HC Deb 21 July 1908 vol 192 cc1739-851

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee).

[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair].

On Clause 1—

MR. GRETTON (Rutland) moved an Amendment providing that the reduction of licensed houses should apply only to "any municipal borough or urban district having a population, according to the last Census, for the time being of over 10,000." He said the object of this Amendment was to secure that the reduction of licences should not apply to rural districts and those small urban districts usually associated with rural or agricultural parts of the country. No case had yet been made out, either on the Second Reading or in speeches in the House or outside it, for any wholesale reduction of licences in rural districts. So far as the Bill aimed at carrying out temperance reform by a reduction of licences, the arguments had been based on experience in large centres of population, great towns, and urban centres. They had heard such phrases as "low-class public-houses in slum areas," but it was impossible to find anything of that kind in the rural areas which the Amendment proposed to except. Public-houses in rural districts were very different from those in urban centres. The people who used them were generally of most humble circumstances; they receive as low a rate of wages as any class of persons employed in the country. The licensed house was their only meeting place after the day's work. They usually lived in small, houses, which did not contain accommodation for many persons to meet in a social circle. The local inn was the committee-room for all their meetings. Friendly societies held their lodges there, and the houses were the sole meeting places of those organisations which played so large a part in village life. Any wholesale reduction of licences in rural districts opened out a problem entirely different from that of reduction in great centres, and it would probably mean a great hardship to those who had few pleasures in life, and who used the public-house rationally. The Amendment might perhaps be opposed on the ground that there was excessive drinking in rural districts. He would not trouble the Committee with figures on that point, but the licensing statistics showed that in those counties which were chiefly rural there was no argument for the wholesale reduction of licences on the ground of excessive drunkenness. Then there was another class of consideration which he wished to advance, and that was the question of the wayside inn, which was a resting-place for the passing traveller. When the traffic on main roads was being opened up by cyclists, motor-cars, and touring vans, these inns became important. This class of inn was not to be dealt with by any scale of population. Its customers were wayfarers simply passing to and fro. There were many inns of that class; they were constantly under public supervision, and every passer-by could see what went on in them. Finally he would like to remind hon. Members opposite that the tied-house system which they so frequently condemned would be more difficult to get rid of or to modify if they reduced competition by greatly limiting the number of houses.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 8, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'in any municipal borough or urban district having a population according to the last Census for the time being of over ten thousand.' "—(Mr. Gretton.)

Question put, "That these words be there inserted."


The hon. Member has approached the question from the standpoint that if there is to be any compulsory reduction in the number of public-houses the more it is circumscribed the better. But I do not think he can seriously expect us to exclude from the operation of this Bill more than one-half of the licensing districts in the country. We hold that a gross excess in the number of licensed premises is no better a thing in the village than it is in the town. I would point out further that right hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they were proposing a reduction of licensed houses in 1904, made no distinction whatever between the case of rural districts and the case of towns, and as a matter of fact Quarter Sessions have put that Act into operation as readily in the rural districts as they have in the towns.


In what proportion?


I cannot give the statistics offhand, but everyone acquainted with the working of that Act knows that Quarter Sessions, so far as the limited powers conferred by the Act and the limited sum placed at their disposal have allowed them, I have been active in weeding out redundant houses as much in the villages as in the towns. The Bill does not propose, as one would have supposed from the speech of the hon. Member opposite, to sweep away the whole of the public-houses in all the rural districts, but I the scale has been most carefully framed so as to allow for the case of the more scattered populations in rural districts. So far as the outlying houses are concerned, we have already provided in the Bill specifically for those cases. Last night the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham pointed out the extreme inconvenience which would be caused if outlying houses, situated on a high road far away from a village, were swept out of existence merely by the operation of the scale, but if those who have directed criticisms to the terms of the Bill had only given to it the careful study which we on our side have been obliged to give to it, they would have found time and again that their criticisms had been forestalled by the provisions of the Bill, and that they were in consequence wholly out of place. If the hon. Member has such faith in the discretion of the licensing justices, he cannot doubt for a moment that they would in such a case be prepared to make modifications in the scale, nor is there any doubt but that the Commission would permit such a modification. I will give one illustration, which shows not only the necessity of extending this part of the Bill to the rural districts, but also the need of making the reductions compulsory and not leaving the matter to the discretion of Quarter Sessions. I take the county of Huntingdonshire, which stands at the head of the counties which has the largest number of public-houses. It has one licensed house for every 105 of the population, or if you take the adult males, one public-house for about every twenty-five men. It also stands not low in the table of convictions for drunkenness. Under the Act of 1904 the Court of Quarter Sessions have only suppressed eight houses out of a total of 513, and they have recently intimated to the Home Office that they thought it unnecessary to make next year any levy for compensation purposes or to make any further reductions. Lastly, I would draw attention to one further consideration. If this proposal were accepted the effect would be that the rural districts would still be called upon to pay a compensation levy, while they would either not benefit at all or in a less degree from the compensation fund. The contributions would be paid by the rural districts and the towns would receive them.

*VISCOUNT HELMSLEY (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk)

thought that the Undersecretary had fallen into the same mistake as others, when he stated that the only reason adduced for the acceptance of this Amendment was that Members of the Opposition thought that reduction of licences was undesirable. He fell into the error of supposing that the reductions under this Bill and under the Act of 1904, when the matter was in the discretion of the justices, which discretion was now sought to be taken away, was the same. It was quite a different thing to say that no reductions were desirable and that reductions under this Bill were undesirable. If the Government maintained the principle that reductions to a fixed scale were necessary in the rural districts, it was for them to say that the scale of reductions under this Bill was the best scale. The Government must have at the back, of their mind some reason for saying why the fixed scale in the schedule of the Bill was a proper scale for the rural districts. Was it based upon the theory, which could be disputed from the licensing statistics, that the number of convictions for drunkenness had any direct relationship with the number of licences? Because, if so he would like to take the statistics of four groups into which the counties given in the licensing statistics could be divided. There were those that had under thirty houses to 10,000 of the population; those that had between thirty and forty; those that had between forty and fifty; and those that had over fifty. The suggestion that a comparison between two districts was not fair because the convictions for drunkenness might be due to the activity or otherwise of the police did not apply when four districts were compared, because in that case the activity or inactivity of the police was averaged between the four. In the first group, where there were under thirty houses per 10,000 of the population, the convictions for drunkenness were fifty-seven. In the group which had between thirty and forty houses, the convictions were thirty-six; between forty and fifty houses, the convictions were fifty; and in that which had over fifty houses, the convictions averaged 33.22. That went directly against the contention which must be at the root of this scheme, that a fixed scale could be laid down suitable to all districts irrespective of local conditions and needs. It was true to say that a superfluity of licensed houses in towns might do more harm than in the rural districts. In towns a public-house at every street corner might attract those who passed them, but in the rural districts, each public-house had its own clientele, and the man who went into one was not likely to frequent another to which he was unaccustomed to go. In the country also the habitual drunkard was known, and there was the double safeguard that the publican could refuse to serve anybody he knew to be an habitual drunkard. These were reasons why in the rural districts it was not necessary to reduce licences to a fixed scale, as it was held to be elsewhere. The Undersecretary had given the House to understand that he knew what the effect of the scale, would be in every parish of the country, that it had been carefully framed with regard to all local requirement. Then why were not the figures upon which it was obtained given to the House? That was most important. It was said last night that the public-houses in the villages could not be reduced to one because of the words in the schedule.


Need not be reduced.


did not think that anybody ever alleged that public- houses were to be reduced to one in every parish. He contended that, for all that appeared in the schedule, if a licensing bench was composed of Radical teetotallers who had no desire to drink themselves and wished to prevent others doing so, public-houses could be reduced to one in any parish. But parishes and villages were different things. He knew of parishes in the north of England which contained villages five or six miles apart, and, if the Bill passed in its present form, and the rural districts were not excluded from its operation, there was nothing to prevent a village being without a public-house at all, and the people having to walk long distances to obtain that harmless social enjoyment to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley referred last night. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.

MR. J. F. MASON (Windsor)

pointed out that the Under-Secretary had taken the county of Huntingdonshire as an illustration of the necessity of this Bill because the justices there had done nothing under the Act of 1904 to reduce the number of licences. He happened to live in what appeared to be the most sober county in England, Oxfordshire, and curiously enough, the number of licensed houses in Oxfordshire per 10,000 of the population were three times as many as in the county which had the greatest number of convictions for drunkenness. The Act of 1904 was constantly quoted in comparison with this Bill. That Act did reduce a large number of licences; but it was impossible for any Member of this House to prove that the reduction of licences under that Act had had any effect in checking intemperance. The Act of 1904, in so far as it prevented drinking by the reduction of the licences, had been just as ineffective as all Bills of this kind had ever been. The noble Lord had alluded to the injustice that was likely to arise in the ease of a parish with a sparsely distributed population. He lived at one end of a parish four miles long, and the bulk of the population lived in two small hamlets at the other end, each of which contained a public-house. It seemed to him that if the population of that parish necessitated a reduction of public-houses there would naturally be a demand on the part of the bulk of the inhabitants of the parish to retain their proportion of licensed houses, and to sacrifice the small hamlets four miles away at the other end of the parish. That was one of a large number of injustices or inconveniences which would be inflicted on all those people in the country districts.

MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.)

I should not have taken part in the debate if it had not been for the speech of the Under-Secretary, which was full of statements which I do not think he or his Department can justify. When he was challenged by one of my hon. friends behind me as to the figures on which his statement ought to have been based—I do not think it was so based—he was obliged to confess that he had no information which enabled him to make a positive statement on the subject. That is one of the difficulties with which we have been face to face, not only on this Bill, but on other Bills this session. The Government for the second or third time have brought forward legislation which ought to be justified by figures and Returns available in all quarters of the House. This Bill is assumed to be a wide-reaching Amendment of the Act of 1904, and during the debates many statements have been made in regard to the working of that Act—none more remarkable, I believe, none more unjustifiable, than that which has been made by the Under-Secretary. He has suggested that the Act of 1904, so far as it went, and he said it in a tone of cynical criticism, had done as much in the country as in the towns. I believe that statement is absolutely incorrect. I believe that the Under-Secretary will find if he prepares the necessary figures and Returns, that the operations of Quarter Sessions have been almost entirely in the towns and not in the rural counties; and in the vast majority of what are called rural villages, the number of public-houses is already so small that the operation of the Bill would be practically useless. The right hon. Member for Spen Valley shakes his head. I know he is a deservedly recognised authority on the subject of temperance and temperance legislation, but let me beg him to remember this, that other people live in and have knowledge of country villages, and I venture to say without fear of contradiction that, except in those villages where there are special characteristics, either in mining districts or where they are in the immediate neighbourhood of towns, the number of public-houses in our rural villages, in the vast majority of cases—in ninety-five out of 100 I believe—is regulated by consumption and demand, and the excess number is very limited. That after all is a matter of opinion. If the Member for Spen Valley and the Member for Westmoreland believe that statement to be incorrect, why do they not give the Government the information which they possess, and which would enable the Government to prepare a Return. That would be a complete answer? No such Return has been presented, and we are acting entirely upon guesswork. I frankly admit that my statement is based on my own experience. I know something of the South and West of England as the right hon. Member for Spen Valley and the hon. Member for Westmoreland know something of the North of England. We all of us travel about the country, and are enabled to form our own views. For myself, I believe that in the vast majority of country villages the Act of 1904 has not been required. A much more important statement was made by the Under Secretary, namely, that the Act of 1904 was somewhat limited in consequence of its powers and the amount of money available. What are the facts? If this Bill passes in its present form without any Amendment, what will be the difference? Under this Bill the necessary reduction of licences is to be made in fourteen years, and under the Act of 1904 the same reduction would be made in twenty-one years. Here again the Home Office, jointly on this occasion, shake their respective heads. Why, instead of shaking their heads or making affirmations, do they not give us the Returns? Calculations have been made by experts and recognised authorities, and the only way in which those calculations can be proved to be incorrect is by a statement produced by the Home Office giving figures which should be available to all Members and to the country at large. No such Return has been produced, and in the absence of any information we are justified in standing by the opinion which has been arrived at by competent experts who have followed the operation of the Act of 1904, and I hope the Government will challenge my statement if they can, though I believe they cannot, when I say that the Act of 1904 would effect the same reduction of licences in twenty-one years that this Bill is to effect in fourteen years. Indeed, I am not sure that I am not rather exaggerating the period which would be necessary under the Act of 1904, because, as a matter of fact, in the first year of that Act the operation was limited owing to the doubt on the part of Quarter Sessions and the local authorities as to the means at their disposal; but the operation was quickened in the second year and quickened still more in the third year which has just past. There is every reason to believe as time went on the operation of the Act in each year would have been increased in force and rapidity. If that is the case, even less than twenty-one years would have been occupied; but I will make the Government a present of two or three years, and will suppose that it took twenty-four years to bring about the reduction that it is said will be effected by this Bill in fourteen years. But that would be no justification for the allegation made by the Government against the Act of 1904 or against Quarter Sessions. So far as the Amendment is concerned, I believe that as a matter of justice and a matter of practice the carrying of it would not interfere in any way with the object the Government allege they have at heart, namely, the promotion of temperance and the reduction of temptation. At the same time, I am bound to say that in the interests of the rural districts themselves I should regret very much to see a distinction of this kind drawn between them in an Act of Parliament. I hope that my hon. friend who moved this Amendment, which has given rise to an extremely interesting debate, will not press it to a division, because if he does I for one could not support it. I think the distinction which he draws is an invidious one, although my hon. friend is perfectly justified in saying that in ninety nine cases out of 100 the operation of the Bill would be in the urban districts. The Government in making allegations against the action of Quarter Sessions, not as to their good faith or their honour, but in regard to the effect given to the Act of 1904, have not armed themselves with the information which they alone possess, and which alone would enable them to refute the statements which we have made, and which we believe to be just and accurate. It is information which ought to be given to the House, when, in the first place, the Government challenge the efficacy of an Act of Parliament, and, in the second place, allege that Quarter Sessions have failed to do the work they ought to have done.

*MR. TALBOT (Oxford University)

said he wished to say a few words in agreement with what his right hon. friend had expressed. It was to be regretted that when an Act of Parliament was so much criticised as the Act of 1904 had been during this discussion, they had not been able to obtain that information which, as the right hon. Gentleman had observed, the Government alone possessed. He did not wish to enlarge on his own personal experience, but knowing the difficulties which arose, and what was material to the consideration of this question, he desired to point out that his experience had not been small. He could conscientiously say that the Act of 1904 had been administered in the county in which he lived in a manner which had been attended by a very considerable reduction of licences, and that had been effected without any great friction amongst those who were affected. If that were so in Kent, why should it not be so in the rest of England; and if it were so in the rest of England, why should they not know of it? He could not understand the reason of the reticence of the Government in this matter; they all had the same object in view, namely, the encouragement of the real cause of temperance in the country. And he hoped that they all had at heart not to promote the cause of temperance at the risk of injustice to individuals. That had always been the line he had tried to follow in these matters, but he could not see very much of the latter principle in the proposals of the Government. The reduction of licences which had gone on so far had combined those two cardinal principles, and why should they not know what the working of the law had been? The Government must know it, and if they knew it why did they not tell the House? Personally, he could not support the Amendment, because he had himself gone on the principle of acting equally between town and country, and in the division of Kent where he lived they had reduced the number of redundant licences considerably in the rural districts. The crying need for reduction no doubt was in the congested urban districts In his own division, in the town of Chatham, there had been a notorious redundancy of licences Therefore he had exercised his influence to enforce a reduction in that place. But though he agreed that urban districts had the strongest claim, he did not think that they had the sole claim, and therefore he would not willingly limit the operation of this clause to urban districts.

*MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

said he would like to say a word or two [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh."]. Hon. Members opposite were not allowed to speak themselves, but their director had no power to prevent Members of the Opposition from speaking. He thought this Amendment was most useful to get some information from the Government if it possesses it or from any hon. Member opposite, as to the basis on which these calculations were made. It was difficult to get, and his view was that they had not got it, and never had it, and that their calculations as far as rural districts were concerned were made by rule of thumb. The difficulty was that in the census reports all the areas were given in statute acres. He had gone through every county in England to reduce statute acres into square miles, for another purpose, separating rural from urban districts, and the result was astonishing. There were forty-two counties the population in the rural districts of which were less than 200 per square mile, twelve counties with a population of less than 100 to the square mile, and three with less than fifty. The last case was comparable to a desert, but even in a desert people could become thirsty and they had to be fairly provided for. Take a large parish like Dartmoor, for instance, which had tens of thousands of acres. Under the Bill it would be entitled to two or three public-houses, and yet there were houses and hamlets scattered all over the area. Even if the public-house should be exactly in the middle, a poor labourer would have to walk above a mile there and a mile back to get his glass of beer, but if it should happen to be at the edge of the moor he would have to walk two miles or more each way. He wanted to point out this anomaly because it could be so easily altered. The figures were so astonishing that he could scarcely believe them, but he had submitted them to an expert who found them to be practically correct. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin spoke; of the Act of 1904, his statements were disputed, but in the three years ending January, 1908, there were 3,778 licences suppressed, or 1,259 per annum, and they were suppressed with judiciousness, the magistrates selecting undesirable public-houses, and as far as Birmingham was concerned it had acted admirably. They had suppressed, and were in the process of suppressing, when the Bill appeared and everything was stopped, all the public-houses which were supposed to be redundant or objectionable, and the compensation which came exclusively from the trade was given fairly. The, suppression under the Act was increasing, for in 1907 there were not 1,257 but 1,716 suppressed. But supposing it went on at the smaller rate, in fourteen years there would be hard upon 18,000 licences suppressed. The Prime Minister said that that was wholly inadequate, and he proposed in fourteen years to suppress 30,000.


The right hon. Gentleman is now discussing the total number of licences which are to be suppressed. This Amendment only raises the question whether the rural districts shall be left out of the Bill or not.


said he had said what he wanted to say on that subject. He only dwelt on it because his right hon. friend had spoken about it and his statements were understood to be disputed, and therefore he wished to quote the official figures to confirm what he had said.


asked leave to withdraw the Amendment. It had served a most useful purpose and had certainly made it clear that the Government had no basis on which they could justify the inclusion of rural districts. They had been requested to produce their reasons, but had not been able to do so.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. JAMES HOPE (Sheffield, Central) moved to amend the clause so as to direct the licensing justices to "adjust" instead of "reduce" the number of on-licences in their district. He said that the object of his Amendment was to confirm and give Parliamentary regulations to a very useful and common practice which prevailed amongst licensing authorities at present, namely, that a number of licences should be surrendered in one district as a condition of the grant of new licences. That procedure had conduced to temperance and had also the advantage of equalising the supply of the wants of the public. It the further advantage that a very large reduction of licences was possible without drawing upon the compensation fund. This was a practice that undoubtedly ought to be encouraged and extended. He quite admitted that the acceptance of the Amendment would involve certain further changes, and when they came to the schedule they would have to examine it with some care, because he did not wish that the effect of the Amendment should be in every case to force the justices to increase the licences up to the exact limit; therefore, they would have to have some more flexible limits, something akin to the zones in the Irish Land Act, within which a reduction or extension would be possible. All he wanted to ask in the acceptance of the Amendment was that the licensing authorities should survey the conditions of their districts as a whole, and see whether some new licence was fairly wanted in the interests of the community, and whether, without having recourse to the drastic provisions and limited compensation provided under the Bill as it stood, they could not at Once meet the legitimate wants of the public and at the same time secure a large reduction of houses by private arrangement. Personally, he would like to see conditions applied to new licences which would give them a new character different from the ordinary type of public-house, and assimilate them to cheap popular restaurants they saw on the Continent, into which a man would find no difficulty in taking his family.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 9, to leave out the word 'reduce' and to insert the word 'adjust.'"—(Mr. James Hope.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'reduce' stand part of the clause."


We cannot accept this Amendment. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman very carefully, and I understand he moves it with the intention in smile other part of the Bill of introducing other Amendments to fulfil some desire which he has in his mind. But looking at the actual words, if the Amendment was accepted the only obligation on the justices, as far as I can see, would be to adjust the number of licences between different parts of the district. As to whether the word "adjust" includes or excludes "reduce" I do not quite know, and the hon. Member has not explained. We are perfectly content, with the Bill as it stands, to reduce the licences to a certain proportion, and we cannot, therefore, accept the Amendment.

MR. F. E. SMITH (Liverpool, Walton)

said he was not sure that the right hon. Gentleman had completely grasped what his hon. friend's object was, though it was not very difficult to understand. What his hon. friend contemplated was that while the scheme of the Govern- ment might be applied in the case of the wards of a town, for instance, in which the number of licences was in excess of the number which the Government thought was the right number, their scheme possessed no flexbility at all so as to admit of its mitigation in wards in which the number of licences was less than the very limited number which the Government laid down. This was a serious question, which deserved more careful attention than the Government had yet attempted to give it. Let him give one or two illustrations of how this worked at present. In Birmingham, for Instance, the existing number of licensed premises was 1,365. The maximum allowed under the Bill was 745. The excess of licences, taking the wards in which there were excessive licences over the statutory allowance, was 736. This proposal was clearly one of substance. In Liverpool, at the present time, there were 1,844 on-licences, and the maximum allowance was 962. The excess of licences in certain wards amounted to 1,116 but there were in some wards 134 licences below the statutory scale. The result would be that in those districts in which licences fell below the scale the inhabitants would be denied even the number of licences fixed by the Government as the standard adequate for their necessities. The Committee was entitled to some explanation why those particular districts should not be allowed their full number of houses. To his mind, the real explanation was that the Government had not given the slightest attention to any figures upon which their case rested. He would listen with extreme interest to any explanation of the principle upon which this proposal was made.


The hon. and learned Member knows very well that the Government have given great consideration to this matter, and have only put forward their proposals after carefully considering the hardships that may be inflicted. Is not this a matter more properly arising on the question of the definition of areas? I am not sure whether the word "adjust" necessarily includes "reduce," and as it is undesirable to make the alteration suggested by the Amendment I suggest that the discussion should be deferred until we come to the question of areas.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)

The suggestion of the Prime Minister fails for this reason, that I do not know whether the Committee will have any opportunity of discussing areas. There are some big questions to be discussed on this clause before that point can be reached. I will not enter into a contest with the right hon. Gentleman as to what interpretation will be placed upon the word "adjust" by a Court of law, but it is quite clear that the word when ordinarily used by ordinary men means the power to move in either of two directions, up or down.


But not to alter the aggregate number.


The great boroughs of England are governed by a licensing authority, which is a committee of magistrates of the whole borough. They have to deal with the whole borough, but are only allowed to deal with it as divided into wards. They are indeed a central licensing authority for the whole borough, but are bound to treat it as divided into wards. In Birmingham, Liverpool, and Leeds the total number of licences may or may not be in excess of the number contemplated by the Government. I believe that in Leeds the number of public-houses is less than the statutory allowance, but the licensing authority of Leeds is not allowed to consider the borough as a whole, but only as divided up into wards. Therefore in those wards where the number is in excess of the allowance, they will be compelled by law to reduce the number of public-houses, but in those wards where there is a deficit they will not he allowed to increase the number.

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

Yes they will because they can grant new licences.


In a case where the number of licences falls short of the statutory allowance the licensing justices under Clause 4 have power to grant new licences, subject to the operation of Clause 2, which gives power by resolution to prohibit the granting of new licences. The licensing justices will have all the powers of the present justices in regard to the granting of new licences.


I ask that the licensing authority having control over a large borough area should treat it as a whole, and not in fragmentary fashion. That power cannot be given unless "adjust" is substituted for "reduce." If that is done the licensing authority for Leeds will be able to take the whole borough, and if they think it desirable they can, in conformity with the principles of the Government, reduce the number of licences to the exact proportion of the population. That may involve a slight transfer of licences from one district to another. That transfer is not allowed under the Bill, but it can be effected by means of the Amendment. The proposal ought to commend itself to the common-sense of the Committee, and in my view this is the proper place to deal with it.


The argument appears to me to be one for taking the larger instead of smaller areas. If we take Leeds, Birmingham, or Liverpool as a whole, and consider the problem of reduction with regard to the needs and conditions of the whole place, that is purely a question of area, and, therefore, ought to come up for decision when the word "area" is dealt with. We cannot deal with the matter apart from the question of area, nor can we grant more licences in the way of compensation unless the locality want them. It will be an impossible process to attempt to level up a ward by granting licences that are not wanted nor can we grant new licences in a ward where the justices will not grant new licences at all. The word "adjust" will not carry out the object which the hon. Member has in view. All that leads to the conclusion that the proper place for a discussion as to whether the area should be a large area or a small area will be when we deal with the Amendments relating to the proposal in the Bill with respect to area.


I do not think the right hon. Gentleman appreciates the point. There are two observations I wish to make. His last argument amounts to this. If in a ward, say of Leeds, there are fewer public-houses in proportion to the population than are contemplated by this scheme, you could not increase the number because they are not wanted. They may not be wanted in that locality, but they may be wanted in 1909 or 1910, and there would be no power for the justices to deal with areas which had been enlarged.


In 1910 an application would be made for a new licence for that particular ward in respect of the number of licences being below the statutory limit, and the justices would be entitled to grant it.


If there is to be a change it had better be done by the method proposed by the Amendment than by the method suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. There is another point which I think has escaped the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. I may be wrong, but I think I am not. He says that we should defer the discussion on this matter until we get to the question of area. I am afraid that the question of area has already been determined as regards the county by the division we had yesterday. The first line of the Bill says: "Licensing Justices shall…" And the justices were decided to be not Quarter Sessions but the justices of the licensing district. Are we to be at liberty at a later stage of the Bill, having decided that the licensing area is to be the area of the licensing district, to extend the area and say that the county is to be the area, carrying with that the necessary consequence that Quarter Sessions are to be the licensing authority? I confess I thought that was decided, and if it has been decided the only question that remains for us is: Are we in the exceptional cases in which the licensing authority does cover the whole county, as in the great county boroughs, there and there alone, to have it still open to us to decide on what principle the licensing authority is to act, and whether they are to have the whole area to deal with, and the whole of the licences within that area? We contend that the licensing authority should be able to deal with the whole of the licences as one entity—one unit—and to decide what is best for them. Although there is but one authority in Leeds, Liverpool, and Birmingham, they are not to take the districts as a whole in dealing with licences, but they are to take them ward by ward and consider how far the licences correspond with the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether we shall be at liberty, when the question of area comes up, to extend the area in a county district so that the authority for dealing with it shall be the one having authority over the county.


On the point of order, while undoubtedly we have decided that the licensing justices shall be the authority to perform the duty of reduction as imposed, anything that comes within the district of those licensing justices—anything which defines not in the sense of extension, but in the sense of limitation of the district of the licensing justices—would be in order, and therefore in all the cases put it would be perfectly competent and consistent with the decision at which the Committee has already arrived to give jurisdiction over the whole of the bounds.


Not in the counties.


Well, not in the counties. Nobody has put the counties as a serious case. I mean as regards the county boroughs. I submit it is perfectly clear that the question is still open.


Certainly if any Amendment were proposed to introduce an area which would involve Quarter Sessions settling the point instead of the licensing justices, I do not think we could discuss it. I think that point is settled. As regards what the Prime Minister has said, undoubtedly the question is still open as to whether the area should be the area proposed by the Bill or anything between that and the whole district for which the licensing justices are appointed. Therefore as regards the county boroughs the clause can still be amended to include the whole of the county borough instead of each ward Of the county borough.

MR. SEDDON (Lancashire, Newton)

said the mover of the Amendment had stated his intention very clearly. He had stated that he wished to give the licensing authority power to transfer certain licences to new districts which were growing. He (Mr. Seddon) totally objected to that proposal. What had been the experience under the Act of 1904? In many of the towns new districts were springing up. The working classes had gone to more respectable quarters, and in many parts of the country they had spent a lot of money in resisting the attempts of certain brewers to get licences in those places. The brewers had a number of licences where they were of no value and where they could not get tenants to remain in the houses, the population having left the districts. These brewers had gone like philanthropists to the licensing bench and said: "If you are prepared to give us new licences in certain districts we will give up licences in districts where they are really of no value to us." He would remind the hon. Member for the Walton division of Liverpool that there were two districts there where, he was happy to think, the owner of the land had used a right which ought to be in the hands of the people of the country. He sold a certain portion of land known as Parliament Field and Kensington Field, and it was in the lease that no public-house should be placed upon the estate. Was it the wish of the mover of the Amendment that licenses should be given up in localities where they had practically ceased to be profitable to the holders, and that those holders should be allowed to place public-houses in districts where they were not required and where they were not wanted by the inhabitants? Was the brewer to have the chance of making a bargain with the licensing bench in that manner and of planting public-houses in districts where they would be inimical to the best interests of the working classes? He understood the Prime Minister to say that the justices would operate in regard to wards and not over the whole district. He took it that in those wards if there was a redundancy of licences the justices would be able to use the powers conferred by this Bill to bring them down to the requirements of the wards. He was glad to say that there were working class districts where the number of public-houses was less than the number which might be allowed under the Bill, but they were sufficient for the requirements of the people who resided there. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who had talked about temperance wished to inflict on these people more public-houses than they wanted. He hoped the Government would resist the Amendment.

*MR. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston)

said they were all agreed that there was a very close connection between this question and the question of area. The Committee would have liked to discuss this upon a later Amendment, but having regard to the closure Resolution under which they were carrying on the discussion it was perfectly hopeless that they would ever get to that Amendment which came after the Amendment with regard to the term of years. That being so, would not the Prime Minister take this opportunity of saving what was his view about the question of area? It was clearly open for the Committee to discuss the question. Should the area be the licensing district, or the parish in counties and the ward in boroughs? The answer to that question would go far to solve the matter they were now discussing. If there was any probability that the Government would alter the Bill on that point and allow the justices of the district to apply the statutory scale to the district as a whole, then, of course, they might very well put an end to the discussion on this particular Amendment; but if no change was to be made it was illusory to ask the Committee to postpone the discussion until a time that might never arrive. He supposed it might be said that in every county and in every borough in the Kingdom there were some parishes and some wards where more than the statutory number and some cases where less than the number of licences had been given. He had figures showing that in London there was a large number of areas where the number of public-houses was below the statutory standard, while in many others the number was above the standard. There were many such cases throughout the country, and what was suggested was that the justices ought to have jurisdiction over the whole of their licensing area so that they might be able to say: "Here is a place where there are too many licensed houses, having regard to the statutory scale; and here is another place where there are too few, having regard to the needs and requirements of the population. We will transfer a licence from the place where it is not wanted to the place where it is required." What he and his friends desired was that the justices should have power not to suppress a redundant house to the great cost of the individual who owned it, but to move it to another house in the district. The Prime Minister had said that the people of the second area might not want it. If they did not want it, it would not be done. He did not believe that any bench of magistrates would seek to place a public-house where it was not wanted. Surely everybody knew that in these cases the usual course was that if a district wanted a licensed house the people presented a tremendous petition in its favour, and it was from the Bench that the opposition came in almost every case.




said it was from the Bench that the opposition came. [Cries of "No."] In his experience it was certainly true; it was either from the local Bench or from the confirming committee that the opposition came to the licences. There were many cases where the inhabitants wanted the house, but it was refused by the Bench. Suppose that they had a locality wanting a house, and the authorities were unwilling to grant a new licence on the terms of Increasing the total number of licences, why should they not have the power to transfer a house from a place where it was redundant to a place where it would not be so?


How is it to be done?


said it was done in some cases by removal—a very useful power for the justices to have; and it was done in other cases by the surrender of a licence in one district and the grant of a new licence in another place. The process was simple and easy. It met the needs of one place without doing gross injustice to the individual. He thought it would be for the public benefit that that particular power should be maintained, and it might be done under this Amendment with certain subsequent Amendments. At all events in one way or the other it should be left open to the licensing authorities, so to adjust the total number of, licences in their area, as to give effect to the scale laid down in the Bill. He did not understand why the Prime Minister should object to adjustment provided that after adjustment the total number conformed to and did not exceed the statutory requirements.


It is out of respect to my hon. and learned friend, whose knowledge of these matters is second to none, that I intervene now. The question at issue is that of area and area alone, and I suppose hon. Gentlemen opposite are anxious about this Amendment because they think the question of area will be excluded by the operation of the closure at a later stage. Using such knowledge of language as I possess I construe the word "adjust" as giving power to the justices to shift the distribution of the constituent elements among different areas. If the word "adjust" were substituted for the word "reduce," it would require the justices to retain the total number of licences at their present level. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] Whether that be so or not, I do not want to be drawn into the question of area at this stage. I am quite prepared at the proper time to give my reason why the Government have come to the conclusion, after much consideration, that the smaller area is better for the purposes of the Bill than the larger area. Although I have listened with an open mind, as I always do, I do not think that any argument has been used which has shaken my present strong conviction that the small area is preferable to the large area. Let me take a case. Area (a) and area (b) are sub-areas really because they are part of the licensing area. In area (b) there is admittedly an excess of licences above the statutory scale, and in area (a) there is a diminution of the number of the licences, but they do not reach the statutory limit. According to my hon. and learned friend the justices ought not to be allowed to reduce the number of licences in area (b) unless they correspondingly increase them in area (a). [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] Then what does "adjust" mean? What is adjustment, if it does not mean that there is no reason whatever for this Amendment?


said he did not mean that the justices should not be allowed to reduce the licences in area (a), but only that, if they thought there was a redundant licence in area (a) and a licence required in area (b) they should have power, if they thought fit, to transfer a licence from area (b) to area (a).


They can do that now. This Bill does not make the faintest difference in that respect.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (Worcestershire, E.)

Will you read your Bill? Look at Clause 22.


Clause 22 has nothing to do with the point. I am not dealing with the question of removal at all, or with anything connected with removal. I am dealing with this point: If it is shown in area (a), the area in which the number of licences does not come up to the statutory limit, that there is any real reason for a new licence, there is nothing whatever in this Bill to interfere with the existing powers of the justices to refuse or grant a new licence. I am quite sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not deny my proposition. There is not the faintest difficulty in the world in this Bill to provide for the legitimate requirements of that area. I do not want to argue the matter in a heated manner, but surely I am right in saying that the question is what is the area you are going to select? It is the area over which the statutory reduction shall be made; and, therefore, the proper and only appropriate time to consider that is when you are considering what the size of the area shall be.

SIR E. CARSON (Dublin University)

What we contend is that it would be fair if the adjoining neighbourhood does want a new licence, instead of allowing an application for a new licence to be made, and instead of allowing a monopoly value to be acquired, that you should give power to the magistrates if a licensed house is redundant in an adjoining area, if they think proper, instead of suppressing it to transfer it from (b) to (a). We do this because we think it would be, in the first place, an alleviation of the hardship you are inflicting by this Bill. It is not as the hon. Gentleman who spoke from below the gangway seemed to imagine, as if the licence removed was to be inflicted on the district against the will of the people. The will of the people will be considered in this case just as much as it would be in an application for a new licence. The whole difference will be that the magistrates will have the power of saying, in their discretion: "Instead of granting a new licence to a man who never had a licence before, we think it fair, instead of destroying the business of a man in the neighbourhood, to give him the right of carrying it on in a district where it is admittedly wanted." That seems to me to be on the whole a perfectly plain and just proposal; and why on earth it should be resisted I cannot understand, except it be that every effort is made at every stage of the Bill to act as unfairly as possible, both on the question of a tribunal and in every other way. The right hon. Gentleman quarrelled with the word "adjust." I do not think it is worth while to quarrel about a word of that kind. But the right hon. Gentleman goes on to say that the licences are to be "reduced" to a certain scale. "Adjust" is a perfectly proper word, and it would become perfectly plain if the Government wanted to do what is fair and right. There is no question of words in this matter, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.


said that the point which the hon. and learned Gentleman had raised was the power of removal of a licence that existed at the present time and was proposed to be taken away by Clause 22. The hon. and learned Gentleman wished to retain that power, but the time to discuss it was when they reached that clause. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to districts in which he said there were too few licences; that was fewer than was allowed under the maximum. But why were they too few? The justices bad power to grant new licences now if, in their judgment, there were too few. If they had not granted now licences it was because in their opinion the number of licences was already sufficient. The hon. and learned Member had said that there were less than the maximum allowed under the Bill, but that was because the maximum number was not required. What the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted was to increase them in that area. It was suggested by the Leader of the Opposition that the demands of a district might grow with the increase of population and that the district might require inure licences. But the licensing magistrates had still the power to grant them under the Act, subject to a vote of the people. The whole point came to one of removal. The right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University put the point of removal; but that power existed at the present time, although it was taken away by Clause 22, and it was on that clause that the question raised by the hon. and learned Member for Kingston should be discussed, not now. Another point was the question of area. Hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite wanted the total number of licences to be fixed over the whole of a large borough. That meant that while under the Bill as it now stood the number of houses would be reduced in congested areas, they would get over the necessity for reducing them in the congested areas because the smaller number in other areas would balance them. It was only a device to enable them to have a larger number of public-houses in the small areas.

MR. LYTTELTON (St. George's, Hanover Square)

I thought that my hon. friend the Member for Kingston had explained this proposal beyond the possibility of doubt, but the hon. Member who has just spoken does not appear to know now what the proposal is. I put aside the proposal that this ought to be discussed on Clause 22, because having gone so far it would be obviously absurd to sever the discussion that is now taking place and relegate this part to another stage. It is perfectly clear to my mind that the whole difficulty is between the granting of a new licence and the transferring of a licence.


And the removal.


And the removal. The argument adduced against that by hon. Members below the gangway as well as hon. Members opposite is that it is supposed that the licensing justices are to divest themselves of their discretion, and simply to take a licence where it is redundant and remove it into another district whether the people of that district like it or not. I say that that is a travesty of the whole position. Having a good deal of experience I say that no justices in the country would think of transferring a licence into a district where it was opposed by any considerable weight of opinion. That is a travesty of the present arrangement and a reflection on the discretion of the justices. I do not think such an instance could be found. Again, I think one hon. Member below the gangway was not very much in conformity with the true facts when he said that now and in the future where there was a large new district it was common to find a great body of opinion against the granting of new licences. That is not quite the fact. In cases where there is a new district there is almost always a unanimous opinion in favour of sufficient licences to accommodate the district. Where such is the case what could be more reasonable or more fair than that redundant licences should be transferred to places where they are needed? I know hon. Members opposite want opposed to this because they want to get the monopoly value of the new licences in these districts. When the old licences exist, when it is needful and equitable, having regard to all the circumstances of the area, and the magistrates and the district think the licence should be transferred, why should it not be? It seems to me once more in the light of this that what we are furthering is not a Bill for temperance reform, but a Bill for the acquisition of revenue. This question of removal has been discussed to-day as if it were a new point. Why, in Birmingham, year after year, under the guidance of Mr. Arthur Chamberlain, who is a great temperance advocate, this principle has been advocated—I do not know under what law, and I think it may have been illegal—and many licences have been transferred by consent of the brewers and the licensing authority where they were redundant. On the other hand, the total number of licences were reduced for the better administration of justice and the furtherance of temperance. The willingness of the Government to accept Amendments on this Bill, as the Prime Minister declared they would, is fairly measured and tested by their willingness to accept this most reasonable Amendment.

*MR. LANE-FOX (Yorkshire, W.R., Barkston Ash)

said he gathered from the speech of the right hon. Member for the Spen Valley division that it was his view that in places where the number of licences was below the standard the justices did not deem it necessary to add any, believing there was enough. That was not the fact. What happened was that when the justices found a large number of licences in one ward of a district, they were not willing to add to the number of licences in the neighbouring ward. The same thing occurred in rural districts. Surely it was possible that an adjustment could be made in such instances. Hon. Members opposite suggested that justices inflicted licences on places, but such statements should not be made unless proof were forthcoming. If the Government would only listen to the arguments addressed to them from the Opposition side of the House, their position would become very much easier than it was. Considerably less difficulty would arise, and considerably less hardship would be inflicted, if the system of removal, such as had been suggested, were adopted. They were told that this matter more properly arose on Clause 22, and that upon the consideration of that clause was the occasion to discuss it. But what guarantee had they that they would have any opportunity for discussing Clause 22 or for discussing the arrangements on the schedule? Ho would like to commend to the attention of the Prime Minister a few facts which he would mention. In Leeds there were eight wards with 270 licences, which, according to the scale of area and population of the Bill, would be entitled to 483. That was to say, that in these eight wards they would be entitled according to the schedule to over 200 licences more than they had at present. Take another Yorkshire town. In Hull there were ten wards with only seventy-four licences. According to the scale of the schedule those ten wards of Hull would be entitled to 330. He hoped the Government would take note of these figures and in due time tell the Committee what their proposals were.


wished to know whether it would be in order for him, in order to meet the objection of the Prime Minister on the question of interpretation, to move "or adjust" at the end of his former Amendment.


said that if leave were given to the hon. Member to withdraw his present Amendment he would be in order in moving the Amendment he suggested, but if, after it had been decided not to insert "adjust" for "reduce," he wanted to move it as an addition he could not conceive that the hon. Member could comment on it on any ground not now covered by the present Amendment and it would be out of order.


asked was it not conceivable that the Committee might require both.


did not think so.

*MR. BERTRAM (Hertfordshire, Hitchin)

said he found it quite impossible to agree with the Prime Minister and the Government in not accepting the Amendment. If the Amendment was accepted it would give opportunity for adjustment in such a case as the following. A borough, say, with a population of 10,000 and two wards would under the Bill be entitled to ten public-houses. It might easily be that the whole of the public-houses were in one ward, and the licensing justices would have to abolish five houses in that ward, so that only five would be left for the whole borough, which was 50 per cent. less than would be allowed under the schedule for the borough as a whole. One half of the borough would have no licences at all, and the borough as a whole would have five less than the statutory number. It seemed to him that if the Government scheme was one presented for the acceptance of reasonable men, and if it was part of the scheme that the monopoly value was not to be exacted for fourteen years, it was unreasonable to try and exact it as the Prime Minister suggested long before that time had elapsed.


suggested that the Amendment would not have been necessary if the area had been larger. The Prime Minister had told them that the Government had reasons for having the smaller area. It seemed to him that they could more properly discuss this Amendment if they knew what was the reason for adopting the smaller area, and unless they knew it they could not discuss the question. In view of the considerable number of Amendments put down, could the Prime Minister give them any guarantee that they would ever reach the question of the area?


It does not rest with me at all.


said there were a number of important Amendments down, and it seemed to him that in the natural course they were not likely to reach the question of area, and the Prime Minister ought certainly to state his reason for choosing the smaller area instead, of the larger. He should state it at once, if his reason was satisfactory, because it would sweep away the Amendment of his hon. friend; but they must press that Amendment, no reason having been given sufficient to satisfy them in the difficulty in which they found themselves. He suggested that the Prime Minister might adopt the words "reduce and adjust," not "reduce or adjust," which would be putting the two words in opposition to each other. The adoption of the words "reduce and adjust" would satisfy those who supported the Amendment. He submitted that this was the proper time at which to state the distinct reasons for taking the smaller area instead of the larger.

MR. MARKHAM (Nottinghamshire, Mansfield)

said he would like to call attention to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square. He could give an illustration bearing on this question, which had reference to a place in North-East Derbyshire, within five miles of where he lived. It was the village of Creswell, inhabited by a mining community. The colliery company had the ground rents of the tenants. The people of the village opposed having a licence; nevertheless, the magistrates had granted a licence for a house in their midst. He would like to hear what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, had to say in regard to the injustice of the magistrates in that district. He would take good care to let them know his views on that subject. With regard to this particular Amendment he thought there would be a great deal of difficulty in arriving at what its actual effect would be. He was connected with industrial companies in some districts, and he had always prevented, if he could, public-houses being established in them. Many landlords made it a condition that they would not have licensed premises where their property was situate. More especially was that the case in certain districts of Lancashire. As far as he was able to understand the position, if in Ward A there was a less number of licences than the Act admitted, and if in Ward B the number was in excess of the number allowed by the Act, then the effect would be that, as far as B. was concerned, the schedule would not operate at all, and there would be a redundancy of licences. Then they would allow the average to be taken over A and 13, and would thus still more increase the number of licences in B, if he correctly understood the Amendments. ["No, no."] As far as he had followed the speeches of hon. Members, he did not think they would take the licences and transfer them to A. They were not dealing with the question of the transfer of the licences at all. Therefore, if in Ward A the number of licences was below the number authorised by the Bill, and if in Ward B there was an excess, the effect, so far as he undertsood, would be that no reduction would take place in B, and it would be subject to local veto to decrease the number. But in many places, in his opinion, the people might increase the number under the scale. If, therefore, this Amendment was carried, they would be giving the people a power to increase the number of licences in particular districts. If the Amendment was adopted the value of the Bill, from his point of view, would disappear in the particular areas to which he referred.

MR. CHAPLIN (Surrey, Wimbledon)

said he was not aware that any hon. Member on that side of the House had suggested the course to which the hon. Member alluded. The appeal made to the Prime Minister, and the case made in support of that appeal, were abundantly clear from what had been said by hon. Members on that side of the House, namely, that in a place where a licence was redundant, it might with great advantage be transferred to another district where it was admittedly required. But the curious thing was that, although the case had been made so clear, not one word had been said in opposition to its merits. The Home Secretary, it was true, had stated some time ago that the Government could not accept the Amendment, but he had not given any reasons; and the Prime Minister had over and over again stated his objections to the proposal on this ground, namely, that the proper place for its discussion would be when they came to the question of the area. He admitted that the right hon. Gentleman had stated that he had good reasons to give when they reached that stage, but the Committee were apparently decided that they should have the question discussed at the present stage. Yet not one word had they had from Gentlemen on, the front bench opposite against the merits of the proposal contained in the Amendment of his hon. friend. The whole discussion would have to be taken over again when they reached another point. He thought the time had come when they had the right to hear the objections, not only to the merits of his hon. friend's proposal, but as to the time at which the Committee was asked to come to a decision. The case for his hon. friend's Amendment was all the stronger, it seemed to him, because of the fact that the same appeal had been made by hon. Members on the other side of the House in its support.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD (Liverpool, West Derby)

said he wished to put before the Committee a concrete case. He would take the city of Manchester. They would come to a main road which divided area A from area B. The facts of those too areas were exactly what the Prime Minister had pointed out, namely, that in area A there was an excess of public-houses over what would be allowed by the schedule. In area B, on the other hand, which was rather a newer neighbourhood, there was a very considerably less number of houses than the proportion which would be allowed by the schedule. If he understood the object of the Amendment, it was practically this, that if the magistrates so desired, they would have the power, if the Amendment was carried, to enable a man who had a licensed house on one side of the road, to put to them this proposition: "You propose to take my licence away on that side of the road, because it is in an area which has an excess number of licences. Very well, transfer that licence to the house exactly opposite, on the other side of the road, where it is in an area with a smaller number of licences than is allowed by the schedule." When that request was made, if they left the Bill as he understood the Prime Minister desired and insisted upon its remaining, the effect would be that the man would have his licence suppressed and taken away from him, and if he applied for a licence on the other side of the road in order to keep the customers who had used the old house for many years, he would be subject, in applying for the new licence in the other area, to all the difficulties of monopoly value, and all that kind of thing, while there was the other difficulty of the asking for the permission of the neighbourhood under the local option law. The case he had stated was a concrete instance, and he could give the Prime Minister the name of the street if necessary. It was an instance which was certain to arise under the working of the Bill when it became an Act, if ever it did, and when it arose there would be no question of the neighbourhood agreeing, because the neighbourhood had the licence there now; and it was exactly the same neighbourhood which would be affected, because the two premises which he had given as an illustration were exactly opposite each other, on the two sides of the road. There was no question of value arising, no question of the neighbourhood consenting; and, supposing the Prime Minister laid down, for the purposes of this extraordinarily worded Act, that they were bound to reduce the number of licences in a certain area, it would be simply a case of removing this business from one side of the road to the other. If they reduced the additional number of licences in Manchester—looking at the city as a whole—in accordance with the scheme of the schedule, they would reduce the total number by 33 per cent., but if they took this other method of doing it, and reduced each ward on that principle, and not in respect of the number of licences in wards at present below the scale, they would then decrease the total number of licences in Manchester by 63 per cent. That was a very important point. The question they were discussing on this Amendment was whether there was to be a reduction of 33 per cent., namely, by taking the average under the scale laid down by the Bill, or whether they were to bring about a reduction in cities like Manchester which would be very much in excess of that suggested in the schedule; was there, in fact, to be wholesale confiscation? That was what it practically came to if they reduced the licences in a city like Manchester by 63 per cent., leaving the number of licences in such a city very much less than the average for which the scale under the Bill provided. He ventured to submit that this was a most important point, and thoroughly deserving the time which was being spent upon it.

MR. W. E. HARVEY (Derbyshire, N.E.)

said he was acquainted with cases where the magistrates had gone against the will of the people, and in his division they had a case which was a direct negative of what the hon. Member for Kingston had said. A private company were erecting a model village and had laid it out in the interests of the people on the Duke of Portland's estate. The company itself opposed the licence, the people opposed it, and every progressive force in the village opposed it. They fought it before the magistrates, but the licence was granted. The people appealed to Quarter Sessions at their own cost, the company and the clergyman of the village supported them, and yet Quarter Sessions granted the licence. The Conservative agent at the last election was the solicitor on behalf of the opposition to the licence, and he was so disgusted with the transaction that he had come over to his platform. The company which got the licence was not afraid that the Bill was going to ruin the trade or they would not have been prepared to pay the £4,000 monopoly value at once on purpose to have the new house. It was evidence that the trade was not so much in danger as hon. Gentlemen opposite would have them believe. He appealed to the Prime Minister not to give way on this question. He represented the working man, and knew his aspirations, and was glad to realise that there were estates where a condition of the sale of the land was that there should be no public-houses.


The hon. Member is getting very wide of the question. So far as I have been able to listen to him, he has not said a single word about the Amendment.


said he knew a co-operative estate belonging entirely to working men which had not a single public-house upon it. Were they going to transfer licences there where the people did not want them? They were told there must be a discretion left to the magistrates, but the discretion of some magistrates was in the interest of the brewers, and in the interest of propagating the sale of intoxicating drink. He hoped they would have nothing in the shape of this Amendment, which might have the effect of giving licences where people did not want them. He looked upon that as a real danger.


I want to put this point before the Government. It happens at times that you have a ward which is almost wholly occupied by a residential population, of a class which does not use the public-house at all, but you have at the extremity of the ward a working class population. It may—and I think does—happen that the working-class population are at present served by public-houses over the borderland, and within the next ward. It may be, therefore, that you will have cases where, let us say in one ward, there is an excess of public-houses over the population, but not an excess accommodation for the inhabitants of the adjoining ward who use the public-houses. The Government have made an attempt to deal with the question in so far as the excess arises from the day population of the district being very much greater than the night population, and they have a modification in the schedule for dealing with seaside places which have excursionists in large numbers; but there is no provision for dealing with the case which I have mentioned, where the day and night populations are very much the same, but where the frequenters of the public-houses come, to a large extent, from a neighbouring ward. In that case, if you leave the Bill as it stands, you must reduce the public-houses in the overstocked wards, and if you want to provide accommodation for the men who have hitherto come across the boundary you must grant new licences in the other ward. Would it not be fairer and simpler to give the justices power to transfer or to remove the licence from the ward which is overcrowded to the place where the actual frequenters of these public-houses now live, viz., into the next ward just across the boundary? It seems to me that that is a particularly strong case, because what you are doing is not to make a new licence for a new trade, but to make a new licence for the old trade hitherto done by a particular house. If that is to be the case there is great hardship in closing that particular house under the terms of the Bill, with all the disabilities which are inflicted on the licence holder and the very inadequate compensation which he would receive, when you have to create a new licence to satisfy the needs of the district.

*MR. JOYNSON-HICKS (Manchester, N.W.)

stated that in north-west Manchester there were 405 on-licences, and under the scale of the Bill this would be 310 too many. The question was very clearly shown in two of the chief wards in Manchester, wards in which there was practically no drunkenness whatever, which had thirty-five licences. Under the scale of the Bill St. Ann's ward would be only entitled to one, because the population was mainly a day population. In St. James's ward, which had forty-five licences, they would be entitled to have only three. It was clear, under the modification clause in the schedule there was a possibility that some authority, not, he gathered, the local justices who knew the facts, might grant a modified scale in respect to these areas. The licensing justices of Manchester, who were not averse to taking away licences when they considered they were not needed, and who had during the last few years taken away a very considerable number, were far better able to decide what licences were needed for these particular wards and therefore were more enabled to adjust the number of licences between the different wards than any Commission under the scheme proposed in the schedule. This was an instance which clearly showed that the words "to reduce and adjust" would be far better than the word "reduce."


regarded this as a case in which the Opposition were asking rather too much and the Prime Minister was prepared to grant rather too little. It seemed to him that the Amendment as it was moved, with the subsequent Amendment, so that the numbers should conform to the schedule, was asking too much, because, as he understood it, the result of that would be that the justices would be bound to increase the number of licences in an area where they were not wanted, and the inhabitants would not be able to veto the introduction of licences by removal. He thought he was speaking for the great majority of Members on that side, temperance reformers and others who were moderate people, when he said they were not prepared to accept that. He would suggest to the Opposition that they should be prepared to accept the leaving out of that subsequent Amendment in accordance with a number of speeches which had been made from the opposite Benches. Then they would have this, that the justices might adjust the licences by removing them from one area to another, but that there would be no obligation upon them to increase the number, and the result of that would be that Section 22 would be left in the Bill, but in Section 2 they would have to add the power of the population in the area to veto the removal of licences as well as the grant of new licences.


I think we had better leave these details until we get further on in the Bill. The real point is whether we are to reduce or adjust.


regarded the Amendment an eminently fair and reasonable. The few Members on the benches behind the Government who had broken their silence did not appear to understand it; they were under the impression that someone wanted to give new licences where they were not needed. All that was asked for under the Amendment was that the magistrates should have power to remove licences to districts where under the Bill there would be power to establish new licences. Everyone in the House was

in favour of temperance reform and proposed that the reduction of licences should be brought about with a minimum loss to the owners. The position taken up by the Government was that they proposed to reduce the number of public-houses with a maximum of loss to those interested in the trade. If it was wrong to establish a new licence in another area it was equally wrong to transfer an old licence into a district where it was not wanted. Why was it proposed to establish new licences unless they were wanted? That seemed unreasonable and absurd unless the position taken up by the Government was that they wanted to carry out their policy without any regard to the pecuniary interests of those in the trade. That was the only inference to be drawn from their proposal. It was not suggested that they should impose a licence on any district which did not want it, because the magistrates had the same power to resist the removal of a licence as they had to grant a new licence. All they wanted to do was to put on an equal footing the removal of an old licence and the granting of a new one. In that way they would prevent that confiscation of existing licences which this Bill would bring about.


said that in order to make it clear that he wished to include reduction by using the word "adjust" he would ask the Government if they would allow him to withdraw his Amendment and add after the word "reduce" the words "and adjust" and take the division upon that.

Leave to withdraw the Amendment was refused.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 326; Noes, 127. (Division List, No. 207.)

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Atherley-Jones, L. Beauchamp, E.
Acland, Francis Dyke Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Beaumont, Hon. Hubert
Agnew, George William Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Bell, Richard
Ainsworth, John Stirling Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Bellairs, Carlyon
Alden, Percy Barker, John Benn,W.(T'w'r Hamlets,S.Geo.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) Berridge, T. H. D.
Armitage, R. Barnes, G. N. Bethell,Sir J.H.(Essex,Romf'rd
Asquith, Rt. Hn.Herbert Henry Barran, Rowland Hirst Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)
Astbury, John Meir Beale, W. P. Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine
Black, Arthur W. Gill, A. H. Macpherson, J. T.
Boulton, A. C. F. Gladstone,Rt. Hn. Herbert John M'Callum, John M.
Bowerman, C. W. Glendinning, R. G. M'Crae, Sir George
Brace, William Glover, Thomas M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Bramsdon, T. A. Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Branch, James Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) M'Micking, Major G.
Brigg, John Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Maddison, Frederick
Bright, J. A. Greenwood, Hamar (York) Mallet, Charles E.
Brooklehurst, W. B. Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Brodie, H. C. Griffith, Ellis J. Markham, Arthur Basil
Brooke, Stopford Gulland, John W. Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston)
Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh) Gurdon,RtHn.Sir W.Brampton Marnham, F. J.
Brunner,RtHnSirJ.T.(Cheshire Hall, Frederick Massie, J.
Bryce, J. Annan Harcourt,Rt.Hn.L.(Rossendale Masterman, C. F. G.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose) Meagher, Michael
Buxton, Rt.Hn.Sydney Charles Hardie,J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil) Menzies, Walter
Byles, William Pollard Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Micklem, Nathaniel
Cameron, Robert Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) Middlebrook, William
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Molteno, Percy Alport
Causton,Rt. Hn. RichardKnight Harvey, W.E. (Derbyshire,N.E. Mond, A.
Cawley, Sir Frederick Harwood, George Money, L. G. Chiozza
Chance, Frederick William Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Montagu, Hon. E. S.
Channing, Sir Francis Allston Haworth, Arthur A. Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Cheetham, John Frederick Hazel, Dr. A. E. Morrell, Philip
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. Helme, Norval Watson Morse, L. L.
Cleland, J. W. Hemmerde, Edward George Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Clough, William Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Murphy, John (Kerry, East)
Cobbold, Felix Thornley Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen,W.) Myer, Horatio
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Henry, Charles S. Napier, T. B.
Collins,SirWm. J.(S.Pancras,W Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor(Mon.S.) Nicholls, George
Compton-Rickett, Sir J. Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Nicholson,Charles N.(Doncast'r
Condon, Thomas Joseph Higham, John Sharp Norman, Sir Henry
Cooper, G. J. Hobart, Sir Robert Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Nuttall, Harry
Corbett,C H (Sussex, E.Grinst'd Hodge, John O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Holland, Sir William Henry O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Holt, Richard Durning O'Grady, J.
Cowan, W. H. Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Parker, James (Halifax)
Cox, Harold Horniman, Emslie John Partington, Oswald
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Crosfield, A. H. Hudson, Walter Pearson,W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)
Crossley, William J. Hutton, Alfred Eddison Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Dalziel, James Henry Hyde, Clarendon Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Davies, David(MontgomeryCo. Illingworth, Percy H. Pollard, Dr.
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Jacoby, Sir James Alfred Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan Jardine, Sir J. Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Johnson, John (Gateshead) Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)
Davies,Sir W.Howell(Bristol,S Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) Priestley,W.E.B. (Bradford,E.)
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Jones, Leif (Appleby) Radford, G. H.
Dickinson,W.H. (St.Pancras,N. Jones, William(Carnarvonshire. Rainy, A. Holland
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Jowett, F. W. Raphael, Herbert H.
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Joyce, Michael Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Donelan, Captain A. Kearley, Sir Hudson E. Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'
Duckworth, James Kekewich, Sir George Reddy, M.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Kilbride, Denis Redmond, William (Clare)
Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Rees, J. D.
Dunne,Major E Martin(Walsall Laidlaw, Robert Rendall, Athelstan.
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) Lamont, Norman Richardson, A.
Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward Lehmann, R. C. Ridsdale, E. A.
Erskine, David C. Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas Levy, Sir Maurice Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Essex, R. W. Lewis, John Herbert Roberts,Sir John H.(Denbighs.
Esslemont, George Birnie Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd
Evans, Sir Samuel T. Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Fenwick, Charles Lundon, W. Robinson, S.
Ferens, T. R. Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Forguson, R. C. Munro Lyell, Charles Henry Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Lynch, H. B. Roche, John (Galway, East)
Freeman-Thomas, Freeman Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Roe, Sir Thomas
Fuller, John Michael F. Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs Rogers, F. E. Newman
Fullerton, Hugh Mackarness, Frederic C. Rose, Charles Day
Gibb, James (Harrow) Maclean, Donald Rowlands, J.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter Strachey, Sir Edward Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)
Russell, T. W. Straus, B. S. (Mile End) Watt, Henry A.
Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) Stuart, James (Sunderland) Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Summerbell, T. Weir, James Galloway
Scarisbrick, T. T. L. Sutherland, J. E. White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Schwann,Sir C.E. (Manchester) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury Whitehead, Rowland
Sears, J. E. Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Seaverns, J. H. Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.) Whittaker,Rt.Hn.Sir Thomas P.
Seddon, J. Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr Wiles, Thomas
Seely, Colonel Thomasson, Franklin Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton Williamson, A.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) Tomkinson, James Wills, Arthur Walters
Shipman, Dr. John G. Torrance, Sir A. M. Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Silcock, Thomas Ball Toulmin, George Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John Trevelyan, Charles Philips Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Sloan, Thomas Henry Ure, Alexander Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh,N.)
Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Verney, F. W. Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Snowden, P. Villiers, Ernest Amherst Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Soames, Arthur Wellesley Vivian, Henry Winfrey, R.
Soares, Ernest J. Wadsworth, J. Wood, T. McKinnon
Spicer, Sir Albert Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) Yoxall, James Henry
Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) Walsh, Stephen
Stanley, Hn. A.Lyulph(Chesh.) Walton, Joseph TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.
Steadman, W. C. Ward,W. Dudley(Southampt'n
Stewart, Halley (Greenock) Wardle, George J.
Stowart-Smith, D. (Kendal) Wason,Rt.Hn.E(Clackmannan
Arkwright, John Stanhope Duncan,Robert(Lanark,Govan Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Ashley, W. W. Faber, George Denison (York) Mooney, J. J.
Balcarres, Lord Faber, Capt. W.V. (Hants, W. Morpeth, Viscount
Baldwin, Stanley Fardell, Sir T. George Morrison-Bell, Captain
Balfour,Rt.Hn.A.J.(CityLond. Fell, Arthur Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Forster, Henry William Nield, Herbert
Banner, John S. Harmood- Gardner, Ernest Nolan, Joseph
Barnard, E. B. Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Barry, H. T. (Londonderry, N. Goulding, Edward Alfred Oddy, John James
Beach, Hn. Michael HughHicks Gretton, John O'Dowd, John
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Guinness, Walter Edward O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. Hamilton, Marquess of Parker,SirGilbert(Gravesend)
Bertram, Julius Hardy,Laurence (Kent,Ashford Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington
Bignold, Sir Arthur Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Percy, Earl
Bowles, G. Stewart Hay, Hon. Claude George Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Bridgeman, W. Clive Heaton, John Henniker Rawlinson,John Frederick Peel
Brotherton, Edward Allen Helmsley, Viscount Remnant, James Farquharson
Burdett-Coutts, W. Hill, Sir Clement Renton, Leslie
Butcher, Samuel Henry Hills, J. W. Roberts,S.(Sheffield,Ecclesall
Carlile, E Hildred Hope, James Fitzalan(Sheffield) Ronaldshay, Earl of
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Houston, Robert Paterson Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Cave, George Hunt, Rowland Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Joynson-Hicks, William Salter, Arthur Clavell
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Kennaway, Rt. Hon Sir John H. Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E. Kerry, Earl of Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Chamberlain,Rt Hn.J.A.(Wore. Kimber, Sir Henry Sheffield,SirBerkeleyGeorge D.
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Smith,F.E. (Liverpool,Walton)
Clark, George Smith Lane-Fox, G. R. Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Clive, Percy Archer Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Stanier, Beville
Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham Lockwood Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col. A.R. Starkey, John R.
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Long, Col. CharlesW.(Evesham Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.
Collings,Rt.Hn. J.(Birmingh'm Long,Rt.Hn.Walter(Dublin,S.) Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Craig,Charles Curtis(Antrim,S. Lowe, Sir Francis William Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxford Un.
Craig, Captain James (Down.E. Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)
Craik, Sir Henry MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh Thornton, Percy M.
Cross, Alexander McArthur, Charles Walker, Col,lW. H. (Lancashire
Dalrymple, Viscount McKillop, W. Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Dixon-Hartland,Sir Fred Dixon
Doughty, Sir George Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Mason, James F. (Windsor) Whitbread, Howard
Du Cros, Arthur Philip Middlemore, John Throgmorton White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Williams, Col. R (Dorset, W.) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord Young, Samuel
Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart Younger, George

*MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS (Sheffield, Ecclesall) moved an Amendment to insert "old" before "on-licences," the object of the Amendment being to exclude from the statutory reduction new on-licences granted under the Act of 1904. The question, he believed, had been under the consideration of the Government, for at the end of April he put a Question to the Prime Minister as to whether he did not consider that the new licences granted under the Act of l904 ought to receive special treatment, and the right hon. Gentleman replied that the question was under consideration. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman had considered the matter, and that he would be able to give a satisfactory assurance regarding these licences. An "old licence" was denned in Clause 3 of the Bill to be an existing licence within the meaning of the Act of 1904, and, having regard to that definition, this Amendment, if the Government accepted it, would confine the operation of the Bill to licences existing at the date of the passing of the Act of 1904, and still in existence. Section 4 of the Act of 1904, which dealt with the question of new licences gave power to the licensing justices to grant new licences on special conditions, including the payment of the monopoly value, which was defined to be the difference in value between the promises licensed and unlicensed. He would like to draw the attention of the Committee to what had taken place runde the operation of that section. In looking at the figures for England and Wales in respect of new licences granted during recent years he found that since the Act of 1904 came into operation there had been a great decrease in the number. Perhaps that was what might naturally have been expected. For instance, in 1900 there were 245 new licences granted; in 1904, there were 221; in 1905, which was the first year under the operation of the Act of 1904, there were fifty-three; in 1906, there were fifty-six; and in 1907 there were sixty-eight. Some of these did not come within the operation of subsection (4) of Section 4 of the Act of 1904, but those that did worked out at 164 for the three years 1905, 1906, and 1907, during the time the Act had been in operation. The conditions under which they had been granted included restrictions such as the forbidding of the employment of females except those belonging to the landlord's family, and the limiting of hours during which the houses should be open. He thought he might say that in almost all caess some kind of restriction had been imposed. Large sums of money had been paid down for these licences, some as capital payments, some by annual rent for specified periods. Among the sums paid in 1905 was one amount of £9,000, and in one case £1,500 was to be paid by annual instalments of £100 a year for fifteen years. Evidently in that case it was not contemplated by the Bench that the licence should be terminable before fifteen years had expired. In another case £300 per annum was to be paid from 1908 to 1911, £400 from 1911 to 1916, and afterwards £500. These licences might, under the Bill as it stood, be taken away without compensation, because the compensation did not extend to new licences. In that case a great injustice would be done to people who had made a bargain with the licensing justices and had invested their money in buildings and improvements in accordance with the conditions on which the licenses were granted. The legislature contemplated that these licences would be renewed, because there was no appeal in regard to them, and they were left outside the compensation fund both as regards payment to that fund and with regard to participation in it. The right hon. Member for Spen Valley himself had stated in the debates on the 1904 Act that the question of the abolition of these new licences on the ground of redundancy would not affect them because they would probably be granted in places where there was a considerable population without a licensed house. He thought he had said enough to show that a very strong case hid been made out for those licences. If by the operation of this Bill they were to be taken away, a contract would be broken, and he could not think tint even this Government would do injustice to those people who had paid down money and taken their licences under the conditions laid down in the Act of 1904.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 9, after the word 'of,' to insert the word 'old.'"—(Mr. Samuel Roberts.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'old' be there inserted."


The concluding sentence of the hon. Member was not couched in a very conciliatory vein.


It was not intended.


The hon. Member said that even this Government would not contemplate such a gigantic act of confiscation as that against which his Amendment is directed. I have been asked several Questions on this subject by, I think, the hon. Gentleman himself, and I have indicated from the first that there is a case to be met. I think so still, but I do not think it would be best met by adopting the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. When you are dealing with the excessive facilities on the assumption that they should be reduced, it makes no difference to the adding up of the number of licences whether they are new or old. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will see that. I do not think that under the scheme of the Bill we should exclude new on-licences from the computation purposes of this clause. When it comes to the question of extinction—in other words, the selecting of those which shall be the victims—I think that there a case for consideration does come in. They are very few in number. I think that up to the beginning of this year there are not more than 177. They are for the most part, and indeed they must, from the nature of the case, have been granted in places and under conditions by which they will not be subject to statutory reduction at all. They are granted in new building districts where there is a clear need for the creation of new licences in addition to existing licences. But that only minimises the extent of the possible injustice. Now, these licences issued under Section 4 of the Act of 1904, are of two classes. In some cases licences have been granted for a term of years. In other cases they have been granted for a lump sum on payment down—in my opinion a very objectionable practice and one which we intend to put a stop to in the future by one of the provisions of the Bill. As regards the first class, I doubt very much, even as the Bill is drawn, whether they would come under the scope of the Bill at all, because the Bill contemplates that justices in exercising this power, in performing their duty, will make these reductions. The licences which have been granted for a term of years do not require to come up for renewal until that term of years expires. If there is any doubt about the matter, I will see that words are introduced at a later stage of the Bill that when these licences do come up for renewal, then and then only the operation for reduction shall be exercised. So much for that. As regards the other class in respect of which licences were issued for a lump sum paid down, I confess it would be a great injustice if these were selected for reduction. They have been granted since the passage of the Act of 1904 under conditions which require the justices in the public interest to exact from the licence holders the monopoly value, and therefore they stand on a totally different footing from licences under the old Act where no such conditions are or could be imposed. They are few in number, but the amount in some cases must be considerable, and injustice would be done if no provision were made for them. I ask the hon. Gentleman, with that assurance, to withdraw his Amendment. I will endeavour to make the best provision I can to meet the justice of the case, either in Clause 7, which deals with the duty of the licensing Justices to give effect to the scheme by selecting the licences to be extinguished in permanence—I will introduce words to make it impossible for these licences to be selected—or, if it is found more convenient from a drafting point of view, the change might be made under Clause 24. I do hot think it is necessary at this moment to describe in which of these two places I will insert the necessary words, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that what is necessary shall be done and not press his Amendment.


I think that after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, my hon. friend would do well to withdraw his Amendment. I must confess I am extremely puzzled to hear what has been going on under the Act of 1904. I have not followed the matter, but I find from a Return which has been shown to me that in such cases licences were given for sums up to £4,500 and even £6,000. I am perfectly unable to understand how that is consistent with the Act of 1904. Although I am responsible for the Act of 1904, I am not responsible for the administration of that Act. It certainly appears to me that the magistrates have allowed an equitable right to grow up, which is exactly the thing that we wanted to avoid. The value of a licence cannot be £6,000 except with the prospect of renewal, and as there is no statement as to when that clearly arises, all the old difficulty will grow up, or will be liable to grow up under the new scheme. If the Bill puts a stop to that, it is a part of the Bill I will look upon with toleration and even with approval. I think that my hon. friend's point will be adequately met by the undertaking given by the Prime Minister, and under these circumstances I do not see why he should not withdraw the Amendment.


said it should be pointed out that many of the annual licences granted for a lump sum had been granted in Wales. He agreed that it was not a desirable practice. It appeared by the Licensing Statistics for 1907 that of the four new annual licences granted in that year in consideration of a large money payment three were granted in Glamorganshire.


said that if that was the fact, he was not aware that the return was accurate in that respect. However, in deference to his own county he would ascertain whether the return was accurate.


asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.


in moving to omit the prefix "on" from "on-licences," said the Amendment was one which might be agreed to by hon. Gentlemen opposite without interfering at all with the progress of the Bill. It was only intended to carry out the objects which the promoters of the Bill professed they had in view as the great champions of the cause of temperance. He thought he should have the support of the right hon. Gentleman opposite when he said that if the Bill merely reduced the number of public-houses and did nothing more, they would have done very little in the cause of temperance. Briefly stated, his Amendment was to include in the purview of the Bill what were called grocers' licences. He maintained that no one attempting to deal in a comprehensive manner with this great question by a Bill could do so if it did not embrace within it an adequate treatment of the case of the grocers' licences. He had two or three extracts which he asked the permission of the Committee to read because he thought that they had an important bearing on this matter. In the Majority Report of the Royal Commission on the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors, dated 1899, it was stated— We think that there should be a separation of the trades so complete that there should be no sale within the same promises of intoxicants and groceries or other articles. It must be distinctly understood that this sepa ation does not mean the abolition of off-licences. The Minority Report said— The trade in intoxicants should be forbidden to be carried on in the same premises as the trade in groceries or other articles. For his Amendment he therefore claimed the authority of both the Majority and minority Reports of that Royal Com-Mission. He asked the House to listen also to the testimony of three witnesses on the subject. He thought it would be seen that they were not the expressions of bigots and fanatics but of reasonable persons who took a reasonable view of the subject. The first authority was the Bishop of Chester, a well-known authority on this subject, who in answer to a question said in his evidence before the Royal Commission— Evidence has always been difficult to get about grocers' licences, but I am bound to say that the bulk of the testimony seems to me against them. I have been slow to come to a conclusion about it myself, but it seems to me that all the evidence seems to tell in favour of the sale of liquor being disassociated from other businesses. That was a very moderate judgment, but it was not on that account worthy of less attention. The Rev. Osbert Mordaunt, another witness before the Commission, who had himself conducted a licensed house on what might be called reasonable principles, used these words. They were few, but to the point— I do not like them [i.e., grocers' licences] and would like to see them done away with. He would quote one other authority, Dr. Norman Kerr, who was president of a society for the study of inebriety. Asked if he regarded grocers' licences as an additional temptation thrown in the way of persons with alcoholic tendencies, he said— Yes, that is my real objection, all the others are ubsidiary….This is an addition to the tremendous verpowering number of temptations to drink which already exist. Then you think a grocer's licence is not a substitute for a public licence, but an additional public-house?—That is it. If it had been a substitute I would have been delighted to see it, but it has been entirely an addition, in England. He would not trouble the Committee with further extracts, but he hoped he had said enough to show that it was not his own opinion only which he was advocating, but that it rested on high authority, and that the question of grocers' off-licences was a subject that no one who attempted to deal with this question could safely neglect. If the Government were really in earnest and wished to diminish the temptations to drunkenness, which existed not only in this country but in others, they must not rest content to take one class of houses only, in which no doubt temptation existed and which belonged to a particular branch of the community, and neglect to deal with those which belonged to another class of the community. They had seen so much of the evil which what was called "the trade" introduced into this country, that they seemed to think that they should deal with that alone and not trouble themselves at the moment with other matters. But that was a very limited and unfair manner of treating this question, because, in other words, it simply meant that because there was a class of people whom the Government thought to be wrong or unwise they were going to punish them and not going to touch other people who they knew brought the same temptation into the way of those who were inclined to follow it. In these discussions it was often said that drunkenness in the country had diminished. That was true. It was at one time the great reproach of all classes of the community, and the middle and upper class s of the country had no doubt reformed their ways. There was now much less drunkenness in these classes than there was a hundred years ago. But drunkenness had also diminished among the labouring classes. Nobody could walk in the streets of London or other large towns without seeing the enormous difference between the times in which we lived and those which preceded our own. But he was told that while intoxication among men had diminished, among women it had increased. He did not ask His Majesty's Government to accept that from him. He did not know it; he was told so. If it was so, it was an enormous argument in favour of the Amendment, because women did not get their intoxicating liquors so much from the public-houses as from the grocers and off-licensed houses with which they dealt. He did not urge it as an argument for taking away all grocers' licences, but said that if the Government regulated and diminished one set of places for the sale of intoxicants they ought to regulate and diminish the other. He assumed that the chief argument which would be adduced by the Government if they did not intend to accept this Amendment would be that they should deal with one thing at a time; that they were now dealing with the great question of licensed houses, and if there was a case for dealing with off-licences they would deal with them afterwards. The answer to that was that they had no right to deal with this question at all unless they dealt with, it as a whole, and dealt with it fairly towards all classes concerned. If there were a danger of the multiplication of these grocers' licences, and at present there was no limit to their multiplication, the Government had no right to say they had not time to deal with them now. They ought to make time. He had now said all he could in support of the Amendment. He would merely add that the influence of what was called "the trade" had no terrors for him; that he was not a nominee of the trade, and he did not think that the trade could influence his political career. He approached this subject as one who had for many years been charged with the administration of justice and whose desire was to see all temptations to drunkenness diminished.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 9, to leave out the word 'on.'"—(Mr. Talbot.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'on' stand part of the Bill."


I note that my J right hon. friend admits that he stands in a particular position of advantage in not being in any sense a nominee of the trade. I quite admit he speaks on this matter without any influence, undue or otherwise, being brought to bear upon him. He has raised an important point, and I quite agree that it deserves the serious consideration of the Committee. The Committee is entitled to know why we have not included off-licences in this reform. We have seriously considered this point, and I quite agree, if the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the conditions surrounding off-licences and on-licences are the same, we can have no reason for not dealing with both in this clause. There is one rather strong argument for dealing with off-licences in this clause, and that is the possible enhancement in value of these licences consequent on a large scheme of reduction. But I must remind the Committee that the Government in 1904 did not include off-licences. I do not say that the conditions were then the same, but they did not include them, and the conditions were sufficiently analogous for us to notice that fact and draw our conclusions as to what had happened since that time. If hereafter it becomes clear that off-licences are materially enhanced in value that may be a consideration, but I do not agree that that will be so. No case has been shown for that. It must also be remembered that the new off-licences are brought under Section IV. of the Act of 1904. But there is no proof that the value of these off-licences will be increased. That is merely a hypothesis. Last year there were 1,800 licences extinguished, and under these circumstances, if the extinction tended to increase the value of off-licences, we should have seen an indication of it during the past years. Not merely has there not been any increase in the value of off-licences, but the tendency has been for the total number of off-licences to decrease; in fact, each year has shown a reduction of two or three hundred off-licences, and that at any rate goes some way to show that the considerable reduction under the Act of 1904 has not tended to increase their value. Therefore, as regards the argument adduced by the right hon. Gentleman, I submit that the case of the on-licences and the case of the off-licences are not ejusdem generis. Consequently the argument for the reduction under our Bill of on-licences is based on different considerations from those which apply to off-licences. It is not only the question of redundancy which has induced us to put forward this scheme. Of course, that is a very important matter, but there are other reasons. The reduction of unnecessary public-houses will tend to improve the supervision by the police; it will tend to improve the character of the on-licensed houses that remain. There are other general and economic reasons for the reduction of on-licences quite distinct from off-licences, which were mentioned during the Second Reading debate, and to which I need not further refer now. But these considerations, the ground of policy, the social and economic grounds, are justifications for the reductions of on-licences, but they are considerations which hardly apply, if at all, to the reduction of off-licences. I am not going into the general question of all the evils that may be alleged to attach to off-licences. Those evils are largely connected with what we call "secret drinking." I agree that that is one of the most dreadful forms of intemperance, and if it can be practically dealt with so much the better. But is the proposal in this Amendment a real remedy? There is a great difference between on and off-licences. When there is a wish to drink secretly it is consumed at home. It is not like the general casual wish to drink which often besets a man when passing a public-house. The great evil of secret drinking is that they get the whisky bottle and consume the contents at home. Would the extinction of a few licences have any appreciable effect upon this? It must be remembered as a matter of fact that there are only 25,000 of these licences altogether, as against nearly 100,000 on-licences. The extinction of one or two off-licences a year would not have the same effect as the extinction of on-licences. The case of off-licences is wholly different from the case of on-licences as regards the monopoly value. There is no capital invested; there is no plant or fittings, and the sale of liquor is quite subordinate to the sale other articles connected with the business. It would undoubtedly be extremely difficult to get at the monopoly value, and in every way, I submit, whether you regard it from the point of view of temperance or from the point of view of monopoly value, the case is different. If this Amendment is seriously pressed what happens? There will have to be a separate compensation scheme, there will have to be a new scale.


Why, if there is no monopoly value?


I did not say there is no monopoly value. I said it would be very difficult to ascertain. There will have to be another scale. If the Amendment is passed in its present form there will be established a new scheme of compensation for oil-licences out of a fund to which, only on-licences have contributed.




That would be the effect of accepting the Amendment in its present form. But I submit that those considerations and those arguments had weight with the Government in 1904 when they did not include off-licences in their scheme of reduction. We have carefully considered the matter. If it could be shown that the inclusion of off-licences is likely to produce any real and substantial effect with regard to the diminution of drunkenness, then I agree that our case for the clause as it stands in this respect would be weakened; but the right hon. Gentleman has given no reasons to show how or why the reduction of these off-licences would bring about improvement in the present condition in regard to temperance. My right hon. friend quoted the Commissioners' Report as to other matters, but I do not think that he quoted anything with regard to this Amendment. I quite agree that he quoted authorities in favour of doing something more, but he did not quote anything in favour of the particular thing which he is now asking us to do. My right hon. friend forgot, I think, when he said that there was no limitation on the number of grocers' licences, that we have Section 10 of the Act of 1904, and he omitted to notice that in Clause 5 of this Bill we propose to bring off-licences under the operation of Section 4 of the Act of 1904. Of course, if a clause is required there will be an opportunity for further consideration later on, but I do not think that any case has been shown for the inclusion of off-licences in this clause; therefore I regret to say that the Government cannot accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. BONAR LAW (Camberwell, Dulwich)

said his right hon. friend had been perfectly right in saying that he anticipated that the Government would reject his Amendment, but he was very far wrong when he guessed at the reasons which would be given for its rejection. Certainly it had not been his intention to rise if it had not seemed to him that a more futile case for the rejection of an Amendment had never been stated than that which had been submitted to the House. He asked the Committee to consider the grounds on which they wire asked to reject the Amendment. First of all the right hon. Gentleman had told them that there was no monopoly value.


I said that it was very difficult to ascertain the monopoly value.


said the right hon. Gentleman could take it either way he liked. If there was anything in the argument, why should these houses with off-licences be included in other sections of the Bill, if they were not to be included in regard to the diminishing of the temptations to intemperance? The right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the police of the Metropolis, and for the police as a whole, and he said that one of the advantages in favour of the Bill was that if there were fewer houses the police would be better able to deal with them. Had the right hon. Gentleman not sufficient police now; was it not his duty to have sufficient police to deal with the houses existing? Could anyone say that it was a solid reason for opposing this particular Amendment? The right hon. Gentleman said that the evil of drinking in connection with off-licences was that it was secret drinking; but on what ground could it possibly be said that an additional number of public-houses would increase the temptation to ordinary drinking, and that the temptation would not be just as great in the case of off-licences? They all knew that a woman, perhaps the wife of a working man, was able to get drink at the grocer's and nowhere else, and if that opportunity was taken away she had no opportunity of getting it. On what possible ground was the temptation not as great in the one case as in the other? The right hon. Gentleman had not stated quite as clearly the ground of the distinction as another member of the Cabinet the other day. The President of the Board of Trade, when speaking in the country, said that the Tory Party, meaning Members on that side of the House, were unable to deal with this question from the point of view of temperance because they were not independent; that they were tied down by the trade. The party opposite was quite free as regarded the trade. They could be trusted to show it no mercy. It was very different when they came to the grocers' licences. Then they had this futile reason given by the right hon. Gentleman why one class of intemperance was dealt with and the other was left entirely alone.


said that many of them had attempted to criticise the Bill, but it was reserved to the Home Secretary to destroy it. He had stated that his right hon. friend had not cited a single authority in favour of controlling the number of these off-licences. They heard ad nauseam the Minority Report of the Commission referred to on that side of the House. Was the right hon. Gentleman acquainted with the Report? Was he aware of the recommendation there that at the end of five years the number of off-licences to exist was to be fixed by the licensing authority? Was that a recommendation which had no authority at all? It was not necessary to discuss the unimportant point whether his right hon. friend did or did not discuss the authority. What it was necessary to discuss was whether it was or was not an authority to which respect was only to be paid from those benches when it suited them for the purpose of attacking the trade, and from which respect was withheld when it became necessary to defend their political allies. Let him remind the right hon. Gentleman of what their present Leader the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley said in 1904 on the question of off-licences— Everybody admitted the desirability of reducing the number of off-licences. According to the Government the object of the present Bill was to facilitate the reduction of licences. Why, then, should not the same process be applied to both classes of licences? He asked why, if the principle upon which the Bill was based had, been truly stated, were not both to be included in the same scheme of reduction? The position of the Government as stated was that there existed a direct and demonstrable connection between facilities for obtaining alcoholic drink and temperance. If there was any other principle on which the Bill was based it was time they were informed of it. He accepted that principle, and he asked how could it possibly matter from the point of view of the suppression of intemperance whether the drink was obtained for consumption on or off the premises? The Home Secretary in his felicitous explanation of the distinction lighted upon the possibility that there might be secret drinking. If there was a single distinction depending on principle it was that the case for dealing with off-licences was incomparably stronger because of the facilities which it gave for secret drinking. The right hon. Gentleman laid stress on the fact that there were only 25,000 cases of off-licences whereas there were 100,000 cases of ordinary licences, but the number of off-licences had steadily increased in the last twenty years. In January, 1886, there were 22,267; in 1896 there were 24,041; in 1905, 25,405; and in 1907, 25,281.


Road the figures of the last four years.


said he would have thought even amateurs in statistical considerations which the promoters of the present Bill had shown themselves to be would be aware that statistics based on a period of four years were of no great value when dealing with a problem at last twenty years old. The Government were deliberately, with full knowledge of the dilemna in which they were placed, and with no argumentative answer to the analogy which was put to them, going to make it impossible to give a complete test of the only principle on which they themselves said their Bill was based. They had done this by refusing to admit the analogy between off and on-licences and by the cowardly and inadequate treatment which they had given to the problem in the provisions of the Bill, For this reason only the Bill would fail in the country. It would fail because the country was not convinced of the bona fides of the Government in dealing with the question.


said that the hon. and learned Member was quite incorrect when he said that for the last twenty years the number of off- licences had steadily increased. The important consideration was what had been the recent tendency and not what had been the tendency in the previous decade. The Blue-book showed that the number in 1905 was 25,405; in 1906, 25,281; and in 1907, 25,143—a small but steady decline in these three years. The point was one of very small importance, but if they had figures quoted let them be quoted accurately.


May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether when he rose to speak the first observation he made was not that I was inaccurate in my statement as to the twenty years?


said they may have increased over the whole period of the last twenty years, but during recent years they had been steadily declining. The hon. and learned Gentleman, however, made a statement of far greater importance, and which was ever wider from the facts. He said the Peel Report recommended that at the end of five years the magistrates should reduce the number of off-licensed houses. If that were the case, he agreed that much might be said in criticism of the Government for having omitted off-licences from the reductions proposed in the Bill. But precisely the opposite was the case. The Minority Report recommended that there should be a separation between that part of the premises which dealt with groceries and other goods and that part which dealt with alcoholic liquors at the end of five years, but they made no recommendation that the number should be reduced; and when they made their famous recommendation that the number of licensed houses should by reduced to one for 750 persons in towns and one for 400 persons in the country they said that reduction should apply to on-licences alone. Did hon. Gentlemen who made this proposal wish that licences should be reduced with or with out compensation? They had heard that it was not necessary to establish a separate compensation fund, and it would be difficult to estimate the loss that would ensue to an off-licence holder for the suppression of his licence, that it was not necessary to compensate because there was no investment of capital and so forth.


The Home Secretary said that.


said perhaps he was wrong, and he did not press that point. It was therefore the proposal that there must be a compensation fund for these off-licence holders and they must assess a compensation levy upon them, and they would have to assess, by some means which no one had yet devised, some method by which their loss could be ascertained. That was a task of extreme difficulty, and before the Government were asked to include any such scheme, some indication should be given how these extremely intricate financial arrangements could be managed. The hon. Member for Dulwich had said the two classes of licences ought to be on the same footing, and the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken had said with the utmost emphasis and with his usual indignation that it was hypocrisy to pretend that there was any distinction to be made between the two, and that it temptation existed in the one case it existed equally in the other. His last words would be a quotation from the late Solicitor-General, who would be interested to hear the words he used on 27th June, 1904. He said— His own view was that the question of the off-licences was absolutely different from that of the on-licences—a difference essential in their existence and historically. He went on to say— He had always understood that the real reason proposed for the reduction of these on-licences was that a large number of them were in the streets and the villages, and offered, a standing temptation to persons passing by to go in and drink on the premises. A very different consideration applied to the privilege of giving beer to persons standing in the bar, and to supplying beer to persons for consumption off the premises. No very acute question as to the necessity for the reduction of those latter houses had arisen at all, and there had been very little agitation in regard to them. These were also the views of the Government in which they heartily agreed, and he trusted hon. Members opposite would not disavow an expression of opinion so emphatically uttered and so clearly phrased, but would reject the Amendment.


said, with reference to the Report of the Peel Commission, if the hon. Gentleman would turn to page 107 he would find that the minority there were dealing with the whole question of off-licences and not merely with one variety, and what they recommended was that the different kinds of-off-licences should be consolidated, and that no new ones should be granted except under the full discretion of the licensing authority. On the following page they said— We will allow a period of five years during which the proposed restriction on the sale of intoxicants to premises exclusively used for that purpose should not apply to premises now holding licences,. During this period no new licences shall be granted and the licensing authority shall come to a decision as to how many new off-licences will be required for the district. That was the general recommendation and that was precisely what he said as far as the new off-licence holders were concerned, viz., that there was to be a five years' limit.

MR. LAMBTON (Durham, S. E.)

said the hon. Member who had just spoken had pointed out the extreme difficulty of accepting this Amendment and had fallen back upon the Peel Commission. He had also made a quotation from the late Solicitor-General. Neither of those arguments were germane to the question before the House. The hon and learned Member for Liverpool asked whether this was a genuine temperance measure or not. The whole principle of the Bill was that the facilities for drinking must be reduced in certain areas according to population. The Under-Secretary to the Home Office had pointed out that the Government had fixed a proportion of one public house to 400 people in the rural districts and the Bill proceeded on those lines. He also stated that there would be no reduction of off-licences. His experience was that very often off-licences were perambulating public-houses. The grocer sent round his cart and offered drink to the women in the cottages unknown to their husbands. This was a great temptation to women who otherwise would never get near the public-house in the country districts, and yet this Bill was claimed as a great temperance measure. They had now been told they could not alter this clause because the Government were unable to find out a satisfactory basis of compensation for the holders of off-licences. He thought an Amendment like that they were discussing ought to have had some more considered answer than had been given, and he invited the right hon. Member for Spen Valley and the hon. Member for Appleby to speak upon the Amendment and inform the House what was the view of the temperance party upon it.


did not think that the scheme of the Government dealt with what was an admitted evil in the shape of a trade in intoxicating liquors being carried on with other trades, such as grocers' licences. There was a very large body of opinion throughout the country in favour of dealing with the evil which arose in that trade. He did not, however, think the Amendment before them would suffice to deal with the question, as it went to the root of the whole Bill. Judging from the remarks of the Home Secretary towards the close of his speech he was inclined to think that the Government were hoping to have further suggestions made on this point, and he was hopeful that they would seize an opportunity of dealing with this admitted evil. The quotation which had been made from the Peel Report in regard to the five years' limit dealt exclusively with grocers' licences, and it stated that the question of how to deal with the existigu off-licences held by grocers still remained to be dealt with. The proposition there was that at the end of five years no premises should be allowed to sell intoxicating liquor by off-licence unless the premises were exclusively devoted to the sale of intoxicating liquors. That was an admitted evil owing to the fact that people could go to a grocer's shop and secretly obtain intoxicating liquors, and this led to the most gross and evil habits of drunkenness. In conclusion, he repeated his regret that this particular evil had not been dealt with by the very easy method suggested by the Peel Commission Report. He sincerely trusted that the Government would see their way before the Bill emerged from the Committee stage to deal with this point.


I take an interest in this point because I think it is the touchstone of the sincerity of the Government in dealing with this question in regard to the professions they have made up and down the country in reference to the present Bill. No human being denies that this Bill inflicts a great hardship upon a large class of the community; that has not been denied by its most strenuous supporters. It has been admitted by the right hon. Member for Spen Valley that this Bill will reduce the property of licence holders by a great many millions, and every hon. Member knows from his own personal experience how much bitterness this particular method has aroused and how great the individual hardship is which will be inflicted upon many classes of the community in every part of the country. And what is the particular salve which hon. Gentlemen opposite have applied to their consciences for inflicting this hardship? They have constantly said that the Bill may be a hard one, but they have the morality of the public to consider. I may point out that we have heard nothing about the temperance problem from the last two representatives of the Government who have spoken. The Under-Secretary for the Home Office contented himself by basing his justification for the exclusion of off-licences upon the Act of 1904. I wish he had taken the lessons of that Act in some other respect as well. The Home Secretary himself did not touch upon the question of temperance. He told us that there was a great difference between the off and the on-licence, and that, after all, by diminishing the number of on-licences you enable the trade to be carried on under better conditions and you improve the facilities for police supervision. Are we seriously to be told that this Bill is really a measure for improving the opportunities for police supervision? Is that what the cause of temperance has come to Is that the ground on which you are going to create turmoil from one end of the country to the other, and to inflict all the hardships to which I have referred? Is the only object the Government have in view to prevent men drinking and to enable the police to have improved supervision?


I only mentioned that as a subsidiary reason. My main reason was the redundancy of licences and the existence of an unnecessary number of public-houses which led to unnecessary drinking.


I am not going to be led into a discussion as to how far redundancy leads to increased drinking. That argument may be right or it may be wrong. What I want to ask is, if redundancy in on-licences produces these evil effects, are no such effects to be anticipated from the redundancy in off-licences? What was the other excuse given by the right hon. Gentleman? He said it would be very difficult to make a scale to deal with the monopoly value. There might be difficulties, but they do not seem to weigh with the Government, because in Clause 5 of this Bill all the provisions of the Act of 1904 with regard to the monopoly value in the case of new licences are transferred to new off-licences. If there was no difficulty in regard to assessing the monopoly value of new off-licences why should there be any difficulty in discovering the monopoly value of old off-licences. Apparently as far as the Government are concerned it is obvious what is the monopoly value of a new off-licence, and they are quite ready to transfer without alteration or modification all the provisions of the Act of 1904, dealing with the monopoly value of on-licences, but with regard to old off-licences, the problem, according to the view of the Government, becomes so obscure and difficult that it is quite impossible to carry out a reliable calculation. It is quite plain, and everybody can see what the reason for the omission of off-licences is. The hon Member who has just sat down regrets that this omission has taken place, and he hopes it will be remedied. He must know, however, that his regrets are vain and his hopes fallacious. He must know that the Government when they framed their Bill must have had this difficulty present to their mind. They profess that the cause of temperance is bound up with the cause of diminishing the number of places where intoxicating liquor can be obtained. In fact, that is the whole basis of their Bill. It is on this account that they call themselves great social reformers, and on that they base a claim for themselves that they are the great upholders of morality, and that the Members of the Opposition are only influenced by electoral Considerations. If they hold that view how can they as honest men bring in a Bill which deals with only one of the three great sources from which intoxicating liquors are obtained? To obtain intoxicating liquors people may go to the public house, to the grocer, or to the club. These advocates of temperance who are going to stake their political future upon the great moral contest in which they are engaged, only dare to deal with one of the three great sources of drinking. I am not now going to argue the question of clubs, but surely we have a right to hear some better argument in regard to the remaining sources from which intoxicating liquors are obtained than those which have been given us. I am utterly unable to understand how hon. Gentlemen opposite can go about the country talking about morality in that superior strain which has become habitual to them, when they know perfectly well that one of the motives which has animated them, or has animated some of them, in this crusade against on-licences, is their aversion to a particular trade and their desire to appropriate the monopoly value—the value of some of the property of that trade. That is one of the reasons why they include on-licences in the Bill. The reason they do not include off-licences and clubs in the Bill is that they are afraid of quarrelling with their political friends, while they like to plunder their political enemies. That may or may not be very good politics, but I earnestly trust that after this debate and after the defence—the only presumable defence—which the Government has for this omission is known to the country we shall hear no more from them about morality.


remarked that the Committee had had an excursion into the region of morality on the part of the Leader of the Opposition. They had been taunted on his side of the House with a lack of sincerity. They were told that their motive was an aversion to the trade, and that they were after money. So far as he was personally concerned it was untrue—absolutely untrue and unfounded. He was not actuated by aversion to the trade, but he was actuated by a desire to promote sobriety in this country. It was only essential to secure the monopoly value in order to secure control. He was anxious about temperance. He admitted that he wished that the Bill did deal with grocers' licences, but he looked with a great deal of suspicion on the anxiety evinced by hon. Gentlemen opposite in that matter. With them it was always "not thus and not now, but in some other way." He and his friends wanted the late Government to deal with off-licences in 1902, and it was their own Party that prevented them from bringing off-licences under full control. The late Lord Ritchie—then Mr. Ritchie—brought in a Bill to bring off-licences under full control, and they were defeated by their own Party, and now that was the Party which taunted them and challenged their bona-fides. There were four times as many on-licences as off-licences, and he and his friends wished for a reduction. Surely the value to the community of reducing on-licences would not be lessened because they did not also reduce off-licences by this Bill. He would rather have both off and on-licences dealt with, but if he could not get both he would be glad to get a reduction in the on-licences. Hon. Members opposite objected to dealing piecemeal with these matters, but they did not raise that objection to the Bill of 1902. That Bill did not touch on-licences. It did not contain a reduction scheme with respect to them.


We were not robbing the licence holders.


said they were not robbing, the robbing had been done in other directions. The Bill of 1904 did not deal with off-licences, and the right hon. Gentleman did not object to the absence of any legislation with respect to off-licences then. This was a newly developed zeal. The right hon. Gentleman voted against this Bill as a whole, his object being to kill it. He wished the Bill included grocers' licences, but a reduction was going on in off-licences. The official volume of licensing statistics showed that between 1905 and 1908 off-licences were diminished. The Opposition told them there was no need to do anything to increase the rate of diminution of on-licences, but they complained because the Government did not go in for reducing off-licences more rapidly. The Act of 1902 provided that off-licences should come under full control as soon as the then holders of them ceased to be holders. The result was that, grocers' licences were more and more coming under the power of the justices, and, therefore, the position was a steadily improving one with regard to them. This Bill prohibited the "off" sale of drink by clubs, and therefore was going to considerably diminish the "off" sale of liquor. The object of the Amendment was to enable the justices to take into consideration the total number of on and off-licences in their district, and that meant that the justices would be able in making a reduction to choose among both on and off-licences. Now they saw the inwardness of the proposal. Hon. Members opposite would abolish off-licences. They did not want to abolish any, but when it came to a choice between on and off they would slaughter the off. The principle of the Bill was two-fold—reduction and control, and control was far more important than reduction. The supporters of the Bill wanted to make a reduction in the great redundancy of on-licences. He thought they could get control at the end of the period. The Leader of the Opposition had said that this applied the touchstone to their sincerity. It might apply the touchstone to their practicability. The Opposition wanted them to go for all or nothing. [Cries of "No."] Well, they wanted the Government to put everything in this Bill. He and his friends would like to have everything in a Bill, but because they could not get everything they were taunted for being willing to take less. The question of off-licences could be dealt with in another year in another Bill. The object of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite was to kill the Bill, and, therefore, they would like to overload it. They would tempt the Government to put more cargo on the ship than it would carry. He could imagine a better Bill than this, but he was glad to have this measure because it was a good one. He would like to see grocers' licences included, but he was not going to be a party to the overloading of this Bill in any direction, and in that way risk its success. The Bill was not perfect. There never was a perfect Bill brought into the House. It was, however, an admirable Bill—the best dealing with the liquor traffic that had been brought in in our time. He would not be a party to pressing the Government to make additions to the Bill which they said they could not accept. If they could see their way to put in grocers' licences he would be pleased, but he was not going to he tempted to support proposals to overcrowd it which were made with the deliberate intention of sinking it.

*MR. G.D. FABEER (York)

was astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down say that on the Ministerial side of the House they did not want to kill the Bill by accepting this Amendment. How would it kill the Bill if grocers' licences were included? The friends of the Government were the only people who would kill the Bill if this Amendment were adopted. He was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman using an argument of that kind. The right hon. Gentleman said that grocers' licences were being reduced, but in 1902 he said that whatever the system might be he contended that all licences should be on the same footing, and that grocers' licences were increasing, while the number of ordinary licences in proportion to the population was decreasing pretty considerably. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that the whole position of matters had changed since then? In those days the right hon. Gentleman was seeking to sweep grocers' licences into his net, but now he adopted exactly the other line of argument. He did not want to sweep grocers' licences into his net under this Bill. He would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman why his whole argument had changed since 1902, when he wished grocers' licences to be brought under the justices, while to-day he said it was not worth while, at any rate in his Bill, because grocers' licences were decreasing. Anything which the right hon. Gentleman said on the question of temperance was important, and he would like to quote what he said when referring to grocers' licences in 1902. What the right hon. Gentleman said then was— That the great increase of drunkenness in women had been caused by grocers' licences, and this statement was borne out by the evidence of clergymen and ministers and medical men who went into the homes of the people. It was most among the middle and the upper classes that this evil existed. And then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that— Those terrible facts were borne out by the testimony of medical men and keepers of inebriate homes. The Licensing Commission said there was a gigantic evil existing in their midst, which was a national degradation; and they declared that scarcely any sacrifice would be too great in order to cope with this evil.


That does not refer to grocers' licences.


Yes, pardon me; it does. At an earlier period of the same debate the right hon. Gentleman said— Now, one word as to the evils of grocers' licences. They have enormously developed intemperance among women. It is said that there has been no evidence. There has been a great deal. When the Lords' Committee said that they had not had evidence, I say that negative evidence is of little value as against positive. It is twenty-three years since that Committee sat, and we have had a great deal of evidence since then. Before the Peel Commission we had the evidence of solicitors that again and again they had had to deal with cases brought before them by their clients, in which wines and spirits had been supplied to the wives of their clients, and charged in the accounts as other articles. Then there was evidence of the assistants who sold the liquors. And then the right hon. Gentleman said— We have practically the universal opinion of clergymen, ministers and doctors upon this point. They get the knowledge in the course of their professional work: and it is not information and evidence that they can give publicly, because their relations with the people from whom they obtain this evidence is confidential. You have, however, the word of honour of medical men, clergymen, and ministers that they know of these cases, and they have declared that Such things constantly occur. The right hon. Gentleman went on page after page on the same lines.


I said during the last five minutes that I did wish the Bill had dealt with grocers' licences.


Then is the right hon. Gentleman going to vote for this Amendment?




Then I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell me what he means when he says that if you carry this Amendment it will sink the Bill.


If the hon. Member opposite did not think it would, he would not support the Amendment.


said he had the greatest respect and admiration for the right hon. Gentleman's pre-eminent talents. He had had the honour of sitting on important Committees with him, and there was no limit to the lucidity of his intelligence and of his ability; but that was not the specific answer he expected when he put the specific question to him as to how the Amendment would sink the Bill.


It is rather difficult to carry this on by question and answer, but it is quite possible to overweight measures. Everybody knows that, especially at this time of the session. The Government have decided that they cannot carry it if they put in everything about grocers' licences, and it is for them to decide what they can carry. I should be glad if they could, but if they cannot I shall support the Bill as it is.


said that the right hon. Gentleman would not consider that he was saying anything offensive or objectionable when he told him that it was surely an open secret that he, and not the Government, was the Bill. Therefore, it was with the right hon. Gentleman's full cognisance that the grocers' licences were omitted from the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to shuffle off the responsibility by saying that it was the Government's Bill; that it was their affair. But it was his affair; the right hon. Gentleman had some very good reason for excluding grocers' licences from this measure, and he would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee frankly what that reason was.


I had nothing to do with the exclusion of grocers' licences.


said that political reasons had kept the grocers' licences out of the Bill. In the trade hon. Gentlemen opposite saw their enemy, and in the grocers their friends. He was not telling the right hon. Gentleman anything he did not know himself. That fact lent crushing weight to the criticism of the Leader of the Opposition that this was the touchstone of the sincerity of the promoters of the Bill. The Party opposite had professed that they were bringing in a broad measure of temperance reform; the public had never heard until now that this was only a partial measure of temperance reform. The Radical Party had been preaching up and down the country that this was a great, comprehensive temperance measure. They had tried to get the Bishops into their net by telling them that. But now, for the first time, the chief protagonist of temperance told the Committee that this was only an instalment, but that sometime and somewhere—they knew what that meant from a politician, he supposed at the end of fourteen years—grocera' licences would be dealt with. That was not good enough for men of common sense. He did not pretend to a knowledge of the wiles and artifices of political life. He was a plain man who tried to see the truth and to do justice. It was a hypocritical pretence that they made for leaving out grocers' licence, from the Bill, which, in the view of the right hon. Gentleman himself, contained within themselves the germs and a fruitful source of intemperance. They were keeping the grocers out of the confiscation to be brought about by the Bill, because the grocers were their political friends and the publicans their political foes. That device would take in nobody. The course which the Government had taken had stripped of their cloak and had exposed in all its nakedness the hypocrisy which had surrounded their proceedings from beginning to end.

*MR. NIELD (Middlesex, Ealing)

said he had never ceased to regard the principles of this measure as un-sound because of the refusal to deal with grocers' licences and clubs. There was all the difference in the world between this Bill and the Act of 1904. This Bill purported to be a temperance measure. The Bill of 1904 was brought in order to put an end to the injustices which were taking place by reason of the decision of the House of Lords. It was a Bill to regulate the drink traffic in relation to particular licences, and while it left the justices a discretion to say which licensed houses were in their opinion redundant required them to refer such licences to quarter sessions in order that compensation might be assessed. That and that only was the limitation put upon the discretion of the local or licensing bench. Hoardings in streets were now covered with pictures by the temperance party, which were as bad a misrepresentation of fact as the Chinese labour cartoon, for they indicated or allowed to be inferred from their suggestiveness that which was, not true. For many years before the Act of 1904 was passed, which compelled a grocer to pay a sum which in some degree represented the value of his licence, there was no form of licence more Keenly sought after than a grocers' licence, especially when grocers got opportunities for selling beer on draught as they used to get, for it was not within the power of the benches to impose conditions, a state of things which the much abused Act of 1904 put an end to. The trade done by that grocer out of beer was out of all proportion to his legitimate trade as a grocer. The great objection to leaving the grocers' licence out of the Bill was that it would encourage secret drinking. They had had speeches from the right hon. Member for Spen Yalley, who told them that a grocers' business conducted in conjunction with an off-licence was a terrible thing for increasing secret drinking among women. Those who had sat on the county asylums Committees as he had done, were able to speak with the authority of personal knowledge as to the effects of a long persistence in excessive drinking by women in comfortable circumstances and who were not frequenters of licensed houses, but who purchased exciseable liquors from grocers and had them sent home with the ordinary commodities of a grocer for household use. It was a sad thing to examine these cases (and they were by no means in frequent), and to hear the records of those people who had come before them, respectably dressed women, and to know that their incarceration had been due to secret drinking. He had heard of connivances to which people with grocers' licences had found it necessary to resort in order to dispose of their liquor. He would give one instance where a London firm which desired to further their business, invented a bottle-carrier as being the safest means of carrying bottles of drink home. But from North Wales came a most indignant protest in reply to an invitation to purchase this kind of carrier. He had a letter to the following effect— February, 1908. Gentlemen,—I received your paper bottle carrier, and circular, and I should not have wrote to you at all, only I am so surprised that you should dare to place such a bag upon the market even in London, under the present condition of the trade; here it would ruin the best house in North Wales if you gave a customer a bottle of spirits in a bag so that anyone would know its contents. I keep a supply of small fish baskets, and rub them all over with fresh herrings so that they smell. On Sundays we close all day, and on Saturday I get orders to send beer and spirits, etc., in bags, marked potatoes. Take a sack, put each bottle in straw envelope and drop them in. My man then takes them on his back and delivers them like potatoes, each one does it, and everyone knows it is done, but the people here are so under the dominion of the chapel parson who rules them with a rod of iron that they dare not be seen drinking either at home or in a house. Take my advice, make a carrier that looks as though it carried something else, and you will sell millions


Order, order. The hon. Member can only deal with the question of principle and not the details of individual cases and methods of doing business.


asked how, if they were not allowed to give details, hon. Members could put their case and what was a more fitting opportunity than the Committee stage of a Bill to deal with these matters of detail? He only desired to show the mischief. There it was, and yet this Bill made no provision to control these means of obtaining drink—so disastrous as they had proved to family life and happiness—may the Government, whose views had been voiced that day by the Home Secretary, had refused to make any provision in this professedly "temperance measure." The language the Committee had heard from the Treasury Bench showed conclusively that this was not honest legislation and that if the Government were going to make good the boast they had made up and down the country they must for shame's sake deal with this branch of the trade which did more harm than any other.


said that when he first looked at this Amendment he was inclined to be in favour of it. He had a great suspicion of the grocer's licence, He had spent some years of his time retailing groceries and liquors and he had a very full knowledge of the evil effects of grocers' licences and would like to see them included in the scope of this Bill. But having listened to the speeches of hon. Members above the gangway on the Opposition side of the House he had discovered that those hon. Gentlemen were not so much interested in licensing reform as they were in playing of one section against the other. They, therefore, were the hypocrites.


It is not our Bill.


said the Leader of the Opposition had waxed eloquent over the hypocrisy of this Bill as a measure of temperance reform. He would advise the Government therefore to enter into som arrangement with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition who wanted the inclusion of clubs and grocers' licences, and invite the right hon. Gentleman to say that if thin Bill was made to include those matters it should pass the House without opposition. The object in the Amendment was not to further temperance, but to create another vested interest. The Opposition had been if not the parents, the sponsors of every monopoly in this country. They had the monopoly as it existed with regard to the brewers to-day, and they now sought to create another with regard to grocers' licences. He did not think it was quite so easy to deal with this as had been suggested. To deal with the grocery licences under this Amendment would require a compensation scheme. But this Bill was going to deal with these licences in the future in Clause 5. There were only 25,000 of them at the present time, and if the right hon. Member for the Spen Valley was right that the inclusion of these licences would spoil the Bill, he was quite justified in adopting the principle that half a loaf was better than no bread. If he thought that the Opposition was sincerely in favour of temperance reform in moving this Amendment, he would support it, but believing as he did it was pure hypocrisy on their part, he should vote against it.

LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBY (Lincolnshire, Horncastle)

said he had never shared nor did he believe the majority of the party to which he belonged ever shared the view that a great temperance reform was to be effected by a reduction of the number of licences. He did not think his right hon. friend ever thought the Bill he passed in 1904 was going to have that effect; but the Government and their supporters had proclaimed throughout the country that this Bill was a great measure of temperance reform, and that by this method they intended to achieve a great deal of good because it was going to reduce a great number of licences. The Amendment offered them an opportunity to take a lot of licences of a description which all who had studied the question admitted led to intemperance and secret drinking. It could not be urged that the adoption of the Amendment would kill the Bill by overloading it, because, although that might be a very proper reason for not accepting a reasonable Amendment if free discussion were allowed to take place on the Bill night after night, it could not be used when the Government had a tame majority behind them who consented to the stoppage of free speech in the House whenever it suited an autocratic Minister. There could be no excuse for the somewhat extraordinary action that the Government had taken. Their last excuse would be found to be on a par with the others they had given, and there could no longer be any doubt in the minds of reasonable men that this Bill was aimed at a particular trade, and made no attempt to check the drinking habits of the people. That, in itself, showed that the hypocrisy was not confined to the Opposition side of the House.

*MR. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland, Appleby)

said the somewhat sudden recognition on the part of hon. Members on the Opposition side of the evils caused by off-licences was as refreshing as it was new. For nearly two whole days they had listened to the assertion that it was absolutely necessary to secure that a public-house should be in reach of every part of the population. Hon. Members opposite had declared that the Bill was a fierce onslaught on the pleasures of the poorer classes. Now their tone had changed, and instead of asserting that opportunities for drinking were required, they accused the Government of failing in their duty because they did not diminish such opportunities as far as off-licensed premises were concerned. He hoped the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite would not be forgotten when in another part of the Bill off-licences were to be dealt with. He could only say that as an earnest temperance reformer he would be delighted to support hon. Gentlemen opposite in strengthening the Bill in the direction of the reduction of licences. The Majority Report of the Licensing Commission recommended the inclusion of off-licences in a reduction scheme which was part of their proposals for dealing with the licensed trade. The Minority Report recommended that at the end of five years there should be a complete separation of the licensed trade from any other trade carried on, the five years presumably being given so that the adjustment might be made. He fully supported the recommendation of the Minority Report, but the late Government did not carry out either recommendation, but in the Act of 1902 set up a privileged class of off-licensed holders, giving them a life interest in their licences. Except on specified grounds the Bench could not take those licences away from anyone, but over all other off-licences the justices had full discretion, and when renewal was refused no compensation was granted. When the Opposition taunted the supporters of the Government with leaving them out of the present clause, because of the support grocers gave to the Government, he would suggest that that was a double-edged weapon, and that hon. Gentlemen opposite might be said to have left out grocers' licences from the Act of 1904 because they did not care to give them that protection which they were glad to give to the trade. It was very easy to hurl these accusations across the floor of the House, but he thought it would be a great deal better if they were left out of the debates altogether. He made no accusation against the party opposite for not having dealt with off-licences in the Act of 1904. He presumed they thought they had dealt with them fairly and equitably in the Act of 1902. For himself as a temperance reformer he must say that, if he had had the shaping of the Bill, he would not have included grocers' licences in this clause. There was no compensation at present for the non-renewal of grocers' licences. There was then no reason why a new vested interest should be set up by bringing them into a scheme in which they had no place. There was no need to have insurance for grocers' licences, because they had no claim for renewal apart from the life interest in the 1902 licencees. Therefore, if they had dealt with them in this clause, they would have had to have had machinery for the purpose and to have made the holders pay a compensation levy, because he supposed it would not be suggested that the same basis would do for grocers' and on-licences. If they were going to deal with the question, they could not possibly do so in the same clause by which they dealt with the on-licences. They would have to have a separate clause later in the Bill. He could claim to be as eager to do away with grocers' licences as any Member of that House, but, in his opinion, the Government had decided wisely not to include grocers' licences under this clause. They had, however, dealt with grocers' licenses in a much greater degree than the Opposition had given them credit for. The justices had full discretion over all grocers' licences, except the privileged licence-holders under the Act of 1902. Under Clause 2 there was the popular veto over new grocers' licences, and under Clause 5 new grocers' licences would be brought under the operation of the beneficent Clause 4, which, in a moment of inspiration, the Leader of the Opposition placed in his Act of 1904; and at the end of the time-limit when the privileged holders of 1902 would very largely have disappeared practically all the "off"-licences would come under the discretion of the justices. He recognised that the grocers' licences, under the operation of the discretion of the justices, were steadily diminishing at the present time. The figures quoted by the hon. Member for Liverpool did not tell the whole truth in regard to the matter. He was very careful to stop at the date which justified the statement that they had steadily increased. If he had taken the years just before and since 1902, he would have seen the result of bringing grocers' licences under the discretion of the justices. He had some figures, but he would not take them all; he would take wine off-licences. There were in 1896 4,600 wine off-licences; they gradually increased up to 1901 when they numbered 6,750. Then came the Act of 1902, and the effect of that was very quickly felt. In 1905, instead of there being 6,750 wine off-licences, there were 6,373, and by 1907 they had sunk to 6,119. There had, therefore, in the course of five years from the passing of the Act of 1902, been a reduction of no less than 10 per cent. A similar reduction had taken place in other "off"-licences. The right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench was, therefore, absolutely right when he stated that instead of there having been that steady increase to which the hon. Member for Liverpool referred, there had been going on a steady diminution in the number of "off"-licences. When he had said that, however, he must add that he was not satisfied with the proposal of the Bill, and he would be thankful for this debate if, later, he had the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite, in dealing effectually with "off"-licences.

MR. HARMOOD-BANNER (Liverpool, Everton)

said that no one would doubt the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, and many of them hid felt sorry for him in the excuses he had hid to make for not supporting the Amendment. He feared, however, that his thoroughness in the advocacy of temperance hid been somewhat affected by his reasons, and he felt disposed to follow the example of the hon. Member who had quoted poetry arid say he thought hon. Members were ready to— Compound for sins they are inclined to. By damning those they have no mind to. They had attacked public-houses and were actively supporting the holders of "off"-and grocers' licences—a form of industry which contributed largely to their party funds. They were adhering to the principle of favouritism, and he was sorry to see it in a matter of temperance reform. There was no one who had hid experience in the big cities and towns who did not feel that it was quite as necessary that off-licences should be dealt with and diminished as public-houses. There was one street in his own constituency where there was a good deal of disorder. He spoke to the chairman of Quarter Sessions about it. He told him that a short time ago they took away the only off-licence there. From that time the character of the street entirely changed for the better, and it was hardly to be recognised as the same place, although there were still too many public-houses. According to the Blue-book on licensing the grand total of convictions for drunkenness was 197,064, and the convictions on licenced premises were 1,329. They could all judge from their experience how much drunkenness hid arisen from "off"-licences. It was a common experience to see men with carts travelling round the streets hawking liquor. They said it was an order from individuals, but the orders were of an exceedingly doubtful nature. It was a distinct revelation to see the number of bottles delivered on Saturday and other nights, and of the 197,000 convictions the greater part by far must be attributable to "off"-licences. Where, if that was not the case, were the police? Where were the police if these convictions were in licensed premises? Why had they not been able to obtain more than 1,329 convictions?


The hon. Member is mistaken. That is the number of convictions of licensed persons.


said the fact remained that the police were there, and they could easily have carried the matter further by obtaining a greater number of convictions for selling drink to drunken persons. If it was possible that a case could be made out that all the drunkenness arose from the public-house, they should have had some statistics to show it. But that could not be done, and they had to judge by the knowledge they possessed, and he challenged the Government to ask the chairmen of Quarter Sessions what was their opinion as regarded the causes of drunkenness. They would find that it was to off-licences and not on-licences that drunkenness was due. If that was so he failed to understand why those leaders of temperance—the hon. Members for Westmoreland and Spen Valley—did not join the Opposition on this Amendment. The Opposition were as sincere as hon. Gentlemen opposite in attacking drunkenness, and it was because they were unable to induce hon. Gentlemen opposite to join in supporting the Amendment, and because gentlemen opposite were attacking a trade to which they were distinctly hostile, and were displaying a friendliness towards those forms of drink-selling from which they obtained active political support, that he hesitated to think they were really earnest in their advocacy of this Bill.

MR. YOUNGER (Ayr Burghs)

said he did not propose to enter at all into the general considerations of this question. He, personally, had no interest in off-licences. He had a certain interest, not a very great one, in on-licences, and because he considered this Bill grossly unjust to them, he was unable to support any Amendment which would bring within its scope any other class of licences. He thought that was perfectly consistent, infinitely more consistent than the attitude of the Government. For glaring inconsistency he was bound to say the Government attitude was quite exceptional. He certainly felt sincere pity with the position in which the Home Secretary found himself in endeavouring to justify opposition to an Amendment to which the front bench had previously been pledged. He was not in that position. He regarded this Bill as grossly unjust to those interests with which it dealt, and he congratulated off-licence holders upon the fact that for some occult reason they had not been included in the Bill. He merely rose to say that he was unable to support the Amendment.

MR. CAMERON CORBETT (Glasgow, Tradeston)

said he approached this question as one who had always been in favour of the abolition of grocers' licences; his name had been on the back of Bills for that purpose for over twenty years, and he asked himself the question whether this Amendment would promote the purpose he had in view. His belief was that the reduction in grocers' licences under the existing law would be progressive. Since 1902 the reduction had been considerable, and the number of privileged licence-holders—that was to say, the grocers who had carried on their busiess in the same premises—would continuously diminish, and therefore the number who were exposed to the judicial discretion of the magistrates would progressively increase. He very strongly objected to introducing grocers' licences into the clause in such a way as would give them a right to a fourteen years run. He had been very gratified to find that the evils of grocers' licences had been so strongly realised on that side of the House, and one was justified in saying that within fourteen years a Bill would be carried giving effect to what the Amendment proposed. He would regret bringing grocers' licences under a compensation system and a system which would give them a longer duration of life than he desired them to have.


said that among the inconsistencies of hon. Gentlemen who sat on the other side, it was gratifying to find that the hon. Members for Appleby and Spen Valley agreed that the grocers' licences should come within the absolute discretion of the magistrates. They regarded that as a happy sign. All they asked was that the off-licences should also be left in the hands of the magistrates. He failed to see why what was good for the grocers' licences was not good enough for the on-licences. There was no reason on that side of the House against any license-holder, but the Bill taxed on-licences-holders for the licences which were abolished and did nothing to diminish the growing position of the off-licence holders. That was very unfair treatment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley said that this was the best temperance Bill ever introduced. But was it a temperance Bill at all?


The hon. Member cannot go into the question of the nature of the Bill. He must confine himself to the Amendment.


said that instead of going to a retail licensed house people could club together, buy a bottle of whisky and drink it at home. If this was a temperance Bill would it not bring about a corresponding diminution of the revenue of the United Kingdom?


The effect on the revenue of the United Kingdom is outside the Amendment.


said that all the time off-licences were to be in competition with on-licences. While they increased the taxation they did nothing to reduce the competition. That was an unfair principle.


It is a matter of very great surprise to us that the Government have attempted to make no answer to the speech delivered by the Leader of the Opposition, who made it perfectly clear that the Amendment discloses the real policy of the Government. It is a most unfortunate thing tint under our procedure an Amendment of this kind should come on at a time when naturally many Members of the Government was absent, notably the Prime Minister, and it is to be profoundly regretted that ha should be absent when we are discussing and coming to a decision upon an Amendment which, without question, is one of the most important Amendments the House will be called upon to consider. What we want to discover is the object of the Government in passing this Bill. Members of the Government and their supporters state that they are actuated by no spirit of ill-feeling towards any particular trade, but that they are acting upon a high moral principle. They want to deal with an odious evil by diminishing temptation. If that is their view, why do they confine their operations solely to on-licences? What they desire is that their weaker brethren who cannot resist temptation should be made sober, not by Act of Parliament, but by having removed from their path temptations they are not strong enough to resist. Which is the stronger temptation offered to a man or woman—going into a public-house subject to inspection by the police and subject to the discipline which falls alike on the owner of the house and the holder of the licence if the law is transgressed, or the temptation of going into a place where the mans business is not to sell intoxicating liquors, whose business rests on other foundations altogether, but who is able at the same time to sell liquor in small quantities to be consumed in private Without any right of entry by the police, and leading, as we all know, to a much greater amount of drunkenness than that which obtains in public-houses? My hon. and learned friend the Member for Liverpool quoted the figures about the prosecution of licence holders, and he was told that his quotation was not apposite because they were the convictions on licensed premises. Can anyone doubt that in view of the comparatively few cases of drunkenness which are traced directly to public-houses, the greater proportion is due to secret drinking? If the object of this measure is to reduce temptation, this Amendment ought to be accepted exactly as it stands. What is the argument of the Home Secretary? He says these on-licences have decreased. What on earth has that got to do with it? We know that on-licences are decreasing under the Act of 1904. What is the real object of the Government? The whole question of temperance is swept away, and you are brought down to the simple issue that you are preparing to take away a particular class of property which you believe belongs to few people, and those few people you believe are opposed to yourselves politically. My hon. friend behind me says he hopes these licences will be dealt with within the next ten years.


I said before the end of fourteen years.


Well, ten years is within fourteen. The House cheered my hon. friend. Could there be anything more dishonest than that cheer? What does it mean? Doer it mean that hon. Gentlemen believe these licences are an evil that ought to be dealt with? Because if they do they are bound to support this Amendment. Then there was the argument about compensation. They argue that that is a question that might very well be discussed at a later period, but owing to the conditions under which we are forced to discuss this Bill, there may be no opportunity of raising it at a later stage. The whole principle which hon. Members have in view is not the extinction of licences by the payment of compensation, because that is provided for by the Act of 1904, but it is that there shall be a limit to that operation, and an extinction of licences without any compensation.


Nothing of the sort. This is essentially a reduction clause and not compensation.


The hon. Member's point would be reasonable if we were discussing these matters unshackled, but under the circumstances his argument cannot have any weight at all. We are now within an hour and five minutes of the time when the discussion of this clause must come to an end. The question we have to ask the Government now is, is this a bona fide Bill for temperance or is it not? If it is, then you should apply to all licences the same law and the same principles. If you fail to do that you stand convicted of introducing a Bill which is a sham, which is not in reality a temperance measure, which is merely intended to attack a particular trade, because you believe you can do that with greater safety than if your operations were further extended. I hope the country will take note of what has taken place to-night, and also of the fact that the Government, arraigned by the Leader of the Opposition, on the ground that their Bill has been proved to be a sham, have not had the courage to answer this attack or defend themselves. As a matter of fact, they have taken refuge in a defence which is quite untenable and they are really advocating a Bill which is an attack upon a particular trade and a particular class of individuals. By refusing this Amendment the Government will not attain what they desire, namely, to make the people more temperate and remove from their path that greatest of all temptations, namely, that which occurs under the "off" and not under the "on" licences.


said that not long ago he ran the risk of an action for libel from a grocers' licence protection association upon this subject. He thought the right hon. Member for Spen Valley would do him the honour of believing that, in this matter he was strongly sincere in his feeling that off-licences were as harmful as, if not more harmful than on-licences to the sobriety of the nation. He would like to refer to a point which had been raised by the Under-Secretary to the Home Department in regard to the Peel Commission Report. He was afraid they had been somewhat misled by the quotation made from that Report. It was true that the Commission suggested a diminution of on-licences, and they allowed a period of five years, but during that period their opinion was that no new licences should be granted, and that the licensing authority should come to a decision as to how many new licences would be required. He thought they were clearly entitled to say on that Report that the Peel Commission felt there were too many grocers' licences. They felt that combinations of trade in connection with these licences ought to be removed, that there should be no new licences granted for five years, and at the end of that time obviously there was to be a diminution in the number of licences. It had been argued against this proposal that grocers' licences were diminishing under the provisions of the Act of 1904. It was perfectly true that they had diminished since that Act was passed, by about 125 out of 25,000 existing licences, but on-licences had been diminished by some 3,000 or 4,000 out of a total of 100,000. If it was a reason for not including off-licences that they had been reduced by 120 out of 25,000 a fortiori it was a reason for not touching the on-licences, because they had not been reduced to a far greater extent since 1904. He could not help feeling that the Home Secretary had treated the whole question of grocers' licences far too lightly. The right hon. Gentleman told them that grocers' licences were the cause of much secret drinking. He (the Home Secretary) did not think that secret drinking was due to the existence of grocers' licences, but it arose more from the innate depravity of the human mind.


What I said was that the chief evil alleged in connection with grocers' licences was secret drinking.


said he quite agreed, but the evil which the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to appreciate in all its seriousness in the same way as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley and the hon. Member for Appleby was the secret drinking by women which could be traced to the existence of grocers' licences. He had heard both of the hon. Members opposite denounce in far more effective language than he could use the evils of grocers' licences, in connection with secret drinking. The hon. Member for Appleby was president of a society for the total prohibition of the liquor traffic. Here was a genuine opportunity for the hon. Gentleman and his friends to take some part in the partial and immediate suppression of a large number of grocers' licences which were part and parcel of the drink system of the country. Yet hon. Gentlemen opposite refused to take advantage of this golden oppor- tunity. He invited the Government to explain how this Amendment could possibly "kill the Bill." There was ample time during the coming vacation for the right hon. Member for Spen Valley to draft clauses to reduce those grocers' licences, and he might without difficulty devise a much honester and more fair method of compensation than that which the Government proposed for the brewers. He wished to call the attention of the Committee a little more closely to the real evils of grocers' licences, and to the consensus of opinion regarding them among all temperance workers. From 1860 onwards, when they were first instituted by the late Mr. Gladstone, there had been a consensus of opinion in the religious and temperance world that grocers' licences had done far more harm than on-licences in encouraging drinking among women, deaths from which during the last thirty years had increased 150 per cent. The whole speech of the Home Secretary was a failure to realise the evils caused by these licences. During these thirty years insanity caused by drinking among women had largely increased. A remarkable document had been published this year as to the cause of drunkenness among women, which was admitted by all temperance and religious workers. Questions were sent out by the Church of England Temperance Society to a large number of doctors and others asking their opinion on the subject in view of the debates which were to take place on this Bill. Of those who had replied, fifteen doctors were of opinion that there was no increase, eighty-eight doctors testified to a large increase of drunkenness among leisured women, ninety-three doctors testified to a large increase among the wives of the working people of England, and a very great number of those doctors attributed this increase directly to grocers' licences. He was sure that his hon. friends on that side of the House would agree with him that there was a consensus of opinion among doctors that grocers' licences were the cause of this evil. Not only had his own church condemned in no measured terms grocers' licences, but less than two years ago the Wesleyan Conference met in London and unanimously passed a Resolution declaring that in their opinion the promised legislation of the Government would not be satisfactory unless it dealt with the cause of the terrible increase of drunkenness among women, with its most serious and deteriorating influence on children, namely, the wine and spirit dealers' retail licences, commonly called grocers' licences, and urging upon the Government the necessity of giving the licensing authority unrestrained control over the issue and control of those licences. The late Mr. Gladstone said it was necessary to decide this question on its moral and social bearings. He was prepared to do that, and if the Government would only take off its Whips, he felt certain that an overwhelming majority of temperance members who habitually supported the Government would vote for this Amendment. They knew that, if they were to do anything really to remedy the evils of drunkenness among women they must attack grocers' licences. He challenged the Government and their supporters to show whether they were really sincere or not. Many hon. Members had more or less recently gone before j their constituents and used, perhaps, what hon. Members on the other side considered rather strong language with regard to the provisions of this Bill. He himself had not hesitated to say on public platforms, and he did not hesitate to say now in the House, that this Bill, so far as its temperance aspect was concerned, was a delusion and a sham, and that it was not introduced with the view to remedying the evils of intemperance. The Government and their supporters now had an opportunity of showing whether they were sincere in the speeches they had made about the great advantages to be derived from this Bill from a temperance point of view. He was a believer in moderate reduction, though reduction was not a remedy, but only a palliative. If it was a palliative with regard to on-licences it was still; more so in regard to off-licences. He appealed to hon. Members opposite who had made speeches on the temperance question to join in an effort to bring these licences into the purview of the Bill, and to prevent the Opposition from being able to say that their enthusiasm for temperance was a sham and a delusion, and that their sole reason for bringing in the Bill was to penalise their political opponents, while they dared not touch that part of the drink trade which was very largely Radical in its opinions.

MR. BELLOC (Salford, S.)

said that the speech of the hon. Member who had just addressed the Committee had convinced him that he was not quite in sympathy with the temperance Members on either side of the House. It appeared to him that the psychology of temperance Members on the Ministerial side of the House was very much the same as that of hon. Members on the other side. There was another point of view to which he wished to refer. The attitude of every Government for many years in the framing of every Bill had been largely decided by the type of man who subscribed to their secret party funds. The brewers—he thought they were mistaken—had liberally subscribed to the funds of the Party opposite, and the trade which was dealt with in this Amendment had principally supported the party funds of the Party to which he belonged. He, in recognition of that profound evil of political corruption which had struck into our Parliamentary system more deeply than any other, would vote for the Amendment, as a protest against what he believed to be the spirit of corruption in their party politics.


said the Committee had had an example of how the glow of moral enthusiasm could be chilled by party necessity. They had not heard from a single Member on the front bench opposite one consistent reason why off-licences should not have been dealt with in this Bill. What had been the reasons adduced? They had been that a scheme of compensation would be too difficult. Hon. Members opposite who had always been strong temperance reformers—he did not say that disparagingly; he hoped they were all temperance reformers, differing only among themselves as to methods—now said that compensation was difficult, and this was not honest, consistent, just, or straightforward. What had hon. Members been doing for twenty years? They were out of power for the greater part of that time, and they said in 1904 that they would bring in a temperance measure which would deal with the evils of drink in this country thoroughly and impartially. But what had they done? In two aspects they had not touched the evils at all, viz., secret drinking through the facilities of off-licences, and drinking in clubs. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, who was one of the ablest Members on the Treasury bench, said that the reason why the Government could not deal with off-licences was because a scheme of compensation for them was so difficult. That was the only reason adduced that afternoon; and if it was not their only reason might the Committee expect that some of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues would satisfy them in regard to this matter? He could not think that hon. Members on their own side of the House were satisfied with the reason given. The right hon. Member for Spen Valley, the Member for the Appleby Division, and scores of their colleagues had said over and over again in the country and in the House that off-licences ought to be dealt with because they were a crying evil which destroyed the home, debased women, and encouraged the pernicious vice of secret drinking. But when a Bill was brought in to which an hon. Member offered an Amendment providing an opportunity for giving attention to off-licences, the result was silence everywhere. He believed in the individual honesty of those temperance reformers—as apart from their party honesty—and he thought that they must be ashamed at the exhibition that afternoon of the Ministerial exposition of a Bill which was intended to produce a great political effect on the country and also morally. But that which was intended to produce a political effect conflicted with that which was intended to produce a moral effect. One reason given by the Home Secretary for not dealing with off-licences was that they were decreasing; but it had been very ably pointed out by an hon. Member on the Opposition benches, that under the 1904 Act on-licences had also been steadily decreasing. He submitted to the Committee that to offer that as a reason for not dealing with the off-licences in the Bill was to show the Minister in charge either inconsistent or incompetent. He could not think that the right hon. Gentleman was incompetent; and he preferred to say that he was inconsistent. What was the secret? The secret had been lot out by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, who said that they on the Opposition Benches had been influenced by the brewers in passing the Bill in 1904, a Bill which had produced great results, and had reduced licences. If the reduction of licences was in the interest of temperance, then the 1904 Act had produced an effect on temperance throughout the country. But the hon. Member for Salford stated, what they on the Opposition side believed to be the truth, that the Government had not dealt with off-licences because it was not considered politically expedient; that they did not want to set their friends the grocers against them. If that was not the case, he trusted that some hon. Member on the front Treasury bench would state what was the real reason; because they were quite at a loss to know the actual state of the case. The hon. Member for Salford had expressed the strong detestation which they all had for the evils of secret drinking, and hon. Members opposite had applauded. What hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House wanted was that a Bill should be brought in to deal with the evils which flowed from off-licences.


ON THE MINISTERIAL BENCH: Why did you not deal with them in your Bill?


said he hoped that from beginning to end of his speech he had been dealing temperately, and certainly with some sort of care, with the arguments brought forward by the supporters of the Bill. What he was saying, when interrupted, was that the deep antipathy which they had to the evils which flowed from off-licences had induced Members on the Opposition side of the House to support the Amendment, which they had confidently hoped would receive considerable support from those who had persistently said that secret drinking and other evils which flowed from off-licences ought to be dealt with radically—he did not mean radically in its political sense. He appealed to the right hon. Member for Spen Valley, to whom his Party was greatly indebted for having brought this question so prominently before the country. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the masterful position which he had assumed; but he regretted, as he believed everybody who admired political consistency regretted, that the right hon. Gentleman had not made an appeal to the Government, even at that late hour, to deal effectively with this question of off-licences to which they had committed themselves over and over again.

*MR. LUPTON (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

said that the hon. Member for Gravesend thought his Party had a monopoly of political sincerity. There was nobody on that side of the House, whatever their view might have been before, who would not vote against the Amendment to show that they had not the slightest doubt that the motives of the Treasury bench were as pure as those of the great religious and temperance organisations throughout the country which urged the Government to push forward with this Bill. The motives of the Government were entirely pure, and inspired by the love of their fellow-creatures. The hon. Member for Liverpool had asked if there was any reason why a difference should be made between on and off-licences, and how they, on that side of the House, could support the reduction of one and not of the other? He would give a reason which was so obvious that it would be accepted by the mover of the Amendment. Supposing a man was walking home and had reached within a mile of his house; he came to the open door of a public-house, went in, stopped there for some time, and when he came out he found it impossible to walk home. But suppose, instead, he went into a grocer's shop and got two bottles of beer, putting one in one pocket and another in another pocket like John Gilpin "to keep the balance true." He would find no difficulty in walking home, and when he got there he would give one bottle to his wife to drink and have the other for himself. They were both at home, and got to bed sober, and did not fall into the hands of a policeman. The hon. Member for North East Man-Chester doubtless was anxious to strengthen the Bill. He thought the licence holders had already had time enough and five years time limit more than ample. No wonder he had little patience with a Bill that dealt so gently with the Trade; and he was anxious to extinguish as many licences as possible, but the more moderate temperance men could not go so far.


who was received with Ministerial cries of "Oh, oh" and "Divide," said he would like to state his reasons for supporting the Amendment. He did not take the Party Whip of the Liberal Party. He had never done so; and should never do so. As a temperance advocate and worker all his life he was bound to support the Amendment now before the House. He was at a loss to understand why the right hon. Member for Spen Valley did not support the Amendment, because if they turned to the Report of the Royal Commission,, they found on page 157 that the right hon. Gentleman definitely recommended that all grocers' licences should be abolished after a period of five years. The great blot on this Bill was that off-licences and clubs were not included. The position with regard to clubs was ludicrous, and so far as off-licences were concerned any one who had spent his life among working men as he had must know that those off-licences were a great evil. Therefore, believing as he did that the Bill was a temperance measure, he asked why off-licences were not included in it. The Committee had been told that the Government could not deal with the whole subject at one time, that they were dealing with the on-licences now and would deal with the off-licences at another time. But in his opinion, if the Government introduced a temperance Bill they should be prepared to deal with the whole of these licences. The right hon. Member for the Spen Valley took a great deal of evidence on the matter of these licences, and there was no stronger argument in favour of the acceptance of the Amendment than the Majority Report signed by the right hon. Gentleman himself. Having been a strong temperance reformer he had not the slightest doubt of the way in which he should vote on this question.


said the reason given by the Home Secretary for refusing this Amendment was quite different from that given by an hon. Member earlier in the day, namely, that it was not necessary to deal with off-licences, because they had been reduced in late years. The on-licences had also been reduced since the Act of 1904. The reason given by the Home Secretary was that it was not necessary to deal with off-licences unless they acquired an enhanced value. But

it was certain that as the on-licences that were left would derive an enhanced value, there was no guarantee for saying that off-licences would not do so. The fact was that this Bill did not deal with the whole matter, but with only one portion of it, and the moment the off-licences derived enhanced value they would be dealt with, and the House in the near future would be asked to face another Bill to deal with off-licences.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 306; Noes, 126. (Division List No. 208.)

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Cleland, J. W. Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John
Acland, Francis Dyke Clough, William Glendinning, R. G.
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. Cobbold, Felix Thornley Glover, Thomas
Agnew, George William Collins, Stephen Lambeth) Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford
Ainsworth, John Stirling Collins, Sir Wm.J.(S.Pancras,W Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)
Allen, Percy Compton-Rickett, Sir J. Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Cooper, G. J. Greenwood, Hamar(York)
Armitage, R. Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Gulland, John W.
Ashley, W. W. Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton
Ashton, Thomas Gair Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.
Asquith, Rt. Hon Herbert Henry Cory, Sir Clifford John Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L.(Rossendale
Astbury, John Meir Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose
Atherley-Jones, L. Cowan, W. H. Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Crooks, William Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Crosfield, A. H. Harvey, W.E. (Derbyshire,N.E.
Barker, John Crossley, William J. Harwood, George.
Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) Curran, Peter Francis Haslam, James (Derbyshire)
Beale, W. P. Dalmeny, Lord Hazel, Dr. A. E.
Beauchamp, E. Dalziel, James Henry Hazleton, Richard
Bell, Richard Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Hedges, A. Paget
Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo. Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Helme, Norval Watson
Berridee, T. H. D. Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Hemmerde, Edward George
Bethell, Sir J.H.(Essex, Romf'rd Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Bignold, Sir Arthur Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)
Black, Arthur W. Dickinson, W.H. (St.Pancras,N. Henry, Charles S.
Boulton, A. C. F. Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor(Mon., S.)
Bowerman, C. W, Dobson, Thomas W. Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)
Brace, William Donelan, Captain A. Higham, John Sharp
Bramsdon, T. A. Duckworth, James Hobart, Sir Robert
Branch, James Duncan, C. (Barrow in Furness Hodge, John
Brigg, John Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) Holland, Sir William Henry
Bright, J. A. Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)
Brocklehurst, W. B. Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset,N.
Brodie, H. C. Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Horniman, Emslie John
Brooke, Stopford Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh) Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) Hudson, Walter
Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir J.T(Cheshire Erskine, David C. Hutton, Alfred Eddison
Bryce, J. Annan Essex, R. W. Hyde, Clarendon
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Esslemont, George Birnie Isaacs, Rufus Daniel
Burns, Rt. Hn. John Evans, Sir Samuel T. Jackson, R. S.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas ( Everett, R. Lacey Jacoby, Sir James Alfred
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles Fenwick, Charles Jardine, Sir J.
Byles, William Pollard Ferens, T. R. Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Cameron, Robert Findlay, Alexander Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Jones Lief (Appleby)
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Freeman, Thomas, Freeman Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)
Cawley, Sir Frederick Fuller, John Michael F. Joyce, Michael
Channing, Sir Francis Allston Fullerton, Hugh Kearley, Sir Hudson E.
Cheetham, John Frederick Gibb, James (Harrow) Kekewich, Sir George
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. Gill, A. H. Kilbride, Denis
King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Steadman, W. C.
Laidlaw, Robert Pickersgill, Edward Hare Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Lamont, Norman Pollard, Dr. Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Lehmann, R. C. Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Strachey, Sir Edward
Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich Power, Patrick Joseph Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Lever, W. H.(Cheshire, Wirral) Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh Central) Stuart, James (Sunderland)
Levy, Sir Maurice Price, Sir Robert J.(Norfolk, E.) Sutherland, J. R.
Lewis, John Herbert Priestley, W.E. B.(Bradford, E.) Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Radford, G. H. Tennan, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Lupton, Arnold Rainy, A. Holland Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)
Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Raphael, Herbert H. Thomasson, Franklin
Lyell, Charles Henry Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Thorne, G. R.(Wolverhampton
Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' Torrance, Sir A. M.
Mackarness, Frederic C. Reddy, M. Toulmin, George
Maclean, Donald Redmond, William (Clare) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
M'Callum, John M. Rees, J. D. Verney, F. W.
M'Crae, Sir George Rendall, Athelstan Vivian, Henry
M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th Wadsworth, J.
M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
M'Laren, H. D.(Stafford, W.) Richardson, A. Walsh, Stephen
M'Micking, Major G. Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Walters, John Tudor
Maddison, Frederick Roberts, Sir John H.(Denbighs. Walton, Joseph
Mallet, Charles E. Robertson, Sir GScott (Bradf'rd Warlde, George J.
Manfield, Harry (Northants) Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan
Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) Robinson, S. Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Marnham, F. J. Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Waterlow, D. S.
Masterman, C. F. G. Roche, John (Galway, East) Weir, James Galloway
Menzies, Walter Roe, Sir Thomas Whitbread, Howard
Micklem, Nathaniel Rose, Charles Day White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Middlebrook, William Rowlands, J. White, J. D. Dumbartonshire)
Molteno, Percy Alport Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Mond, A. Russell, T. W. Whitehead, Rowland
Money, L. G. Chiozza Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Montagu, Hon. E. S. Rutherford, W. W.(Liverpool) Whittaker, Rt.Hn. Sir Thomas P.
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Samuel Herbert L.(Cleveland) Wiles, Thomas
Morrell, Philip Samuel, S. M.(Whitechapel) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Morse, L. L. Scarisbrick, T. T. L. Williamson, A.
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) Wills, Arthur Walters
Myer, Horatio Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester) Wilson, Henry J.(York, W.R.)
Napier, T. B. Fears, J. E. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Nicholls, George Seaverns, J. H. Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r Seddon, J. Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh, N.)
Nolan, Joseph Seely, Colonel Wilson, P. W.(St. Pancras, S.)
Norman, Sir Henry Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Norton, Capt. Cecil William Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B. Winfrey, R.
Nussey, Thomas Willans Silcock, Thomas Ball Wodehouse, Lord
O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Simon, John Allsebrook Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Parker, James (Halifax) Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John Yoxall, James Henry
Partington, Oswald Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Paulton, James Mellor Soames, Arthur Wellesley TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Soares, Ernest J.
Pearce, William (Limehouse) Spicer, Sir Albert
Pearson, W. H. M.(Suffolk, Eye) Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)
Perks, Sir Robert William Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Bull, Sir William James Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Burdett-Coutts, W. Craik, Sir Henry
Balcarres, Lord Butcher, Samuel Henry Crean, Eugene
Baldwin, Stanley Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Cross, Alexander
Balfour, Rt.Hn. A.J.(City Lond.) Cave, George Dalrymple, Viscount
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Davies, David (Montgomery Co.
Banner, John S. Harmood Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey Doughty, Sir George
Baring, Capt. Hn. G(Winchester Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone, E.) Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers
Barnes, G. N. Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore Du Cros, Arthur Philip
Barrie, H. T.(Londonderry, N.) Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Duffy, William J.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Clive, Percy Archer Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan
Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. Coates, Major E.F.(Lewisham) Faber, Capt. W. V.(Hants, W.)
Bertram, Julius Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E. Fardell, Sir T. George
Bridgeman, W. Clive Collings, Rt.Hn. J. Birmingh'm Fell, Arthur
Brotherton, Edward Allen Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S. Fiennes, Hon. Eustace
Forster, Henry William M'Arthur, Charles Snowden, P.
Gardner, Ernest Magnus, Sir Philip Stanier, Beville
Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Markham, Arthur Basil Starkey, John R.
Gooch,Henry Cubitt (Peckham Marks, H. H. (Kent) Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Goulding, Edward Alfred Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) Summerbell, T.
Guinness, Walter Edward Mason, James F. (Windsor) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Haddock, George B. Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G. (Oxf'd Univ.
Hamilton, Marquess of Mildmay, Francis Bingham Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury
Haride, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil) Morpeth, Viscount Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr
Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashf'rd Morrison-Bell, Captain Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)
Harris, Frederick Leverton Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield) Thornton, Percy M.
Heaton, John Henniker Nield, Herbert Tillett, Louis John
Helmsley, Viscount O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid Valentia, Viscount
Hill, Sir Clement Oddy, John James Walker, Col. W. H.(Lancashire)
Houston, Robert Paterson Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Hunt, Rowland Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Keswick, William Randles, Sir John Scurrah Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Kimber, Sir Henry Rawlinson,John FrederickPeel White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster Renton, Leslie Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Ridsdale, E. A. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Lane-Fox, G. R. Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B.Stuart-
Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Roberts, S.(Sheffied,Ecclesall) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Long,Col.Charles W.(Evesham) Ronaldshay, Earl of Young, Samuel
Long, Rt.Hn.Walter(Dublin,S.) Salter, Arthur Clavell
Lonsdale, John Brownlee Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. George Faber and Mr. Joyn son-Hicks.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Shipman, Dr. John G.
MacCaw, William J.MacGeagh Sloan, Thomas Henry
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Smith,F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)
Macpherson, J. T. Smith, Hon. W.F.D.(Strand)

MR. F. E. SMITH moved an Amendment providing that the licensing justices should reduce the number of on-licences "except licences for the sale of beer upon the premises which were in existence before 1869," so that at the end of fourteen years the number of those licences in any rural parish or urban area should not exceed the scale set out in the first schedule. He said that the fall of the guillotine would make it impossible for him to do more than indicate in a few words the general character of the extremely important Amendment which was in his name. It had been repeatedly said in justification of the interference of the Bill with proprietary interests that the holder of a licence possessed no statutory title to anything more than a years' enjoyment of it. He thought he could show that the Government, if they did not accept the Amendment, would be deliberately interfering with proprietary rights which were constituted under statutory sanction, and which had no limitations whatever upon them. Before 1869 licences for the sale of beer "off" the premises were in the hands, not of the licensing justices, but of the Excise authorities. It was then thought convenient to take this jurisdiction away from the Excise authorities and give it to the licensing justices, but it was felt that some concession should be made to the holders of the licences. Therefore, by a deliberate Act of Parliament and of a Liberal Government, the freehold charter was given to these beer houses, and their licences could only be withheld on four grounds, all of which were personal either to the character of the applicant or the house. The holders of the licences were given a Parliamentary freehold. From 1869 until the Bill of 1904, unless they proved bad conduct on the part of the house, or bad character on the part of the licensee no one could take away the licence. There was no question of defeasance which the right hon. Member for the Spen Valley had tried to push home, or that an annual interest was taken in the licence only. The Parliamentary freehold was given by a Liberal Government as long as the character of the holder and the character of the house was good. That was taken away in 1904 by the successors of the Parliament which had given them that Parliamentary freehold, and it was taken away by those who were responsible, if there were any continuity of Parliamentary honour, for the conditions under which it was given in the first place. The condition under which it was taken away was that no such licence should be taken away after 1904 except under compensation provisions and under circumstances pro- vided for under that Act. Hon. Members opposite cheered the statement that under the Act of 1904 that right was taken away. There was no end to their enthusiasm for the Act of 1904—the moment it inflicted some injury. Was there no responsibility in that House? That would be a useful lesson for the Opposition in a very few years. If they were entitled to say they could take advantage of the deprivation of these rights under the Act of 1904 for a clearly expressed and universally understood consideration, what justification could they advance in 1908 for taking away licences without any consideration at all, and at the same time that they accepted that part of the Act of 1904 which helped their contention, reject the part which procured fair dealing? It was for the Government if they could to reconcile their conduct with the arguments they had used with reference to ordinary on-licences. The agreement had been repeated ad nauseam that those who took on-licences knew perfectly well that the grant was an annual grant. Those who took those licences and invested their money in the 1869 beer-houses, were entitled to assume that those licences would not be taken away except for one or other of those four causes. That Parliamentary undertaking to which the honour of Parliament was committed, if there was any continuity of Parliamentary obligation, had been deliberately violated. If no other justification were available for the use of the word "confiscation" the attitude of the Government towards those 1869 holders was ample justification for the language which had been used in the country, and for the result of bye-elections in the country since this Bill was introduced.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 9, after the word 'on-licences,' to insert the words 'except licences for the sale of beer upon the premises which were in existence before the year eighteen hundred and sixty-nine.'"—(Mr. F. E. Smith.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."


said that the hon. and learned Member invited them to discriminate between the ante- 1869 beer-houses and other houses. To do so would be to ask them- to reverse the settlement very happily arrived at by right hon. Gentlemen opposite in 1904. Thirty years ago, in 1879, a Committee of the House of Lords, no very revolutionary or confiscatory body, recommended that the ante-1869 beerhouses should be placed in all respects on the same footing as other licensed houses. In 1882, the late Mr. Ritchie, without a six-pennyworth or compensation, placed all the off-licence ante-1869 beerhouses on exactly the same footing as the other off-licences. Again, in 1904, almost the last vestige of distinction was swept away, and these licences were placed on the same footing as the others. [Opposition cries of "No."] Well, there was a small, minute distinction about structure. These licensed houses were about 30,000 in number out of a total of 95,000 and it was obviously impossible to exempt them from the scheme. Not only did they form so large a proportion, but they were often precisely the type of house of which it was most desirable to get rid. So clearly was that so that the present licensing authorities working under the Act of 1904 referred for compensation last year 1,625 houses, of which no fewer than 956 were the very ante-1869 beer houses which this Amendment would altogether exempt. These houses had had a forty years time-limit already, and the Government saw no reason for distinguishing between them and other licensed premises.


It is only under closure Resolutions like that under which we are suffering at this moment that misrepresentations so gross can be made. The Under-Secretary actually tells us that in the Act of 1904 no distinction, except a trifling one about structure, was made between the tenure of ante-1869 houses and ordinary licences. He must know that that is inaccurate. He must know that in that Act special terms of compensation were given to those houses, because they had a special tenure, and now all that distinction is to be swept away. Their tenure is to be treated as if it were precisely and exactly identical with the tenure of the ordinary licence-holder. Of course, there was no interference with the rights of these particular licence-holders, because they had special compensation corresponding to their tenure, and everybody admits, whatever their views of property may be, that with proper and adequate compensation you may take it away. Adequate and special compensation was given to these people by the Act of 1904, and that difference is absolutely swept away by

the provisions of the present Bill. The hon. Gentleman might, at all events, have given us a proper defence of his policy, and not so grossly have misrepresented the Act of 1904.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 140; Noes, 354. (Division List No. 209.)

Anson, Sir William Reynell Fardell, Sir T. George Nield, Herbert
Arkwright, John Stanhope Fell, Arthur Nolan, Joseph
Ashley, W. W. Forster, Henry William Oddy, John James
Balcarres, Lord Gardner, Ernest Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Baldwin, Stanley Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington
Balfour,Rt,Hn.A.J.(CityLond. Gooch,Henry Cubitt(Peckham) Percy, Earl
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Goulding, Edward Alfred Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Baring,Capt.Hn.G.(Winchester Gretton, John Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Barnard, E. B. Guinness, Walter Edward Rawlinson,John Frederick Peel
Barran, Rowland Hirst Haddock, George B. Remnant, James Farquharson
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry,N.) Hamilton, Marquess of Renton, Leslie
Beach,Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks Hardy,Laurence (Kent,Ashf'rd Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Harris, Frederick Loverton Ronaldsay, Earl of
Belloe, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Bertram, Julius Hay, Hon. Claude George Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Bignold, Sir Arthur Heaton, John Henniker Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bowles, G. Stewart Helmsley, Viscount Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Bridgeman, W. Clive Hill, Sir Clement Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Brotherton, Edward Allen Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield Sheffield,Sir Berkeley George D.
Bull, Sir William James Houston, Robert Paterson Smith, Abel H. (Hertford,East)
Burdett-Coutts, W. Hunt, Rowland Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton
Butcher, Samuel Henry Joynson-Hicks, William Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Carlile, E. Hildred Kennaway,Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Stanier, Beville
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Kerry, Earl of Starkey, John R.
Castlereagh, Viscount Keswick, William Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
Cave, George Kimber, Sir Henry Stone, Sir Benjamin
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Lane-Fox, G. R. Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'dUniv)
Chamberlain,RtHn J.A.(Worc. Lockwood, Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col.A.R. Thomson,W.Mitchell. (Lanark)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Long,Col. Charles W.(Evesham Thornton, Percy M.
Clive, Percy Archer Long,Rt.Hn. Walter(Dublin,S) Tillett, Louis John
Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) Lonsdale, John Brownlee Walker, Col. W.H.(Lancashire)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Lowe, Sir Francis William Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Collings,Rt.Hn.J.(Birmingh'm Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)
Cox, Harold MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh Whitbread, Howard
Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim,S) M'Arthur, Charles White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) M'Iver, Sir Lewis Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Craik, Sir Henry Magnus, Sir Philip Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Crean, Eugene Marks, H. H. (Kent) Wilson, A. Stanley (York,E.R.)
Cross, Alexander Mason, James F. (Windsor) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Dalrymple, Viscount Meysey-Thompson, E. G. Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Doughty, Sir George Middlemore, John Throgmorton Young, Samuel
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Mildmay, Francis Bingham Younger, George
Du Cros, Arthur Philip Mooney, J. J.
Duncan, Robert (Lanark,Govan Morpeth, Viscount TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Faber, George Dension(York) Morrison-Bell, Captain
Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Balfour, Robert (Lanark)
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)
Acland, Francis Dyke Armitage, R. Barker, John
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. Ashton, Thomas Gair Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)
Agnew, George William Asquith,Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Barnes, G. N.
Ainsworth, John Stirling Astbury, John Meir Barran, Rowland Hirst
Alden, Percy Atherley-Jones, L. Beale, W. P.
Beauchamp, E. Erskine, David C. Kearley, Sir Hudson E.
Bell, Richard Essex, R. W. Kekewich, Sir George
Bellairs, Carlyon Esslemont, George Birnie Kilbride, Denis
Benn,W.(T'w'r Hamlets,S.Geo) Evans, Sir Samuel T. King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Berridge, T. H. D. Everett, R. Lacey Laidlaw, Robert
Bethell,Sir J. H. (Essex,Romf'rd Fenwick, Charles Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Ferens, T. R. Lamont, Norman
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Ferguson, R. C. Munro Lehmann, R. C.
Black, Arthur W. Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Lever, A. Levy (Essex,Harwich
Boulton, A. C. F. Findlay, Alexander Lever, W. H. (Cheshire Wirral)
Bowerman, C. W. Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Levy, Sir Maurice
Brace, William Freeman-Thomas, Freeman Lewis, John Herbert
Bramsdon, T. A. Fuller, John Michael F. Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Branch, James Fullerton, Hugh Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Brigg, John Gibb, James (Harrow) Lupton, Arnold
Bright, J. A. Gill, A. H. Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Brocklehurst, W. B. Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John Lyell, Charles Henry
Brodie, H. C. Glendinning, R. G. Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Brooke, Stopford Glover, Thomas Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs
Brunner, J. F. L.(Lancs.,Leigh) Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Mackarness, Frederic C.
Brunner,RtHn SirJ.T(Cheshire Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) Maclean, Donald
Bryce, J. Annan Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Macpherson, J. T.
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Greenwood, Hamar (York) M'Crae, Sir George
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)
Buxton,Rt.Hn. Sydney Charles Gulland, John W. M'Laret, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Byles, William Pollard Gurdon,Rt Hn SirW.Brampton M'Micking, Major G.
Cameron, Robert Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Maddison, Frederick
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Hall, Frederick Mallet, Charles E.
Cawley, Sir Frederick Harcourt,Rt.Hn.L.(Rossendale Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Chance, Frederick William Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose) Markham, Arthur Basil
Channing, Sir Francis Allston Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)
Cheetham, John Frederick Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Marnham, F. J.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.) Massie, J.
Cleland, J. W. Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh Masterman, C. F. G.
Clough, William Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Menzies, Walter
Cobbold, Felix Thornley Harvey, W.E.(Derbyshire,N.E. Micklem, Nathaniel
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Harwood, George Middlebrook, William
Collins,Sir Wm. J.(S.Pancras W Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Molteno, Percy Alport
Compton-Rickett, Sir J. Haworth, Arthur A. Mond, A.
Cooper, G. J. Hazel, Dr. A. E. Money, L. G. Chiozza
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Hazleton, Richard Montagu, Hon. E. S.
Corbett,C H (Sussex,E.Grinst'd Hedges, A. Paget Montgomery, H. G.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Helme, Norval Watson Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Cory, Sir Clifford John Hemmerde, Edward George Morrell, Philip
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Morse, L. L.
Cowan, W. H. Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.) Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Henry, Charles S. Myer, Horatio
Crooks, William Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon.,S.) Napier, T. B.
Crosfield, A. H. Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Crossley, William J. Higham, John Sharp Nicholls, George
Curran, Peter Francis Hobart, Sir Robert Nicholson,Charles N. (Doncast'r
Dalmeny, Lord Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Norman, Sir Henry
Dalziel, James Henry Hodge, John Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Davies,David(MontgomeryCo.) Holland, Sir William Henry Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Holt, Richard Durning Nussey, Thomas Willans
Davies,M.Vaughan- (Cardigan) Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Nuttall, Harry
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Hope,W.Bateman (Somerset,N O'Brien,Kendal (TipperaryMid
Davies,SirW.Howell(Bristol,S. Horniman, Emslie John O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Howard, Hon. Geoffrey O'Grady, J.
Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras,N. Hudson, Walter Parker, James (Halifax)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Hutton, Alfred Eddison Partington, Oswald
Dobson, Thomas W. Hyde, Clarendon Paulton, James Mellor
Donelan, Captain A. Illingworth, Percy H. Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Duckworth, James Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Duffy, William J. Jackson, R. S. Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk,Eye)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Jacoby, Sir James Alfred Perks, Sir Robert William
Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) Jardine, Sir J. Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Johnson, John (Gateshead) Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Dunne,Major E.Martin(Walsall Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) Pollard, Dr.
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Jones, Leif (Appleby) Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Power, Patrick Joseph
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) Joyce, Michael Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)
Price, Sir Robert J.(Norfolk,E.) Seaverns, J. H. Wadsworth, J.
Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) Seddon, J. Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford,E. Seely, Colonel Walsh, Stephen
Pullar, Sir Robert Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Walters, John Tudor
Radford, G. H. Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) Walton, Joseph
Rainy, A. Rolland Shipman, Dr. John G. Ward,W.Dudley (Southampt'n
Raphael, Herbert H. Silcock, Thomas Ball Wardle, George J.
Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Simon, John Allsebrook Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan
Reddy, M. Sloan, Thomas Henry Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Redmond, William (Clare) Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Waterlow, D. S.
Rees, J. D. Snowden, P. Watt, Henry A.
Rendall, Athelstan Soames, Arthur Wellesley Wedgwood, Josiah A.
Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th Soares, Ernest J. Weir, James Galloway
Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n Spicer, Sir Albeit White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Richardson, A. Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Ridsdale, E. A. Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.) White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Steadman, W. C. Whitehead, Rowland
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Stewart, Halley (Greenock) Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Roberts,Sir John H.(Denbighs. Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) Whittaker,RtHn.SirThomas P.
Robertson,Sir G.Scott (Bradf'd Strachey, Sir Edward Wiles, Thomas
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Straus, B. S. (Mile End) Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Robinson, S. Stuart, James (Sunderland) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Robson, Sir William Snowdon Summerbell, T. Williamson, A.
Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Sutherland, J. E. Wills, Arthur Walters
Roche, John (Galway, East) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Roc, Sir Thomas Tennant,Sir Edward (Salisbury Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Rogers, F. E. Newman Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.
Rose, Charles Day Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.) Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Rowlands, J. Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter Thomasson, Franklin Winfrey, R.
Russell, T. W. Thorne, G.R.(Wolverhampton) Wodehouse, Lord
Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) Tomkinson, James Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Torrance, Sir A. M. Yoxall, James Henry
Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Toulmin, George
Scarisbrick, T. T. L. Trevelyan, Charles Philips TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.
Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) Ure, Alexander
Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester) Verney, F. W.
Scott,A.H.(Ashton-under-Lyne Villiers, Ernest Amherst
Sears, J. E. Vivian, Henry

And, it being after half-past Ten of the clock, the Chairman proceeded pursuant to the Order of the House of 17th July, to put forthwith the Question on an Amendment moved by the Government of which notice had been given, and on any Questions necessary to disposes of the Business to be concluded this day.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 21, at end, to insert the words 'and for the purposes of the definition of an "urban area" a metropolitan borough shall be deemed to be a borough, and, where

part of a ward of a borough or urban district is situated in one licensing district and part in another, each such part of the ward shall be treated as part of the ward with which it has the longest common boundary in the same licensing district.' "—(Mr. Gladstone.)

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 348; Noes, 140. (Division List No. 210.)

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Armitage, R. Barnes, G. N.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Ashton, Thomas Gair Barran, Rowland Hirst
Acland, Francis Dyke Asquith,Rt Hn.Herbert Henry Beale, W. P.
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. Astbury, John Meir Beauchamp, E.
Agnew, George William Atherley-Jones, L. Bell, Richard
Ainsworth, John Stirling Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Bellairs, Carlyon
Alden, Percy Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Benn,W.(T'w'r Hamlets,S.Geo.
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Barker, John Berridge, T. H. D.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) Bethell, Sir J.H.(Essex,Romf'd
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Ferguson, R. C. Munro Lehmann, R. C.
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Lever, A.Levy (Essex,Harwich
Black, Arthur W. Findlay, Alexander Lever, W. H.(Cheshire, Wirral)
Boulton, A. C. F. Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Levy, Sir Maurice
Bowerman, C. W. Freeman-Thomas, Freeman Lewis, John Herbert
Brace, William Fuller, John Michael F. Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Bramsdon, T. A. Fullerton, Hugh Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Branch, James Gibb, James (Harrow) Lupton, Arnold
Brigg, John Gill, A. H. Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Bright, J. A. Gladstone, RtHn.Herbert John Lyell, Charles Henry
Brocklehurst, W. B. Glendinning, R. G. Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Brodie, H. C. Glover, Thomas Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs
Brooke, Stopford Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Mackarness, Frederic C.
Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh) Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) Maclean, Donald
Brunner,RtHnSir J.T(Cheshire Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Macpherson, J. T.
Bryce, J. Annan Greenwood, Hamar (York) M'Crae, Sir George
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill M'Laren, Sir C.B.(Leicester)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Gulland, John W. M'Laren, H.D.(Stafford, W.)
Buxton,Rt.Hn. SydneyCharles Gurdon, RtHn.SirW. Brampton M'Micking, Major G.
Byles, William Pollard Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Maddison, Frederick
Cameron, Robert Hall, Frederick Mallet, Charles E.
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Harcourt,Rt.Hn.L.(Rossendale Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Cawley, Sir Frederick Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose) Markham, Arthur Basil
Chance, Frederick William Hardie,J.Keir (MerthyrTydvil) Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston)
Channing, Sir Francis Allston Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Marnham, F. J.
Cheetham, John Frederick Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) Massie, J.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. Harmsworth,R.L. (Caithn'ss-sh Masterman, C. F. G.
Cleland, J. W. Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Menzies, Walter
Clough, William Harvey, W.E.(Derbyshire,N.E Micklem, Nathaniel
Cobbold, Felix Thornley Harwood, George Middlebrook, William
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Molteno, Percy Alport
Collins,Sir Wm.J.(S.Pancras,W Haworth, Arthur A. Mond, A.
Compton-Rickett, Sir J. Hazel, Dr. A. E. Money, L. G. Chiozza
Cooper, G. J. Hazleton, Richard Montgomery, H. G.
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Hedges, A. Paget Morean, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Corbett,C H (Sussex,E.Grinst'd Helme, Norval Watson Morrell, Philip
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Hemmerde, Edward George Morse, L. L.
Cory, Sir Clifford John Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen,W.) Myer, Horatio
Cowan, W. H. Henry, Charles S. Napier, T. B.
Cox, Harold Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon.,S.) Newnes, F. (Notts,Bassetlaw)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Nicholls, George
Crooks, William Higham, John Sharp Nicholson,Charles N(Doncast'r
Crossley, William J. Hobart, Sir Robert Norman, Sir Henry
Curran, Francis Peter Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Dalmeny, Lord Hodge, John Nussey, Thomas Willans
Dalziel, James Henry Holland, Sir William Henry Nuttall, Harry
Davies,David (MontgomeryCo. Holt, Richard Durning O'Donnell, C.J. (Walworth)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) O'Grady, J.
Davies, M. Vaughan-C(ardigan) Hope,W.Bateman (Somerset,N Parker, James (Halifax)
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Horniman, Emslie John Partington, Oswald
Davies,SirW.Howell(Bristol,S.) Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Paulton, James Mellor
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Hudson, Walter Pearce, Robert (Staffs,Leek)
Dickinson, W.H. (St.Pancras,N Hutton, Alfred Eddison Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Hyde, Clardendon Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye)
Dobson, Thomas W. Illingworth, Percy H. Perks, Sir Robert William
Donelan, Captain A. Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Duckworth, James Jackson, R. S. Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Jacoby, Sir James Alfred Pollard, Dr.
Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) Jardine, Sir J. Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Johnson, John (Gateshead) Power, Patrick Joseph
Dunne, Major E.Martin(Walsall Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Jones, Leif (Appleby) Price,Sir Robert J.(Norfolk,E.)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Jones, William(Carnarvonshire Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) Joyce, Michael Priestley,W.E.B.(Bradford,E.)
Erskine, David C. Kearley, Sir Hudson E. Pullar, Sir Robert
Essex, R. W. Kekewich, Sir George Radford, G. H.
Esslemont, George Birnie Kilbride, Denis Rainy, A. Rolland
Evans, Sir Samuel T. King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Raphael, Herbert H.
Everett, R. Lacey Laidlaw, Robert Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Fenwick, Charles Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'
Ferens, T. R. Lamont, Norman Reddy, M.
Redmond, William (Clare) Simon, John Allsebrook Walters, John Tudor
Rees, J. D. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John Walton, Joseph
Rendall, Athelstan Sloan, Thomas Henry Ward, W. Dudley (S'thampton
Richards, Thomas(W.Monm'th Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Wardle, George J.
Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n Snowden, P. Wason, RtHn.E(Clackmannan
Richardson, A. Soames, Arthur Wellesley Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Soares, Ernest J. Waterlow, D. S.
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Spicer, Sir Albert Watt, Henry A.
Roberts,Sir John H.(Denbighs. Stanley, Albert (Staffs,N.W.) Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Robertson,Sir GScott(Bradf'rd Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph(Chesh.) Weir, James Galloway
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Steadman, W. C. White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Robinson, S. Stewart, Halley (Greeock) White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Robson, Sir William Snowdon Stewart-Smith, D.(Kendal) White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Strachey, Sir Edward Whitehead, Rowland
Roche, John (Galway, East) Straus, B. S. (Mile End) Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Roe, Sir Thomas Stuart, James (Sunderland) Whittaker,RtHn.Sir ThomasP.
Rogers, F. E. Newman Summerbell, T. Wiles, Thomas
Rose, Charles Day Sutherland, J. E. Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Rowlands, J. Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe) Williams, Osmond(Merioneth)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury Williamson, A.
Russell, T. W. Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) Wills, Arthur Walters
Rutherford, V.H.(Brentford) Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.) Wilson, Henry J.(York, W.R.)
Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland) Thomas,David Alfred(Merthyr Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel), Thomasson, Franklin Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh,N.)
Scarisbrick, T. T. L. Thorne,G. R. (Wolverhampton Wilson, P. W. (St.Pancras,S.)
Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) Tomkinson, James Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Schwann,Sir C.E. (Manchester) Torrance, Sir A. M. Winfrey, R.
Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne Toulmin, George Wodehouse, Lord
Sears, J. E. Trevelyan, Charles Philips Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Seaverns, J. H. Ure, Alexander Yoxall, James Henry
Seddon, J. Verney, F. W.
Seely, Colonel Villiers, Ernest Amherst TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.
Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Vivian, Henry
Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) Wadsworth, J.
Shipman, Dr. John G. Walker, H. De R.(Leicester)
Silcock, Thomas Ball Walsh, Stephen
Anson, Sir William Reynell Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E. Houston, Robert Paterson
Arkwright, John Stanhope Collings, Rt.Hn.J.(Birmingh'm Hunt, Rowland
Ashley, W. W. Craig,Charles Curtis(Antrim,S. Joynson-Hicks, William
Balcarres, Lord Craig, Captain James(Down,E.) Kennaway,RtHn.Sir John H.
Baldwin, Stanley Craik, Sir Henry Kerry, Earl of
Balfour,Rt.Hn.A.J.(City Lond.) Crean, Eugene Keswick, William
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Cross, Alexander Kimber, Sir Henry
Banner, John S. Harmood- Dalrymple, Viscount Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.
Baring,Capt. Hn.G(Winchester Doughty, Sir George Lane-Fox, G. R.
Barnard, E. B. Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry,N.) Du Cros, Arthur Philip Lockwood, RtHn.Lt.-Col.A.R.
Beach,Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks Duncan, Robt.(Lanark, Govan) Long,Col.Charles W.(Evesham)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Faber, George Denison (York) Long, Rt.Hn.Walter(Dublin,S)
Belloc,Hilaire Joseph Peter R. Faber, Capt. W. V.(Hants,W.) Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Bertram, Julius Fardell, Sir T. George Lowe, Sir Francis William
Bignold, Sir Arthur Fell, Arthur Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Bowles, G. Stewart Forster, Henry William MacCaw, William J.MacGeagh
Bridgeman, W. Clive Gardner, Ernest M'Arthur, Charles
Brotherton, Edward Allen Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) M'Iver, Sir Lewis
Bull, Sir William James Gooch,Henry Cubitt(Peckham) Magnus, Sir Philip
Burdett-Coutts, W. Goulding, Edward Alfred Marks, H. H. (Kent)
Butcher, Samuel Henry Gretton, John Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Carlile, E. Hildred Guinness, Walter Edward Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Carson, Rt.Hon. Sir Edw. H. Haddock, George B. Middlemore,JohnThrogmorton
Castlereagh, Viscount Hamilton, Marquess of Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Cave, George Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashf'rd Morpeth, Viscount
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Harris, Frederick Leverton Morrison-Bell, Captain
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)
Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone, E.) Hay, Hon. Claude George Nield, Herbert
Chamberlain, RtHn.J.A.(Worc. Heaton, John Henniker Nolan, Joseph
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Helmsley, Viscount O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid)
Clive, Percy Archer Hill, Sir Clement O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Coates,Major E. F.(Lewisham) Hope,James Fitzalan(Sheffield) Oddy, John James
Parker,Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) Sheffield,Sir BerkeleyGeorgeD. Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington Smith,Abel H.(Hertford,East) Warde, Col. C. E.(Kent, Mid)
Percy, Earl Smith,F.E.(Liverpool, Walton Whitbread, Howard
Randles, Sir John Scurrah Smith, Hon. W.F.D.(Strand) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Ratcliff, Major R. F. Stanier, Beville Williams, Col. R. (Dorset,W.)
Rawlinson,John FrederickPeel Starkey, John R. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Remnant, James Farquharson Staveley-Hill, Henry(Staff'sh. Wilson, A.Stanley(York,E.R.)
Renton, Leslie Stone, Sir Benjamin Wortley, Rt. Hon.C.B.Stuart-
Roberts, S.(Sheffield,Ecclesall) Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Ronaldshay, Earl of Talbot, Lord E.(Chichester) Young, Samuel
Rutherford, John (Lancashire) Talbot,RtHn.J.G.(Oxf'd Univ. Younger, George
Rutherford, W.W.((Liverpool) Thomson, W.Mitchell(-Lanark)
Salter, Arthur Clavell Thornton, Percy M. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert Tillett, Louis John
Scott, Sir S.(Marylebone,W.) Walker, Col.W.H.(Lancashire)

Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time,"—(Mr. McKenna.)—put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Asquith.)

Put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.