph

M'Kean, John

Black. Alexander William

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

M'Kenna, Reginald

Blake. Edward

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Boland, John

Furness, Sir Christopher

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Gilhooly, James

Markham, Arthur Basil

Brigg, John

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Grant, Corrie

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Buchanan, Thomas Byburn

Griffith, Ellis J.

Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose)

Burt, Thomas

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Moss, Samuel

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Murphy, John

Caldwell, James

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Newnes, Sir George

Cameron, Robert

Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Harwood, George

Norman, Henry

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Hayden, John Patrick

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Cawley, Frederick

Helme, Norval Watson

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

Charming, Francis Allston

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Holland, Sir William Henry

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

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Horniman, Frederick John

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Crean, Eugene

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Cremer, William Randal

Jacoby, James Alfred

O'Dowd, John

Crombie, John William

Joicey, Sir James

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Crooks, William

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Jones, William (Carnavonshire

Parrott, William

Cullinan, J.

Jordan, Jeremiah

Partington, Oswald

Dalziel. James Henry

Joyce, Michael

Paulton, James Mellor

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W.

Philipps, John Wynford

Delany, William

Kilbride, Denis

Power, Patrick Joseph

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Labouchere, Henry

Price, Robert John

Dilke, Rt Hon. Sir Charles

Langley, Batty

Priestley, Arthur

Donelan, Captain A.

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Rea, Russell

Doogan, P. C.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Reddy, M.

Duncan, J. Hastings

Leamy, Edmund

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Ellice, Capt. EC (S Andrw's Bgh

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries)

Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

Leng, Sir John

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

1326

1327

Roberts, John H. (Denbigbs.)

Soares, Ernest J.

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C.R.(Northants

White, George (Norfolk)

Robson, William Snowdon

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Roche, John

Strachey, Sir Edward

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Sullivan, Donal

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Rose, Charles Day

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Runciman, Walter

Tennant, Harold John

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Russell, T. W.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Thomas David Alfred (Merthyr)

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

Schwann, Charles E.

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

Woodhouse, Sir J.T (Huddersf'd

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Toulmin, George

Young, Samuel

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Yoxall, James Henry

Sheehy, David

Ure, Alexander

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wallace, Robert

TELLERS For The NOES—Mr.

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.)

Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

Slack, John Bamford

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

William McArthur.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 172 Noes, 271. (Division List No.177.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Farrell, James Patrick

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Fenwick, Charles

M'Crae, George

Asquith, Rt Hon Herbert Henry

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Ffrench, Peter

M'Kenna, Reginald

Barlow, John Emmott

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Markham, Arthur Basil

Beaumont, Wentwortk C. B.

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Morgan. J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Bell, Richard

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Benn, John Williams

Furness, Sir Christopher

Morley, Rt. Hon. John (Montrose

Black, Alexander William

Gilhooly, James

Moss, Samuel

Blake, Edward

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Murphy, John

Boland, John

Grant, Corrie

Newnes, Sir George

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Griffith, Ellis J.

Norman, Henry

Brigg, John

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hain, Edward

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Burt, Thomas

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Caldwell, James

Harwood, George

Parrott, William

Cameron, Robert

Hayden, John Patrick

Partington, Oswald

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Helme, Norval Watson

Paulton, James Mellor

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Cawley, Frederick

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Philipps, John Wynford

Channing, Francis Allston

Holland, Sir William Henry

Power, Patrick Joseph

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Price, Robert John

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Horniman, Frederick John

Priestley, Arthur W

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Rea, Russell

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Reddy, M.

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Joicey, Sir James

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Cremer, William Randal

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Crombie, John William

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Crooks, William

Jordan, Jeremiah

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Joyce, Michael

Robson, William Snowdon

Cullinan, J.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Roche, John

Dalziel, James Henry

Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

Roe, Sir Thomas

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Kilbride, Denis

Rose, Charles Day

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Labouchere, Henry

Runciman, Walter

Delany, William

Langley, Batty

Russell, T. W.

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Donelan, Captain A.

Leamy, Edmund

Schwann, Charles E.

Doogan, P. C.

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Duncan, J. Hastings

Leng, Sir John

Sheehy, David

Ellice, Capt EC (S. Andrw's Bghs

Levy, Maurice

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Ellice, John Edward (Notts.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Sinclair. John (Forfarshire).

Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

Lloyd -George, David

Slack, John Bamford

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

Lundon, W.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Lyell, Charles Henry

Smith, HC. (North'mb. Tyneside

Soares, Ernest J.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Spencer, Rt, Hn. CR.(Northants

Ure, Alexander

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Wallace, Robert

Wills, Sir Frederick

Strachey, Sir Edward

Walton, John Lawson(Leeds,S.)

Wilson, Chas. Henry(Hull, W)

Sullivan, Donal

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

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

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Woodhouse, SirJ T. (Huddersf'd

Eennant, Harold, John

Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney)

Yoxall, James Henry

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.)

White, George (Norfolk)

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

White, Luke (York, K.R.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

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

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

Toulmin, George

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

William McArthur

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Cust, Henry John C.

Hope J.F. Sheffield, Brightside)

Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Horner, Frederick William

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Davenport, William Bromley

Houldsworth, Sir Win, Henry

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Dickinson, Robert Edmund

Houston, Robert Paterson

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. HughO.

Dickson, Charles Scott

Howard, John(Ken Faversham

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Austin, Sir John

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. SirJosephC.

Hunt, Rowland

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Jeffreys, Rt.Hon. Arthur Fred.

Bain. Colonel James Robert

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Kennaway, RtHon.Sir John H.

Baird, John George Alexander

Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Balcarres, Lord

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Kenyon-Slaney, Col.W.(Salop.)

Baldwin, Alfred

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Keswick, William

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

Duke, Henry Edward

Kimber, Henry

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Dyke, Rt, Hn. Sir William Hart

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Balfour, Rt. Hon Gerald W.(Leeds

Egerton, Hon. A. do Tatton

Knowles, Sir Lees

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Cnristch.

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Lambton. Hon. Frederick Wm.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fardell, Sir T. George

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Barry. Sir Francis T.(Windsor

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

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Lawson, John Grant(Yorks. N. R

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham

Beckett, Freest William

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Bentinck, Lord Henry

Fisher, William Haven

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Fison, Frederick William

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

Bignold, Arthur

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Bigwood, James

Fitzroy, Hon. Ed ward Algernon

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Flower, Sir Ernest

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Bousfield, William Robert

Foster, Philips. (Warwick,S. W

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Bond, Edward

Gardner, Ernest

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Gibbs, Hon A. G. H.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Bowles, Lt. Col.H F(Middlesex

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

Lowe, Francis William

Brassey, Albert

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Lloyd, Archie Kirkman

Bull, William James

Graham, Henry Robert

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft-

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Green, Walford D(Wednesbury

Lucas, Reginald J. Portsmouth

Butcher, John George

Greene, SirEW(B'ryS.Edin'nds

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Campbell, Rt, HnJ. A. Glasgow

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Maclver, David (Liverpool)

Campbell, H. M. (Dublin Univ)

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Campbell, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Grenfell, William Henry

M'Fadden, Edward

Cavendish.V.C.W(Derbyshire

Gretton, John

M'ver,SirLewis (Edinburgh W

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Greville, Hon. Ronald

M'Kean, John

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Groves, James Grimble

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J (Birm.

Gunter, Sir Robert

Malcolm, Ian

Chamberlam Rt Hn J. A. (Worc.

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Manners, Lord Cecil

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Chapman, Edward

Hardy, Laurence (Kent Ashford

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Charrington, Spencer

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Meysey-Thompson, Sir IL M,

Clave, Oetavius Leigh

Harris, F. Leverton (Tyncm'th

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Harris, Dr. Fredk.R.(Dulwich)

Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir FrederickG

Coates, Edward Feetham

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Cochrane, Hon.ThomasH.A.E.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Coddington, Sir William

Heath, Ernest Fredrick. R. (dulwich

Moore, William

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

Morgan, David J Walthamstow

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Heaton, John Henniker

Morpeth, Viscount

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Helder, Augustus

Morrell, George Herbert

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Henderson. SirA. (Stafford, W.)

Morrison, James Archibald

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbrige

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Morton, Arthur 11. Aylmer

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Mount, William Arthur

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Crussley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Hogg, Lindsay

Muutz, Sir Philip A.

Cressley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham Bute

1330

1331

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Tollemache, Henry James

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

Myers, William Henry

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Tuff, Charles

Nicholson, William Graham

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Tufnell, Lieu:- Col Edward

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

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Valentia, Viscount

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Wanklyn, James Leslie

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

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Warde, Colonel C. E.

O'Dowd, John

Samuel,Sir HarryS. (Limehouse

Webb, Colonel William George

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Sandys, Lieut. Col. Thos. Myles

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

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.

Peel. Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Whiteley, H(Ashton und. Lyne

Pemberton, John S. G.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Percy, Earl

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Piatt- Higgins, Frederick

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

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

Plummer, Walter R.

Smith Abel H.(Hertford, East)

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

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bach

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich

Wortley, Rt, Hon. C.B.Stuart

Pym, C. Guy

Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Ratcliff, R. F.

Stanley, EdwardJas. (Somerset

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. II.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.)

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Remnant, James Farquharson

Stewart, SirMark J. M'Taggart

Young, Samuel

Renwick, George

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Younger, William

Ridley, S.Forde (Bethnal Green

Stroyan, John

Ritchie, Rt.Hon.Chas.Thomson

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

Sir Alexander Acland-

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Hood and Mr. Ailwyn

Robinson, Brooke

Thornton, Percy M.

Fellowes.

And, it being after half-past Seven o: the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1—
  ME. J. H. LEWISsaid the object of the Amendment he now proposed to move was to omit the new licence from the scope of the first clause. He hoped the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment. They surely did not intend to create a permanent vested interest in new licences, yet that was what this clause conferred, and the object of [his Amendment was to obviate that undesirable consummation. This Amendment
  1332
  affected both the question of jurisdiction and compensation. With regard to jurisdiction, it would be better that the local justices should deal with the new licences because they knew what the necessities of the locality were, and it was desirable on another ground also. If these powers were vested in quarter sessions there would be a great temptation to grant licences in new districts in order to add to the compensation fund, which would be unfair to the new districts. With regard to compensation, everybody would agree that it was most desirable that a new monopoly interest should not be allowed to grow up in regard to those new licences, but a monopoly interest could only be destroyed in one of two ways: either there must be free trade in the sale of liquor or licences must be let at competitive value. As to free trade in liquor, that was obviously out of the question, and so far as letting the licences at competitive value was concerned, he pointed out that in letting a licence at competitive value that licence must not be dealt with once and for all, but from time to time as occasion arose, because the value of licences changed from time to time. A relatively short time back the

  1333
  Metropolitan Board of Works were able to acquire licences at an average value of £1,700 each, but now the average value had risen to £3,100, and therefore it was obvious that licences must be dealt with from time to time in a way in which they could not be if a vested interest was created. There was another important question in regard to this matter. The Bill as it stood prevented the extension in the future of the operations of the trust system, which many people favoured, as was pointed out by Lord Grey in his letter on the subject, in which had hitherto attended the great success which he drew attention the operations of these trusts, and in which he stated that the Bill would operate fatally agains; the extension of the system. If would be obviously quite impossible for trusts to continue their operations in the future the clause as it stood prevented the extension of the trust system in the country on the ground that it was proved to create a vested interest in now licences, and for the other reasons he had mentioned he begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 5, after the word 'licence, to insert the words 'which was in force on the twenty-fifth day of June nineteen hundred and four, or any licence granted by way of renewal there of from time to time.'"— (Mr. J.H. Lewis.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. DUKEsaid he hoped the Government would be able to regard this Amendment favourably. It raised matters of principle which were not previously raised. With a great many of the details of the speech of the hon. Member who moved it he did not agree, but with the distinction which the hon. Member drew between the licences now in existence with the rights of monopoly which they had, and the licences hereafter to be granted, he entirely sympathised. He hoped the Government would see that there was a vary great distinction between dealing with licences to be granted in the future and those licences which were already in existence
  1334
  and which had come into existence as part of a system of monopoly. Those who considered this matter on its merits would recognise that where a licence was granted to an individual as part of a system of monopoly, a set of rights was created which could only be dealt, with subject to a due regard to elementary principles of justice and fair play; but under the new order of things there would be granted from time to time to trusts or brewers licences, and he hoped the Government would see that, when granting these licences in future, we should not be for all time under a monopoly system of liquor traffic, or if there must be monopoly, the monopoly should not be for the benefit of trusts and brewers, but for the profit of the public, to whom the profits ought go. But this Amendment could not be dealt with unless some decision was come as to how we were to proceed in the future. The Government were going to formulate a policy with regard to the now licences, but it was not at present very distinctly outlined, and there was the difficulty under Clause 4, that interference with the Government plan might lessen the compensation fund. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment suggested two modes of dealing with the monopoly system: free trade in liquor and letting licences for terms but the hon. gentleman apparently rejected both those alternatives. He (Mr. Duke) did not think the question could be disposed of on this Amendment because it was an Amendment to a scheme for dealing with a monopoly system, the whole of which scheme was bound up with the past history of the monopoly system and the rights, moral or legal, which that system had conferred. The question, to his mind, was whether the House ought not to leave itself free to deal with this matter at a later stage in the consideration of the Bill which would provide that the granting of a licence in the future was grant out of the public should receive, in some form or other, and should look for some part of, the licence. That would at any rate, put upon the public and those who

  1335
  were to regulate this traffic a responsibility which would be coupled with their interest in it. He hoped the Government would not close this discussion without seriously considering the interests of the public in future licences.
  COLONEL PILKINGTON: said his reason for following the speeches already made was that it seemed to him to be a great pity that they could not do something in this direction when they were compensating for old licences and doing away with what had been considered in certain quarters to be a gross injustice. This Bill was the result of a feeling of injustice on the part of the present licence-holders; it had nothing to do with the granting of new licences, and the hon. Member for Plymouth had shown very distinctly the great advantage which would result if the Government in this Bill differentiated between the old and the new licences. Nobody wished to have this promise of compensation going on for all time, and it appeared to him that there should be some statesmanlike provision introduced with regard to the new licences. That was absolutely necessary. It was one of those points which, if taken up, would enable the Government to pass this measure in a form satisfactory to everybody in the House and in the country. He made a strong appeal to the Government that these new licences should be treated in quite a different manner from the old licences, and that the view of the hon. Member for Plymouth, with regard to the public receiving a benefit, should be gone into by the Government with a view to inserting some new clause in the Bill to cover the new licences and to reduce to a minimum the compensation paid.
  SIR EDGAR VINCENTsaid he ventured to join in the appeal that had been made by his hon. friends to His Majesty's Government that they would at least accept the principle on which the Amendment was founded. It appeared to him that a very clear distinction should be drawn between the licences already in existence and those that were to be granted in the future. The whole Bill had for its justification the public interest, and the dealing with a difficult position, which all temperance
  1336
  efforts had failed to accomplish in the past. It appeared to him that the Amendment as framed did not in the least attempt to prejudge the treatment to be accorded to licences to be granted in the future. All that it did was to leave the question open, and in Clause 4, it left it open to quarter sessions to insert whatever stipulations might be considered necessary.
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid he hoped in what he said the Committee would not think that he meant to suggest that the question of new licences was not to be looked upon in an entirely different manner to old licences. He stated, when speaking on the Second Reading, that he hoped they might be able to frame something that would put the new licences on a satisfactory basis to the State. They had there to consider no question of vested interests or even of equitable interests, and there could be no divergence of opinion on the two sides of he House as to attempting to set up the best possible system in regard to the granting of new licences. Having said so much, hon. Members opposite would see that the application of the principle-of that statement was not so easy as might be imagined in finding out what was the most satisfactory system. But there were certain broad facts that should guide them in framing their provisions with regard to new licences. In the first place, he thought they ought to lay down the principle that they were determined that no new vested interests should be? set up. They ought to leave the magistrates perfectly free to deal with the granting and renewal of new licences without any possible claim being set up of any kind in relation to them. Whatever interest was created by the grant of a new licence, no claim for compensation or for a share in a monopoly ought to be allowed to arise. If they could say that no new licence should be created in future, that probably would be the most satisfactory manner of dealing with the question. But this would be absolutely impossible, because new districts must arise in which a hotel, a public-house, or a restaurant might be required by the public. The question, then, was, how were they to grant new licences, assuming that they

  1337
  must be granted? A person could not be expected, as a business transaction, to take up a licence for a year only, if he was to be subject to the conditions imposed by Clause 4, and the present conditions as to structural suitability of premises, and so forth. But there ought to be some conditions of this kind provided for in the fourth clause of the Bill for the granting of the new licences.
  The view of the Government was that practically the magistrates ought to be allowed to impose such conditions as they thought to be proper. As a corollary, they thought that probably the best way of granting new licences was that they should be granted for three, five, or seven years, or for a period which as a business transaction would be likely to induce men to sink capital in a business intended solely for the convenience of the public, it was plain that in such a case as that there ought to be no compensation at the end of the three, five, or seven years for which the licence was granted. If the Committee, on the other hand, thought that the annual system ought to be kept up, and if at the same time the terms of the Bill were to be exacted, it was plain that while there should be no compensation as for a share in the monopoly, the question arose of whether they could justify the licensee being compelled to subscribe to the insurance fund under the Bill. The Government would be as careful as the hon. Member to see that no system of compensation should be set up which should recognise any vested interest in the granting of a new licence. There was no intention to allow any system whereby the new licences should be placed in the position of the old licences. The Government were anxious to see the best system that could be devised adopted in relation to these new licences, and that the magistrates should not be fettered in granting them by the fear that a new interest would have to be paid for out of the monopoly that would be created. He suggested that with these assurances the matter might be left until Clause 4 was reached, when the whole question of new licences would be considered.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he did not gather that the hon. and learned Member was prepared to accept the Amendment,
  1338
  though it was the only possible conclusion from his speech. He was glad, however, to learn that no vested interest was to be created in respect of the new licences granted for the first time after the passing of the Bill. It would have been an astonishing thing if the Government had adhered to the provisions actually contained in the Bill, which undoubtedly would have had that effect.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that in every speech he had made on the question he had declared it to be an essential element of the Government policy that no new monopoly licences should be granted.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he had the words before him, and was about to quote them when the right hon. Gentleman interrupted him, in which the Prime Minister said that our forefathers had committed a great mistake in allowing any vested interest to be created, and that nothing of the sort ought to be permitted in the future. But under the Bill itself the creation of such a vested interest would beyond all question be permitted, subject to certain conditions, in Clause 4, which might or might not be imposed. It was also satisfactory to hear that no compensation would become payable in the case of new licences. That being the position, he desired to point out the justification for the Amendment and the necessity of insisting upon it. Clause 1 created the principle of the Bill with regard to on-licences, both present and future. Clause 4 allowed quarter sessions to attach certain conditions to the granting of new licences. But the power was entirely optional, and if the quarter sessions thought fit they could permit a new vested interest to grow up. There was not a word in the Bill as to the power to grant licences for three, five, or seven years, as suggested by the Solicitor-General. Personally he believed that if the words of existing Statutes had not been sufficient for the purpose, no form of words which human ingenuity could devise would suffice to prevent the growth of a vested interest. The only remedy was to impose annual taxation equivalent to the annual value of the gift which was to be conferred at the time of the granting of the

  1339
  new licence. He maintained that in these circumstances the Amendment was necessary. Its acceptance could not possibly prejudge any one of the matters referred to by the Solicitor-General in regard to Clause 4.
  MR. DUKEpointed out that if the Amendment were accepted the renewal of different sets of on-licences would be under different jurisdictions.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsubmitted that that difficulty could easily be got over by providing in Clause 4 that the granting or renewing of the licences should be on the same footing as those dealt with in Clause 1. The Committee were now dealing with the great enacting clause of the Bill; the Government had stated that they did not propose to apply the principle of Clause 1 to the new licences; why, then, should not Clause 1 be limited to existing licences, leaving the question of new licences to be dealt with in whatever way the Committee thought fit on Clause 4?
  COLONEL PILKINGTONsaid the Government had declared their intention to treat new licences in a different manner to existing licences. It was necessary, therefore, that existing licences should be described in the Bill, and nothing could be clearer than the description given in the Amendment. The words suggested in the Amendment would make that matter absolutely plain, and new licences could then be dealt with in Clause 4 of the Bill.
  MR. MARTINsaid there seemed to him a comparatively easy way out of the difficulty. There was no real reason why any new licence should be granted, at any rate for a great many years to come. If, when a licence was required in a new and populous place, the person obtaining the permission of the magistrates to have a licence should have to go into the market and buy up a licence in a place where it was not needed, many small towns and villages would have some of their superfluous licences removed from them into places where licences were needed. If no restriction were placed on the negotiability
  1340
  of licences, there would be a permanency in their value, and the necessity of granting any new licences might be got rid of for years to come.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURbelieved the whole House was of one mind in thinking that they should be careful, in regard to new licences, not to create that monopoly which had been such a burden to them in the past. He was not sure, however, that they ought so to limit the discretion of the magistrates as to make that impossible. He did not commit himself on the point, but he was anxious to give the magistrates discretion to try experiments regarding future licences and the terms on which they should be granted. The plan suggested by the Solicitor-General by which licences should be granted for a number of years would be a fit method in many cases for dealing with new licences, but he would be sorry to restrict magistrates to that one method. They might, for one reason or another, desire that the licences should be under their hand from year to year, and that there should be no bar to their withdrawing a licence if they thought fit to do so. It was evident that the lease system would require no compensation at all. The licence would be granted on terms well understood, and any improvements would be limited by the time the licence had to run. Another system would be to giant licences from year to year on the understanding that, if a licence was withdrawn, the holder would be recouped for any improvements he had made in the licensed premises for the advantage of the public and the proper carrying on of the business. He thought it was impossible, therefore, either in Clause 1 or in Clause 4, that they should do anything to render compensation impossible in the case of future licences. That compensation, of course, would not be for the monopoly value, but would be based on the principle already adopted by Parliament in regard to agricultural tenancies, where compensation was granted for unexhausted improvements. For these and other reasons, he should be reluctant to see the principle of compensation even for future licences absolutely excluded. He hoped that when they came to Clause 4, as much liberty would be left to the magistrates as

  1341
  possible, with a view to their trying various experiments in various districts as to the best mode of granting such new licences as might be required for the needs of a growing population, experiments that might vary from district to district and county to county. He was ready to admit that, in the judgment of the Government, all licences granted after the passing of this Act should come under the principles of Clause 4, and he was ready to accept the Amendment modified by such words as "existing at th3 commencement of this Act," or words equivalent thereto.
  MR. ASQUITHasked why the date should not be inserted.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURthought it would be more in accordance with precedent to use some such phrase as "the commencement of this Act,"
  MR. J. H. LEWISpointed out that the words were copied from the Licensing Act of a few years ago.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was not aware of that fact. At any rate, the point was that licences bona-fide granted after the passing of this Bill should come under the new system, and it remained for the Committee to determine in connection with Clause 4 what that new system should be. That being so, the Government had done their best to meet the common view of the Committee by agreeing to accept the Amendment in the amended form which he had suggested.
  MR. ASQUITHasked what were the words proposed.
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid the words he suggested were "existing at the date of the passing of this Act," so as to make the compensation set up in Clauses 1 and 2 applicable only to existing licences, leaving open whatever questions it might be desirable to raise with regard to new licences on Clause 4. The question might also be raised as to whether a renewal was not in point of law a new grant.
  MAJOR JAMESON (Clare, W.)said the Amendment was a most objectionable one,
  1342
  and simply raised the question of a time limit in another form. It was a piece of absolute folly to accept such an Amendment, and he hoped it would be rejected.
  MR. LAWSON WALTONpointed out that if conditions were imposed upon a licensee involving costly alteration of premises and the licence were then withdrawn at the close of the year, an equity was undoubtedly created in the licensee who had invested his capital on the faith of his licence and had not had an opportunity of withdrawing the capital invested. It was, therefore, necessary to decide whether there should be a continuance of the present system of annual licences with an equity of renewal on the part of the licensee, or whether there should be a system of licences granted for a certain number of years, upon the definite understanding that no right to renewal or to compensation was vested in the licensee. That system, instead of giving a licence for a year, granted it for a reasonable period, and allowed the magistrates to review it at the end of that period, and gave them power to readjust the number of licensed houses to the wants of the neighbourhood. If that system was to be adopted with regard to new licences the question was whether they could create two systems of concurrent licences under one administration of the law. The Bill as it stood now would constitute two classes of licences—those in existence before 1904 and which had a right to compensation and which were annual, and licences created since 1904 which were for a term of years. There was no such thing in law as renewal, but there was a new licence. The question arose whether the Government should not at once provide for a renewal licence or a new licence instead of having a licence for one year, for a definite term on the understanding that the term should be sufficient to allow the licensee to cover himself by means of insurance, and with no obligation at the end of that time to compensate him.
  MR. J. H. LEWISsaid he would accept the suggestion which had been made. He asked leave of the Committee to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 5, after the word 'licence' to insert the words 'existing at the date of the passing of this Act.'"—(Mr. J. H. Lewis.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS (Denbighshire W.)said the object of the Amendment he wished to propose was to restrict the operation of the clause to licences granted by way of renewal for more than ten years prior to the passing of the Act. It would create a further distinction in regard to compensation, and introduce the condition that no compensation would be payable under Clause 1 of the Bill if the licence had not been renewed for a period of ten years at least. If the clause was passed as it stood now compensation would have to be paid for all existing licences. One of the grounds put forward for claiming compensation was individual personal hardship, and the Committee would remember how the hon. Member for the Ripon Division of Yorkshire had more than once laid before them the case of certain widows but if they went back as he suggested for a period of ten years that distinction could not arise. There was undoubtedly a great difference between a licence granted forty or fifty years ago and one granted within the last three or four years. There was another and perhaps more important distinction to be drawn between recently granted licences and those which had been renewed for a large number of years. The Committee would remember that it was more than ten years ago, in 1891, that the decision in "Sharpe v. Wakefield" was given, and that judgment made it clear beyond doubt that no legal claim could be made for compensation for the refusal of a licence. Those who had applied for licences, either as speculators or otherwise, since that time and invested their money in licences had had due notice of the exact condition of the law, and they had not the same ground for making a claim for compensation in case their licences were refused as those who invested their money before that time. Again, there was this further distinction — almost all the licences granted during the last ten years had been made not to individuals but to
  1344
  brewery companies. The Committee would remember some of those startling figures laid before the House by the hon. Member for Spen Valley in his speech on the Second Reading of this Bill, showing the immense amount of money invested during the last ten years by brewery companies in licensed premises. In his opinion there was a clear difference between the two classes of licences.
  What was the object of this Bill? Its alleged object was to facilitate the reduction of licences in England and Wales. That depended upon three things—the amount of the State levy; whether that levy was compulsory or not; and lastly, the extent of the demand made upon the levy. This third point in particular had a direct relation to the Amendment they were discussing. It was clear that the more they could legitimately restrict and reduce the area of compensation the greater and more rapid would be the reduction made. The objection would of course be made that it was not fair to make a difference between a licence granted in 1893 and 1896. If his Amendment "were carried the man who was granted a licence in 1893 would receive compensation, whilst the man who received his licence three or four years later would not. The reply to that objection was obvious. No scheme could be devised which would do absolute justice in every possible case and on every possible point. Furthermore, it was not the licences which had been granted during the last ten years which would in any case be taken under the operation of this Bill upon the ground of non-necessity, so that no injustice could arise. Speaking generally, his Amendment excluded from compensation licences which had been issued during the last ten years, and which had reaped the harvest of modern improvements. Upon those grounds he thought there was a distinct difference between the two classes of licences. He did not think that any hardship would be inflicted upon any individual tenant if his Amendment were carried. It would narrow the area of compensation and facilitate a reduction of licences, and upon those grounds he thought his proposition was worthy of the favourable

  1345
  consideration of the Committee He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 5, after the words 'last inserted,' to insert the words 'which has been granted by way of renewal for more than ten years prior to the passing of this Act.'" (Mr. Herbert Roberts.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid it was impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment. This Amendment drew a distinction between the licences granted within the last ten years and those granted before that period, and it would be absolutely impossible to do that in this Bill. It was impossible to make this distinction when all licences were granted under the same law. Of the whole number of licences, those granted in the past ten years were not more than 5 per cent.; many of these were granted on condition that other licences were extinguished; others had been granted under very stringent conditions as to structural arrangements and other matters, and some v ere for new districts. If any distinction could be drawn, the licences the hon. Member would exclude were more entitled to be the subject of compensation.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid there was a good deal more to be said for it than (he Solicitor-General seemed to think. So far from it being an extravagant proposi-
  tion, he thought his hon. friend might have extended the Amendment to renewals to the same person for the last ten years. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon said that those who hid acquired an interest in 1882 had no equitable claim for compensation, because the law was made perfectly clear in the Act of Parliament, What was the difference between the law made clear by Act of Parliament and the law made clear by the declarations of the Judges of the land?
  SIR EDWARD CARSON: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon spoke of the offbeer licences.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid there was absolutely no distinction as regarded the principle. If it was property, what did it matter whether it was an off beer licence or an on beer licence? The point laid down was that they were purchasers with notice, and so far as equity was concerned there was a perfectly clear case for the Amendment. There was not a man who did not know everything about the decisions on the subject except the Prime Minister. But if the Government had made up their minds to give the money to the brewers, it did not matter what was put forward from the other side of the House.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 143; Noes, 245. (Division List No. 178.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Allen, Charles P.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Asquith, Rt Hon Herbert Henry

  Craig, Robert Hunter(Lanark)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Crombie, John William

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Crooks, William

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Bell, Richard

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Grant, Corrie

  Benn, John Williams

  Delany, William

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Black, Alexander William

  Devlin. Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Blake, Edward

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hain, Edward

  Boland, John

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Brigg, John

  Ellice, Capt EC (S, Andrw's Bghs

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Burt, Thomas

  Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidsto'e

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Caldwell, James

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Cameron, Robert

  Fenwick, Charles

  Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fred.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Cawley, Frederick

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Joicey, Sir James

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea

  Murphy, John

  Slack, John Bamford

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Newnes, Sir George

  Smith, HC(North'mb. Tynes'de

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Norman, Henry

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Joyce, Michael

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W.

  Parrott, William

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Partingdon, Oswald

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lambert, George

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Langley, Batty

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

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

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Perks, Robert William

  Toulmin, George

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Ure, Alexander

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.)

  Leng, Sir John

  Priestley, Arthur

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Levy, Maurice

  Rea, Russell

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Reddy, M.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Lough, Thomas

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Lundon, W.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Roche, John

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  M'Crae, George

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Rose, Charles Day

  Woodhouse, Sir JT. Huddersf'd

  Mansfield, Horace Kendall

  Runciman, Walter

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Russell, T. W.

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Herbert Roberts and Mr

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Trevelyan.

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Sheehy, David

  Moss, Samuel

  Shipman, Dr. John C.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Greene, Sir EW (B'ryS. Edm'nds.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Craig. Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Crean, Eugene

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Gretton, John

  Austin, Sir John

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Groves, James Grimble

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Cullinan, J.

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Balcarres, Lord

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

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

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Harris. Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W(Leeds

  Dickson, Charles Scott.

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Dimsdaie, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Dixon-Hartland. Sir Fred Dixon

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Bigwood, James

  Doogan, P C.

  Helder, Augustus

  Blundell, Colonel Henry-

  Dorington. Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T

  Bond, Edward

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Dyke. Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Bull, William James

  Faber. Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Horner, Frederick William

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Butcher, John George

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

  Hoult, Joseph

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

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Howard, John (Kent Faversham

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

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

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Hunt, Rowland

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Chapman, Edward

  Forster, Henry William

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S W.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Give, Captain Percy A.

  Gardner. Ernest

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop

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

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

  Keswick, William

  Coghill, Douglas Harry.

  Gorst. Rt. Hon. Sir Jonn Eldon

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  1348

  1349

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

  Shaw Stewart, Sir H.(Renfrew)

  Law Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Sheehan, Daniel, Daniel

  Lawrence, Wm. F, (Liverpool

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

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

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks NR

  Myers, William Henry

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Leamy, Edmund

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Stanley. Edward Jas.(Somerset

  Lee, Arthur H. Hants. Fareham

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

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes.)

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Legge, Col. Han. Heneage

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Llewel'yn, Evan Henry

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Stroyan, John

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  O'Dowd, John

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n

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

  Long. Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Peel, Hn Wm Robert Wellealey

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Percy, Earl

  Thorton, Percy M.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Tomlinson. Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Lucas, Reginald J. Portsmouth

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon, Alfred

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Tuff, Charles.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Tufnell, Lieut, Col. Edward

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Valentia, Viscount

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Vincent Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  M'lver. Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Rankin, Sir James

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  M'Kean, John

  Rateliff, R. F.

  Walrond. Rt. Hn Sir William H.

  M'Killoy, W. (Sligo, North)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Malcolm, Ian

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Warde Colonel C. E.

  Renwick, George

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Ridley, S.Forde(Bethnal Green

  Welby, Lt. Col. A. C. E (Tauton

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Whiteley, H. (Asht'nund. Lyne

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Willough by de Eresby, Lord

  Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir H.E (Wigt"n

  Robinson, Brooke

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E R

  Meysoy-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

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

  Moles worth, Sir Lewis

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Wodehouse, Rt, Hn. E.R. (Batb

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Moore, William

  Rutherford, W. W.(Liverpool)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Morgan. David J (Walthamstow

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Young, Samuel

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  TELLERS FOR THE Noes—Sir

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Mount, William Arthur

  Scott, Sir S. (Marleybone, W.)

  and Mr. Aiiwyn Fellowes.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Sharps, William Edward T.

  MR. MOSS (Denbighshire, E,)had the following Amendment standing in his name on the Notice Paper:—
  "In page 1, line 5, after the word 'licence,' to insert the words, 'the holder of which is also the owner of the licensed premises, or is the bona-fide tenant thereof, and is not in any way restricted in his right to purchase intoxicating liquors, tobaccos, cigars, or any other commodities ill the open market.'"
  THE CHAIRMANsaid if the hon. Member would leave out the last two lines it might be in order, but even then it seemed to him to raise exactly the same point as had been discussed on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Halifax, namely, the tied-house question.
  MR. MOSSsubmitted that the tied-house question did not possibly arise under the Amendment. The only point he wished to discuss was that the owner
  1350
  of the licensed premises, or the bona-fide tenant, should be entitled to compensation.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Halifax would not cover the case of a secretary or manager who, as very often happened, was the tenant. The Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for East Denbighshire would cover the case of a secretary or manager.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It depends on the definition of the words "bona-fide tenant." His definition of a bona-fide tenant is a man who "is not in any way restricted in his right to purchase intoxicating liquors, tobaccos, cigars, or any other commodities in the open market."
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid this did not raise the tied-house question, which they

  1351
  had been discussing. The question raised by his hon. friend's Amendment was whether the holder of the licence was the owner of the licensed premises on the one side, or the bona-fide tenant thereof on the other.
  THE CHAIRMANthought the hon. Member might be allowed to proceed with the Amendment if he would promise that the words "tied house" would not occur in his speech.
  MR. MOSSsaid there were two propositions which were now admitted by the House. The first was that a licence was an annual licence and that the licensee or owner of the premises had no legal right to compensation, and that if he was to be compensated it must be as a concession or act of grace. Compensation rested on a moral and not on a legal basis. He was quite sure the House would agree that if any person was entitled to compensation it was the person who had placed his savings in the business and had purchased it. A large number of public-houses were bought up by brewers and large companies, and in 90 per cent, of the cases the person placed in charge of the house was not a bona-fide tenant at all. He was licensed because he happened to be the secretary or the manager of the company, and there might be no agreement at all to entitle him to compensation. The effect of the Amendment would be that in all those cases where there were irresponsible people who did not care for the public and who only cared to sell a certain amount of liquor, there would be put in their place responsible people who were anxious to conduct the business with due regard to the public interest, and who themselves would be amenable to the law.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 5, after the words last inserted, to insert the words 'the holder of which is also the owner of the licensed premises or is the bona-fide tenant thereof.'"—(Mr. Moss.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR EDWARD CARSONcongratulated the hon. Member on the skill with which
  1352
  he had moved the Amendment so as to escape the Chairman's ruling. He recognised in many of the hon. Member's arguments their old friend the tied house. Was a man a bona-fide tenant or less than that because he had made a contract with a large brewer for three or six months? What was to be the test of a bona-fide tenant?
  MR. MOSS: I never suggested that at all. I gave a pledge to the Chairman that I would not deal with that point, and I carefully abstained from doing so.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member has quite unwittingly misled me on this point. It is perfectly clear that we are on the same discussion. I do not think it can well be avoided.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: It was the Solicitor-General who introduced the words "tied house."
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid he must deal with the realities of the Amendment. He must state what was his conception of the only meaning the Amendment could have. What was to be the test of a bona-fide tenant? He submitted that in reality the Amendment was the same as the preceding one, and that there was no reason for passing it.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid the Report of the Royal Commission showed that a bogus tenancy might exist in connection with tied houses. These bogus agreements which were put before the magistrates were very different from real contracts. There seemed to have been a considerable number of bogus tenancies in Manchester, and the magistrates had considerable difficulty in dealing with them. In his opinion bogus agreements might exist in connection with tied houses or apart from tied houses. The point was that they wanted some person in real possession and not merely a caretaker who was here to-day and gone to-morrow—a person who was the owner himself, and not a tenant under a sham agreement and a mere illusory tenure. He would certainly vote for the Amendment.
  MR. CORBETTsaid the managers were a class on

  1353
  whom the Bill would inflict very great hardship. They held their positions subject to removal at short notice, and there was hardly any form of employment in which such constant changes were taking place. A man entered upon the post of manager with a character, and after an occupation of something like two or two-and-a half years might be absolutely destroyed and characterless and possibly a burden on the community. They might be told that the supervision of the brewers over the managers would do something to protect the public from irregularity in the conduct of these houses. He ventured to say that the supervision of the brewer over the manager consisted in his seeing that the latter sold a sufficient amount of beer; and if they could investigate the relations of these people it would be found very often that the complaint against the manager was not that he conducted the house badly, but that he failed to sell the amount of beer which the brewer thought he ought to sell.
  MR. McKENNAsaid the Solicitor-General had asked what a bona-fide tenant was. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that when his hon. friend the Member for Halifax moved his Amendment the Solicitor-General objected to it on the ground that the manager of a brewing company who owned the premises was not A tenant. It was, therefore, perfectly clear that the argument of the Solicitor-General was dealt with by the present Amendment. Therefore he was not a bona-fide tenant, and why should compensation be given to him? Compensation under the Bill would be given to the brewery company because the licence was to be withdrawn, while the manager would be thrown out into the streets and get nothing at all. The only person to suffer would be the manager, and he it was that should in equity receive compensation, because he would be thrown out of employment, and might not obtain a situation elsewhere.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the distinction between the two cases was very clear. The question was whether the tenant was to be a bona-fide tenant or merely the agent of the brewery company. He would suggest to his hon.
  1354
  friend the Member for Denbigh that he should accept an Amendment to his Amendment, by omitting the words "The bona-fide tenant thereof," and substituting for them the following part of the: Amendment on the Paper standing in the name of the hon. Member for Eifion, "the tenant of the licensed premises as tenant from year to year, determinable only in the usual way on half a year's notice, or as lessee for a fixed term of not less than two years, and not determinable on breach of any covenant or agreement other than a covenant or agreement to pay the rent, or to insure the premises, or to keep or yield up the same in proper repair." That would raise the question whether the person was nominally the tenant, or was merely the servant of the brewery company. Of course, he must be a tenant by the law of the land, because unless he came forward to the licensing magistrates and said that he was the tenant of the premises, he would not get the licence. If he was purely the creature of the brewery company he was not the tenant. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "To leave out the words 'bona-fide tenant thereof,' and to insert the words 'tenant of the licensed premises as tenant from year to year determinable only in the usual way on half a year's notice, or as lessee for a fixed term of not less than two years and not determinable on breach of any covenant or agreement other than a covenant or agreement to pay the rent or to insure the premises or to keep or yield up the same in proper repair.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  MR. HALDANEsaid he thought that the Amendment moved by his hon. friend had brought the matter to a focus. He could not imagine that the Government wished to bring within the scope of this Bill the class of tenant which this definition was framed to exclude. He thought that some Amendment such as this was necessary, and if his hon. friend went to a division he should certainly support him.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid he supported the Amendment. He did not think it was

  1355
  possible to get good tenants under the conditions named, which were so rigid aid stringent that they made the tenant a slave of the brewery company, and not an independent person. That was why the class of tenants had deteriorated so very much. The old class of tenant was a man of importance, generally a churchwarden, and of high respectability. Under the system of the Bill the person put in authority on licensed premises combined in his person the disadvantages of manager and tenant. Inasmuch as he was under control of the brewery company he could be turned out at a moment's notice, and was therefore under the same disadvantages as a mere manager; but he had not the advantage of a manager, in not being liable for bad debts or a bad speculation. These latter fell on the brewery company. This evil was not a new evil. If hon. Members would take the trouble to read a book by Mr. Sidney Webb and his wife, giving an account of the working of the Licensing Acts during the last hundred years, they would find that all the evils experienced now in administering the licensing laws were not new. In 1787, it was desired to restrict the licences in a similar manner to that now proposed, but the only difference was that the Party which was ii favour of restriction of licences without compensation was the Party of the Tory country gentleman.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that the only question before the Committee was the definition of what a bona-fide tenant was.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid he was showing that on previous occasions the same evils existed from which we now suffered, and he thought that the historical analogy was very pertinent. In the century before last the Tory squires were in favour of restricting the licences because they said the public houses were Radical hot-beds. It was the Radical Party in those days which was in favour of free, open, and unrestricted licences. He maintained that unless the Amendment was accepted the evils that had been shown to exist in the past and in the present, would be developed in the future in a very striking degree. It was most important that licensees should be responsible persons. He knew it was said that it would be very unjust to the
  1356
  brewers if they had not the right to-dismiss a bad tenant until after six months notice, but, if they gave power to the brewers to dismiss a tenant at a minute's notice, that would be a temptation to them to accept a bad tenant. If the brewers or owners of the licensed houses had to give six months' notice, they would take as much trouble to secure a good tenant as any owner of a West End house.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that the Solicitor-General had asked for a definition of a bona-fide tenant. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would find it in a single phrase of another Bill, which had not yet come on for Second Reading, viz., that no licence should be granted unless-the applicant showed that he had a tenancy of his premises for at least the period for which the licence was to be granted. That was his idea of what was a bona-fide tenant. Where it had been adopted it had been an enormous boon to the tenant, and had given him security. He believed if that definition were inserted in this Bill it would be a great benefit to the trade.
  MR. WHITTAKERsaid that there was very strong reason for declining to give compensation in any case in which the tenant did not pay a bona-fide rent. Under the provisions of this Bill the owner would not, unless the tenant was a bona-fide tenant, paying full rent, contribute anything towards the compensation fund whilst he would receive the whole of the compensation. As the Bill now stood, the tenant who did not pay a rack-rent, and who was not a bona-fide tenant, would pay the whole of the compensation. A more abominable arrangement was never suggested in an Act of Parliament. This Amendment would make it perfectly clear that the owner of a house, where the tenant was not a bona-fide tenant, would get no compensation.
  MR. GUESTsaid that the object of the Amendment was to define, in the strictest terms possible, what was a paid servant or manager of a brewery company, and what was a man who, although holding under the tied-house system, was still in some sense of the word a licensee.
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid he found it difficult to understand the arguments of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Hon. Gentlemen were trying to turn into managers people who were really tenants. They were told that the manager was to get no compensation. Then the tenancy was to be so restricted that a six or nine months tenant was to get nothing, and if there was a special agreement that the tenancy was to be terminated by a three months notice or a year's notice the tenant was to get no compensation, and also in cases where there was anything in the tenancy besides the ordinary covenant that the law supplied. If there was a covenant for a breach of which the tenancy was to end, then the tenant was to get nothing. They were thus to reduce the number of these persons in whom the Opposition at other stages of the debate had been deeply interested. Then if a man had a lease for twenty-one years, say, or any greater period, he was not to get compensation if he had entered into a covenant to keep the place in an orderly manner, or—and this was the real object —if he had entered into a contract to purchase from a brewer. All this was aimed at the owner, otherwise he could not conceive why hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to deprive these various tenants of compensation. But they had already discussed the tied-house question on another Amendment.
  MR, ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid there was a point in the Amendment altogether a part from the tied-houses, question. The Commissioners evidently had it in mind that there might be tied-houses, houses partly tied, and houses carried on on the managerial system, and it was to the latter system that the Amendment was directed. The Amendment was intended to give what the Prime Minister called security of tenure. They wanted as far as possible to abolish managers in tied houses, and to get tenants who would take a legitimate interest in the business. The object of the Amendment was to get bona-fide tenants; and if that were done they would have much better management and much better public-houses.
  MR. CROOKSsaid he wished to ask the Solicitor-General a few Questions, because he feared that gentlemen interested in the brewing trade had
  1358
  deceived the Government. There were a great many licence-holders who had never seen the houses for which they held licensees. That was rather a startling statement; hut it was true. The brewery companies had in their employ, perhaps at a weekly wage, a number of men of respectable character who were able to satisfy the police that they could conduct a licensed house properly. One of these men obtained the transfer of the licence, and then returned to his daily labour without perhaps having ever seen the licensed house. Was such a man a bona-fide tenant? Would he have a claim to compensation? Did the Solicitor-General realise that there might be a licence-holder who had no interest in the house at all? If he were known, would the Bill have been introduced? It seemed to him to be another case of the confidence trick being played against the Government. He thought he should be wanting in his loyalty to the Government if he did not explain the matter to them. Some of the licences were expensive to the brewers; and if they could only surrender them and obtain new licences instead they would be glad. It was said that the brewers were acting in the interests of temperance and morality. He did not believe it—it was not his fault. He knew a licence-holder who wanted to vote. The returning officer asked him where his house was; and he said he did not know, but that it was somewhere in the neighbourhood, and that his name was over the door. Sure enough it was. But was such a man a bona-fide tenant? He thought that it would be an exceedingly good thing if the Government were to take the Bill back, and have a consultation with the brewery and distilling companies with reference to these sham licence-holders. If this were a Bill to compensate the licence-holders, every hon. Gentleman interested in the brewing trade would vote solidly against it. It was marvellous the kind of evidence the brewers were able to produce. He knew of a case in which a licensed house was supposed to be sold for £19,000. He wanted the man who was stated to have sold the house to be produced; and the reply was that he had moved, his address being unknown. He thought the Government ought to accept the Amendment. They were at last getting on the track of the bonâ-fide tenant. If the Law Officers could only see

  1359
  some of the monstrous leases which were now drawn, he doubted whether they would regard them as legal. They on that side had endeavoured to make it perfectly plain that they did not desire to injure the bona-fide licence-holder, and that they would not allow either the public or the publican to be victimised.
  Mr. SECRETARY AKERS-DOUGLASrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES (Durham, N.W.)said that a very important question of public policy underlay the Amendment. It would secure that compensation should not be given to

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Grant, Corrie

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Mitchell, E. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Moss, Samuel

  Bell, Richard

  Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossend'le)

  Moullon, John Fletcher

  Benn, John Williams

  Harwood, George

  Murphy, John

  Black, Alexander William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Newnes, Sir George

  Boland, John

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Norman, Henry

  Brigg, John

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J,

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Partington, Oswald

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Caldwell, James

  Hope, John Deans(Fife, West)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Perks, Robert William

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Jasoby James Alfred

  Price, Robert John

  Cremer, William Randal

  Joicey, Sir James

  Priestley, Arthur

  Crombie, John William

  Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire)

  Rea, Russell

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Reddy, M.

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Joyce, Michael

  Reid, S.R. Threshie [Dumfries

  Cullinan, J.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan W)

  Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Kitson, Sir James

  Roche, John

  Delany, William

  Labouchere, Henry

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lambert, George

  Runciman, Walter

  Doogan, P. C.

  Langley, Batty

  Russell, T. W.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Clevel'nd)

  Edwards, Frank

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Ellice, Capt EC (S. Andrw's Bghs

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington

  Seely, Maj. J.E.B. (I. of Wight)

  Evans, Sir Francis H.(Maidstone

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Slafiord)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Leng, Sir John

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Levy, Maurice

  Sheehy, David

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lloyd-George, David

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Lough, Thomas

  Slack, John Bamford

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R (Northants

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  M'Crae, George

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  the owners of licences unless they took proper care to ensure that their houses were properly and respectably conducted; and the only way that could be accomplished was to give a real tenure, not a precarious tenure He would urge the Home Secretary to accept the Amendment, and not to regard the question from the narrow standpoint of legal dialectics.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived
  Words inserted.
  Question put, "That the words, as amended, be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayed, 153; Noes, 262. (Division List, No. 179.)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Willams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

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

  Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

  Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

  Wood house, Sir J. T. (Hudf'd)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone

  Tomkinson, James

  Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)

  and Mr. Wm. M'Arthur.

  Toulmin, George

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Trevelyan, Charles Phillips

  Whit taker, Thomas Palmer

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Doxford Sir William Theodore

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Duke, Henry Edward

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

  Allhusen, August Henry Eden

  Dyke, Rt Hon. Sir William Hart

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

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Arnold-Forster. Rt. Hn Hugh O.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Austen, Sir John

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Long, Cl. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Bailey. James (Walworth)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol S)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Baird, John George Alexander

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Lowe, Francis William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fitzroy. Hon. Edward Algernon

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Foster, Philip S.(Warwick S.W

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Low'stoft)

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsm'th)

  Balfour, Kenneth R.(Chrstch)

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Lyttelton, Rt, Hon. Alfred

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  Maclver, David (Liverpool)

  Hartley, Sir George C. T.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael H.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Greene, Sir EW (Bury SE dm'nds

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Bignold, Arthur

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  M' Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'gh) W.

  Bigwood, James

  Greene. W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Greenfell, William Henry

  Malcolm, Ian

  Bond. Edward

  Gretton, John

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Groves, James Grimble

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H.E. (W'gtn.

  Brassey, Albert

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Bull, William James

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Fredk. G.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Harris, F Leveston (Tynemouth

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Butcher, John George

  Harris, Dr. F. R. (Dulwich)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Campbell, J. H M. (Dublin Unv)

  Hay, Hon. Clande George

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Moore, William

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Heath, James (Staff. N. W.)

  Morgan, David J.(W'ltmstow)

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Helder, Augustus

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Henderson, Sir A. (Staff. W.)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J.A.(Wore)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Mount, William Arthur

  Chapman, Edward

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Bright.)

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

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

  Horner, Frederick William

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hoult, Joseph

  Myers, William Henry

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Creane, Eugene

  Howard, J. (Midd, To ttenham

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hozier, Hon. James H. Cecil

  Notan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)

  Cast, Henry John C.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hunt, Rowland

  0'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary M.)

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur F.

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

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  O'Dowd, John

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denb.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C

  Keswick, William

  Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Percy, Earl

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Pierpont, Robert

  1362

  1363

  Pillington, Colonel Richard

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exefar)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Seaton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

  Sheeham, Daniel Daniel

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Pym, C. Guy

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Welby. Lt. -Col. ACE (Taunton)

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Welby. Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund. Lyne

  Rat cliff, R. F.

  Smith, HC.(North'mb, Tyneid

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Renwick, George

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk

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

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Som'set)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord(Lanes.)

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. ER.(Bath)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Wortley. Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Robinson, Brooke

  Stroyan, John

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Strutt, Hon. Chas. Hedley

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

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

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Young, Samuel

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Younger, William

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Tuff, Charles

  Sir Alexander Acland

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hood and Mr. Ailwyn

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Miles

  Vincent. Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield

  Fellowes.

  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.

  AGRICULTURAL AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION SCHEMES (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "showing separately, in respect of each class of Scheme adopted by local authorities and approved by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction (1) the Rate struck; (2) the amount levied off the Rates in each county or urban district; (3) the amount of unexpended balance of previous Rate; (4) the expenditure out of local Rates on each Scheme; (5) the amount allocated to each Scheme from the funds of the Department; (6) amount actually paid over by Department; (7) statement of reasons for non-payment of Department's contribution where such has not been fully paid; and (8) particulars of grants by the Department to Agricultural Societies during the year ended the 31st day of March, 1903."—(Mr. Sullivan.)

  SANDGATE HOMES (PAUPER INMATES CHARGEABLE TO METROPOLITAN UJSIONS).
  Return ordered, "showing (1) the number of Paupers chargeable to each Metropolitan Union who are inmates of
  1364
  Convalescent or similar Homes at Sand-gate; (2) the Complaints on account of which such paupers were sent to the Homes, and the number suffering from each Complaint; (3) the weekly or other amount paid by the Guardians per head for such Paupers; and (4) the periods during which such Paupers have been inmates of the Homes."—(Sir Edward Sassoon.)

  TUBERCULOSIS (ANIMALS) COMPENSATION BILL.
  Ordered, That Mr. Barran be discharged from the Select Committee on Tuberculosis (Animals) Compensation Bill; and that Captain Ellice be added to the Committee.—(Mr. Herbert Gladstone.)

  BISHOPRICS OF SOUTHWARK AND BIRMINGHAM BILL.
  Not amended (by the Standing Committee) to be considered.
  LORD HUGH CECILsaid he would appeal to hon. Members opposite to let the Bill pass. It was not opposed by the Front Opposition Bench.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid it was a Government Bill, and should not be taken after midnight.
  Bill deferred till To-morrow.
  Adjourned at tea minutes after Twelve o'clock.