HC Deb 27 June 1904 vol 136 cc1268-331

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)

rose 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 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 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).


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, but it does not matter whether it be passed early or late in the session—


What about dislocating industry?


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.)

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.
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
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. WHITTAKER (Yorkshire, W.R., Spen Valley)

reminded 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 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 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- 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 WASON (Orkney and Shetland)

did 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 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. RITCHIE (Croydon)

said 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 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 REID (Dumfries Burghs)

said 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 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.


said the hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division on this question 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. 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 licences in these circumstances were not entitled to compensation, he hoped Irish Members who supported the Bill would, make a note of it.


said 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.


said 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 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 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. WHITLEY (Halifax)

said 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.


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 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 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.


said 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.


said 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.


said 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 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.


said 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 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, 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 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 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- 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—


said 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.


explained 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 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. CRIPPS (Lancashire, Stretford)

submitted 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. 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.


He will notget it under the Bill.


said 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. GUEST (Plymouth)

said 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 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 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 TAYLOR (Lancashire, Radcliffe)

said 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 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 legitimate to give compensation for the a discontinuance of a year-to-year licence held by a publican.


said 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, 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 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 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.


said 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.


You do not offer to give them compensation.


said 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 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.


said 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.


said 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 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.


We want them to be free.


said that they must have compensation money for 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.


said 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, 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 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. REA (Gloucester)

said 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 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 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 hon. Member must confine himself to showing why it would be desirable to exclude the tied houses from the operations of this Bill.


said 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.


said 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, 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 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.


Would the hon. Member say whether that referred to State compensation?


No; from the trade.


submitted 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 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.


said 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 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.


But he will not I get any under the Bill.


said 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.


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.


assured 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 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?


I would make it to the interest of the owner to release him.


said 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 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 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 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 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.


I was dealing with the licence-holders.


said 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 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.


said that the hon. Gentleman who had I just spoken had infused an air of candour I into the discussion which enabled the 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 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.


I have said that we intend that he should be compensated, and that we will make it clear in the Bill.


said 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.


It would be out of order.


said 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 rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."


It is the dinner gag.

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 265; Noes, 184. (Division List No. 176.)

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
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)
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.)

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
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
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.