Commons Sitting of 29 June 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Manchester Ship Canal (Finance) Bill [Lords] Read the d time, and passed, without Amendment.
Shipley Urban District Council Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Saddleworth and Springhead Tramways Bill (changed from "Saddleworth and Springhead Tramways (Abandonment) Bill"). As amended, considered.
Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]
Stretford Urban District Council Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
Great Yarmouth Corporation Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee [Section B]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Metropolitan District Railway Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Report to he upon the Table, and to be printed.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP 10.)
Sir LEWIS MCIVER reported from the Committee on Group 10 of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, they had adjourned until Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to he upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  ALIENS BILL.
  Petition from Paisley, in favour; to he upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (LOCAL AUTHORITY DEFAULT) BILL.
  Petition from Battersea, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND VALUES (ASSESSMENT AND RATING) BILL.
  Petition from Croydon, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Aberystwyth (two); Amble; Ashington; Bamber Bridge; Bamford; Battersea; Beverley; Blackburn; Blackley; Blackwood; Blundellsands; Bradford (two); Broomhill; Butterwick; Cymdy; Capel; Cardiff (two); Castleton; Cathays Park; Cawthorn; Chorlton Lane; Coombe Dingle; Coningsby; Cotherstone; Cullen; Cwmllynan; Cwmsyfiog (two); Darlington (two); Denby Dale; Dunkeld; Earlsheaton; East Dulwich; Emsworth; Ettingshall; Fareham; Fishguard; Glasgow (two); Glynceiriog; Greentown; Hanley; Hartlepool; Hawthorn Hill; Hayle; Heywood; Higher Walton; High Wycombe; Hoghton; Hopwood; Houghton-le-Spring; Hull (three); Hunslet (two); Hyde; Hyde Park; Kilmarnock; Kirk-stead; Leeds (two); Leytonstone; Little-thorpe; Llansantffraid; Llansilin; London (two); Malpas; Manningham (two); Mareham-le-Fen; Middleton Cheney; Mill Hill; Mirfield; Moorside; Morley; Nelson; Newcastle-under-Lyme; New Tredegar; Niton; North Walsham; Old Charlton (five); Oswestry; Pontllanffraith; Portessie; Port Isaac; Radcliffe; Roath; Rochdale; Rock; Rock Ferry (two); Roupell Park; Sandown; Savile Town; Sheepwash; Shrewsbury; Sompting; Southdown Chale; Staveley; Sudbury (two); Sunderland; Swalwell; Thornhill; Threapwood; Throckley; Thurlstone; Todmorden; Trinant; Tumby Woodside; Tunstall; Tursdale; Ventnor; Wade-bridge; Washington; Westbury-on-Trym; Wildmore; Wilmslow; Witton Gilbert; and Woodford (eleven); to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Brighouse; Hammersmith; and Warwick; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (TREASURY POWERS) BILL.
  Petition from Battersea, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOP HOURS BILL.
  Petition from Dundee, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  STREET BETTING BILL.
  Petition from Westminster, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TUBERCULOSIS (ANIMALS) COMPENSATION BILL.
  Petitions against; from Edinburgh; and Renfrew; to lie upon the Table.
  VALUATION BILL.
  Petition from Bury, against; to lie upon the Table.
  VALUATION BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Dorking; Hollingbourn; Rye; and Wandsworth; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRANSVAAL AND ORANGE RIVER COLONY.
  Copy presented, of Correspondence relating to the Finances of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (VENTILATION IN COTTON CLOTH FACTORIES).
  Copy presented, of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, by F. Scudder, Esquire, F.I.C., on air tests in humid cotton weaving sheds [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NATIONAL GALLERY (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Director of the National Gallery of Ireland to the Board of Governors and Guardians for the year 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  OUNTY OFFICERS AND COURTS (IRELAND) ACT, 1877.
  Account presented, of the Receipts and Payments under the Act during the year ended the 31st March, 1904 [by Act];

  5
  to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.;[No. 231.]

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Regulations for the Training of Teachers and for the Examination of Students in Training Colleges [by Command]; to He upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3199 and 3200 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Lunacy. Copy of Fifty-eighth Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy to the Lord Chancellor [by Act]; to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [No. 232.]
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN SCOTLAND (TECHNICAL EDUCATION).
  Return ordered, "showing the extent to which, and the manner in which, Local Authorities in Scotland have allocated and applied funds to the purposes of Technical Education during the year ending the 15th day of May, 1904, under the following Acts: Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890; Education and Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1892; Technical Schools (Scotland) Act, 1887; Technical Instruction Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1892; and Public Libraries Acts."—(Mr. A. Graham Murray.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  "The Times" in Government Departments.
  MR. MARKHAM: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury will he say which Government Department takes daily forty copies of The Times at the public expense.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I understand that the Department alluded to is the Admiralty, which takes thirty-nine copies of The Times daily.

  Electric Railways—Precautions for Public Safety.
  MR. CHANNING: To ask the President of the Board
  6
  of Trade what Orders, if any, have been made by the Board under Section 1, Subsection (f), of The Railways (Electric Power) Act, 1903, for securing the safety of the public; whether such Orders include adequate protection from contact with a live rail; whether any of the fatal and other accidents which have occurred from contact with live rails have been found to be due to the neglect of the companies to comply with the terms of Orders of the Board, or to neglect of other precautions; and what steps the Board are now taking or will take to effectually prevent the recurrence of such accidents.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) No Orders have yet been made under the Act referred to. Inquiries are being held into two recent accidents that occurred through the electrical working of railways, and when the reports of these inquiries are received the question of the precautions to be taken will be fully considered.

  Delay in Establishment of Telephone System between Ballymena and Londonderry.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, sufficient support to warrant the introduction of the trunk telephone scheme being now forthcoming, he will say what is the cause of the delay in having communication established between Ballymena and Londonderry, including branches to Limavady, Coleraine, and Portrush; and when the subscribers in these towns may expect to be connected with Belfast.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Applications for a telephone service have been received from several other towns in the North of Ireland besides those mentioned by the hon. Member, and it has been necessary to obtain further estimates in order that the scheme now under consideration may be made as comprehensive as the circumstances will justify. I hope, however, very shortly to be able to announce the result and to have the work put in hand where the requisite support is forthcoming.

  The Mutessarifliks of Selfidge and Koritza and the Muerzteg Agreement.
  MR. MOON (St.Pancras,N.): To ask the Under - Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Mutessarifliks of Selfidge and Koritza, which are mostly inhabited by Christians of non-Slavonic origin, are at present excluded from the operation of the Muerzteg Agreement.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) This is at present the case so far as the reorganisation of the gendarmerie is concerned, but His Majesty's Ambassador has urged and will continue to urge that, as circumstances permit, the operation of this part of the scheme shall be further extended. In other respects the districts in question fall within the application of the scheme.

  British Commercial Agent at Vladivostock.
  MR. MOON: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British commercial agent appointed to Vladivostock is remaining there; and, if not, where and how he is employed.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) He is now at Wei-hai-Wei.

  Commercial Treaty between the United States and Abyssinia.
  MAJOR EVANS-GORDON: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information with regard to a commercial treaty recently concluded between the United States and Abyssinia; and, if so, whether such treaty contemplates any cessions of territorial or mining rights.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) His Majesty's Government are not able to give any information on the subject.

  Value of Licensed Premises for Probate.
  MR. CORBETT: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will obtain from the Inland Revenue Department and state particulars of the last six cases, without necessarily mentioning names, where licensed premises have been valued for probate, showing, in each case, the total value at which the licensed premises were assessed, and
  8
  the nature of the interest on such premises thus taxed; and the annual value at which such licensed premises were assessed for the purpose of the publican's licence duty.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I will inquire how far it may be possible to supply such particulars as are asked for, and will let the hon. Member know the result as soon as possible.

  Export of Coal above the Value of 6s. per Ton.
  MR. CHARLES DOUGLAS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what quantity of coal, valued at not more than 6s. per ton f.o.b., was shipped for export from this country during the twelve months ending 31st December, 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The total quantity of coal of a declared, value not exceeding 6s. per ton f.o.b. exported during the twelve months ended 31st December, 1903, was 4,550,332 tons.

  Income-Tax Inquiry—Exemption of Co-operative Societies.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to carry out the promise made by the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer last year to appoint a Departmental Committee to consider the practice with regard to income- tax payment; and, if so, whether the question of co-operative societies' exemption will be considered by the Committee.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) A Committee was appointed two months ago, and the names of the members and the terms of reference have been publicly notified on several occasions. It is for the Committee to consider whether any questions relating to the position of co-operative societies come within their reference.

  Duty-Free Spirits under Section 8 of Finance Act, 1902.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will grant a Return showing how far the

  9
  exemption as to duty-free spirits by the power granted by Section 8 of the Finance Act of 1902 has been taken advantage of.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) If the hon. Member will send me the form which he would like the Return to take, I will look into it and see whether it can be granted.

  Liquor and Drug Traffic in India.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been directed to the reference in the Financial Statement of the Government of India for 1904–5 (page 6), to the continued increase in the revenue derived from the sale of intoxicating liquors or drugs, and to the announcement that the Government of India were devoting special attention to this matter in the interests of temperance; whether the action of the Government of India in this direction has taken the form of an official inquiry; and whether further legislation for the purpose of checking the increasing consumption of alcohol and drugs in India is contemplated.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I have seen the passage in question. I am not aware that any general inquiry is contemplated. A good many specific questions regarding the working of the Excise system in different parts of India lave closely engaged the attention of the Government of India and the Local Governments, and various improvements have been effected. Excise Amendment Acts have lately been enacted in Burma and Bengal, and further legislation is in progress in Bengal.

  Capture of Illig—Explosive Bullets.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has any official Reports showing that at the bombardment and capture of Illig explosive bullets were used by the English forces.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The reply is in the negative.

  White Labour in Transvaal Gold Mines.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what
  10
  was the number of white men employed in the Transvaal gold mines in the latest month for which returns are available.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The latest return of the number of white men employed in the Transvaal gold mines is that for April, 1904, 12,740, who were at work on the last full working day.

  Education (Scotland) Bill.
  SIR J. STIRLING - MAXWELL: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Education (Scotland) Bill will be taken.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I am afraid I cannot at present fix the day for resuming the discussion in Committee on this Bill.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Army Clothing Factory—Atmosphere in Pressing Booms.
    MR. SHACKLETON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can state what is the proportion of carbon dioxide in each 10,000 volumes of air in each of the six pressing rooms at the Army Clothing Factory.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT,): Samples of air were taken last Friday from three rooms at the factory including one of the pressing rooms (being the room in which Alice Wright pressed her work). The proportion of carbonic acid in the press-room varied from 5·7 per 10,000 volumes at the south end to 9·0 at the north end. The samples were taken after the workers had been at work three to four hours, and the result was considered satisfactory by the District Factory Inspector.
    Sir. CHARLES DILKE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that notice was given of the intended visit of the Factory Inspector; that the rooms were in consequence cleared in the morning contrast to usage; that they were sprinkled

    11
    water contrary to usage also, and that the irons were cooled?
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: No, Sir, I am not aware of that, but I will inquire, and if necessary there shall be another test.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I do not suggest that the atmosphere was not as the hon. Member has suggested, because I do not know.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that on 1st May, 1902,† the Financial Secretary to the War Office stated in reply to a Question as to improving the accommodation in the pressing rooms of the Royal Army Clothing Factory, that the number of persons employed on pressing irons was 1,348, he will take immediate steps to improve the ventilation since these persons are now in the rooms in considerable numbers from time to time, although they are not constantly employed there.
    In putting this Question the hon. and gallant Member asked leave to explain that it was by inadvertence on a former occasion he omitted the date of the year when the Question was put and thus incurred the censure of Mr. Speaker.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: In May, 1902, it was stated that before the war 1,348 women used the pressing irons, which then numbered about 170. At the present time there are 1,314 women using 180 pressing irons. The women only use the pressing irons occasionally, the time spent in the pressing rooms varying from one to two hours per week. My right hon. friend stated on Monday ‡ in reply to a Question that measures are being taken and will very shortly be completed to improve the atmospheric condition of certain of the rooms.

    The Mowatt Committee's Report.
    MR. BUCHANAN (Perthshire, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when the summary of the Mowatt Committee's Report, stating its proposals and
    † See (4) Debates, cvii., 425.
    ‡ See (4) Debates, cxxxvi., 1237.
    12
    how far they had been adopted by Ministers, as promised by him, will be in the hands of Members.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in debate on 9th March,§ the Secretary of State for War stated that such a summary could be published in lieu of the whole Report, but as the right hon. Gentleman did not press for such summary no further steps were taken in the matter. If the hon. Member now desires to have it published the measures necessary shall be taken.

    Recruitment of Chinese Coolies for the Transvaal.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the advertisement in Chinese of the terms of contract which appeared in the China Times of 29th March last, and which purported to contain and to explain the provisions of the Labour Ordinance under which the Chinese coolies were to be recruited; whether he is aware that in this advertisement no mention was made of the following points: that the labourer is to be compulsorily repatriated at the end of his term of service; that the work will be underground work; that the labourer is to be confined to a compound; and that he is prohibited from trading or from owning property; and will he state whether all mention of the right of the labourer to be accompanied by his wife and children was omitted; and whether the rate of wages for day work was not stated to be 25s. per calendar month; and whether any Chinese coolies were recruited under the terms of this advertisement.
    I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies on whose authority the advertisement in the Chinese Times of 29th March last, relating to the terms of engagement of the Chinese coolies, was drawn up and inserted; and whether he will have the advertisement at once withdrawn, and advertisements issued which will give a full and truthful statement of the conditions of contract.
    § See (4) Debates, cxxxi., 636.
    MR. CHARLES ALLEN: At the same time may I ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to advertisements in the Chinese language, which have been recently circulated in the provinces of Shantung and Chihli, inviting coolies to go to South Africa, which do not inform them that they will have to work underground in the deep levels, do not inform them that they will have to live in a compound, which make no mention of the system of fines and penalties incurred by those leaving the compounds without leave, and which give the wages to be paid in pounds and not in dollars; and, if so, what steps the Government propose to take to prevent the circulation of such advertisements.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): My attention has not been called to this advertisement, and if any coolies were recruited under it, they must have had the conditions of the contract fully explained to them before they signed it. With reference to the hon. Member's second Question on this subject, I am not aware by whose authority this advertisement was issued, but it was apparently drawn up before the conditions were finally settled, and if it has not been long since withdrawn I will certainly at once direct that this shall be done.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry if the original advertisement did contain the conditions; and if any coolies were actually recruited under it, and will he state what action will be taken with regard to coolies obviously recruited under misstatements.
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Beri-beri in the Transvaal.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is yet able to state the cause and extent of the outbreak of beri-beri among the Chinese coolies engaged for the Transvaal, and the methods adopted to prevent its spread.
    MR. LYTTELTON: Lord Milner has telegraphed: "Tweeddale arrived with forty cases of beri-beri. Three deaths took place at sea from this cause, and five at Durban. Remaining cases were sent back to China at once in Tweeddale. Since arrival of labourers on Rand twenty-five cases have occurred, and one death from heart failure. All remaining cases isolated in lazaretto and likely to recover. Neither medical officers nor labourers themselves have smallest anxiety about this outbreak, and former express opinion that general health of this batch is surprisingly good. Full report on arrival, landing, and despatch of coolies will go to you by next mail and I will keep you fully informed as to their health."
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Will an inquiry be made into the cause of the outbreak?
    MR. LYTTELTON: The hon. Member had better put that Question down. No doubt an inquiry has been made.
    DR. MACNAMARA: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the date of the despatch of the telegram by Lord Milner, and the date of its receipt at the Colonial Office?
    MR. LYTTELTON: I deal with that in answer to another Question.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the date upon which the first Chinese coolies arrived at Durban; the date upon which the first case of beri-beri broke out, and what steps, if any, were taken to combat the disease; also, the date upon which he telegraphed to Lord Milner for information upon these matters; and what has been the result of his inquiry.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The Tweeddale arrived at Durban on the 18th inst. I am not aware of the date on which the disease broke out, but only that three deaths took place at sea. I telegraphed to Lord Milner on the 23rd instant, but the telegram was written and settled on the 22nd, and I was informed that it was despatched on the morning of that day.

    15
    It was, however, by an accident not despatched till the 23rd. I again telegraphed to Lord Milner on the 25th and 27th. As to the other points referred to in the hon. and gallant Member's Question, I must refer him to the telegram which I have just read.
    DR. MACNAMARA: What was the date of the dispatch by Lord Milner of his telegram?
    MR. LYTTELTON: I saw it for the first time this morning. I believe it arrived last night, but I cannot say with certainty.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I will put another Question.

    The Landing of Coolies at Durban.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is now in a position to make a statement on the circumstances attending the landing at Durban, under armed surveillance, of Chinese coolies indentured under the Transvaal Ordinance.
    MR. LYTTELTON: No, Sir. As I have already intimated, Lord Milner has promised a report by mail.
    DR. MACNAMARA: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman, as promised, has requested Lord Milner for a reply by cable to this Question?
    MR. LYTTELTON: I do not recollect having promised to ask for a cabled reply. Will the hon. Gentleman quote my words?
    DR. MACNAMARA: It was in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Poplar.
    MR. SPEAKER: It is not in order to discuss a Question and Answer given on a previous day.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I desire to know whether Lord Milner was requested by cable to send the report as the Colonial Secretary promised on Thursday.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I thought the hon. Member was asking whether I applied
    16
    for a telegraphic reply. I did not ask by cable for a report by mail.

    Present number of Chinese Coolies in South Africa.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Chinese coolies—men, women, and children—have arrived in South Africa up to date.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I have not been as yet informed by Lord Milner of the numbers which have arrived. They are stated in the newspapers to be rather more than 1,000.
    DR. MACNAMARA: Will the right hon. Gentleman secure from Lord Milner information as to the number respectively of men, women, and children?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs): By cable.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I have not received the numbers.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Does the 1,000 already there include any women or children?
    MR. SPEAKER: If these particulars are wanted they should have been asked for.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: They are asked for, Sir.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I have asked for the number of men, women, and children, and now I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will get that information from Lord Milner.
    MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the way the Question is printed he will see that what he asked for was the total number of Chinese coolies, and then in brackets were the words "men, women, and children." He has not asked for them separately.
    DR. MACNAMARArose to put a further Question, but was met with shouts of "Order!"
    MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have separate figures they

    17
    should be asked for. It is quite obvious that a Minister cannot bring down all these separate figures unless he is asked for them.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I have definitely asked for specific figures.
    MR. SPEAKER: I did not so read it, and it seems that the Colonial Secretary did not so read it.
    DR. MACNAMARA: Very well, Sir, I will put it down in a more specific form.

    South African Constabulary.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the original intention of His Majesty's Government as to the strength of the South African Constabulary; and what is the present strength.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The intention was to have a police force of six thousand men. The present authorised strength is 5,000. The actual strength is for the moment rather less. Lord Milner is satisfied that a force of 5,000 is adequate for police purposes.

    Sale of Intoxicating Liquor and Drugs in India.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the number of shops open for the sale of intoxicating; liquor and drugs in India rose from 97,910 in 1901–2 to 99,497 in 1902–3; that the net revenue on liquor And drugs consumed in India for the year 1902–3 was £4,741,000, an increase of £502,000 on the figures for 1900–1; and that in the last financial statement of the Government of India a further increase of £498,800 is anticipated during the current year; and whether he is in a position to explain the reasons for this increase in the number of shops opened and the consequent increase in consumption.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): The increase in the number of shops was considerable only in the two provinces of Bengal and the Central
    18
    Provinces. In Bengal it was chiefly due to the fact that many shops sanctioned but unlet in 1901–2 were let in 1902–3; and in the Central Provinces to the Government taking over the Excise arrangements in certain semi-feudatory areas and to the consequent more strict enforcement of the law. As the increase of revenue in 1902–3 over 1901–2 in these two provinces was not marked, the additional shops could not have had much effect on consumption.

    Concessions to the East Africa Syndicate.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the East Africa Syndicate has exercised any of the rights or options secured to it on the concessions which appear as granted to it in the White Paper, 2nd April, of 1903; whether this syndicate has been granted subsequently any further concessions in Uganda and East Africa either in regard to minerals or land; and, if so, what is their scope, and what consideration has been received for them; and whether any company or syndicate has been granted, since the above White Paper was laid upon the Table of the House, any land, or property, or mining concessions; and, if so, what is their nature, and what are the names of the concessionaires.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL PERCY,: The only agreements actually concluded with the East Africa Syndicate are for leases of land, particulars of which will be found in the Papers shortly to be laid before Parliament. These Returns will, it is hoped, also give all the desired information in regard to concessions generally both in East Africa and Uganda.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will these agreements be subject to ratification by Parliament or are they final?
    EARL PERCY: They do not require ratification by Parliament.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then they are final?
    EARL PERCY: Yes.

    Finance Regulations—Issues from the Consolidated Fund.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the issues from the Consolidated Fund for Supply Services are governed by the provisions of The Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1866, or whether the provisions of any later Act apply; whether the money granted by a Consolidated Fund Act to meet the expenditure authorised by Resolutions in Supply for Civil Services can, under any circumstances, be used for Army or Navy Services; whether the money granted by Consolidated Fund Act, No. 1, of this session for Naval Services is available to meet the expenditure authorised by Resolutions in Supply for Naval Services since the passing of that Act, and is the only money so available; and how much of the money so granted remains unissued up to the present time.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. Austen Chamberlain,: The issues for Supply Services are made in accordance with the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1866, and of Section 2 (1) of the Public Accounts and Charges Act, 1891. The money granted by a Consolidated Fund Act is not allocated to any particular head of Supply Services, unless the Act be also an Appropriation Act. The Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Act of the present session authorised the issue of the sum of £39,571,200, to be applied "towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905." The Act does not allocate the money between the various Supply Services, and it will not be so allocated until the Appropriation Act is passed. The unissued balance under the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Act is £15,521,500, and that balance can be made available for any Votes which the House has granted, either before or since the passing of the Act, for Army, Navy, or Civil Services.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The right hon. Gentleman has quoted the Public Accounts and Charges Act. Is he aware that under that Act issues are restricted to making good the Supply that was
    20
    granted at the time of the last issue? Is that consistent with his present Answer?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon. Gentlemen had better put that Question down.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: May I give notice that I propose to call attention to this matter on Report of Supply, when perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity to explain more fully the exact consequences of the present position.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think I have given all the information that is in my power subject to the point raised by the hon. Member for Lynn Regis.

    The New Taxes.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the new taxes proposed in the Finance Bill now under the consideration of the House are already being enforced by the collecting Departments; whether this is in accordance with the usual practice; and whether there is any legal authority for such a practice.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Answer to the first two paragraphs is in the affirmative. The authority for the practice is its long existence and its recognition in a succession of Budget Acts. It further obtained special recognition by 39 and 40 Vict., Chap. 36, Section 18.

    Workmen's Compensation for Accidents Act Amendment Bill.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state when he proposes to introduce the Bill to amend the Workmen's Compensation for Accidents Act; and whether any endeavour will be made to pass the Bill this session.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Cochrane,: As I have already intimated in reply to a previous Question from the hon. Member.† I can make no definite statement as to the date of the introduction of the Bill until I have
    † See (4) Debates, cxxxiii., 531.

    21
    received and considered the Report of the Committee which has been inquiring into the subject. I understand that the Committee have found the inquiry more laborious than was anticipated, but they have now been at work for some time on their Report, and I hope it may be in my hands within the next few weeks.

    Rattigan's Estate, Edgeworthstown.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what steps the authorities intend taking in the execution of decrees on the estate of Mr. Rattigan, of Camlirk House, Edgeworthstown; whether he is aware that the tenants have declared their intention to resist the execution by every means in their power; and whether, in the interest of the peace of the district, he will refuse to lend the forces of the Crown to carry out these executions.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): This is a small property, the rental of which is considerably below the Poor Law valuation. There are twenty-one tenants, all of whom, except four, have paid their rents. Civil bill decrees have been obtained against the latter. If protection is requisitioned for their execution it will, of course, be afforded.

    Mrs Ledwith's Estate, County Longford.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is prepared to advise the Estates Commissioners to purchase for striping amongst tenants of Currool-Fox, Currool Kenny, and Currool Brennan the farm of Dernageas, in the barony of Rathclive, county Longford, on the estate of Mrs. Harriett Ledwith, whose agent is Mr. Webb, Corngard, Boyle, county Roscommon; whether he is aware that the landlady is willing and anxious to sell this farm for the benefit of the tenants; and whether, as Newtowncashel parish, in which this farm is situate, may be described as a congested district, he will advise the Estates Commissioners to expend money on the reclamation, fencing, and division of this farm.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Estates Commissioners have not received any application from the owner of this estate. Should it be offered to the Commissioners-they will consider the question of its improvement and division.

    Irish Agricultural Organisation Society.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the annual amount paid to the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction; and what was the amount of the last payment, and to whom was it made.
    MR. WYNDHAM: No fixed annual grant is paid. The Department occasionally utilises the services of some of the Society's officers who have expert-qualifications in such subjects as egg packing, poultry rearing, fruit growing, and bee keeping; and they also use the services of two of the Society's organisers in connection with the organisation of Agricultural Banks. The total amount paid by the Department to the Society in this connection in the year ended 31 at March last, was £4,262 3s. 6d. The last payment, one of £100, was made on the 18th instant.
    MR. MURPHY: Having regard to the fact that this organisation is competing: unfairly with similar organizations—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Question on the Paper has been fully answered, and the hon. Member is now seeking to raise an entirely fresh point.

    Party Demonstrations in Ulster.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to-the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, with a view of preventing breaches of the peace at forthcoming demonstrations in some districts in Ulster, he will take steps to prevent the holding of such demonstrations.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The steps hitherto adopted for the maintenance of the public peace on such occasions will continue to be followed.

    Irish Department of Agriculture—Officers' Salaries and Travelling Expenses
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the amount estimated for 1904–5 for new officers appointed under the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, and the sum required to cover travelling expenses for same; and what is the additional amount that will be required for salaries and expenses of transferred officers.
    MR. WYNDHAM: For the salaries of new officers appointed since the establishment of the Department a sum of £25,469 is provided. The provision for their travelling expenses and subsistence allowances amounts to £5,050. In respect of officers transferred to the Department the provision for salaries amounts to £47,335, and for travelling and other allowances £2,950.

    Woodwork Instruction in Irish Schools.
    MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how long it will take to train the twenty young men recently selected by the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) for admission to the course of instruction in the manual training (woodwork) so as to qualify them to give instruction in woodwork, as itinerant instructors under county schemes, in the technical schools which are now being organised throughout Ireland, or in day secondary schools, under the conditions of the Department's regulations for such schools; how long will it take the instructors so trained to impart adequate instruction to the boys and girls in the Irish schools; is the Department considering how best to utilise the acquirements of the children so trained; whether, considering the lack of enterprise in Ireland, steps will be taken for employing the trained children in various industries; whether the Department has power to initiate such industries; and, if not, whether he will consider the desirability of giving such power to the Department, or to some other body.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The course of graining for these teachers will last six months. The time limits of the course to be given to pupils by the instructors when trained
    24
    must necessarily vary according to circumstances. The object of the courses is educational, i.e., to form habits which will be of value to the pupils whatever may be their subsequent career in life. As regards the latter part of the Question, the Department's function with respect to industries other than those specified in Section 30 (1) of the Act of 1899, is to provide assistance by means of technical instruction, and to afford information and expert advice.

    Kingston Estate.
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether any application has yet been made to the Estates Commissioners to declare a section of the Kingston Estate to be a separate estate, the tenants on such portion having been induced to sign agreements for purchase; whether he is aware that processes for payment of a year's rent have been issued against other tenants who, finding themselves unable to accept the landlord's terms, have refused to sign agreements; and if the Estates Commissioners will investigate the circumstances of the tenants on this estate, before creating any section of it a separate estate, or sanctioning advances for purchase of holdings on a portion of it.
    MR. WYNDHAM: No application has been received by the Commissioners in reference to any portion of this estate. If made all the circumstances will be considered.

    Constables' Lodging-out Allowances at Millstreet.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what are the results of his inquiries in o the lodging-out allowances granted to seven members of the Royal Irish Constabulary stationed at Millstreet, notwithstanding that there should be a sufficiency of accommodation for them in the barracks; and, seeing that Millstreet and Ballyvourney were formerly included in the Macroom police I district, will he consider the desirability of again attaching them to that station, and thus effect a substantial economy.
    MR. WYNDHAM: There is no accommodation for married men at the Mill-street barracks. The district inspector resides in one portion of the building. The nine remaining apartments are occupied by eight men. The question of abolishing the station as a district headquarters will be considered hereafter; at present it is considered premature to discontinue the station.

    Arbitrator's Award for Land for Labourers' Cottages in the Castleblayney Union.
    MR. McKEAN (Monaghan, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to an award, dated the 30th March last, made by Mr. Lawder, of Ballinamore, in his capacity as arbitrator, appointed by the Local Government Board, in the case of a proposed erection of cottages under the Labourers Acts in the Castleblayney union, in which award he allowed the owners the sum of £18 for ninety statute perches (an amount equal to thirty years purchase), at the same time reducing the occupier's rent by the sum of 12s., in addition to allowing said occupier £8 10s. for his interest, and £1 5s. for severance; and whether, seeing that Mr. Robert Haire, arbitrator on a former occasion, allowed the same owners only £11 5s. for a similar sized plot in the same field, he will take steps to secure that Mr. Lawder, being himself a landlord, shall not be employed as an arbitrator in such cases.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Mr. Lawder made his award on the basis of the facts deposed to by the claimant, and not disputed by the representatives of the district council who were present, namely, that he, the claimant, had, in respect of the plot, received £9 compensation at the former arbitration, and an abatement of 12s. in his rent. Mr. Lawder is confident his award is right. He is a very extensive farmer, a small landowner, and a civil engineer of much experience and high qualifications, fully competent to decide such matters. The reply to the last query is in the negative.
    MR. McKEAN: I must say the answer is not satisfactory. [Cries of "Order."] Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware
    26
    that the amount awarded was £18, not £9.
    MR. WYNDHAM: My information is that it was £9.

    Inspection of Weights and Measures—Ballymahan Grievance.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can explain the action of Sergeant M'Gettrick, of the Royal Irish Constabulary force at Ballymahan, in requiring traders in that town to send in their weights and measures to be tested on a market day, thus inconveniencing these persons; and will a caution be sent to the sergeant to select a less inconvenient time on future occasions.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The sergeant adjusted weights and measures on various dates between the 11th and 23rd June. Two of these days were market days, on which nine traders sent in their weights. No complaints of inconvenience were made, and the nine traders in question might have sent in their weights on six other appointed days which were not market days.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: If this is the practice of the sergeant, will the right hon. Gentleman direct him to choose other days?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I think it can hardly be described as his practice.

    Millstreet Police—Lodging Allowances.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there are seven married constables stationed in Millstreet in receipt of lodging allowances, and that one of these resides in the police barrack; and, if so, will he state under what rule or order he receives a lodging allowance.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Two of the married constables at Millstreet in receipt of the lodging allowance live in barracks, although their families are accommodated outside. The allowance of 2s. a week is payable under the rules of the force for the families of married men not accommodated in barracks.

    Upkeep of Banks on Sir R. Blennerhas-sett's Killorglin Estate.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Land Commission is responsible for the upkeep of the banks on the estate of Sir R. Blennerhassett, Douglas, Killorglin, Kerry, purchased by the tenants in 1886; if not, who is responsible; whether he is aware that the tenants on the estate have suffered loss and inconvenience during the past twelve months from the inflow of the tide; and whether steps will at once be taken to have the tenants' property protected.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Commissioners recently directed an inspector to visit the embankment in question. The inspector's report was received yesterday, and will be considered by the Commissioners.

    Irish Assistant Teachers' Pay.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, considering the work done by assistant teachers in Irish national schools and the remuneration they get for their services, he will place on the Estimate a sum of £8,000, the amount calculated to give assistants of ten years service, and classed under old rules, second or higher second grade salary.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I can hold out no hope that this suggestion will be adopted. There is no analogy between the proposal and the reduction to fifty of the average required for an assistant teacher, the cost of which it is proposed to place on the Development Grant Estimate. Under the existing rules increases of income are awarded to teachers as the result of continued good service, and the adopting of the hon. Member's proposal would be opposed to the principle underlying the new system of payments.

    Upkeep of Embankments on Estates adjoining the Sea.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when estates
    28
    adjoining the sea, the banks of which before sale were kept in order by the landlord, are sold to the tenants, what authority will be responsible for the proper upkeep of those banks during the next sixty-eight and a half years.
    MR. WYNDHAM: In cases not coming within Section 4 of the Land Act of 1903 the tenant purchasers should keep up these embankments for their own protection. There is no obligation on the landlord or the State to do so.

    Belfast Smallpox Outbreak.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that recently there has been a serious outbreak of smallpox in the City of Belfast; whether he can furnish any particulars as to the cause and extent of the outbreak; whether his attention has been called to the neglect of the Belfast City Council to ensure an efficient exercise of its powers under the Public Health Acts, and the custom sanctioned by the council of permitting all kinds of refuse to be dumped on ground intended for building purposes; whether he is aware that a number of cottages abutting on the workhouse cemetery in Donegal Road, Belfast, where upwards of ten thousand have been interred, are overcrowded and without any system of drainage; and whether, under the circumstances, he will bring pressure to bear upon the city council in order to secure an immediate remedy for this state of affairs.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The total number of cases admitted to the smallpox hospital is ninety-three. Two have died; fifty-five have been discharged; and thirty-six remain under treatment. The disease is supposed to have been introduced from Scotland. The Belfast Corporation, in the opinion of the Local Government Board, efficiently discharges the duties devolving upon it as the sanitary authority. Every effort is being made to prevent the further spread of the disease. No complaints have been made to the Board in respect to the alleged dumping of refuse or the overcrowding of cottages.

    Constable Anderson, Royal Irish Constabulary.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what communication had passed between Sir Antony MacDonnell and the Rev. Denis O'Hara, with reference to the Anderson case prior to Sir Antony MacDonnell's official approval of Anderson's dismissal on 23rd January, 1904; and through what channels.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Except on one occasion, no communications, verbal or written, with reference to the case of Constable Anderson passed, prior to his' dismissal, between Sir Antony MacDonnell and the Rev. Denis O'Hara, who is, I should like to say, an esteemed colleague of my own on the Congested Districts Board, for whose services and character I have a warm regard. This was the occasion: At a meeting of the Congested Districts Board, Father O'Hara informed Sir Antony MacDonnell that he had applied for the removal from Kilti-magh of a constable, and asked him to look into the matter. Sir Antony MacDonnell replied that he would inquire from the Inspector-General on the subject. He did inquire from the Deputy Inspector-General—the Inspector-General being on leave at the time—what the matter was about. He was informed that a Court of Inquiry had been, or was being, appointed by the Inspector-General. Sir Antony MacDonnell heard nothing further in the case until the Inspector-General's recommendation that Anderson should be dismissed came before him in the usual official course.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what additional evidence of Constable Anderson's innocence, if any, was obtained between the date of the letter of 23rd January, approved of by Sir. Antony MacDonnell, confirming his dismissal from the force, and the date of his reinstatement; and, if no such additional evidence was forthcoming, did Sir Antony MacDonnell concur in Anderson's reinstatement without it.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Sir, I would refer my hon. friend to many previous replies given by me on the 13th, 15th, and 20th
    30
    June,† and to the opinion which I have expressed, and now repeat, viz., that if further debate on this question is desired by my hon. friend, or any other hon. Member, it can be conducted more conveniently on the Vote for my salary than by way of Question and Answer. I should be glad of an opportunity to defend the exercise of my discretion and the action of the Inspector-General, if these are attacked; and to repudiate charges against Sir Antony MacDonnell and the Rev. Denis O'Hara if these are preferred. That opportunity is not to be found within the limitations of separate replies to a series of argumentative Questions; and I must respectfully decline to continue this controversy except by way of debate in Committee of Supply under conditions which would admit of my dealing fully with the whole matter.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the district inspector and sergeant at Rossport, county Mayo, were asked to report on Constable Anderson's record while he was stationed there; and, if so, what was the nature of their reports.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have given very fully all the grounds upon which the Inspector-General, Sir N. Chamberlain, recommended the dismissal of this constable, and all the grounds upon which I recommended his reinstatement. They were confined in each case to specific charges preferred in connection with Constable Anderson's conduct when stationed at Kiltimagh. It would not, in my opinion, be proper for me to enlarge that issue now by taking note of; other matters or allegations unconnected with those charges. But, in any case, I must respectfully decline to discuss the existence or character of confidential instructions and reports on matters of discipline in the Royal Irish Constabulary.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, when constable Anderson was removed from Rossport to Mullaghmore, the police at these
    † See (4) Debates, cxxxv., 1497, cxxxvi., 147,, 486.

    31
    stations got instructions to note every time Constable Anderson was seen in the neighbourhood of Rossport.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I must respectfully decline to discuss the existence or character of confidential instructions.

    Inquiry into the Incidence of Taxation.
    MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will assent to the Motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the Incidence of Taxation standing on this day's Paper.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF AND TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I doubt whether any useful purpose would be served by appointing a Select Committee with regard to this matter. It is an extremely complex problem, and I do not think that a Select Committee would advance it further than the learned professors who have already dealt with it have been able to do. It is my personal belief that when a strictly scientific question of this kind has to be investigated the appointment of a Select Committee is an indifferent way of arriving at an agreement.
    MR. CHANNING: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman dissents from the proposal to have an inquiry, whether by Select Committee or in any other way? Does he not accept the principle of inquiry?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not a question of principle but of expediency. So far as I can see, very little would be gained by an inquiry. Nothing would be learned from it except what can now be learned by any patient student of economic theory.
    The Motion referred to is as follows:— Incidence of Taxation: That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the relative incidence of Imperial Taxation on the various Classes and Incomes of the Population, and to report what readjustments are possible and advisable, with a view to secure that the contributions of all Classes and Incomes shall be more exactly proportioned to their taxable capacity.

    Blocking Motions.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he proposes to take steps to restore to the House that full freedom of discussing urgent matters of; public importance of which it has now been largely deprived owing to the operation of Motions placed on the Paper with the design of preventing such discussion.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot say that in the matter of Motions for adjournment I have seen any extraordinary restriction on the use of the privileges of the House during the last few weeks. With regard to the Question on the Paper, I have more than once answered Questions of precisely similar import, and I have nothing to add to what I have already said.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a Motion down which prevents a discussion even of the question of blocking Motions.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We might have blocking Motion on blocking Motion ad infinitum. I do not see how the House could with advantage discuss the question of blocking Motions except in reference to some proposed amendment of the Standing Orders, and I have already explained that I do not propose in the present session to bring before the House any Rule dealing with the general question.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is nothing in the Standing Orders relating to this matter? It is a question of the general practice of the House. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to give time for the discussion of a Resolution which would correct the practice of the House in order to avoid these blocking methods?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There may be nothing in the Standing Orders, but it would require a Standing Order to correct the common practice of the House, and I do not think it would be desirable to give a day for such a discussion in the present state of public business.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: But the right hon. Gentleman has indicated his willingness to remove the effect of blocking Motions from Motions for adjournment for the holidays and other occasions of that kind. Will he say whether he will be able to bring forward a scheme for that purpose during the present session?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I could not find time for such a Motion unless it is passed with the general assent of the House and without discussion.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman put such a proposal on the Paper, so that the House may judge whether it can agree to it?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, I think that is a very fair request.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will grant an opportunity to the Member for Coventry to bring forward the Motion that stands in his name in regard to labour in Africa. I beg to say I put this Question direct to the right hon. Gentleman at the special request of the hon. Member for Coventry.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR.My view is that of all subjects which the House has shown its desire to discuss, this, perhaps, is the one which has been most fully discussed during the course of the present session, and when I remember that it can be again debated on the Colonial Vote, it seems to me that it will be impossible for the Government so far to violate ordinary practice as to give a special opportunity for discussing a private Member's Resolution upon it.

    The Finance Bill
    MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now state when the consideration of the Finance Bill will be resumed.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We shall not finish the Committee stage of the Finance Bill until we come to the concluding stage of the Licensing Bill.
    MR. WHITLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the trade concerned is completely at a standstill meantime, and does he really propose to allow that state of things to go on for five weeks.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope things are not so bad as the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest. If they are I hope he will give us his sedulous and earnest support in hurrying matters forward.
    MR. BUCHANAN: Is there any precedent for postponing the Committee stage of the Finance Bill to the end of July.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not looked up the precedents.

    DEAN FOREST BILL.
    Reported, from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence.
    Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 233.]
    Bill, as amended, re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 247.]

    SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
    Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure; Mr. Colston and Mr. Shackleton; and had appointed in substitution, Sir Mancherjee Bhownaggree and Dr. Shipman.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
Ninth Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Leave given to the Committee to make a Special Report.
Special Report brought up, and read.
Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 234.]

LICENSING BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 1:—
Amendment again proposed—
"In page 1, line 7, after the words 'ill-conducted' to insert the words 'or for not having provided suitable refreshment'."—Mr. Herbert Roberts.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. SOARES (Devonshire, Barnstaple)said he understood that the Solicitor-General desired to substitute the following words for those in the Amendment under the consideration of the Committee—
"(2) "If the justices of a licensing district refuse to renew an on-licence on the ground that the holder of the licence has persistently and unreasonably refused to supply suitable refreshment (other than intoxicating liquor) the justices shall be deemed to have refused the licence on the ground that the premises have been ill-conducted."
He could only say that he hoped that the hon. Member for West Denbighshire would not withdraw his Amendment in favour of that of the Government; the substitution would be" entirely unsatisfactory, and would give one test as to the bona fides of the Government in proposing it. They said that they intended to give power to the justices to take away a licence. This was the important point. They said the licence could be taken away under certain conditions. What did the Home Secretary say upon the subject the previous night? He said that to take away a licence under such circumstances would be to place upon the licensee an absolutely intolerable penalty; but, if the Amendment were to be taken as a really working Amendment, this was what he now intended to do. The fact of the matter was he knew perfectly well that the introduction of the word 'persistently" made all the difference, because they would never be able to get evidence and prove it. By refusing the original Amendment they would be decidedly crippling the power of the magistrates. The magis-
36
trates now had power to refuse a licence in the event of reasonable refreshment not being supplied and he admitted that they had identically the same power under the Bill providing compensation were paid; but what would be the position if the compensation fund were exhausted, as it easily might be? There were many districts in the country in which there were a very large number of licences indeed and in which it was necessary to make a very large reduction at the earliest date. Under the Bill it was possible that the annual levy would be capitalised and a good many of these houses done away with. What would be the position of the licences that remained after they had exhausted their compensation fund? They would be in the position of the 1869 beerhouses. They could not be taken awayexcept under the conditions of Clause 1 and under the condition which the Solicitor-General had put down in his Amendment. The Amendment was a most important one, because they had to consider whether they were going to give 1869 terms to a large number of licences in the country. He sincerely trusted the hon. Member would persist in his Amendment; if he did, he for one should certainly vote for it.
MR. LOUGHsaid the Committee seemed to be agreed as to the desirability of carrying some Amendment on this point, and he would, therefore, confine his observations to the suggestion of the Solicitor-General. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would improve his Amendment by withdrawing the word "persistently." That was the word to which they took most exception. The Government had put two very strong expressions in their Amendment "persistently" and "unreasonably." Surely the latter was quite enough. If the publican desired to prove that the refreshment was demanded at an unusual hour or that he had run out of the articles asked for, it could not be laid down that he had acted unreasonably. He was bound to say that in his opinion the Government had gone a good way to meet the Amendment proposed from that side of the House, and he hoped that they would go a step further, and drop the word "persistently."
SIR ROBERT REIDwas of opinion that the Solicitor-General's Amendment would afford a basis on which this point could be discussed, but it did not remove the difficulty he had. Personally he thought the word "persistently" was open to very serious objection. The Amendment before the Committee was only an illustration of a considerable number of other cases in which the effect of Clause 1 was not merely to safeguard licensees against having their property taken away, bat to relax the disciplinary jurisdiction which had hitherto been exercised by the justices. If they took away the right to suppress licences without compensation, they must make it perfectly clear that the right to obtain compensation was limited to the cases in which it was wished that compensation should be given. If the Government insisted on the present wording of the clause, they must not merely say that the refusal to provide refreshment was misconduct, but they must say a great many more things. They must use such words as would enable that kind of pressure which in the public interest had always been exercised to continue to be exercised in the future.
MAJOR JAMESONdeclared that the aim of the supporters of the Amendment was already secured under the Innkeepers' Liability Act. He noticed that there were eighty-eight pages of the Amendments to the Bill, and he ventured to assert that anyone going through them could reduce the number of the Amendments which really required discussion to eight. He protested against the delay which was occasioned by the discussion of this Amendment and similar Amendments, the sole object of which was to wreck the Bill.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid the hon. Member who last spoke evidently was not aware of the circumstances which led to Progress being reported on the preceding night. It was the debate which had then been going on for some hours which made it absolutely necessary for the Solicitor - General to bring in his Amendment. He thought the word "persistently" in the Solicitor General's Amendment was very objection able as fettering the discretion of the
38
magistrates, and that Clause 8, which dealt with definitions, was the wrong place to introduce it. If it was inserted in Clause 8, they would be practically giving a definition of the word "ill-conducted," and limiting the discretion of the justices as to what was or was not misconduct. They must not be content with a partial definition; they must, if they mentioned one point, enumerate other actions which would amount to misconduct, otherwise there was a danger that the Courts of Law would consider themselves fettered in this matter. As the general feeling of the House of Commons was clearly in favour of this Amendment, he trusted that the Government would agree to deal with the point in the clause now under consideration.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,appealed to the Committee to bring the discussion to an end. He thought everybody would admit that the pledge given by his right hon. and learned friend had been honestly met by the Amendment which he had put down to Clause 8. He did not believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite concurred with the criticisms of the hon. Member for Barnstaple when he attacked the bona fides of the Government; indeed, he did not think the hon. Member himself would seriously question the bona fides of his right hon. and learned friend. The hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down said that Clause 8 was not the place for the Amendment, and suggested that when a case came before the licensing magistrates or before quarter sessions some lawyer would be found to get up and say that the Government had intended in Clause 8 to give a complete and exhaustive definition of what constituted misconduct. Well, he put no limits to what might be urged by counsel in various cases; but no tribunal of any description, in reading Clause 8 as his right hon. and learned friend proposed to amend it, would for a moment suggest that the whole area of misconduct was exhausted by it, or was intended by the Government or the House to be exhausted by it.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid there was a rule in law that general words were very

39
often limited by special words following after, and then the principle of ejusdem, generic was applied.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was not qualified to contend with the hon. and learned Gentleman upon matters which were purely legal; he admitted the premises, but wholly denied the conclusion. That any Court would suggest that this question of misconduct was fully explained, limited, and exhausted b a provision about soda water and bread, was as a proposition which the hon. and learned Gentleman would hardly entertain. He did not believe the danger was a genuine one. The Government were clearly of the opinion that the Amendment would be better on Clause 8, and he hoped, therefore, the Committee would proceed to the next Amendment.
SIR EDWARD GREYthought nobody would dispute that the Solicitor-General had acted with perfect bona fides in putting down his Amendmemt to meet the particular Amendment that was under discussion yesterday. But in the course of that discussion it was discovered that a very serious point underlay this Amendment, of which the Amendment was only an illustration. What had given real life to the debate, and caused the intervention of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham and the hon. and learned Member for Stretford, was the fact that the clause was doing what it was understood the Bill was not intended to do. The first clause as it stood destroyed the elasticity of discretion which the magistrates had had hitherto. That elasticity could not be restored by giving a special bit of elasticity on a special subject in another clause. Such a proposal seemed to him not only inadequate, but positively dangerous. The first question which would arise would be, what was meant by misconduct? and he would ask the Committee to look at that from a common sense and not a lawyer's point of view. What they wanted was some elasticity of interpretation; they wanted the magistrates, in the matter of misconduct, to retain the elastic discretion they now possessed. The real difficulty which confronted them could only be dealt with on the first clause.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he could not in the least follow the arguments of the hon. Baronet. Could they possibly find wider words than "ill-conducted." There was no kind of conduct which they did not cover. The hon. Baronet talked of the want of elasticity, but he defied him to ransack English and Scotch dictionaries and to find a larger and more elastic term than that. For his own part, he could not help thinking it was a great pity that the Government did not stand by these words, because he held that they left a most complete and most elastic discretion to the justices. The reasonable refusal of refreshment would not be ill-conduct, but unreasonable refusal was certainly covered by those words; and if a licensing justice chose to hold that the unreasonable refusal of refreshment was ill-conduct, he would have a right to refuse to renew the licence. Again, he did not think that Clause 8 was the proper place at which to insert such an Amendment in the Bill. He had not had time to carefully consider the Amendment of the Solicitor-General, but he must say he thought it was open to the serious objection that it imposed far too heavy a penalty for what, after all, might be a very small offence. Still he feared that a lower penalty could not be imposed in that Bill. It was a misfortune that an inappropriate penalty should be introduced. He would suggest that if hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted to leave the licensing justices in full enjoyment of their full authority, the words "ill-conduct" would suffice to cover any case. If hon. Gentlemen would take his advice— and he did not suppose they would on either side—both the hon. Member for West Denbighshire and the Solicitor-General would withdraw their Amendments.
MR. BROADHURSTfeared that the Committee were getting away from the main point. The one object they had in view in bringing forward that Amendment was to ensure that there were adequate opportunities of securing at wayside inns refreshments other than intoxicating drinks. They wanted to have it provided that innkeepers should be bound by law, under a penalty, to provide coffee, tea, and other light refreshments. Why could

41
not the Government agree to that? It would be equally good for the motorist as the cyclist. Why should not the Prime Minister when out motoring be enabled to get a cup of tea at a wayside inn? What was necessary was greater freedom of choice in the matter of refreshments when travelling along the King's highway. He was prepared to admit that the Solicitor - General had more than fulfilled his pledge of the preceding night. He had not merely considered the matter as he promised to do, but he had placed on the Paper an Amendment. Now, he asked, would the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Prime Minister agree to delete the word "persistently"? The keeping of that word in would destroy the value of the Amendment. Supposing a man travel-ling with his wife, his mother, or his sweetheart, was refused a cup of tea, how; would it satisfy his thirst to be told that if the innkeeper refused it on two or three more occasions he would lose his licence. He would not be satisfied, but, on the other hand, he might suffer harm by being compelled to take drinks for which he had no liking. Why not agree to cut out the word "persistently"? The Solicitor-General, having got some distance on the road to reason and justice in this matter, should complete his journey by removing the obstacle presented by that word.
MR. LLOYD - GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)said he did not quite agree with the hon. Member for King's Lynn. He thought it was desirable that the Solicitor-General should put on the Paper the words he would move to add to Clause 8. He was not dissatisfied with the words save in regard to "persistently." There were some other matters which would have to be dealt with later on, but when he remembered what happened in connection with promises made during the progress of the Education Bill, he was afraid that the "later on" might not arrive. He thought the Solicitor-General wanted to meet their views, and as he could do it without in the slightest degree imperilling the Bill or the power of the magistrates, he would ask why the Scotch precedent should not be followed, and the words "without prejudice to other "powers" be inserted. He thought words of
42
that kind ought to be introduced so as not to exclude the power of the magistrates in regard to other misconduct. He did not agree with his learned friend that it would exclude cases of drunkenness on the premises, but to prevent the possibility of any misinterpretation why not give the magistrates power to make bylaws on this subject. It seemed to him that the Scotch precedent was an excellent one. It gave the magistrates power to make by-laws in regard to the supply of provisions. They had a list of the public-houses in their district before them, and they would say that it was unfair to ask that certain public-houses should supply all kinds of refreshments, taking into consideration the fact that there would be no demand for them. In other cases the licensees would be called upon to provide reasonable refreshment. That would have the advantage of keeping the control of the magistrates over the public-houses. It was important not merely in regard to refreshments, for the publicans would know that if they did not conduct themselves in such a way as to commend themselves to the approval of the Licensing Bench, the Bench would, in that way, be able to bring pressure on them. He had not seen magistrates go out of their way to exercise unfair pressure on the occupiers of public-houses. Quite the reverse. It was really important if they were to have these houses properly conducted that the magistrates should have that power. The Scotch law gave the power to the magistrates to select public-houses and to give them a schedule of the kind of refreshments they ought to provide. That was what they wanted inserted in this Bill.
MR. DISRAELIsaid that all on that side of the House were not unanimous in agreeing with the Amendment of which the Solicitor-General had given notice. There was a strong opinion that this question was altogether outside the scope of the Bill, the object of which was to reduce the number of licensed houses and to give compensation for that reduction. If they put an obligation of this stringent character upon publicans, it would have the effect of making their lot harder than it was at the present time. The publican's calling was a very difficult one, and he protested against the present

43
proposal having even the sentimental sanction of the Government.
MR. WHITTAKERsaid he agreed to some extent with the hon. Member who had just spoken that it was an extraordinary thing that they were discussing refreshments, such as tea and coffee, on the clause of the Bill dealing with compensation. He thought that arose from the way in which the clause had been drafted. The clause did not state what were the cases in which compensation ought to be given; on the other hand it stated the cases in which the magistrates could refuse the renewal of licences. In that case, it was necessary to give all the cases in which a licence could be refused other than on the ground that the licence was not required. They understood that compensation was to be given on the ground that a licence was not required. They were satisfied that as the Bill now stood compensation would be given for the refusal of licences on other grounds than that, and if that were to be guarded against they must have all kinds of protection to preserve the power of the justices in other cases that would come within the limit of the words "ill-conducted." There was unsatisfactory management which could scarcely be called ill-conduct. The failure to supply refreshments was not a case of ill-conduct. There were other cases in which they ought to have the power to refuse to renew a licence and not to give any compensation. He thought the Government could do better by defining positively those cases in which compensation should be given and using some such words as "compensation should be given when a licence was refused solely on the ground that it was not required in the neighbourhood." The ingenuity of the Government would enable them to draft words that would fulfil that object. Failing that, there was a number of Amendments on the Paper which they were bound to discuss. The proper way out of the difficulty, he ventured to submit, was to make it clear that compensation was to be confined to cases where the refusal to renew a licence was on the ground that the licences were in excess of the number required in the neighbourhood.
MR. WHITLEYsaid he would make an appeal to the Prime Minister on this matter. At Question time the right hon. Gentleman said that the progress of the Finance Bill might be promoted if the Committee would get on with this Bill. He would point out that if the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment now before the Committee he would save the discussion of two pages of Amendments. He asked the Prime Minister simply to carry out the statement which was made on the First Reading of the Bill. It was stated then that the whole object of the Bill was to provide compensation when renewal of licences was refused solely on the ground that the public-houses in the neighbourhood were in excess of the number required. If the right hon. Gentleman would carry out that promise which was made by the Home Secretary he would greatly facilitate the work of the Committee in dealing with the first clause. It could not be said that there was any danger of the magistrates refusing licences or inflicting too great penalties for small offences, such as refusing refreshments, because their action was always subject to appeal to quarter sessions. There had never been a single case where a licence had been removed for one refusal to supply reasonable refreshments. He thought that was a matter which the local magistrates should be left to deal with. One of the most serious points in the whole Bill was the method of proceeding by exclusion instead of inclusion. It took away the power of the magistrates to bring pressure to bear in the case of ill-conduct on the part of the licensee. If the procedure suggested by the hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division and the hon. Member for Leeds were adopted they would get over the whole of the difficulty.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR (Liverpool, E.said the Amendment only assumed importance because it raised the general question as to how far the words used in the first clause would limit the absolute discretion of the justices. He regretted the attempt made in the Amendment to further define what was already sufficiently defined in the first clause, and he equally regretted the

45
Amendment of which the Solicitor-General had given notice. He wished to give the Prime Minister a concrete instance of those minor matters which could not be called statutory offences, but had been made the subject of reform in Liverpool and other large centres. He would instance the case of what was called the "long pull" at Liverpool. There it was the practice at certain licensed houses to give a quantity of drink beyond that which was ordered.
THE CHAIRMANsaid he thought the hon. Member was discussing the subject of some future Amendment.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid that he was trying to give an illustration of the kind of pressure which magistrates had been able to bring on the trade and to which the trade had loyally responded.
THE CHAIRMANsaid he thought that subject would be relevant to a subsequent Amendment dealing with "undesirable practices."
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he would not give additional illustrations, but would content himself with emphasising the need for further consideration by the Government of the exact wording of the first clause. No doubt the absolute discretion of the magistrates must be modified if the principle of compensation were conceded; but there was no need to go so far as to weaken their legitimate control over the trade.
MR. JOSEPH WALTON (Yorkshire,said that it was of the highest degree of importance that the obligation resting on innkeepers to provide a supply of food as well as liquor to travellers should not be weakened; and it appeared to him that the Amendment put down by the Solicitor-General weakened the present authority of the licensing authorities in that respect. It was widely recognised that there was great laxity on the part of innkeepers in the fulfilment of this particular obligation of supplying food as well as intoxicating liquors. A few days ago he took a lovely country walk, and, having gone a reasonable distance, he thought he was sure to pass an hotel where he could get a comfortable luncheon. He came to
46
one where there was a large notice-board outside, saying that luncheons were provided on the shortest notice; teas always ready; and pleasure parties catered for. He went in, and asked if he could get luncheon. The bar was full of people drinking, and the waiter said, "We have nothing in." He said, "Cannot you give me a bit of bread and cheese?" "No," was the answer, "we have nothing, but if you cross the river, and go a little bit further on, you will find a hotel, and perhaps you might get something to eat there." He crossed the river; and reached that other hotel. In the politest manner possible he asked the lady in charge whether he could have some luncheon. She said, "Unfortunately, we have not anything in." He happened to see through an open door some people having a meal, and he said, "Cannot you give me a little of what these are having? "And the reply was, "We have only enough for ourselves." Thereupon he said, "You call this an hotel Surely you can supply me with some sort of food, however light it may be!" Then the landlord came upon the scene, and said, "We are not in the habit of being spoken to like that. I am quite able to do without custom such as yours." That was his morning's experience within a few miles of the great University centre of Oxford. If he were in the position of the right hon. Member for Oxford University he should feel it his duty to have a representation made in regard to such cases as that at the next brewsters sessions. What was wanted was that the public rights should be protected in connection with this Bill, and that travellers, in a reasonable way, should be able to get food as well as intoxicating liquors in every inn in the land. Everybody recognised that intoxicating liquors taken without food had a much greater effect than they had if taken with food, and, therefore, in all seriousness, he contended that the whole influence of the House should be directed to see that to a greater extent than at present food should be taken with intoxicating liquors; but that did not weaken the strength of his contention, that what was needed in connection with any reform of the licensing laws was that the authority of the licensing justices in regard to this most important matter

47
should be strengthened by this Bill and not weakened. Therefore he supported the Amendment.
COLONEL PILKINGTON (Lancashire,said that the powers of the licensing justices in various parts of the country were regulated by a number of practically unprinted by-laws on which they acted. The local magistrates had all a slightly different procedure. He did not know whether, under this Bill, power might be given to the local authorities to make by-laws in
regard to procedure in such cases, which by-laws should be confirmed by the Home Office or the quarter sessions. That would be a great advantage as a large number of the Amendments on the Paper could be regulated by these by-laws, which would show where the power of the local magistrates should stop and where the higher powers began.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 180; Noes, 265. Division List No. 181.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Allen, Charles P.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Markham, Arthur Basil

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Flynn, James Christopher

Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Barlow, John Emmott

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Furness, Sir Christopher

Murphy, John

Benn, John Williams

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Newnes, Sir George

Black, Alexander William

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Blake, Edward

Grant, Corrie

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Boland, John

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

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

Brigg, John

Griffith, Ellis J.

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

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W.)

Burke, E. Haviland

Hain, Edward

O'Doherty, William

Burns, John

Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon,N.)

Burt, Thomas

Harcourt,RtHn.SirW(Monm'th

O'Malley, William

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Caldwell, James

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Parrott, William

Cameron, Robert

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Partington, Oswald

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Paulton, James Mellor

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Cawley, Frederick

Horniman, Frederick John

Perks, Robert William

Channing, Francis Allston

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Philipps, John Wynford

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Jacoby, James Alfred

Pirie, Duncan V.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Joicey, Sir James

Power, Patrick Joseph

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Price, Robert John

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

Priestley, Arthur

Cremer, William Randal

Jordan, Jeremiah

Rea, Russell

Crombie, John William

Joyce, Michael

Reddy, M.

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Cullinan, J.

Kennedy, VincentP.(Cavan,W.

Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Kilbride, Denis

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Kitson, Sir James

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Delany, William

Labouchere, Henry

Robson, William Snowdon

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Lambert, George

Roche, John

Bobbie, Joseph

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Donelan, Captain A.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Boogan, P. C.

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

Russell, T. W.

Bouglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Duncan, J. Hastings

Leng, Sir John

Schwann, Charles E.

Dunn, Sir William

Lewis, John Herbert

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Edwards, Frank

Lloyd-George, David

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

Eli bank, Master of

Lough, Thomas

Shackleton, David James

Ellice, Capt. E. C (SAndrw'sBghs

Lundon, W.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Emmott, Alfred

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Sheehy, David

Evans, Sir Fran. H.(Maidstone)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Slack, John Bamford

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

M'Crae, George

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Fenwick, Charles

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Smith, H. C(North'mb.Tyneside-

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

Soares, Ernest J.

Wallace, Robert

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

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

Sullivan, Donal

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Woodhouse,Sir J.T(Hudderst'd

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Yoxall, James Henry

Tennant, Harold John

Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan,E.)

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Broadhurst and Mr. Mans-

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

field.

Tomkinson, James

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Toulmin, George

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Aird, Sir John

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Hobhouse, Rt Hn H (Somers't, E

Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Hogg, Lindsay

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Davenport, William Bromley-

Horner, Frederick William

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn Hugh O,

Denny, Colonel

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Arrol, Sir William

Dickinson. Robert Edmond

Houston, Robert Paterson

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Dickson, Charles Scott

Howard, Jn.(Kent,Faversham)

Austin, Sir John

Dickson-Poymler, Sir John P.

Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Doughty, George

Hunt, Rowland

Baird, John George Alexander

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

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

Balcarres, Lord

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Baldwin, Alfred

Duke, Henry Edward

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

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

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

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

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Farrell, James Patrick

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh.

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

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

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop)

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Fincu, Rt. Hon. George H.

Kimber, Henry

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Bignold, Arthur

Fisher, William Hayes

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Bill, Charles

Fison, Frederick William

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

Blundell, Colonel Henry

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

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

Bond, Edward

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Boulnois, Edmund

Flower, Sir Ernest

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

Bousfield, William Robert

Forster, Henry William

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

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

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

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

Galloway, William Johnson

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Brassey, Albert

Gardner, Ernest

Long, Col.CharlesW.(Evesham)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Garfit, William

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

Bull, William James

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Lowe, Francis William

Butcher, John George

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

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'r H'lets)

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

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

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Macdona, John Gumming

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Maclver, David (Liverpool)

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Graham, Henry Robert

M'Fadden, Edward

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Malcolm, Ian

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

Manners, Lord Cecil

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Greene,Sir E.W(B'rySEdm'nd's

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

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

Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc.

Greene, W.Raymond (Cambs.)

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Chapman, Edward

Grenfell, William Henry

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Gretton, John

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Coates, Edward Feetham

Groves, James Grimble

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

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

Gunter, Sir Robert

Milvain, Thomas

Coddington, Sir William

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Mitchell William (Burnley)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Harris, Dr. Fredk. R.(Dulwich)

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Moore, William

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.)

Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

Morpeth, Viscount

Crean, Eugene

Heaton, John Henniker

Morrell, George Herbert

50

51

Morrison, James Archibald

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Tollemache, Henry James

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Robinson, Brooke

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Tuff, Charles

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

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Valentia, Viscount

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

Myers, William Henry

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Walker, Col. William Hall

Newdegate, Francis A. X.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Walrond,Rt.Hn.Sir William H.

Nicholson, William Graham

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Wanklyn, James Leslie

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

Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Webb, Colonel William George

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

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

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

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

O' Dowd, John

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Shaw-Stewart, Sir H.(Renfrew)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Peel, Hn.Wm. Robert Wellesley

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Williams, Colonel R.(Dorset)

Percy, Earl

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

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

Plummer, Walter R.

Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

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

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Spear, John Ward

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Purvis, Robert

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Pym, C. Guy

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskir

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Rankin, Sir James

Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Ratcliff, R. F.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.

Young, Samuel

Reid, James (Greenock)

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Younger, William

Remnant, James Farquharson

Stock, James Henry

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Stone, Sir Benjamin

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Renwick, George

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Richards, Henry Charles

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Thorburn, Sir Walter

MR. J. H. LEWISsaid he wished to move to add after "ill-conducted," "or are remote from or difficult of police supervision." The question of police supervision came up before the Royal Commission; and a considerable amount of interesting evidence was given on it. He was quite content to found himself on the Reports of that Commission. The Majority Report, which was signed by eight members of the licensed trade, said that strict supervision of licensed houses should be maintained; and the Minority Report stated that it was difficult to over-rate the importance of strict supervision. Evidence was given showing that in country districts there were houses which could not be approached by a policeman without his being seen for a distance of three miles. What effective police supervision could be exercised in a case of that kind? The Chief Constable of Plymouth stated that there were public-houses in that town where the upper rooms were let to several tenants. In one house there were twenty-one persons. He added that the police could have no effective supervision over them. A clergyman from Devonport also gave
52
evidence. They were told that the clergy were not to have any say in this Bill; but the duties of a clergyman led him into the lowest districts in the great towns; and the clergy had special opportunities of knowing the state of affairs. That witness said that families lodged in the smaller public-houses; that they were mostly drunken families; and that if they were not drunken when they came they very quickly became drunken. This class of house constituted one of the great evils with which magistrates had to deal in connection with the licensed trade, and in some parts of the country they had dealt with it very effectively. In Liverpool, for instance, the magistrates called upon the licensed victuallers to close a large number of back and side entrances, which made the houses difficult of police supervision. The licence-holders did not see their way to comply with the request, whereupon the magistrates intimated that the record of every house would be carefully examined, and the result was that at the next licensing sessions undertakings were given that the back and side entrances complained of should be closed. As a consequence, police supervision had become infinitely

53
more effective, and he believed this course of action was one of the causes of the astounding decrease in the convictions for drunkenness in Liverpool, the number having dropped from 16,000 to 4,000 per annum. That was not merely a decrease on paper. Committees appointed by municipalities all over the kingdom had borne testimony to its reality, and responsible persons well acquainted with Liverpool declared it to be an infinitely more sober city. This power of enforcing effective police supervision would practically cease to exist under the Bill as it stood. It had been urged that the loss of licence would be too heavy a penalty for disobedience to such an order, but there was no likelihood of the magistrates acting harshly in the matter, past experience having shown that they never adopted strong measures unless an overwhelming case had been made out against a particular house. It would be absolutely impossible for a county licensing committee to inspect particular premises as the local justices had done for the purpose of ascertaining whether they could be effectively supervised, and he submitted that it was far better that the power should remain in the hands of the local justices as at present. Respectable publicans would not be injured in the least degree by this Amendment; it would affect only those who were not willing to comply with the reasonable requests of the magistrates. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 7, after the words 'ill-conducted to insert the words 'or are remote from or difficult of police supervision.'"—(Mr. J. H. Lewis.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. BRIGG (Yorkshire, W.R.,said he could not help thinking that the Government had made a slip in leaving out of the Bill the words of this Amendment. One of the first things that a Licensing Bench asked the police when a licence was applied for was whether the house was suitably situated and constructed for effective police supervision. For thirty years he had had a good deal to do with the blocking up of backdoors and
54
side entrances. There were only two grounds in the Bill on which licences might be refused, but he was informed there were no fewer than twenty-four different grounds on which licences had been endorsed. In all well-regulated districts the principle of the Amendment had been acted upon already, and it would be a very great deprivation of power if it were left out of the Bill. He was very strongly of opinion that the Amendment should be introduced in some form or other, and if the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to accept it as it stood, he hoped he would be able to give a promise to deal with the matter with the other items which were now being taken out of the hands of the licensing magistrates.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,)said the hon. Member for Flint Boroughs had given very good reasons, not for the acceptance of the Amendment, but for the abolition of some of the houses which were difficult of police supervision. But though he agreed with much the hon. Member had said with reference to the evil complained of, he could not agree, on the ground either of equity or of efficiency, with the method by which he proposed to deal with it. He would have thought these houses were just those in respect of which compensation ought to be paid. They were presumably in the same place as when the licence was granted, and it was through no misconduct on the part of the licensee that their removal was now desired; therefore, if the licence was to be taken away, he thought there was a clear title to compensation. As to efficiency, the licensing justices would have a much freer hand in dealing with these houses if they knew they could award compensation. Judging from the speeches that had been made by experienced chairmen of quarter sessions, he was convinced that they would exercise their powers much more drastically if they felt that by so doing-they would not be inflicting any individual hardship. He desired to see these houses reduced, and he was certain that object would be largely secured under the provisions of the Bill with regard to compensation. The hon. Member had also stated that the quarter sessions

55
would be unable to deal with these houses so efficiently as the old brewster sessions. But with regard to ill-conducted houses, the brewster sessions would have all the power they had hitherto possessed. With regard to the action of quarter sessions, they would have to act upon the report of the local justices. At the present moment, in any of these cases in which brewster sessions acted, an appeal lay to quarter sessions. He was very sorry he could not accept this Amendment.
MR. WHITTAKERsaid that the Home Secretary's argument seemed to be based upon the idea that the only houses the licences of which would be refused would be those which were well managed and against which there was no complaint, and that the licence would be taken away solely because they were remote and difficult of police supervision. He could not imagine that any bench of magistrates would withhold the licences of houses on those grounds. Ill-conducted houses remote from police supervision were a most unsatisfactory class of houses, and should not be entitled to compensation on refusal of renewal of licences. The Bill, however, provided that compensation should be given in those cases. In the case of a house that had been mentioned the road could be seen for three miles, and the publican might be up to all sorts of tricks with impunity when he could have such long notice of the visits of the police. It was well known that this sort of thing was going on, but sufficient evidence could not be obtained owing to the difficulty of supervision. Now the justices could refuse the renewal of a licence on the ground that it was difficult of police supervision, but they would not refuse it if it was a house with a good reputation. Was it suggested that a magistrate would, in cold blood so to speak, refuse the licence of a well-managed house because it was some distance from police supervision? He was sure that magistrates would not refuse a licence to a house with a good character, no matter how remotely it was situated.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that there was one very important point raised by this Amendment, and it was the effect of non-compliance with the order of the jus-
56
tices in certain cases. This Amendment dealt with two classes of houses, one where the house was remote from police supervision, and the other where it was difficult of police supervision. Under the Act of 1902 a very salutary provision was inserted in Section 11 which gave the justices power to call for various alterations and plans of what they thought ought to be done in reference to the structure of the house. Sub-section 4 of that section provided that in the case of any application for the renewal of a licence the licensing justices might require a plan of the premises to be produced, and order such alterations to be made as they thought reasonably necessary for the proper conduct of the business in that part of the premises where intoxicating liquors were sold. No other order could be made in regard to those particular premises for five years, fines being provided for in case of non-compliance with the order. Licensing magistrates had adopted the practice of calling for the plans of the houses where they thought structural alterations were necessary. Supposing such an order were made and it was not complied with, would disobedience to any such order constitute ill-conduct of the house? Where there was misconduct in the management of licensed premises the justices in the Court below could refuse the licence, and no compensation would be payable. He desired to know the intention of the Government in regard to this point. Would licensed premises be regarded as ill-conducted if the licence-holder declined to obey the order of the justices for structural alteration? He thought it was doubtful whether that would constitute misconduct. In such cases of wilful disobedience the licence-holder ought to be placed in this position, that when he asked for a renewal the magistrates should have the right of saying, "No; you have disobeyed our order, and therefore we will refuse to renew your licence." In a case of that kind the holder ought not to be entitled to compensation. If compensation were to be given at all, it should be in a congested area, and where there was no particular reason why the licence of a house should be taken away, except that the justices wished to reduce the number. If a house were so remote that it was not necessary at all, and served no public

57
purpose, the licence-holder was not entitled to compensation; and the justices in the Court below should be able to refuse renewal without reference to the quarter sessions. Everything turned upon that. He hoped the Solicitor-General would state whether, in his view, this case constituted a disqualification.
MR. DISRAELIreminded the hon. Member opposite that, in the case of the tin mine he had mentioned, if the owner had paid into an insurance fund he would undoubtedly have got compensation. He strongly supported the argument of his right hon. friend the Home Secretary. This Bill would deal with the cases of remote public-houses, and those hon. Members who had had a great deal to do with county work knew that it was an exceedingly difficult thing for the county police force to supervise all these remote public-houses. These remote public-houses might be divided into two classes, badly-conducted and well-conducted. If a house was badly-conducted, it would go under by the action of the magistrates; if it was well-conducted this Bill would remove the difficulty.
MR. McKENNAsaid he was sure that members of the Government would drop a tear to think that the "Sharpe v. Wakefield" decision would be the law no longer. If this Amendment were not accepted that decision would no longer stand. As the law now stood, the Court of quarter sessions, after hearing the evidence, could refuse to renew on the ground of the remoteness of the premises from police supervision; that remoteness was under the existing law sufficient ground for non-renewal of the licence. If this Amendment was not accepted they would depart from that decision. The objection to this Amendment put forward by the Home Secretary was that the true ground for compensation under this Bill was where a licence was taken away owing to no fault of the holder. If that was so, why did he not say so in the Bill? If the Committee understood that the intention of the Government was to compensate only the holders of licences who were deprived of their licences through no fault of their own, that would be, on
58
the face of it, an equitable reason, assuming that the grounds adopted by the Government were accepted. If the Home Secretary would act upon the statements made by himself, the Prime Minister, and the Solicitor-General, and formulate them in clear and intelligible words, he would get through with this measure very much more quickly. It was because the Committee had to protect the public rights against the brewers' claims that hon. Members were compelled to introduce Amendment after Amendment in order that the justices or other authorities should not be unduly limited in the exercise of their discretion.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Edward Carson,),said he was greatly afraid that if they adopted the suggestion of the hon. Member who had just sat down, they would bring upon themselves a great many more Amendments than they had at the present moment. He did not for a moment suppose that the trade would object to a sweeping clause of that kind—that compensation was to be paid in every case where a licence was withdrawn through no fault of the holder. That would be a very easy method of legislation, but it would take up too much time to state the numerous objections which would be raised to any such sweeping words as those suggested. His right hon. and learned friend opposite had put to him a Question as to what would happen if the magistrates made a certain order for the improvement of premises and the order was disobeyed. He did not think that question really arose on the question of misconduct at all. What it did arise upon was the question of structural deficiency of the premises. These words had been left as wide as possible. The words were "structurally deficient or unsuitable," and what really would happen would be this. He would like the Committee to see how well the law gave power to the magistrates in these cases, and that none of the matters would happen which the mover of the Amendment seemed to anticipate from the passing of the Bill. What were the powers of the magistrates in relation to this matter—in the first place, as the hon. Member had pointed out, they

59
had power under the Act of 1892 to impose a penalty of twenty shillings a day for every day the alteration remained unexecuted after a specified time. He thought that very few of the men they were dealing with would last long if they went on incurring a penalty of twenty shillings a day. It would put an end to the question of compensation, and it would put an end to the public-house in a very summary way. Although this matter was dealt with in a subsequent part of the Bill, still it was germane to the question now before the Committee. If premises were structurally deficient or unsuitable after the magistrates had made an order for alterations, the magistrates, when the man came before them, would be able to say. "You have not obeyed our order. Your premises are structurally deficient, or structurally unsuitable. We have given you a chance, and we will now take away your licence on that ground." If they took it away there was an appeal but no compensation would be paid in such cases. The mover of the Amendment said the local magistrates were much better judges of the question of the structural alterations that might be necessary than quarter sessions. But the position would be exactly the same after the Bill was passed as it was now.
In regard to the other matter raised by the Amendment, were they going, because premises were "remote from or difficult of police supervision," to
deprive the licence-holder of compensation? Supposing a man got a licence at a time, say, when there was a police barrack near it, and that it was thought more convenient to have the barrack elsewhere, or that it was decided that the police force should be less than it was before, and if the licence-holder had done nothing to bring himself within the provisions of the Bill which would deprive him of compensation, surely it was not unfair to say that if he subscribed to the insurance fund he ought to get compensation. Might he say to the hon. Member that this very Amendment seemed to him to be an illustration of how necessary it was to have some such scheme as this. The hon. Member had described to the Committee numbers of these houses which he said it was practically impossible to supervise from their situation or otherwise, and, if that was so, how did it come that with absolute discretion vested in the magistrates these houses had continued to exist? Simply and solely because the magistrates had not felt that they should take away these licences when there was no fault on the part of the licensees. If the house was very remote and not a public convenience the compensation would be very small. He submitted, therefore, that this was not a reasonable Amendment.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 176; Noes, 258. (Division List, No. 182.)

AYES

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Dunn, Sir William

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Caldwell, James

Edwards, Frank

Allen, Charles P.

Cameron, Robert

Elibank, Master of

Ambrose, Robert

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Ellice,Capt E.C(SAndrw'sBghs

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Cawley, Frederick

Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

Asquith,Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry

Channing, Francis Allston

Emmott, Alfred

Atherley-Jones, L.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Barlow, John Emmott

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Evans, Sir Fran. H. (Maidstone

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Craig, Robert Hunter(Lanark)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Cremer, William Randal

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Crombie, John William

Fenwick, Charles

Bell, Richard

Crooks, William

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Benn, John Williams

Cullinan, J.

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Black, Alexander William

Dalziel, James Henry

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Blake, Edward

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Flynn, James Christopher

Boland, John

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Brigg, John

Delany, William

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Broadhurst, Henry

Dobbie, Joseph

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Doogan, P. C.

Furness, Sir Christopher

Burns, John

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John

Burt, Thomas

Duncan, J. Hastings

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Grant, Corrie

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Grey, Rt Hn. Sir E. (Berwick

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Runciman, Walter

Griffith, Ellis J.

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Ceveland

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

M'Crae, George

Schwann, Charles E.

Hain, Edward

M'Kenna, Reginald

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

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

Harcourt,RtHn.Sir W (Monm't

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Shackleton, David James

Harwood, George

Markham, Arthur Basil

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Hayden, John Patrick

Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Sheehy, David

Helme, Norval Watson

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

Slack, John Bamford

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Moulton, John Fletcher

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Holland, Sir William Henry

Newnes, Sir George

Soames, Arthur Welesley

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Norman, Henry

Soares, Ernest J

Horniman, Frederick John

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Sullivan, Donal

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

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

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

Jacoby, James Alfred

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

Joicey, Sir James

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea)

O'Malley, William

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

O'Mara, James

Tomkinson, James

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Toulmin, George

Joyce, Michael

Parrott, William

Wallace, Robert

Kearley, Hudson E.

Partington, Oswald

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan,W.

Paulton, James Mellor

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Kilbride, Denis

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

White, Luke, (York, E.R.)

Kitson, Sir James

Perks, Robert William

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.

Labouchere, Hqnry

Philipps, John Wynford

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Lambert, George

Power, Patrick Joseph

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Price, Robert John

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Priestley, Arthur

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

Rea, Russell

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

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Reddy, M.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Leng, Sir John

Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries

Yoxall, James Henry

Lloyd-George, David

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Lough, Thomas

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Lundon, W.

Robson, William Snowdon

Mr. Herbert Lewis and

Lyell, Charles Henry

Roche, John

Mr. Trevelyan.

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

Brassey, Albert

Davenpart, William Bromley-

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Dickson, Charles Scott

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Butcher, John George

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

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

Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

Arrol, Sir William

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

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Austin, Sir John

Cautley, Henry Strother

Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Duke, Henry Edward

Baird, John George Alexander

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Balcarres, Lord

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

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

Baldwin, Alfred

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

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

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

Chapman, Edward

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Chrissch.

Coates, Edward Feetham

Firbank Sir Joseph Thomas

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

Fisher, William Hayes

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Coddington, Sir William

Fison, Frederick William

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.

Flower, Sir Ernest

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Forster, Henry William

Bignold, Arthur

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S. W.

Bili, Charles

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Galloway, William Johnson

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Crean, Eugene

Gardner, Ernest

Bond, Edward

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Garfit, William

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Boulnois, Edmund

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

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

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

Cubitt, Hon Henry

Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets

62

63

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Goulding, Edward Alfred

M'Fadden, Edward

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Green, Walford D.(Wednesbury

Majendie, James A. H.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Greene, Sir EW(B'rySEdm'nds

Malcolm, Ian

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

Manners, Lord Cecil

Samuel, Sir Harry S.(Limehouse

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Gretton, John

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

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Groves, James Grimble

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Gunter, Sir Robert

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Hall, Edward Marshall

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Milvain, Thomas

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Skewes-Cox Thomas

Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Spear, Jahn Ward

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

Moore, William

Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

Heaton, John Henniker

Morrell, George Herbert

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes.)

Helder, Augustus

Morrison, James Archibald

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taagart

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Hobhouse, Rt Hn H(Somers't, E.

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Stock, James Henry

Hogg, Lindsay

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham(Bute

Stroyan, John

Horner, Frederick William

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Myers, William Henry

Tollemache, Henry James

Howard, John (K'nt., Faversham

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Nicholson, William Graham

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

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

Tuff, Charles.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Valentia, Viscount

Hunt, Rowland

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

Vincent, Col Sir C. E. H(Sheffield

Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

O'Doherty, William

Walker, Col. William Hall

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

O'Dowd, John

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Webb, Colonel William George

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

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

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Welby, Sir Charles G. E.(Notts.

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh

Pemberton, John S. G.

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Percy Earl

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Kimber, Henry

Pierpoint, Robert

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Plummer, Walter R.

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

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

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareham

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)

Pym, C. Guy

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Rankin, Sir James

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Ratcliff, R. F.

Wyndham, Rt. Hn. George

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Remnant James Farquharson

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Young, Samuel

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

Renwick, George

Younger, William

Lowe, Francis William

Richards, Henry Charles

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas. Thomson

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Macdona, John Cumming

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

MR. HERBEET ROBERTSsaid that the Amendment standing in his name raised a point of considerable importance. It was—
"In page 1, line 7, leave out 'or are,' and insert 'or that undesirable practices or methods of trading having been carried on in or in connection therewith or that the premises are insanitary or.'"
The effect of Clause 1 as it now stood was to reduce the discretion of the local
64
licensing justices to the level of their discretion in regard to the ante-1869 beer licences. The best way for him to explain the reasons for moving this Amendment was to mention three or four "undesirable practices" as to which there could be no doubt, and to ask the Solicitor-General whether the phrase in the Bill "ill-conducted" would cover these practices and give the licensing justices the power to refuse a

65
licence without compensation. First of all, there was defective management as distinguished from ill-conduct. Then I there was the irregular opening of licensed premises. It might be easily argued that these points were not covered by the phrase "ill-conducted." Next, there was offering attractions to induce customers to patronise a public-house, such as giving the "long pull," giving free drinks at Christmas, etc. These were the kind of "undesirable practices" which the licensing justices had, during the last few years, considered grounds on which they were permitted to refuse licences. The Royal Commission had brought before them a great deal of evidence as to the existence of these undesirable practices, especially in regard to music and dancing, which necessarily led to undesirable consequences, and the "long pull," which was still resorted to to a very large extent all over the country. It was of the utmost consequence that every effort should be made to widen, as far as possible, the discretion of the licensing justices, and the object of his Amendment was to secure that.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 7, to leave out the word 'are,' and insert the words 'that undesirable practices or methods of trading have been carried on in or in connection therewith or that the premises are insanitary or.'"—(Mr. Herbert Roberta.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'are' stand part of the clause."
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid that in the absence of any satisfactory explanation from his right hon. friend the Solicitor-General, he should feel obliged to support the Amendment. The real position was that they were attempting to define the grounds on which magistrates could refuse licences without compensation. At present the magistrates had absolute discretion, always provided it was judicially exercised. It was now proposed to limit the grounds on which they could refuse a licence without compensation. The first ground was that the licensed premises was ill-conducted; but there were other practices which, although not statutory offences, did not make for the good conduct of a public-house. In Liverpool and other large centres the licensing magistrates, with the assistance of the trade—
66
and the trade was perfectly willing to co-operate—had been able to bring about certain reforms. There was the case of the "long pull." He had no practical experience of it himself; but he believed it meant giving extra measure in order to unduly stimulate the drinking propensity, especially in the case of women. The magistrates were able to put a stop to that practice. The sale of drink to children was now a statutory offence; but before it was, the magistrates in certain centres exercised pressure and put a stop to it. He wanted to know from the Solicitor-General whether the magistrates would, in future, be in a weaker or in a similar position as the result of this clause. The declared intention of the Government was to compensate those who lost their licences through no fault of their own; but they ought to know if, in carrying out that object, the disciplinary power of the magistrates over the trade would be weakened. He hoped that a satisfactory explanation would be given, as many Unionists, in the House and out of it, felt very strongly on the matter.
MR. WHITLEYsaid that the real question was that the power which the magistrates at present exercised for the better conduct of public-houses would be taken away from them. Let the Committee consider such practices as giving sweets to children, or giving away free drinks. At present the magistrates could say that unless such practices were stopped they would consider very carefully the renewal of the licence. That power was now to be taken away; and the licence-holder could snap his fingers at the magistrates. He was sorry that no explanation was given as to why the clause was not drafted the other way round. Many Unionist Members had informed him that, in their opinion, the first clause should provide that where a licence was not renewed on the ground that there were too many licences in the neighbourhood compensation should be given. He could not understand why the Government made no response to that suggestion. He had heard that the Bill was originally drafted in that way, but that it was altered. It was due to the Committee that a clear reason for the change should be given. The argument of the Home Secretary when he

67
introduced the Bill was that it would be unfair to pick out a particular house and suppress it without compensation, although it might be no worse than the other houses in the locality. That, as far as it went, was a sound argument if they went in for compensation at all; but the Government ought to consider whether the clause should not be restored to its original form.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that they were told by the Government that there was no intention of interfering with the discretionary power of the magistrates. The only objection he saw to the Amendment was that it was unnecessary, as its purport was included in the phraseology of the Bill. But, on that point, the Committee ought to have the assurance of the Solicitor-General. He himself thought that the word "ill-conduct" embraced all the practices which had been described. If the Solicitor-General would assure the Committee that that was so, then, he thought, the hon. Gentleman might withdraw his Amendment. He was speaking on the assumption that the Government did not mean by the phraseology of the Bill to limit, in any way, the discretionary power now possessed by the magistrates.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University. The matter was of extreme importance. The object of the Amendment was to enable the magistrates to exercise pressure. There were only two ways of putting on pressure. One was by the infliction of penalties, which they were precluded from proposing because it would be outside the scope of the Bill; and the other was the method which at present existed, namely, the right of the magistrates to refuse a licence. They had two categories, one the refusal of a licence with compensation, the other the refusal of a licence for an offence without compensation. The second category disinclined justices to act, on the ground that it would be harsh treatment to deprive a man of his licence without compensation. Accordingly, there was no remedy left in connection with the practices which they wished
68
to discontinue except the extreme remedy of forfeiting the licence. That was the position. The Amendment did not propose anything unfair or arbitrary. The existing powers with regard to discontinuance of licences were to be divided between quarter sessions and the licensing justices. But if there was no intention of interfering with the disciplinary jurisdiction of the local magistrates, why should not this matter be left with the licensing justices with an appeal to quarter sessions? The powers of pressure with respect not of statutory offences, but of such matters as child service, would be entirely taken away from the magistrates by the peculiar construction of the Bill. With regard to the particular Amendment before the Committee, "undesirable practices" might cover matters which would not strictly come within the term "ill-conducted." As to "undesirable methods of trading," if some such words were not inserted the magistrates would certainly lose their power of insisting upon proper conditions with regard to the tenure of the house, the tying of a house, or matters of that kind. Whatever else was done, the Committee ought to reserve to the magistrates the power of pressure which they at present possessed, subject to appeal to quarter sessions.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsubmitted that the way in which the Bill had been drafted would effectively prevent magistrates unjustifiably placing public-houses in the class to which compensation would be paid. The Bill stated in black and white certain grounds in regard to which if a licence was refused no compensation would be forthcoming, therefore the magistrates would have to place those cases in the class to which compensation would not be paid.
SIR ROBERT REID: The Bill does not say that the magistrates "must"; they can do as they like, and that makes all the difference.
SIR EDWARD CARSON: Not at all.
SIR ROBERT REID: Surely the Solicitor-General does not maintain that wherever there is ill-conduct, structural deficiency, or question concerning the

69
character or fitness of the proposed licence-holder, the magistrates are bound to take away the licence?
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid that what he meant was that if the magistrates came to the conclusion that a licence ought to be taken away on any of the three specified grounds, the Bill was so framed as to amount to a direction to the magistrates to give no compensation. It left no loophole for magistrates to take the course feared by the hon. and learned Member. He agreed that the disciplinary powers of the magistrates ought not to be taken away, and he denied that they were being taken away by the Bill. There could hardly be a wider term than "ill-conduct," and it was for the magistrates to decide what came within the term. Whether "lax management" was of a sufficiently serious kind to be called "ill-conducted" and the other matters referred to by the hon. and learned Member, would all be left to the magistrates to determine. At present if a complaint of lax management was made, the magistrates would probably warn the licence-holder that unless matters improved they would take serious notice of the complaint at the next licensing sessions, and there was nothing whatever in the Bill to prevent a similar course being followed in the future. Whether the offering of attraction—the provision of music, and so forth—came within the term "ill-conduct" would all be for the magistrates to determine.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: Are we to understand that there would be no appeal from the magistrates' construction of "ill-conduct"?
SIR EDWARD CARSON: There would be an appeal to quarter sessions.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: And beyond that?
SIR EDWARD CARSON: Certainly not.
MR. SAMUEL EVANS: Except by special case, I suppose?
SIR EDWARD CARSON: There might be that, no doubt.
SIR ROBERT REID: They would not be bound to give their reasons.
SIR EDWARD CARSON: Nor would they for misconduct. They would say "We refuse the licence on the ground that the premises have been ill-conducted, and they would not be bound to give any reasons. As a matter of fact, the disciplinary power of pressure would be much greater than at present because if a licence-holder failed to come up to the view of the magistrates he would run the risk of losing the whole of the compensation to which he had contributed. Therefore, the power, instead of being weakened, would be greatly strengthened.
MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid he wished to know if the words in the clause "ill-conducted" meant that the premises had been ill-conducted in the opinion of the magistrates. This ought to be made clear by a definition clause. As the section was drawn, "ill-conducted" was purely in relation to the premises, and had no bearing whatever in regard to the trade. The Solicitor-General knew very well the class of offence he had in his mind—where the licensed premises had been used as a resort for betting men or harbouring persons of ill-fame, and instead of being used for refreshment by the public had, by the permission of the owner, been "ill-conducted" in ways which conflicted with good order and due observance of the law. He was sure that the Solicitor-General would not say it was an extravagant suggestion. Obviously certain methods of trading, which all regarded as objectionable, would have nothing to do with "ill-conduct," as, for instance, the "long pull," which was an objectionable method of trading. It might also include the employment of certain persons in the service of a licensed person, not only children, but also the employment of barmaids. In Glasgow they regarded the employment of barmaids as highly objectionable. Proper regulation of the staff, the prohibition of objectionable methods of trading by offering inducements to drinking, and unfair competition—none of these fell within the meaning of the expression "ill-conducted," confined as it was to the premises. Therefore, he wished to challenge

71
the earnestness of the Solicitor-General by asking him to see that this very serious doubt was removed by placing in a definition clause the exposition of this section which he had just given. If the right hon. Gentleman would boil down into a phrase the speech he had just delivered the point of the A end ent would be met.
MR. CORBETTsaid he felt quite sure that the Committee would accept the interpretation given by the Solicitor-General upon this point, and he hoped it would be carried out. The hon. Member for Liverpool had alluded to what had been done in that city in carrying out the regulations made by the magistrates, which had greatly improved the conduct of the trade there and had reduced drunkenness by one-third. At Liverpool the disciplinary powers of the magistrates over the ordinary public-houses were complete, and they had brought about a great improvement. But in regard to the ante-1869 beerhouses, the Liverpool magistrates complained that they could do nothing, because they had not the same wide discretion over these particular houses as they had over the conduct of other houses. He hoped that the Government would place words in Clause 1 which would give justices a discretionary power of determining what was "ill conduct," as mentioned in the clause. The proposal to do away with barmaids had been mentioned by the hon. Member for South Leeds. It was treated sometimes with a certain kind of scorn in quarters with no experience of the system of employing barmaids. The system had been done away with in many countries, and he ventured to think that if the time came in England when this occupation was done away with, as it had been in Glasgow, people would look back, with wonder upon the time when such occupation was carried on by young women. Barmaids were in many instances kept at work from ninety to ninety-five hours per week, and a more dangerous and more injurious occupation it would be very difficult to imagine. It was a very great thing that the magistrates, in the exercise of their discretion in Glasgow, had been able to make a valuable experiment in this direction,
72
and he hoped ultimately it would be followed in other parts of the country.
MR. LAWRENCEsaid that the disciplinary powers of the magistrates should be preserved was quite plain. He thought the clause as it stood seemed at first sight to be open to the criticisms passed upon it by the hon. and learned Member opposite. By the insertion of the word "conduct" later on, he thought the discretionary power of the magistrates would remain intact.
SIR EDWARD GREYsaid the Solicitor-General had endeavoured to soothe, and to some extent had soothed, the apprehension entertained with regard to the effect of this clause by giving a very wide interpretation to the words "ill-conducted." He wished to ask the Home Secretary if he would do something to make it quite clear what the Committee intended by inserting, somewhere, the words "in the opinion of the justices." If those words were inserted, they would at any rate strengthen the interpretation suggested by the Solicitor-General.
MAJOR JAMESONtrusted that the Home Secretary would in no way alter this clause. The Committee ought not to forget that all these legal subtleties were not of the slightest use to the common or garden magistrate, and he was one of them. There was not a single crime in the calendar which this clause did not cover. If they kept adding these legal subtleties, it would take three sessions to get the Bill through. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would insist upon the clause standing intact.
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid the difficulty felt on both sides of the House was one apparently which the Government was anxious to meet, and he thought words could be inserted which would meet their views. The difficulty arose from the fear that "ill-conducted" was too strong a term. He suggested that if the Home Secretary would introduce some word or words which would make the expression "ill-conducted" less rigid, such as "lax management" or "badly conducted," it would meet the wishes of Members on that side of the Committee.
SIR JOHN KENNAWAY (Devonshire,)said he had listened with very great satisfaction to the statement of the Solicitor-General; and, as both sides were in practical agreement on this matter, he thought they might ask the Home Secretary to undertake that words should he inserted which would carry out the assurance of the Solicitor-General.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he trusted I the Home Secretary would respond to the appeal which had come not only from the Opposition side of the House but also from his own side, to do something to meet the case which had been placed before the Committee. He was afraid the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick, "in the opinion of the magistrates," did not make any substantial alteration in the meaning of the clause. The words "ill-conducted" were too strong to cover the various difficulties suggested by his hon. friend. Take such a case as had recently arisen in Liverpool of sailors' advance notes. That was a case in which it would not be "ill-conduct" or an offence against the law, but at the same time it was a practice that ought to be put an end to, and the magistrates ought to have the requisite power to do so. "Free drinks" was another case. The hon. member for Halifax had mentioned a case of serious assault out side a public-house which very nearly led to murder, That case was the result of a big féte which a publican had given, when there were free drinks to everybody. That, again, was a practice the magistrates should have power to put an end to. Surely the Home Secretary could give an undertaking to introduce words covering cases of this character, so that the magistrates would know the class of case they had to deal with without compensation.
MR. BOUSFIELDsaid he wished, speaking as a magistrate, to say how much he appreciated the friendly language used with reference to the preservation of the disciplinary powers of the magistrates. He felt certain that it was a matter of the highest importance, and on the question of substance there was no difference between the two sides of the House. That the Government regarded this matter as one of the highest
74
importance was shown by the fact that they had given what they considered a full catalogue. The question was whether that catalogue was wide enough to include all the cases which might arise. The Solicitor-General had expressed the opinion that the words "ill-conducted" would cover those cases contemplated by the present Amendment and a great many other things of the same sort. If the right hon. Gentleman were on the Bench he would give effect to that opinion, but his opinion now given would not be even quotable when a case came before the Court. It could in no way bind anybody, and therefore one must rely on one's own judgment as to the way this would be construed by the Judges before whom cases might come. He suggested for the consideration of the Solicitor-General the words "or any reasonable requirement of the magistrates is not complied with" as making it quite clear that the disciplinary powers of the magistrates were preserved.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid he was disposed to agree with the Solicitor-General that the words were at present, sufficiently large to meet all the cases, but at the same time he was disposed, for the sake of greater security, to press upon him that it would be desirable to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick and add the words "in the opinion of the magistrates," which, he thought, would meet the whole case. As the clause at present stood, what would come before the Court would be misconduct, and what would come before the High Court of Justice was what was misconduct, and the interpretation there might differ widely from that of the magistrates. If, however, they put in the words "in the opinion of the magistrates," the High Court would be bound to say: "This is misconduct in the opinion of the magistrates"; and they would not be able to go behind that. He considered there could be no possible objection to the acceptance of these words.
SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid it was proposed to introduce into the Bill a definition of the ordinary powers of the magistrates. The object of the Bill was to enable the number of public-houses to be reduced in the public interest, and to give compensation when

75
that was done for reasons other than the misconduct of the licensee. He was anxious that the discretion of the magistrates in regard to discipline and the conditions of licences should not be impaired, but he considered it undesirable that Parliament should introduce catalogues which could not be complete, and which might open the door to many dangers.
MR. ASQUITHagreed with the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken that it was dangerous to make definitions, conditions, and qualifications in the way proposed, but thought that was a criticism which he ought to apply to the authors of the Bill. The whole scheme of this first clause was to take the present unfettered discretion of the justices and reduce it to a mere shadow of its former self. He understood the object of the mover of the Amendment to be to reinstate, as far as was possible consistently with the object of the Bill, the justices in their discretion. He was inclined to share the opinion that under the term "ill-conducted" the practices referred to in the course of the debate might very likely be held not to be included. It was not safe, if the House really wanted matters of this kind to be taken into account by the justices, to let the Bill pass with this vague phrase. Matters of this kind ought to be dealt with in a rational and sensible way, and a course which would save a great deal of time would be if the Government consented to introduce words which would elucidate the interpretation of "ill-conducted." He would suggest that the clause should run "ill-conducted, or that the licensee has failed to comply with any reasonable requirement made by the justices." He thought that that would cover all cases of misconduct, and would enable the licensing justices to retain a large share of the beneficent power which they now possessed of controlling licences.
MR. MIDDLEMOREsaid hon. Members on both sides of the House had listened with interest and sympathy to the explanation of the Solicitor-General; but the request now was that he should make clear what was not so clear. This was all they asked. It was evident to him, but there were legal
76
luminaries in the House to whom it was certainly not clear and to whom it appeared susceptible of a construction other than that which the right hon. and learned Gentleman placed upon it. They asked him very respectfully and earnestly to introduce into the Bill phrases and alterations which would satisfy those who were pleased with his interpretation of the word "ill-conducted" but were not satisfied with the form in which it was expressed.
MR. WHITTAKERsaid he did not like the phrase "ill-conducted." It seemed to him that better words would be "that the licensed premises and the trade thereof have been unsatisfactorily conducted."
MR. EDWARDSsaid that there seemed to be a general feeling on both sides of the House that something should be done in the direction of the Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member for West Clare said that the Amendment should not be accepted because the magistrates would not be bothered with legal subtleties. Why, that was the very reason why the Committee should accept the words suggested in the Amendment. It was very necessary that such practices as were referred to in the Amendment should be stopped. In the Act of 1872, six or seven reasons were given for closing a public-house on account of malpractices, and since that time there had been an immensely increased competition in the business of licensed houses, and that competition led licensed holders to do things which ought not to be done in the way of enticing trade. It was to contend with that new state of things that the Amendment had been proposed.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSurged that the best course would be for the Government to state in what cases compensation should be given. It was the duty of all hon. Members to offer assistance in carrying out the views expressed on both sides of the House, and he suggested the addition after "ill-conducted" of the words "or that any other requirement or condition which the justices may in their discretion make or impose has not been complied with or observed." He thought

77
these words would carry out the wishes expressed on both sides of the House.
COLONEL PILKINGTONsaid he thought that the Bill would go through much more quickly if words were inserted preserving the power of the local justices, except in cases where a public-house was abolished because it was not required.
MR. MARKHAM (Nottinghamshire,said the House was in an extraordinary position. The Solicitor-General said the word "ill-conducted" was subject to one interpretation, whilst legal Gentlemen of the greatest ability on his own and the other side of the House thought it was capable of a different interpretation. Why did the Government treat the House with silence when there was absolute agreement on this point on both sides of the House? He did not know whether the Solicitor-General or the Home Secretary was in charge of the Bill because they went in and out of the House continually and did not hear the arguments. The Solicitor-General had been out of the House twice.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid that he had only been out of the House once, and that it was absolutely impossible for one who had other duties to discharge to remain the whole time in the House.
MR. MARKHAM,who rose again amid loud cries of "withdraw," said he would certainly withdraw if the Solicitor-General said he had only been out once. Proceeding, he said that the discussion had been confined very largely to legal Gentlemen. Some took one view and others another view as to the interpretation of the word "ill-conducted," and he thought a very simple arrangement, seeing that hon. Members on both sides of the House were in agreement, would be for the Government to accept some words to save all this discussion. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Berwick to insert the words "in the opinion of the magistrates" met entirely the view of hon. Members on that side of the House. If it were made clear that it was to be "ill-conducted" in the opinion of the magistrates, what clearer
78

definition could they have. As legal gentlemen differed, some of whom might be Judges in time to come, why in the name of creation did the Government, if it wanted to facilitate the passing of the Bill, maintain an absolute silence in regard to the suggestions made.
MR. JOHN ELLIS (Nottinghamshire,said in order to meet the point he thought they were entitled to have the opinion of the Government upon it. They had had a most business-like discussion and there was almost a common agreement that some words should be introduced such as those suggested by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Devonshire, which would be agreeable in all quarters. They were drifting into the position in which the House found itself on the previous night and no time was being gained. He hoped the Solicitor-General would be able to give to the House some actual words which would carry out the evident sense of the House on the matter.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had really nothing to add to the statement of the Solicitor-General. Surely the case was quite plain. The Government were of opinion that a mans' licence might be taken away without compensation for misconduct; they were not of opinion that it ought to be taken away without compensation for something which was not misconduct. The word "misconduct" was a wide word. [Several Members: It is not the word used.] "Ill-conduct" was a wide word. It would have to be interpreted by the magistrates, with, of course, an appeal to quarter sessions; and he did not think the wording of the Bill in this particular could be improved. What some Members were tacitly driving at was that a man should be liable to be deprived of his licence for something which was not ill-conduct. [Opposition cries of "No, no!"] Others, no doubt, would like to see the Government embark in an endless attempt to define. That might suit other objects which they had in view, but it certainly would not improve this Bill as a measure of licensing reform or help the magistrates to carry out their duty. If they did mean to increase the number of offences under the Licensing Acts it should be done by a separate Bill. He would now suggest

79
that a decision should be taken on the matter.
MR. ASQUITHsaid the right hon. Gentleman had spoken with great lucidity, and they now clearly understood that the Government offered a blank negative to all the suggestions offered, as much from their own side of the House as from the other, to meet a difficulty which, except the Prime Minister himself, no one had denied was a real one. Now the Prime Minister came in at the end of the debate and said that although the Bill contained a phrase which in all probability would not be held to cover certain practices, and although there was a general agreement that they were practices which ought to be covered, yet on behalf of the Government he refused to insert words to meet the wishes of the Committee. He would leave the situation there.
MR. BOUSFIELDsaid he did not think the Prime Minister quite appreciated the suggestions which had been made during the debate. He was quite sure that the Government did not intend to speak with two voices on the subject. The Solicitor-General had spoken quite sympathetically on behalf of the Government with reference, to preserving the disciplinary powers which the magistrates at present had. The Prime Minister had put it to the Committee that the Amendment would mean very heavy penalties for slight offences. That was not the situation. At present the magistrates had power to impose reasonable requirements upon an applicant for renewal. They desired that that power should be preserved, and they understood from the Solicitor-General that the Government regarded that as a desirable object. He himself had suggested a form of words which would make it clear; and he ventured humbly to suggest that the Prime Minister had not quite appreciated the situation when he spoke. He did not desire to press the Government at that moment, but the matter was one which ought to have their serious attention. The last words of the Prime Minister might, he thought, lead to some misunderstanding as being apparently out of concord with what the Solicitor-General had previously said. They did not desire to
80
penalise the licence-holder, but only to ensure that the magistrates would have power to impose reasonable requirements.
SIR JAMES JOICEY (Durham,said he thought it was very unfortunate that the Prime Minister should have intervened without having heard the discussion. The Committee had practically agreed that words should be inserted to preserve the discretion of the magistrates, and he hoped that arrangement would not be upset.
MR. MARKHAMsaid as the Prime Minister had only just come into the House and had not heard the discussion, he thought it would be well if they went through it again.
The CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman will not be entitled to repeat arguments.
MR. MARKHAMsaid that he would not repeat arguments; but would refer to the obstruction of the Government which would prevent the Bill getting through the House. The Government would not take the view that any business man would take as to the meaning of the words under discussion. They were told, without going into the question of the employment of barmaids, which was debated at considerable length, that very considerable evils arose in many districts as the result of betting. Great evils resulted from betting, and he, therefore, should be prepared to vote for the Amendment.
MR. J. F. HOPEsaid he thought the best course would be to let the words in the clause stand, and, if on further consideration it became apparent that the object sought for was not covered by them, the matter could be brought up again on the definition clause and words adopted which would satisfy the general sense of the House. It seemed to him a matter of some importance; but. unless the Government could find words at once to satisfy the general sense of the Committee, it would be better, for the present, to stick to the words in the Bill.
SIR JOHN KENNAWAYsaid he hoped that the Government would introduce words which would give effect to the Solicitor-General's interpretation of the clause.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 268; Noes, 190. (Division List No. 183.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Howard, John(Kent Fave'sham

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton)

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Allhusen, Augustus Hnry Eden

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Hunt, Rowland

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. HughO

Davenport, William Bromley

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Arrol, Sir William

Dickinson, Robert Edmund

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Dickson, Charles Scott

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Austin, Sir John

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Kenyon-Slanley, Col. W. (Salop

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

Kimber, Henry

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Baird, John George Alexander

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

Balcarres, Lord

Doogan, P. C.

Lawrence. Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Baldwin, Alfred

Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

Lawson, John Grant(Yorks, NR

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W(Leeds

Duke, Henry Edward

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Lock wood, Lieut.-Col. A.R.

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

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

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Beach, Rt. Hn Sir Michael Hicks

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (BristolS.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lowe, Francis William

Bignold, Arthur

Fisher, William Hayes

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Bill, Charles

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Fison, Frederick William

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Bond, Edward

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Boulnois, Edmund

Flower, Sir Ernest

Lyttelton Rt. Hon. Alfred

Bousfield, William Robert

Forster, Henry William

Macdona, John Cumming

Bowles, Lt. Col H. F (Middlesex

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick S W.

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Bowles, T. Gibson( King's Lynn

Galloway, William Johnson

Maconochie, A. W.

Brassey, Albert

Gardner, Ernest

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

Garfit, William

M'Fadden, Edward

Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Majendie, James A. H.

Bull, William James

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

Malcolm, Ian

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

Manners, Lord Cecil

Butcher, John George

Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Massey-Main waring, Hn. W. F.

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

Graham, Henry Robert

Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E(Wigton

Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Green, Walford D(Wednesbury

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Cautley Henry Strother

Greene, Sir E W (B'rySEdm'nds

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

Milvain, Thomas

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

Molesworth, S r Lewis

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Gretton, John

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich

Groves, James Grimble

Moore, William

Chamberlain, Rt Hn.J.(Birm.

Gunter, Sir Robert

Morgan, David J.(Walthamstow

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

Hardy, Laurence(Kent Ashford

Morpeth, Viscount

Chapman, Edward

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Morrell, George Herbert

Charrington, Spencer

Harris, F. Lever ton (Tynem'th

Morrison, James Archibald

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich

Morton, Arthur H. Alymer

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Coates, Edward Feetham

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Cochrane Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

Coddington, Sir William

Heaton, John Henniker

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Helder, Augustus

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R.

Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.)

Myers, William Henry

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hogg, Lindsay

Nicholson, William Graham

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Hope, J. F.(Sheffield Brightside

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

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Horner, Frederick William

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Crean, Eugene

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

O'Brien, Patrick Kilkenny)

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

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

Valentia, Viscount

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Vincent, Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Walker, Col. William Hall

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesly

Samuel, Sir Harry S (Limehouse

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Percy, Earl

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Pierpoint, Robert

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

Webb, Colonel William George

Plummer, Walter R.

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

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

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

Pretyman, Ernest George

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Rankin, Sir James

Smith, H C( North'mb Tyneside

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

Ratcliff, R. F.

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

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

Reid, James (Greenock)

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Remnant, James Farquharson

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Richards, Henry Charles

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Stock, James Henry

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Young, Samuel

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Stroyan, John

Younger, William

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Thorburn, Sir Walter

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Thornton, Percy M.

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Royds, Clements Molyneux

Tuff, Charles

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, NE.

Dobbie, Joseph

Jacoby, James Alfred

Abraham, William (Rhondda]

Donelan, Captain A.

Joicey, Sir James

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

Allen, Charles P.

Duncan, J. Hastings

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Ambrose, Robert

Dunn, Sir William

Jordon, Jeremiah

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Edwards, Frank

Joyce, Michael

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

Elibank, Master of

Kearley, Hudson E.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Barlow, John Emmott

Evans, Sir Francis H.(Maidstone

Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Kilbride, Denis

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Kitson, Sir James

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Labouchere, Henry

Bell, Richard

Farrell, James Patrick

Lambert, George

Black, Alexander William

Fenwick, Charles

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Blake, Edward

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Boland, John

Flynn, James Christopher

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Brigg, John

Freeman-Thomas. Captain F.

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Broadhurst, Henry

Furness, Sir Christopher

Leng, Sir John

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Lewis, John Herbert

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lloyd-George, David

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Lough, Thomas

Burke, E. Haviland-

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

Lundon, W.

Burns, John

Griffith, Ellis J.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Burt, Thomas

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Caldwell, James

Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Cameron, Robert

Harcourt, Rt Hn Sir W(Monm'th

M'Crae, George

Cawley, Frederick

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

M'Kean, John

Channing, Francis Allston

Harwood, George

M'Kenna, Reginald

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Hayden, John Patrick

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Cremer, William Randal

Helme, Norval Watson

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Crombie, John William

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Cullinan, J.

Hobhouse, Rt Hn H.(Somers't, E

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Dalziel, James Henry

Holland, Sir William Henry

Morley, Rt. Hon John(Montrose

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

Moss, Samuel

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

Horniman, Frederick John

Murphy, John

Delany, William

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Newnes, Sir George

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Norman, Henry

84

85

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Roe, Sir Thomas

Toulmin, George

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Rose, Charles Day

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

Runciman, Walter

Tritton, Charles Ernest

C'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Russell, T. W.

Wallace, Robert

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.)

O'Doherty, William

Shackleton, David James

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

O'Dowd, John

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Parrott, William

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Partington, Oswald

Slack, John Bamford

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Perks, Robert William

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Soares, Ernest J.

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Spear, John Ward

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

Power, Patrick Joseph

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Price, Robert John

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Wilson, J. W (Worcestersh. N,)

Priestley, Arthur

Sullivan, Dona I

Woodhouse, Sir J T. (Huddersf'd

Rea, Russell

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Yoxall, James Henry

Reddy, M.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Thomas, Abel(Carmarthen, E.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Herbert Roberts and Mr.

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

Emmott.

Robson, William Snowdon

Tomkinson, James

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEwho had on the Paper an Amendment to leave out "or are structurally deficient or unsuitable," and to insert "or that the applicant has failed to comply with an order for structural alterations under Section 11, Sub-section 4, of The Licensing Act, 1902," said that as, in consequence of the decision just taken, he was unable to move the whole of his Amendment, he proposed merely to move to omit the words "structurally deficient or." Under the Licensing Act of 1902, when application was made for the renewal of a licence, the petty sessional Court might require the submission of plans, and direct certain structural alterations to be made, from which order there was an appeal to quarter sessions. That being the case, he submitted that the necessity for including structural defects as a ground for the refusal of a licence without compensation had practically disappeared. Although it would have been more satisfactory to have made the matter perfectly clear by the insertion of the words he originally proposed to move, he thought it would be sufficient, in view of existing legislation under which an order for structural alterations could be made, to allow the matter to take the course enacted by the Act of 1902. If a licence-holder had had no opportunity given him of remedying the structural defects, the reasonable discretion of the magistrates might very well be left as at present.
86
He did not think that structural defects per se, where no order had been made for alterations, should be made a ground for refusal to renew. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 7, to leave out the words 'structurally deficient or.'"—(Mr. Heywood Johnstone.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
SIR ROBERT REIDpointed out that the Solicitor-General had declared the intention of the Government to be not to diminish the disciplinary jurisdiction of the magistrates. At present, the magistrates could exercise that disciplinary jurisdiction in respect of structural defects. By the present Amendment the discretion of the magistrates would incontestably be diminished; therefore he submitted that its acceptance would be wholly inconsistent with the statement of the Solicitor-General.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid he laid special stress upon these words, which he considered were absolutely necessary in order to carry out the intention of the Government.
MR. H. D. GREENEsaid he desired to move the Amendment

87
standing in his name on the Paper. The licence-holders desired that this question should be submitted to the Government, and he hoped a fair and favourable hearing would be given to their application. It was felt that it was not clear in the clause, as it was at present worded, whether "unsuitable" was to be "structural unsuitability" or not. The word "structurally" did not appear in connection with "unsuitable." If the word "structurally" governed "unsuitable," of course that would partly meet his case. What was felt by those who held licences was that, unless this point was made quite clear, there might be an interpretation given to those words by justices which might be made a pretext for getting rid of licences without compensation. There were houses which had been in existence for a good many years, the suitability of which had never been submitted to the justices. On the other hand, there were houses the plans of which had been submitted to the justices and which had been passed by them. Then there was another class which might be called upon to rectify any deficiency in that part of the premises where the trade was carried on. The Act of 1902 only dealt with rectifying these deficiencies. When they came to structural suitability that enlarged the scope of the matter very considerably. Structural suitability applied to the whole of the structure, and it might happen that the justices, as a pretext for getting rid of a house, would say, for example, that there ought to be suitable accommodation there for sleeping and stables for cyclists and motorists, and possibly lavatories and out-houses. It might be that some of these houses had been built upon plans approved by the justices, and yet if they desired to get rid of the licence they night seize upon this pretext and say that the house was unsuitable in the particulars he had mentioned and the licence in this way might be taken away without compensation. "Unsuitable" was a relative term, and it might be that the unsuitability referred to the position of the house. The magistrates might say that public-houses ought not to be kept at the corner of streets, or that a larger house ought to be erected. On the other hand, they might say that licensed houses should only be in front streets and not in back
88
streets. Therefore it was possible that they might have houses closed without compensation because these new views had arisen in the minds of the justices. He thought there was a good deal of force in the apprehensions felt by those who owned these licences, and to protect their interests they felt that it was necessary that the word "structurally" should be inserted before the word "unsuitable." If that word were introduced it might go part of the way towards meeting the objections of those who were afraid that they might be deprived of the benefit of their premises on the ground of "unsuitability" when the magistrates were really influenced by some other consideration. He thought, however, that when the justices themselves had prevented a house from being made structurally suitable by the tenant, it would be a very unjust course to turn round on the tenant and deprive him of his right of compensation on the very ground that the house was structurally unsuitable.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 7, to leave out the words 'unsuitable or.'"—(Mr. H. D. Greene.)
Question proposed, "That the worn 'unsuitable' stand part of the clause."
MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid that under the existing law the magistrates had discretionary power to refuse the renewal of a licence because the premises were unsuitable. If they were unsuitable for the trade they ought not to be licensed, and surely it would be an attempt to fetter unduly their wide discretion in the interests of the public to say that the justices should issue licences to premises which they admitted were unsuitable. The hon. and learned Member for Shrewsbury had pointed out that the words "structural deficiency" might indicate different things. There was first the unsuitability arising from structural causes. He should have thought it was clear that if the licensed premises were ill-adapted, or if they were structurally deficient or unsuitable for the trade, the justices might in their discretion, subject to appeal to quarter sessions, refuse to renew a licence. Secondly, supposing there was a house structurally adequate but, owing to

89
gross neglect on the part of the tenant, owing to its filthy condition and the lack of proper care, was unsuitable, surely these reasons were just as important for refusing a licence as "structural deficiency," and therefore the real question was whether the premises were suitable or not. If they were not suitable the magistrates ought to have the power to refuse the licence. It was not the kind of question that ought to be left to the administrative committee at quarter sessions to decide whether compensation should be given under these circumstances. It should be disposed of by the justices on the spot.
MR. MARKHAMsaid the Amendment would mean that the magistrates would have no power in the future over licensed premises which came into the market. Practically it would mean that the justices would have no power to refuse a renewal if the Amendment were passed. The Bill had, therefore, come to a very curious stage. The brewers were not content with what they had got, but came to the House of Commons and asked to have words excluded from the Bill which would enable any bad, rotten, or defective building to be used as licensed premises over which the justices would have no power whatever. If the words "structurally deficient or unsuitable" were left out all the power in the hands of the magistrates would be gone. He hoped the Government would say at once that they were not going to weaken the power of the magistrates, but leave in their hands the discretionary power they had at present of refusing licences if the premises were deficient and unsuitable for the purposes of the business. He hoped the Government would give an answer at once to this question, for by so doing they would expedite the progress of business.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid it was impossible for the Government to accept a proposal to leave out the word "unsuitable." For the purposes of police supervision, for instance, it might be necessary to order certain doors of a house to be closed. It was also often necessary, in connection with premises which were not structurally deficient for business, to order that the drinking part of the
90
premises should be shut off from the other parts. That was structural unsuitability, and not structural deficiency, having reference to the carrying on of the business. It was necessary that they should retain in the hands of the magistrates all those rights which gave them a disciplinary power over licensed premises.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he was glad that this word was going to be retained, and that was quite right from the point of view of the Government. The Solicitor-General had also put a construction upon the word "unsuitable" in this connection with which he agreed. The word "unsuitable" was governed by the word "structurally," and therefore nothing but structural unsuitability would be hit by those words. There was, however, one danger of which the hon. and learned Member for Leeds had given an illustration. Supposing the premises were kept in such a dirty, insanitary state as to make them unsuitable and undesirable for the carrying on of the trade. As the law now stood the magistrate could say, "If you do not put your premises right you shall not have your renewal." Under this Bill the magistrates could not say that unless the word "ill-conducted" had the very full significance which the Solicitor-General seemed to attribute to it. He did not think it was safe to rely on the construction which the Judges would put upon the expression "ill-conducted."
And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (BY ORDER).
  As amended, considered.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid he had three Amendments on the Paper, all of which really related to the same matter, namely, the provisions of Clause 20, which dealt with vermin-infested houses. He considered that the proposals in the Bill were far

  91
  too drastic, though he did not wish to minimise in the least the inconvenience arising from the conditions indicated. There was a small insect which was known for its powers of springing and hopping, but it, he thought, was hardly within the purview of the Bill, because he could not imagine that any enactment of this House would really be of avail against that insect. There was another insect, of which he understood there was a considerable number in the county of London, and which he might term a round, flat insect. That was the insect with which this clause dealt. He pointed out that the borough councils, which were the local authorities, had already various powers with regard to nuisances which injured health. It had never been shown, and he apprehended that it could not be shown, that the existence of this class of vermin was injurious to health. [An Hon. Member: Oh!] If it were injurious to health, the existing Acts would undoubtedly apply, and there would be no occasion for any further provision in the present Bill. If it were merely proposed to treat houses infested with the nuisance in the same manner as nuisances which were injurious to health were treated by Sections 4 and 5 of the London Public Health Act, 1891, he should have no objection at all. It was not so much the question of penalty which he objected to. Section 20 of this Bill enabled, or rather almost compelled, a local authority, not upon its own initiative but upon the initiative of its medical officer, to do certain repairs in the house. It might be to repaper it, or to take down plaster work. These alterations might be very expensive; and the real point of his objection to the clause was that these alterations and repairs could be done without the local authority having first to obtain an order from a magistrate. The whole duty was cast by the Bill on the medical officer. It was true that the medical officer had to satisfy the sanitary authority that the house was infested with vermin, but that seemed to him to be almost compulsory on the mere production of a certificate by the medical officer. It did j not appear that any discretion was left to the local authority as to whether the work was required or not. The local authority was entitled to do any work
  92
  required by the notice to be done and summarily to recover as a civil debt all reasonable costs and expenses incurred from the person making default. Under the Public Health Act of 1891, in respect of nuisances coming within the scope of Sections 4 and 5, the sanitary authority had to complain to the petty sessional court, which could issue any one of four orders. It could issue an abatement order, a prohibition order, a closing order, or a combination of such orders. It appeared to him that Section 5 of that Act applied to houses infested with vermin, and that if the court issued an order it would be an abatement order. The Act provided, "Moreover the local authority may enter the premises to which the nuisance relates and do whatever may be necessary to execute that order." He had not the slightest objection to that. It seemed to be the right and proper method of procedure, but that was not the provision of this Bill. By Section 20 if a person failed to comply with the notice given to him then and there, the sanitary authority had a right to do the work required by the notice, and to recover all reasonable costs. That appeared to him to be placing too large a power in the hands of the local authority. Some of the repairs ordered by the local authority must take the form of what was called decoration. He used the word "decoration" in a technical sense. That was a very serious matter, because every person who had had experience in building houses knew that the decoration was more costly than the bricks and mortar. He objected to the local authority having power to do that work without first obtaining an order from a magistrate.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 15, line 13, after the word 'require' to insert the words—'(2) If a person upon whom a notice has been served as aforesaid makes default in complying with any of the requisitions thereof within the time specified, the sanitary authority shall make a complaint under the ^Summary Jurisdiction Acts, and the petty sessional Court hearing the complaint may make on such person a summary order requiring each person to comply with all or any of the requisitions of the notice.'"— (Mr. Herbert Robertson.)
  Question proposed. "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEas Chairman of the Committee which considered this Bill said there was no question before the Committee as to the necessity of a subsection of this character. He did not feel any doubt in his own mind as to the nature of the decision the Committee came to in this case. Evidence had been given before the Committee showing that in many cases there were eight or ten layers of wall-paper on the walls of many houses, within each layer of which vermin were breeding. It was also shown that 70 per cent, of the houses in some districts were verminous, and there was no dispute as to giving the local sanitary authorities power to enter and cleanse houses of this description. The sum and substance of it was that there could not be the slightest question as to the necessity for a clause of this nature, and the only question that remained was as to the machinery that was required to carry it out. They had two models before them, the London Public Health Act of 1891, and the Public Health Act of 1875, which applied to the rest of the country. As his hon. friend had mentioned, there was n the London Act a process by getting an order from the magistrate, but the Committee were told by the medical officers that they had not been able to take action in regard to this particular nuisance under that Act. The Committee therefore proceeded on the lines of the general Public Health Act of 1875. That was the precedent which had been followed in this Bill. The Committee had evidence before them that there were cases in which the owner had taken every possible precaution to hand over houses to incoming tenants in a clean and satisfactory condition, and that in a very short time they came to be infested with a large quantity of verminous insects. It would be quite unfair to make an order against the owner to be at the expense of cleansing a house the dirtiness of which was due to the incoming tenant. On the other hand they might have a case of an innocent tenant coming into a house which was apparently clean, having a fresh paper on the wall over a series of old papers. Vermin might break out there, and there was hardly any possibility of stating, without examination, whether the owner or the occupier was responsible
  94
  for that until the work was actually done. Therefore, the Committee followed the precedent of the 1875 Act, and gave the authority power to proceed against either the owner or occupier as might seem to them good. They tried to hold the balance as fairly as possible, and they thought it was better that the work should be done by the borough councils, who were accustomed to work of this character. The only point at issue was the way in which machinery should be set up for carrying out a course the desirability of which was admitted on all hands.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the peech of the hon. Member opposite practically rendered any further support of this clause unnecessary. He wished the House to understand that this clause was not the result of the London County Council's, action. The people who took the initiative were the London borough councils, which were the local sanitary authorities. The Committee were practically unanimous that such a measure as this was absolutely necessary in respect of verminous houses. The twenty-eight parish councils of London, the port sanitary authority, and the city Corporation were all in favour of it, and the County Council were, therefore, only the medium for carrying out the wishes of all these authorities. Under the existing Health Acts a verminous house was not a nuisance. The hon. Member for Hackney thought that the provisions in the Bill, declaring that the verminous building was a source of danger to the community, was too drastic a treatment for chasing bugs and pursuing fleas. In regard to factory inspection, if a factory inspector went into a workshop and I found mouse traps or flea powder about, j he could order that workshop to be whitewashed and kept sanitarily clean; and if the owner did not do it, the local j authority could intervene and do the work itself, and charge the cost to the owner. If that could be done in regard to a workshop, surely it ought to be done in overcrowded tenements. In some parts of London the condition of these tenements was horrible and a source of great irritation to men, women, and children. The hon. Member for Hackney thought that the repairs in a house should not be executed without

  95
  receiving an order from a magistrate; but the London magistrates, who did their work exceedingly well, ought not to be overburdened, and compelled before they made an order in regard to cleanliness to make a visit to the house. The hon. Member for Hackney said he had never seen a bug in the East End of London, but Dr. Priestly mentioned a case of a room occupied by a doctor of divinity which had not been cleaned for nine years, and another officer stated that on one occasion he went to a house in Wood Green where he caught 118 fleas. He liked the London magistrates too well to subject them to the visitation of such houses.
  MR. BOUSFIELDsaid that the drastic powers proposed in the clause might properly be given to local authorities with regard to infectious diseases. But in the case of vermin, which primarily were not dangerous to health, although they might be uncomfortable, no harm would be done by a delay of a couple of days in applying for a magistrate's order. There was no opportunity provided by the clause of having a case fairly heard and fairly determined.
  MR. CROOKSsaid that the hon. Member for Hackney had declared he had not seen a bug in the East End, but if the hon. Member were to come down to where he lived he would show him that night people sitting on the doorsteps because vermin had taken possession of their houses, and where poor little children were scratching themselves until they made a sore on account of the vermin. He was pleading for poor people who were unable to do anything for themselves. He could assure the House that he had seen rooms with eight layers of paper on, and how was it possible to keep a place of that kind clean? He knew of a case, in the Ann Street area, where the death rate had run up to sixty per thousand. The magistrate was invited to visit the place, and was told that that was the only place where these people could go to, while the owner of the houses said he had made the rooms as comfortable as he could, and had put on a new paper! The local authorities had to apply to the magistrate four or five times before they
  96
  could get a closing order, and then they had to pay compensation to the owner. Could anyone believe that these poor people could live in such houses in health I [An Hon. Member: Nobody disputes that.] Then why were they wasting time in opposing this clause? The House might have been on the beer long before this time. What the County Council wanted was to cleanse places that were filthy, and surely London was as much entitled to a clause of this kind as any provincial town. He hoped the House would at once pass the clause.
  MR. J. W. WILSONsaid that the Clause dealt with the method of procedure in cleansing verminous places. No layman would advocate two processes at law when one would be sufficient to meet the case. He opposed the Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Dr. AMBROSEsaid he wished to move the omission of Clause 46 by which the County Council took power to supply food to the inmates of their lodging-houses. This was an objectionable example of municipal trading, and direct competition with small traders who catered for the poorer neighbourhoods. There had been a deputation from lodging-house keepers, who lived practically on the profits derived from the sale of food to the inmates of lodging-houses, to protest against this clause. He would withdraw his Amendment if assured that some limit would be placed on the number of municipal lodging-houses, and that the Council did not intend to erect more of them.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 28, line 23, to leave out Clause 40."—(Dr. Ambrose.)
  Question proposed, "That Clause 46 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that on the part of the London County Council he could give no such assurance as was asked for by the hon. Member for Mayo. If the hon. Member were to consult his poor compatriots in various parts of London, he would find that they were practically unanimous in favour of the clause. The London County Council only asked the

  97
  power to cater for the tenants in their lodging-houses, the same as was possessed by any West End club, or by the House of Commons itself. The tenants would have cheaper and better food than at present. As to the small shopkeepers, there was really no ground for complaint, because two-thirds of the food which lodgers consumed was bought off the premises. The power asked for was to provide the lodgers with food when the small shops were closed on a Saturday night or Sunday, or when the shopkeepers were having a holiday. There were 514 lodging-houses In London, and of that number the London County Council had only built and owned two in the last sixteen years. Personally, he was opposed to the London County Council building more. He did not believe in celibate masses of men being crowded in lodging-houses, whether private or municipal; but so long as they had these masses to deal with, it was right to see that they were comfortably kept and obtained food under decent conditions. The London County Council found, just as the late Lord Rowton—who deserved the gratitude of every poor man in London— found with his lodging-houses, that when the catering was left to private enterprise, the food supplied was unsatisfactory, and that the lodgers got margarine instead of butter. It had been said that this was an extension of municipal trading, but Sir Richard Farrar, who was no municipal trader, came forward and begged the Committee to give the London County Council this power. He himself knew that in their two lodging-houses — one at Deptford, and the other near Covent Garden—poor chaps would come in with only a sixpence in their pocket, which allowed them but 2d. for breakfast. It was their duty to see that these poor chaps got value for their money. The Council did not intend to make a profit, nor would the ratepayers sustain a loss. If there was a slight profit at the end of the year, there was no reason why these poor men should not be given a Christmas dinner. He asked the House to endorse the unanimous decision of the Committee.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEsaid he would ask hon. Members to consider how
  98
  they would like to have to leave the House of Commons, purchase their own food, and then return and cook it. There was no question of municipal trading involved with the Clause. The Committee, fortified by the opinion of Sir Richard Farrant. who was managing director of the Artisans' Dwellings Company and Chairman of the Rowton houses—a gentleman of unique experience—unanimously came to the conclusion that it would be for the advantage of the administration of these houses and for the comfort of the lodgers that they should have an opportunity of getting what they required provided and cooked for them in the houses in which they lived. Mr. John Hunt, the town clerk of Westminster, gave similar evidence.
  Captain JESSELsaid that as the clause was now drawn there was no reason to fear that the Council would compete with the small shopkeeper. He therefore thought that the hon. Member would be well advised to withdraw his opposition. At the same time, he thought that the hon. Member for Battersea might make a concession in this matter by limiting the clause to these two particular lodging-houses. If the London County Council annexed a number of lodging-houses it would be a special danger in London, because, if men were housed so comfortably they would not get married, and that would be hard on the spinsters of the Metropolis.
  MR. LAWRENCEsaid that as a London ratepayer he would protest against the I withdrawal of the Amendment. He had I never heard a case advanced with fewer or weaker arguments. His hon. friend compared the lodging-houses with the; House of Commons. But hon. Members I did not make this House their home; and he did not, therefore, see the analogy. The hon. Member for Battersea said that the London County Council initiated these lodging-houses as model dwellings; but that work had happily been carried out by Lord Rowton. The London County Council did not know how far it might be carried. To his mind it was undesirable that the Council should enter into competition with private enterprise in this matter. Neither did

  99
  he think that it would add to the dignity of the Council; and he wished to protest against the extension of the principle.
  Dr. AMBROSEsaid that after the explanation of the hon. Member for Battersea he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill to be read the third time.

LICENSING BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee).
[Mr. J. W. Lowther (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 1:—
Amendment again proposed—
"In page 1, line 7, to leave out the words 'unsuitable, or.'"—(Mr. H. U. Greene.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'unsuitable' stand part of the clause."
MR. H. D. GREENEsaid he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment. It was, however, patent that there was great ambiguity in the words he desired to omit. The hon. and learned Member for Dumfries Burghs and the hon. and learned Member for South Leeds had disagreed as to their effect. The hon. and learned Member for South Leeds contended that the magistrates would be entitled under the words to refuse the renewal of a licence if the furniture was bad or insufficient or if the house stood at a corner or near a church or was removed from police supervision. If the hon. and learned Member were right, the Committee had wasted a great deal of time in discussing a previous Amendment with reference to remoteness from police supervision. The Government would vote against his Amendment for one reason; the Opposition would vote against it for another reason; and as there would, therefore, be certain to be a majority against it, he would ask leave to withdraw it.
MR. AINSWORTHsaid he thought it would be very desirable if the Amendment were accepted, as it would have the effect of not only improving the houses, but also the character of the business carried on within them. When the structure of a house
100
was improved, the character of the business was also improved. He would appeal to hon. Gentlemen who were interested in the trade. Was not their great object to advance the cause of temperance and to raise the trade to the highest possible level? Therefore, they ought to seek every opportunity to improve the structure of licensed houses. He would appeal to the Home Secretary to accept the Amendment.
MR. BOUSFIELDsaid it might save time if his Amendment were taken next.
The CHAIRMAN: There are eight Amendments before that of the hon. Gentleman.
MR. WHITLEY.said he would be quite willing to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot pick and choose between Amendments. I will call on hon. Gentlemen in the order in which the Amendments appear. Mr. Whitley.
MR. WHITLEYsaid his Amendment was to insert after "unsuitable" the words "or of insufficient value." He moved it in order to ascertain whether the Bill would continue or destroy the existing law with regard to qualification in the form of rateable value. It had been suggested to him that unless these words were inserted, the law with regard to rateable value would cease to operate. All he desired was that existing legislation in this respect should not be cancelled by the Bill. It was very undesirable that houses of low rateable value should be licensed. He would ask the Solicitor-General to give the Committee his views on the matter.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 7, after the word "unsuitable,' to insert the words ' or of insufficient value.'"—(Mr. Whitley)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
The SECRETARY of STATE foe the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Akers Douglas (Kent,thought there was no necessity for the Amendment. Section 44 of the Act of 1872 provided

101
that a licence granted in respect of premises not of the required value was void, and he was satisfied that the Bill did not affect the powers which the hon. Member desired to preserve.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid that the Committee must, of course, accept the statement of the Home Secretary. Insufficiency of value was a ground for objecting to a renewal; and he agreed that that disqualification was not abolished by the Bill. But what would happen would be that the decision as to qualification would be remitted to quarter sessions, and would no longer remain with the licensing justices.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid that the licence-holder would apply to the brewster sessions, and if the brewster sessions found that the premises were not of the required qualification then the licence would be refused; but the applicant might appeal to quarter sessions. They wanted to make the matter perfectly clear; but if they inserted one disqualification and omitted others it would leave room for argument afterwards. Section 44 of the Act of 1872 would not be interfered with. He would, however, undertake to insert in line 9 after "licence" the words "or on the ground that the renewal would be void."
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he was not sure that the arrangement in regard to quarter sessions was at all wise. Before the Act of 1872 no qualification was necessary; and there was now no reason why the exemptions in the Act of 1872 should be continued. He thought the words suggested by the Solicitor-General would be a lvisable.
MR. ASQUITH: I understand the right hon. Gentleman will introduce the words.
SIR EDWARD CARSON: Yes, Sir.
MR. WHITLEYsaid that, on that understanding he would withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. BOUSFIELD,believing that it was of the utmost importance to preserve if they could the present disciplinary powers of the magistrates in their full
102
force, moved the insertion after "unsuitable" of the following words—" or that the licensee refuses or has wilfully neglected to comply with any reasonable requirement of the justices." The magistrates at present had power to ask an applicant for a pledge that any practice which they considered undesirable, such as the negotiating of sailors' advance notes, should be discontinued, and if the request was not acceded to they might, at the next licensing sessions, on consideration of all the facts, refuse the renewal of the licence. It was very desirable that that power should be preserved, and the first part of the Amendment would apply to a refusal to comply with such a demand when the application was first made. The second part would come into force if an applicant promised to comply with the requirement and failed to carry out his undertaking. The object of the Amendment was simply to preserve intact the disciplinary powers of the magistrates. It was impossible to catalogue all the cases in which magistrates in the exercise of their discretion might make some requisition upon applicants for licences; the only way in which the object could be attained was by the insertion of general words such as he proposed. It might possibly be urged that "reasonable requirements" was a vague term, but the word "reasonable" was very familiar to lawyers, and in practice little difficulty arose as to its construction. Magistrates and Judges were reasonable men, and it would be a fairly easy task for them to decide whether or not a particular requirement was reasonable. Personally he would be prepared to trust entirely to their discretion, but, if the Committee were not prepared to go so far as that, the matter might be allowed to go to the High Court on a special case. It had been urged that to bring cases of refusal to comply into the category of licences which might be refused without compensation was too severe a penalty, but that was really where the matter stood at present. The reason the penalty never became operative was simply that the fear of its operation secured the fulfilment of the requirements. It did not at all follow that because the matter was left to the magistrates there would not be compensation. A discretion in such cases might

103
be left to quarter sessions, on appeal, to grant compensation. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 7, after the word 'unsuitable' to insert the words 'or that the licensee refuses or has wilfully neglected to comply with any reasonable requirements of the justices.'"—(Mr. Bousfield.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid this was practically the same point which the Committee had discussed in the afternoon, although the words were different, and he would not repeat his speeches showing that where the circumstances were such that the magistrates ought to retain discretionary power they could do so by virtue of the provision that the premises must be well conducted. If the words now proposed were accepted the magistrates would have the power of getting rid of the obligation to compensate. They might arbitrarily require the licence-holders to close their houses at certain hours or on certain days, and who was to say afterwards that any requirement of theirs was unreasonable? Was the Committee prepared to say that a licensee should be deprived of all benefit from the insurance fund to which he had been contributing simply because the magistrates did not approve, for instance, of the tied-house system, and required a licensee to terminate certain agreements? As to the suggested appeal not only to quarter sessions, but to the High Court, he submitted that it was hardly possible to bring up the matter not on questions of law, but on questions of fact, before the High Court.
MR. BOUSFIELDsaid he did not suggest it would be necessary; he simply said that might be done as a safeguard.
SIR EDWARD CARSONthought the bon. Member must have believed there was some necessity for it or he would not have mentioned it. Moreover, there was nothing in the Amendment about a qualified discretion to give compensation on the part of quarter sessions, and he could not see how the hon. and learned Member would propose to set it up, or the extent to which the discretion should be given. He really thought the matter had been discussed at sufficient length, and
104
that it was the same question as had been divided upon earlier in the evening.
SIR ROBERT REIDagreed with the Solicitor-General that the subject-matter of the Amendment in one form or another had been for a considerable time before the Committee, but they had not yet come to a definite understanding with regard to what ought to be done. The Solicitor General had stated that it was no part of the intention of the Government to diminish the primary jurisdiction of the justices, but it had been shown that in three different matters it would be diminished, and these words effected this—that local justices might continue to refuse renewal, where there had been a refusal to carry out reasonable requirements. That was not provided by the Bill as it stood. He was unable to follow the Solicitor-General in his view as to "reasonable requirements." The right hon. and learned Member was doubtless aware of cases in which there had been ties or relationship between the employer and the manager of a tied house which were contrary to public policy or interest. All tied houses were not bad, but some were, and in certain cases conditions that were inadvisable existed. In such cases the magistrates were able to say that, unless those conditions were altered, they would refuse the licence on the next application, and in that way they were able to exercise their disciplinary powers to prevent abuses of the relations between the tenant and the owner of a tied house. He thought the Solicitor-General would agree that such a case would not, under the Bill, come within the discretion of the magistrates without compensation.
SIR EDWARD CARSON: Not without compensation.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid it was within the power of the justices at present, and he had understood from the right hon. Gentleman that all such power was to be retained.
SIR EDWARD CARSON: Disciplinary power as regards the conduct of the house.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid that that was not what he understood the Solicitor-General to say before. At any rate, the direct result of the clause would be to

105
withdraw from the magistrates a power which they had hitherto been able to exercise in the interests of public order and utility. Why should that power be withdrawn? It had nothing whatever to do with compensation. The insertion of the words "and lawful" would meet the case suggested by the Solicitor General of acquirement to close a public-house between certain hours.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid the question was really whether local magistrates should be allowed, without Parliamentary or other sanction, to create a body of local laws for themselves. If justices on public grounds proposed to create what was really a new local law, he submitted that a licensee who refused to agree to the proposition was really in the position of having his licence withdrawn on public grounds, and was therefore entitled to compensation. If, however, the licensee had given an undertaking to comply with certain requirements and had omitted to carry out that undertaking it would be a different matter; it might then be a question of misconduct. That was a distinction the hon. and learned Member had failed to make.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the mischief created by the Bill was that in future no undertakings would be given by the publican because he would know that he might refuse to give an undertaking and yet receive full compensation. The Solicitor-General had admitted that the magistrates now could ask for compliance with reasonable requirements from the licensee, and that if he refused they could withhold the licence. In future, under the Bill as it stood, they could not do so. All that this Amendment asked was that the power of the magistrate should be preserved. If the Government refused to do that, they would make it clear that not on one point only but on several points they were filing down the power of the magistrates and increasing that of the licensee, thus making the property more valuable. Amendments of the kind now proposed could have been introduced perfectly consistently with the principle of compensation, and he was at a loss to understand the objection to the words now proposed. The Solicitor-General had instanced demands that were perfectly illegal. Public-houses were compelled by
106
Act of Parliament to be open within certain hours.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The law does not say that.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsubmitted that licence-holders were compelled to give refreshment to any wayfarer who might knock at their doors between certain hours, and no bench of magistrates would dream of making a requirement contrary to Act of Parliament.
SIR J. STIRLING - MAXWELLsupported the Amendment, which he regarded as one of first-class importance. The speech of the Solicitor - General showed that he had very little faith in his licensing authorities, as he was unwilling to trust them with any discretion whatever. In the discussion on the Scottish Licensing Bill the Committee asked the Secretary for Scotland to put in powers which would enable the licensing authorities to do legally what they had hitherto done illegally—make requirements to which licensees had to agree before they could be assured that their licences would be renewed. That policy had been carried on in Scotland with the best results. The Secretary for Scotland declined to put such powers into his Bill. He and his friends regretted it; but the Committee must remember that the Secretary for Scotland left what was much more important—the discretion of the magistrates to take away licences when they liked without any special reason. If the whip-hand was left to the magistrates there would be no need to give them power to make special rules, but if the whip-hand was taken away from the magistrates, as it was by this Bill, he thought they ought to be given power to make such rules as they thought necessary when they gave licences. The rules would have no sanction at all unless disregard of them involved the loss of the licence without compensation. The mere fact that the licence could be withdrawn with compensation would carry no weight whatever, because the publicans would have only to combine to resist the rules and the compensation fund would not be sufficiently deep to allow the authorities to withdraw all the licences involved. He hoped that the Government would reconsider the question.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid his hon. friend had unwittingly given an erroneous impression of the attitude taken up by the Government on the Scottish measure. His hon. friend appeared to think that the view taken by the Scottish Office at that time was that there should be an unlimited discretion given to magistrates to place such conditions upon the licence-holder as they might happen to think reasonable. That was the Amendment, but it was not the Scottish Bill. The Government had never denied that they regarded the present Bill as a great measure, first for diminishing the number of licences without hardship, and, secondly, as being likely to improve the conduct and character of the public-houses that remained by giving some kind of reasonable security to the licence-holder. Those were the two objects of the Bill, which they had never for a moment disguised from the House. How would the second of those objects be affected by this Amendment, which contradicted the Scottish measure on a fundamental point? Suppose there was a cranky bench of magistrates "Oh" — was that an incredible supposition? [An Hon. MEMBER: We have a cranky Government.] That might be so, but there were remedies against the errors of a cranky Government. That question, however, seemed to him to be somewhat outside the scope of the Amendment they were now discussing. Take the case of a cranky Bench. Such things had been known. It was really unreasonable to say that a man should lose all security in his holding when the magistrates had gone outside the law, except such security as might be got on appeal to a less cranky Court. This Bill left the offences of the licence-holder exactly where they were; it might or might not be for the public good that additional conditions should be added to the many conditions that now bound him, but that was outside this Bill, and was surely not a matter to be left to the unfettered discretion of the magistrates. They did not want in one district of the county one set of conditions and in the neighbouring county another set of conditions, because in that case the licence-holders would hold their licences under an entirely different tenure. He could not believe that such
108
a state of things would be either good sense or good legislation. By all means let such restrictions be placed upon licence-holders as were necessary in the public interest, but they should not allow benches of magistrates in one district I to have an entirely different set of conditions from those which applied to their neighbours probably in the same county.
The Committee should remember what; it was doing. They were saying to the licence-holder that his licence was held not upon conditions laid down by the House of Commons, and not even on conditions considered by this House or by any Department responsible to this House, but upon conditions; laid down by three or four gentlemen who were directly responsible to nobody, and with regard to whose decisions the only check was an appeal to a legal tribunal. One of the reasons ' why they were bringing in this Bill was that the security given by the existing system was inimical both in the interests of temperance and in the interests of justice. That might be an erroneous view, but it was the view of the Government, and it was surely unreasonable to ask them in this connection to run counter to the general principles upon which they had framed the Bill. The House ought either to lay down the actual conditions which constituted ill-conduct, or they ought to leave it. under broad safe-guards, to some Department of the Government to lay down; but to leave t it to individual Benches would, he thought, produce very great hardships. He was perfectly prepared to give the subject his very best consideration, as his hon. and learned friend desired; but no argument had, in his opinion, been advanced which would justify the proposition that they should leave it absolutely to the magistrates to decide what was a reasonable and what was an unreasonable condition, and to make it a penalty of violating that reasonable condition that the man who thus violated it should lose his whole property without compensation. They wanted to remedy such injustice as was attached to that case. He wished particularly to ask the consideration of lion. Members to the fact that they were compelling every licence-holder, whether he liked it or not, to contribute to the insurance fund.
MR. EMMOTT: Is that in the Bill?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Certainly it is.
MR. EMMOTT: But there is no compulsion.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that if the hon. Member would look at the schedule he would see that the licence-holders were compelled to pay the licence duty.
MR. EMMOTT: It says that they "may" be compelled by quarter sessions.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the licence-holder was compelled to insure his property. It seemed to him that, having regard to the fact that they compelled every licence-holder, whether he liked it or not, to contribute to the insurance fund, the introduction of the words "ill-conducted" gave ample scope to the magistracy to carry out the duties imposed on them, and he did not think they ought, unnecessarily and arbitrarily, to throw uncertainty into the whole procedure by adding words such as those of his hon. and learned friend. He granted that there were arguments to be used on the other side, but he ventured to suggest to the House, looking to the broad principle of the Bill, that the policy of the Government was based upon equitable considerations, and upon this question he was quite unable to alter the opinion which he had expressed to the House.
MR. WHITTAKERsubmitted that there were cases where it was obviously desirable that the Bench should be able to impose conditions not provided by law, and that they should be enabled to enforce them. There was the case of boarding-houses in seaside resorts to which licences were granted on the understanding that only those persons bona-fide living and boarding in the place should be supplied with drink. If the licence-holders persisted in disregarding that engagement by supplying anybody who liked to go into the place, he submitted that that would be a violation of the condition of the undertaking, and there ought not to be compensation, though under this Bill there would be compensation. There was also the case of hotels where an engagement was entered
110
into that there should be no public bar with a door opening on to the street. Supposing there were frequent transfers and the magistrates found out that the licensed house was a man-trap; the house was doing little business, but it was used to get goodwill out of tenant after tenant. Under the Bill as it now stood if a licence were refused to such a house the owners would be compensated.
AN HON. MEMBER: How much would they be paid?
MR. WHITTAKER: They would go into Court and show how much goodwill had been paid and get their compensation money on that basis. He was told only recently, by the chairman of a licensing bench that at the last brewster sessions they refused a number of licences where there had been frequent transfers, and at the time of the refusal to renew there were three persons who had been tenants of those houses in the workhouse and another had committed suicide. If houses of that kind had their licences refused the owners ought not to receive compensation. There was a case, recently, of a woman who had been so badly treated as the tenant of a licensed house that the magistrates transferred the licence to neighbouring premises in order that she might carry on the business in which she had been disturbed. That was a case in which the original licence-holder would have to be compensated under this Bill. The Solicitor-General now argued as if the magistrates were going to be eager to refuse compensation. At an earlier stage the argument of the Government had been that unless the justices were allowed to give compensation they would not reduce licences. He asked that some confidence should be reposed in the common sense of the magistrates and in their sense of justice. It was not treating them fairly to talk of "cranky Benches." That bore too much resemblance to the language addressed to the brewers when they waited upon the Prime Minister.
MR. ROBSONsaid the object of this Bill was to give compensation in cases where a publican lost his licence through no fault of his own, or because the house was not needed. It was never intended that there should be any restriction placed upon the power the

111
magistrates at present possessed, or that there should be any loss of the control of magistrates over the business. There had grown up a practice on the part of the benches of magistrates to demand certain conditions upon the granting of licences. A very good illustration of the power they claimed to exercise was what was done in Liverpool. There the magistrates stipulated that there should be no liquor sold to children under a certain age, and in the case of barmaids and in other directions they were able to exercise a valuable disciplinary authority over the owners of licences. Was it intended by the Government to lessen this power on the part of the magistrates? There was no ground for the contention that the Amendment was an endeavour to revolutionisethe law. The intention was only to alter the law in a specific particular. The Government declared that the Bill left the disciplinary powers of the magistrates untouched, yet it really deprived them of the only authority by which they could enforce those powers. That was, indeed, the feature of the Bill. It was no longer a Bill to establish compensation. It was a Bill to limit the powers exercised by magistrates. And the Prime Minister revealed the state of his mind very clearly in his reference to "cranky Benches." This was a Bill not only to protect the publican from the loss of his licence but also to protect him against "cranky magistrates; "that was a very serious extension of the scope of the Bill. What was meant by this phrase "cranky magistrates," except magistrates exercising their discretion in a way which the Prime Minister did not like? The matter was in the discretion of the magistrates, but because the Prime Minister thought it might be "crankily" exercised it was to be destroyed; and the publican was to be put beyond the reach of the magistrates even though they might impose upon him reasonable requirements. He thought the Prime Minister was giving an interpretation of reasonable requirements which was not according to law. The Amendment would only enable the magistrates to put upon the tenant requirements which were reasonable. A suggestion had been made that they should add to the word "reasonable" "and lawful." With the addition of these
112
I words there would be no ground for the fears of the Prime Minister. But in the absence of such an Amendment there was a dangerous extension of the scope of the Bill.
SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE(Huddersfield)said that speaking as one who had had a long experience in the administration of the licensing laws he considered that an Amendment of this kind was necessary. He did not agree that the magistrates at the present time possessed the power which these words would give. Magistrates had constantly desired to grant limited licences such as those which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Spen Valley but there was no power under the Licensing Acts to grant limited licences.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: But there will be that power under this Act.
SIR JAMES WOODHOUSEsaid he was afraid that the Prime Minister did not I realise the effect of this Bill. In many large towns there was frequently a desire among those who kept restaurants and luncheon-rooms that intoxicating liquors should be sold to persons taking food or other refreshments, but the law allowed no limited licence to admit of this. A custom, however, had been followed of granting a licence upon the licensee giving an undertaking not to use it in the ordinary public-house manner. In such circumstances a bench of justices granted a licence, but after four or five years the applicant sold his licence to a brewer, and the new holder turned the premises into a regular public-house. The Bench with which he was connected granted a licence of this character, and the applicant sold it for a large sum of money to the brewers, and although that licence was granted purely for restaurant purposes it was turned into the full public-house licence.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: But that is misconduct.
SIR JAMES WOODHOUSEsaid that was not so, because the licensee came up for a renewal of his licence, and the magistrates, holding that there had been a breach of the understanding upon which the licence was originally granted, refused to renew the licence. The then licensee, however, appealed to quarter

113
sessions, and they said, "We have nothing to do with any conditions imposed by the city justices; all we know is that a licence was granted, and, as no misconduct has been proved, and the premises have not been ill-conducted, we shall grant this renewal." That very licence to-day was a full public - house
licence. He put it to the Committee that if the words of this Amendment were inserted it would facilitate the granting of these limited licences.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 146; Noes, 214. (Division List No. 184).

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Hayden, John Patrick

Perks, Robert William

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Allen, Charles P.

Helme, Norval Watson

Rea, Russell

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Reddy, M.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Reid, Sir R.Threshie (Dumfries

Atherley-Jones, L.

Hobhouse.Rt. HnH. (Somers't.E

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Robson, William Snowdon

Bell, Richard

Horniman, Frederick John

Roche, John

Bonn, John Williams

Hutchinson, Dr Charles Fredk.

Runciman, Walter

Black, Alexander Williams

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Russell, T. W.

Boland, John

Jacoby, James Alfred

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Brigg, John

Joicey, Sir James

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Broadhurst, Henry

Jones, William( Carnarvonshire

Seely, Maj.J.E.B.(Isleof Wight)

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Jordan, Jeremiah

Shackleton, David James

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Joyce, Michael

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Burt, Thomas

Kennedy,Vincent P.(Cavan,W.

Sheehy, David

Caldwell, James

Kilbride, Denis

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Kitson, Sir James

Slack, John Bamford

Cawley, Frederick

Lambert, George

Smith, HC(North'mb.Tyneside

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal.W.)

Soares, Ernest J.

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Spear, John Ward

Cremer, William Randal

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Crooks, William

Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Sullivan, Donal

Cullinan J.

Leng, Sir John

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Ha vies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Leveson-Gower, FrederickN.S.

Taylor, Thedore C. (Radcliffe)

Delany, William

Levy, Maurice

Tennant, Harold John

Denny, Colonel

Lewis, John Herbert

Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

Dobbie, Joseph

Lloyd-George, David

Tomkinson, James

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Lough, Thomas

Toulmin, George

Duncan, J. Hastings

Lundon, W.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Edwards, Frank

Lyell, Charles Henry

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Walton, JohnLawson(Leeds,S.)

Emmott, Alfred

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Warner, Thomas CourtenayT.

Fenwick, Charles

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Wason, JohnCathcart (Orkney)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

White, George (Norfolk)

Flynn, James Christopher

Markham, Arthur Basil

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Mitchell,Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

Whitley, J, H. (Halifax)

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

Morpeth, Viscount

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Newnes, Sir George

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

Gorst, Rt.Hon. Sir John Eldon

Norman, Henry

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid)

Yoxall, James Henry

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Harcourt,Lewis V. (Rossendale)

Partington, Oswald

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Paulton, James Mellor

Bousfield and Sir James

Harwood, George

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Woodhouse.

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Bill, Charles

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Allhusen,AugustusHenry Eden

Balcarres, Lord

Bond, Edward

Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

Boscawen, Arthur Griffiths

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Balfour,RtHn.GeraldW.(Leeds

Brassey, Albert

Arnold-Foster, Rt.Hn.Hugh O.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Arrol, Sir William

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Bull, William James

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Butcher, John George

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Bignold, Arthur

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Cautley, Henry Strother

Heaton, John Henniker

Piatt-Higgins, Frederick

Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

Helder, Augustus

Plummer, Walter R.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Henderson,Sir A. (Stafford,W.)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Pryce-Jones, Lt.- Col. Edward

Chapman, Edward

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Pym, C. Guy

Charrington, Spencer

Hogg, Lindsay

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Coates, Edward Feetham

Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Rankin, Sir James

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

Howard, In. (Kent, Faversham

Rateliff, R. F.

Colomb, Rt.Hon.Sir John C. R.

Hozier,Hon.James Henry Cecil

Reid, James (Greenock)

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Remnant, James Farquharson

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Hunt, Rowland

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Robinson, Brooke

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim,S.

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Cream, Eugene

Jeffreys. Rt.Hon. Arthur Fred.

Rollit, Sir Albert Kayo

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Kenyon-Slaney, Col.W. (Salop.

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Keswick, William

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Davenport, William Bromley-

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Davies, SirHoratio D. (Chatham

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool)

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Lawson,JohnGrant(Yorks. N.R

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Dimsdale, Rt.Hon SirJoseph C.

Lee, ArthurH.( Hants, Fare ham

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Dixon-Hartland, SirFred Dixon

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Doogan, P. C.

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Doughty, George

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Long,Col.Charles W. (Evesham

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

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

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

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

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford,East)

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Lucas. Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Maclver, David (Liverpool)

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Fisher, William Hayes

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Stanley, Hon.Arthur (Ormskirk

Fison, Frederick William

M'Fadden, Edward

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Stock, James Henry

Fitzroy, Hon.EdwardAlgernon

Majendie, James A. H.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Flannery, Sir Forteseue

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Flower, Sir Ernest

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Thornton, Percy M.

Forster, Henry William

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Foster, Philip S.(Warwick,S.W.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Tuff, Charles

Galloway, William Johnson

Milner,Rt. Hon.Sir Frederick G.

Valentia, Viscount

Gardner, Ernest

Milvain, Thomas

Vincent,Col. Sir C.E.H.(Sheff'ld

Garfit, William

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Walker, Col. William Hall

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

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Walrond, Rt.Hn.Sir William.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Graham, Henry Robert

Morgan,David J. (Walthamstow

Webb, Colonel William George

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Morrell, George Herbert

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

Greene,SirE W.(B'rySEdm'nds

Morrison, James Archibald

Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne

Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

Mount, William Arthur

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Greene,W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Grenfell, William Henry

Murray,Rt.Hn.A Graham(Bute

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Groves, James Grimble

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Wortley,Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Nicholson, William Graham

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashford

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

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Young, Samuel

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich)

Pease,Herbert Pike( Darlington

TELLERS FOE THE NOES—Sir

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Percy, Earl

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

Pierpoint, Robert

Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.)

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

And, it being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR,in moving the adjournment of the House, said he
116
thought it would be courteous to the House that he should say that he had put down to-night on the Paper a Motion which he would propose on Friday for the purpose of hastening the proceedings on the Licensing Bill.
Adjourned at twelve minutes after Twelve o'clock.