§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair]
§ Clause 21:
§ MR. JAMES HOPE (Sheffield, Central)
, in moving the insertion of the words "save as hereinafter provided," said it must be read in conjunction to the Amendment in his name lower down, which ran as follows: "Nothing in this section shall prevent the grant of an excise licence to a spirit dealer or wine dealer where the trade to be carried on is of a wholesale character and where any retail sales in connection therewith are merely auxiliary and incidental to the carrying on of a wholesale business." The clause was really of a very grave and far-reaching character, and he was glad to see, by one of the Amendments put down by the learned Solicitor-General, that the Government recognised that fact. He did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendments were satisfactory, but he was glad at any rate that the Government realised the seriousness of the position which the clause created. The clause, in order to be understood, must be read with no less than three other clauses, two in existing Acts of Parliament, and one in this Bill. It must be read first of all with the third clause of the Bill, as amended on the Motion of the First Commissioner of Works. It must be read, secondly, in connection with Section 4 of the Licensing Act, 1904, and, thirdly, in connection with Section 10 of the Licensing Act, 1904. The whole of that made a somewhat complicated study. Reading these four clauses together, so far as he could come to a conclusion, they meant this. First of all, a man in business as a wine or spirit dealer who entered into that business 1002 before 25th June, 1902, would be safe under this clause till 1930, i.e., till after the expiration, of the reduction period, plus the additional seven years. A man going into the business between the years 1902 and 1909 would be safe till 1930 against being charged monopoly value for his licence, but he would not be safe against a refusal to renew. A man going into the business after 1st June, 1909, would be subject to monopoly value charges and the risk of refusal to renew; and after the expiration of twenty-one years all dealers in wines and spirits, under the clause as it stood, would be subject to the extra charge for monopoly value for off-licences, and also to the risk of refusal to renew, and the effect of the clause would be that by 1930 the State would have the monopoly of the wine and spirit trade, wholesale and retail, throughout England. He now came to the Solicitor-General's Amendment, the second on the Paper, the effect of which would be to exempt the wholesale wine dealer from the effect of the clause. As long as he dealt wholesale he would be able to go on with his business, and would be protected by Section 10 of the Act of 1902, and would not be liable to have a renewal of his licence refused. So far, so good. But he wanted to ask why should wine alone be exempt and not spirits. What essential difference was there between the two? The spirit dealer, wholesale or retail, would have to submit to the justices, even though his business was not a local business at all. The justices would have an absolute right of refusing to renew the licence of any spirit dealer, even though he was a wholesale dealer and practically did no business whatever in the locality. A wholesale spirit dealer in London would be liable to have all his business in any part of the country absolutely cut away. He submitted that there was no possible justification for this provision—unless indeed it were held that dealing in spirits was something per se worse than dealing in wine, then the question might arise; or there was the possible explanation that these provisions were destined to be the first steps towards the State ultimately establishing either a Gothenburg or a Norwegian Bolag system; but if that was the intention of the Government, he submitted that that ought to have been 1003 declared from the first. It might be said that under the last words of the section the existing holders would be protected. It was quite true that they would be protected so long as they themselves carried on the business, but what if they wanted to sell? The purchaser would not be protected. He would have to go, cap in hand, to the justices just the same as any ordinary retail dealer, and the justices might very likely—there was no telling what their action would be—refuse a renewal of the licence, and therefore the existing property, the goodwill of the business, would be hopelessly depreciated, and if the spirit dealer wished to make his business over to his son, he would do so with the property enormously reduced. The whole question of a man's substantial property, of the security on which he could borrow money, would be enormously affected by the clause, even as amended, in the case of a spirit dealer, although there would seem at first sight to be protection for the man himself so long as he carried on the business and did not part with it to anyone else. Apart from that there were one or two objections more of detail. In the first place, even as regarded the wholesale wine merchant, he was put in a very unfortunate position, as it was very often a necessary condition of business to send out sample bottles, and that would not be possible under the Solicitor-General's Amendment. Also, he was informed, even the wholesale wine merchants in very expensive qualities—such articles as liqueur brandies and Chartreuse—very often; got orders from large customers for six bottles at a time, and great inconvenience would be caused if they had to go cap in hand to the magistrate. Now another question arose. He was told that on the face of them the words of the Solicitor-General would want some further confirmation. He was informed that there was no such thing at present as a wine dealers' wholesale licence. There was a wine dealers' retail licence under the Act of 1867, and there was a wine dealers' general licence under a much older Act—the sixth of George IV., c. 81—a wholesale licence which embraced a retail licence too. It was a licence for a dealer in foreign wines to 1004 sell wholesale and retail alike. But in this case the object was to give a licence to sell wholesale only, and he was informed that no such licence now existed, and if that was so they could not create it by merely giving a discretion to the Commissioners under this clause. It would require fresh legislation, and being financial legislation imposing a new tax, they would have to go into Committee of Ways and Means and get a Resolution before it could be carried out. If that was so, the intention of the hon. and learned Gentleman would not be carried out by those words. How far did the Amendment meet the case of those whom it was ostensibly meant to protect? There were very few firms, he imagined, probably only some specialised firms like importers of port wine and the like, who did not do a spirit business as well, and the spirit business was not protected. Therefore, this would apply to the ordinary merchants in this way, even though the other difficulties about samples and the new form of licence were got over, that he would be safe only as to one part of his business. The other part would be immediately jeopardised. He would be put, so soon as the actual holder had ceased to be in business, under the discretion of the justices, so that in case, of the sale of his property the whole value would be enormously reduced, because although the wine value might to some extent be maintained the spirit value would be enormously cut away. Some other words were necessary, and he submitted that his words were better than those of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The object was to protect the bona fide wholesale business in wine or spirits, and with regard to samples it would be quite possible for the vigilance of an Excise officer to put a stop to retail sales by fraud in the way of samples, and at the same time the ordinary retail business would no doubt come within the purview of the justices. If the clause was maintained, even with the Solicitor-General's Amendment, no wholesale wine and spirit dealer's business, taken as a whole, would be safe from immediate depreciation and ultimate great loss, and, although in perhaps a rather smaller sphere, the Government 1005 would have struck another of those blows at confidence in trade of which they had already given so many examples.
In page 14, line 13, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'save as hereinafter provided.'"—(Mr. James Hope.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir S. EVANS,) Glamorganshire, Mid.
said he hoped to persuade the hon. Member that they had dealt fairly with these licences. The origin of the proposals here put forward was to be found in Section 10 of the Act of 1902, and, speaking generally, the policy of that section was to make it necessary to have a justices' licence as well as an excise licence for all premises where liquor was to be sold by retail to be consumed off the premises. There came as a proviso to the subsection this—Provided that this subsection shall not apply to any excise licence taken out by a spirit dealer or wine dealer for premises which are exclusively used for the sale of intoxicating liquors or intoxicating liquors and mineral waters or other non-intoxicating drinks and which have no internal communication with the premises of any person who is carrying on any other trade or business.That was in order to protect people who bona fide carried on in separate premises not communicating with any others a business which a spirit merchant under a spirit licence, or a wine merchant under a wine licence, could carry on. They thought that wherever intoxicating liquor was to be supplied for consumption off the premises, and by retail, a justices' licence ought to be obtained. They did not touch the wholesale supply of intoxicating liquor either in the provisions of this clause or in the provisions with regard to monopoly value. Monopoly value only attached to such licences as required to be granted by the justices themselves, and as wholesale licences did not require to be granted by the justices they did not come within the purview of these provisions. It was found in practice that where justices had refused to give a retail licence because the premises communicated with other premises where other businesses were carried on, the merchant took a 1006 small place for himself which did not in fact communicate, and, therefore, he said he came within the proviso. They wanted to put a stop to that, and that was a reason why they had introduced this Clause 21. A wine dealer's licence authorised him to sell not only wholesale but retail also, while a spirit dealer must have a wholesale licence and a retail licence. He had given notice of his Amendment to protect wine dealers from being affected by this clause, and it was entirely in their interest that it was put in. The wine merchant only had to take out a wholesale licence. It had been decided by a case in the Courts that his wholesale licence enabled him to sell not only wholesale but retail also.
§ SIR S. EVANS
said because he had to take out two licences. In so far as the spirit dealer sold under a retail licence, he was within the mischief against which they thought they were providing by this clause. With regard to those who already held their licence, their position was safeguarded as much as possible, and all who applied for licences before 1st January, 1909, would be put in the same position as if the Act were not passed. That meant that they would not require the justices' licence to be confirmed by any authority, and that they would be entitled to appeal from the refusal of the justices to grant a licence. Assuming it to be right to have a retail licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor to be consumed off the premises, there ought to be a justices' licence as well as an excise licence, with regard to both spirits and wine. Carrying out that policy they had put those who had a licence now in this protected position, and they would not be affected by the provision in regard to monopoly value and other provisions in the Bill. They had put in this entirely for the protection of the wine dealer. The question of the spirit dealer was different, because he took out a spirit licence not only for retail but for wholesale.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)
said he did not think 1007 the point was any less complicated after the explanation of the Solicitor-General. He did not profess himself to be an expert on the subject, but there were two points upon which he should like to be satisfied. The hon. and learned Gentleman had told them that the clause distinguished the case of the spirit merchant from that of the wine merchant, but he gathered that it was a purely technical distinction. He understood that wholesale wine merchants and wholesale spirit merchants, in the ordinary exercise of their trade, sold specimen bottles to persons whom they hoped would be their customers. Did that bring them within the definition of retail trader? Was a man subject to all the disabilities attaching to the retail trade if, in the exercise of a wholesale business, he sold specimen bottles to those who were already his customers or whom he hoped would be his customers? His second point was the offering of samples of the liquor on the premises to would-be customers whom the wholesale merchant desired to secure. Would that be retail consumption on the premises? If the Solicitor-General could assure him that in neither of the cases he had mentioned the wholesale trader would be hampered by the clause they were discussing, he would feel that he had not much to complain of. He hoped that point would be made quite clear, because at present they were a little uncertain as to the precise position on the points he had raised.
§ MR. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston)
pointed out that there was no such thing as a wholesale wine licence known to the law. There was a licence to sell wine, which covered both wholesale and retail trade. He hoped the Amendment would receive further consideration.
§ *MR. GRETTON (Rutland)
said that according to the information he had received there was only one kind of wine dealers' licence and that covered sale, wholesale and retail, and also the sale of spirits. There was no provision defining what a wholesale licence was. He could not understand the action of the Government in this matter in exempting wholesale spirit merchants, and harassing retail 1008 wine merchants, and he did not think any case had been made out for refusing to continue the present system of excise, licences to retail dealers in wines and spirits. To have to go before the justices every year was very obnoxious, and it was a very unnecessary restriction unless a real case could be made out that the present administration of the law was unsatisfactory and that the public interest had suffered. His information was that no such state of things had arisen and some explanation should be offered to the Committee as to why all these difficulties should be created by an unnecessary provision of this kind.
§ SIR S. EVANS
said he had already indicated that a justices' licence would not be required for the grant of an excise licence to a wine dealer to enable him to sell wine wholesale only. He was advised that the giving of samples on the premises or sending samples would not constitute a sale retail, and would come within the powers of the person carrying on business under a wholesale licence. The Amendment on the Paper, he believed, carried out what the Government intended; if it did not then they would have to reconsider the point. If a person only wanted so sell wine wholesale he did not need to go before the justices, but if he wanted to sell retail as well he would require not only the excise licence but the justices' licence as well.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (Worcestershire, E.)
said the Solicitor-General had stated that the giving of a sample would not bring the wholesale merchant within the purview of this section. There was nothing in the Bill to prevent anyone giving beer, spirits, or wine as they pleased. His experience of wine merchants was that they were not in the habit of giving but selling the samples. A wine merchant might send three bottles of different wines as a sample with the idea of obtaining a wholesale order. A sale might or might not follow, just as the recipient was pleased or displeased with the samples and the price. His experience was that wholesale merchants were in the habit of charging for such samples. He wished to know if the sale of samples 1009 of wine in that way would bring the wine merchant within the scope of the section applying to the retail trader.
§ SIR S. EVANS
said that if the quantity sold was below the quantity sold by retail a justices' licence would be required, but if it came within the wholesale category as a part of a larger parcel sold it would be a wholesale order. It was, in his opinion, a question of fact in each case.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
said it was obvious that it was impossible for a wine merchant in perfectly bona fide cases to guarantee that a wholesale order would follow the submitting of samples. He would be quite satisfied if the Solicitor-General assured him that the fact of the transaction being intended to lead to and was necessary for the purpose of obtaining a wholesale order would be accepted as a test of the bona fides of the transaction whether an order followed or not.
§ SIR S. EVANS
said that that was the general law at present, and they did not propose to alter it in the Bill before the House.
§ *MR. YOUNGER
said this was rather an exceptional case. It was one upon which both the Majority Report and the Minority Report of the Royal Commission were in agreement. That Commission considered the question and recommended that wholesale licences required by brewers, distillers, and wine and spirit merchants should not require the consent of the justices and should not come under the control of the licensing authority. The Commission came unanimously to the conclusion that these licences should be exempted. The Solicitor-General had not shown any ground for making the change except the desire to get some monopoly value out of these houses. The hon. and learned Gentleman was perfectly aware that they had no monopoly value at present. They were in that respect in a different position from on-licences, which had, of course, a monopoly value. Therefore, by this particular provision the Government were going to create a monopoly value for the purpose of afterwards securing it. He thought that was the object of the clause. 1010 The hon. and learned Gentleman had not produced any evidence to show that there was any ground for supposing that the retail use of these licences either for wine or spirits had been in any way abused. The desire was to get as much as possible out of the unfortunate people who held these licences. In that connection it would be interesting to know what definition of monopoly value the Solicitor-General proposed to apply to these licences. He thought it would be exceedingly difficult to apply any. The hon. and learned Gentleman would be well advised if he discarded his own Amendment and accepted that proposed by his hon. friend which would meet the case.
§ MR. WYNDHAM (Dover)
said the hon. and learned Gentleman had told the Committee that he wished to meet the case which had been represented from the Opposition side. He had based his refusal to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for the Central Division of Sheffield on the ground that he did not wish to alter the general law. But what he was doing by the clause now under discussion was to repeal a section of the Act of 1902.
§ MR. WYNDHAM
said it was proposed to repeal a provision in the Act of 1902, and to substitute a proviso which contained a phrase unknown to the general law. How would these words be construed—A justices' licence shall not be required for the grant of an Excise licence to a wine dealer to enable him to sell wine by wholesale only?His hon. friend had pointed out that this was a novelty which must be interpreted before it could be understood. It had already been pointed out that a wine dealer had a licence which embraced both wholesale and retail trade. If the hon. and learned Gentleman put into a new Act of Parliament words specifying the wholesale trade as distinct from anything else he was doing the very thing which he said he was not doing. He was altering the general law, and the effect would not 1011 be known until it was interpreted in particular cases.
§ SIR S. EVANS
said his reason for saying that they were not altering the general law was that the law now provided for licences which were applicable to wholesale and retail trade. They were not in any sense altering the law as to wholesale supply. His answer to the right hon. Gentleman was the same as he had given to the hon. and learned Member for Kingston, namely, that the intention was to avoid altogether the necessity for a justices' licence in the case of the wholesale dealer. Therefore, if a wine merchant wanted only to sell wine wholesale, he need not go to the justices at all. He had put down his Amendment lest it might be argued that the licence would entitle him, whether it did or not, to sell by retail. The Amendment did not touch the wholesale licence at all. The Government were anxious that the justices' licence should be necessary for the purpose of selling by retail. In answer to the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs he would point out that what the Commission reported was that in their opinion it might be desirable with certain exceptions even to require a justices' licence for the wholesale trade.
§ *MR. YOUNGER
said the explanation of that recommendation was that there were Excise licences which were taken out by shebeening people, and they desired to stop that. The Commission did not wish to get at the ordinary respectable wine and spirit merchant, and therefore they said that he should be exempted.
§ SIR S. EVANS
We are not doing anything against the recommendation. We are not affecting the wholesale licence, or proposing to bring it within the jurisdiction of the licensing justices.
§ MR. SAMUEL YOUNG (Cavan, E.)
suggested that in the Solicitor-General's Amendment the words "or spirit" should be inserted after the word "wine."
§ MR. LYTTELTON (St. George's, Hanover Square)
said they were very nearly agreed on this matter. It seemed to him that the single point which remained outstanding had reference to the widespread practice of wine dealers sending out sample bottles in prosecution of wholesale trade. To interfere with that practice in any way would be to encumber business seriously, and judging from what the Solicitor-General had said it was not his desire to do so. He himself, if he were acting as a Judge, would certainly direct a jury in the sense of his hon. friend's Amendment. He would say to the jury that a wine dealer who sent out a sample bottle was bona fide carrying on trade of a wholesale character, the sale of the sample bottle being ancillary or incidental to the carrying on of the wholesale business. The Solicitor-General said that that would not be the direction which a Judge would give, but that he would direct that when sample bottles were sold to customers and paid for the sales were retail sales. He thought that would be a manifest injustice, but he must defer to what the Solicitor-General had said. It came to this that if a wine dealer sent out sample bottles he would require a justices' licence, and would therefore fall within the extremely onerous conditions attaching to monopoly value. He thought the Government, if they did not want, to act unjustly towards wholesale wine dealers, ought to accept the Amendment moved by his hon. friend.
§ MR. G. D. FABER (York)
said the supply of sample bottles was often important to a wine merchant's business nowadays. He understood that in the present conduct of the trade sales frequently consisted in supplying consignments of half-a-dozen, a dozen, or up to two dozen bottles to meet small wants all over the country. Two dozen bottles came within the definition of a wholesale sale. In future the whole of these sales would be stopped unless wine merchants got a justices' licence as well as an Excise licence. This change might hereafter involve the wine merchant in the net of monopoly value, and that would be a most serious matter. They were going to cut at the root of a great deal of the trade carried on by wine merchants. Another point which was not clear to his mind was 1013 in regard to the spirit dealer's licence. The Solicitor-General had said there was no necessity to exempt the spirit dealer. The Act of 1902 which the hon. and learned Gentleman had quoted mentioned the spirit dealer as well as the wine dealer. He asked him to tell the Committee why it was not necessary to insert words exempting the spirit dealer.
§ MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON (Lanarkshire, N.W.)
said it seemed to him that some alteration in the clause was necessary to meet the point stated by the hon. Member for Kingston. The Solicitor-General had stated that a justices' licence would not be necessary to enable a wine merchant to sell wine by wholesale only. There was no such thing as an Excise licence to enable a man to sell wine by wholesale only. But that was not their Amendment at all. At any rate, the Amendment as it stood did not mean what their intention was. He suggested the desirability of the Government's reconsidering the wording of the clause.
§ MR. JAMES HOPE
said that the answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman in regard to the spirit dealer's licence was satisfactory. He understood that the case of the wholesale spirit dealer was covered already. As for this form of licence which enabled the wine dealer to carry on wholesale dealing, he maintained that it was not possible for the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to issue a fresh form of licence. Legislation would be necessary, and as that legislation involved taxation it would have to be
§ initiated in Committee of Ways and Means. In order to get over that difficulty the Government said that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue might issue a licence, which enabled a man to deal both wholesale and retail under the licence, to deal wholesale only. The dealer would go to the Excise and get a licence which said distinctly that he could deal both wholesale and retail, but when he got it he presumed that the dealer would have to enter into some sort of obligation that he would not use his legal rights, that he would only use the power of dealing wholesale under that form of licence. Surely that would be rather a strange situation. He thought it would be better frankly to say: "Let him deal both wholesale and retail so long as the retail sales are merely auxiliary and incidental to the carrying on of a wholesale business." And let the Excise put it that it was a condition of such a licence being granted that the licensee gave such an undertaking. Then in regard to sample bottles, that case had evidently not been met. He thought it would be met by the words of his Amendment. He did not profess that his Amendment covered all the difficulties that had arisen, but neither did the Amendment of the hon. and learned Solicitor-General. He said that, subject to an undertaking on the part of the licensee such as he had described, the hon. and learned Gentleman should consent to adopt his words.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 93; Noes, 238. (Division List No. 318.)1017
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.||Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||Gardner, Ernest|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.||Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc.||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond)||Clark, George Smith||Gretton, John|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Clive, Percy Archer||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd)|
|Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester||Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm||Harris, Frederick Leverton|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Courthope, G. Loyd||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Hay, Hon. Claude George|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Craik, Jir Henry||Heaton, John Henniker|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Cross, Alexander||Hill, Sir Clement|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Hills, J. W.|
|Bull, Sir William James||Du Cros, Arthur Philip||Hunt, Rowland|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan||Kerry, Earl of|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Faber, George Denison (York)||Kimber, Sir Henry|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Faber, Capt, W. V. (Hants, W.)||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.|
|Cave, George||Fardell, Sir T. George||Lane-Fox, G. R.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Fletcher, J. S.||Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham|
|Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Percy, Earl||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.||Randles, Sir John Scurrah||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire|
|Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Remnant, James Farquharson||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Marks, H. H. (Kent)||Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter||Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-|
|Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Morpeth, Vescount||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert||Young, Samuel|
|Morrison-Bell, Captain||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Younger, George|
|Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)||Stanier, Beville|
|Nolan, Joseph||Starkey, John R.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)||James Hope and Viscount|
|Oddy, John James||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Helmsley.|
|Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)|
|Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Hutton, Alfred Eddison|
|Agnew, George William||Duckworth, James||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Jardine, Sir J.|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Johnson, John (Gateshead)|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Erskine, David C.||Jones, Leif (Appleby)|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Esslemont, George Birnie||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire|
|Barker, John||Evans, Sir Samuel T.||Jowett, F. W.|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Everett, R. Lacey||Kearley, Sir Hudson E.|
|Barnard, E. B.||Faber, G. H. (Boston)||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)|
|Barnes, G. N.||Fenwick, Charles||Laidlaw, Robert|
|Beale, W. P.||Ferguson, R. C. Munro||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)|
|Beauchamp, E.||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Lambert, George|
|Bell, Richard||Findlay, Alexander||Lamont, Norman|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Fuller, John Michael F.||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington|
|Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.||Fullerton, Hugh||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich|
|Bennett, E. N.||Gibb, James (Harrow)||Levy, Sir Maurice|
|Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'd)||Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Glendinning, R. G.||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hn. David|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Glover, Thomas||Lupton, Arnold|
|Black, Arthur W.||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||Lyell, Charles Henry|
|Brace, William||Grant, Corrie||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)|
|Brigg, John||Gulland, John W.||Mackarness, Frederic C.|
|Bright, J. A.||Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton||Maclean, Donald|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.|
|Brooke, Stopford||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tvdvil||M'Callum, John M.|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||M'Crae, Sir George|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh||Mallet, Charles E.|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Hart, Davies, T.||Manfield, Harry (Northants)|
|Byles, William Pollard||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Marnham, F. J.|
|Cameron, Robert||Harvey, W. R. (Derbyshire, N. E.||Massie, J.|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Haworth, Arthur A.||Masterman, C. F. G.|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Menzies, Walter|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Hedges, A. Paget||Montagu, Hon. E. S.|
|Clough, William||Helme, Norval Watson||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Henderson, Arthur (Durham||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Morrell, Philip|
|Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||Henry, Charles S.||Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Cowan, W. H. S.||Higham, John Sharp||Nuttall, Harry|
|Cox, Harold||Hobart, Sir Robert||O'Grady, J.|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Hodge, John||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Crossley, William J.||Holt, Richard Durning||Partington, Oswald|
|Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)||Hooper, A. G.||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Horniman, Emslie John||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Hudson, Walter||Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)|
|Perks, Sir Robert William||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)||Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne||Walsh, Stephen|
|Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)||Sears, J. E.||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton|
|Pollard, Dr.||Seddon, J.||Wardle, George J.|
|Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick, B.)||Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan|
|Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)||Sherwell, Arthur James||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)||Sloan, Thomas Henry||Whitbread, Howard|
|Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Smeaton, Donald Macknzie||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Pullar, Sir Robert||Soares, Ernest J.||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Radford, G. H.||Spicer, Sir Albert||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Rea, Russell (Gloucester)||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'||Steadman, W. C.||Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.|
|Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Richardson, A.||Summerbell, T.||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n|
|Ridsdale, E. A.||Sutherland, J. E.||Williamson, A.|
|Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Robinson, S.||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Rogers, F. E. Newman||Thomasson, Franklin||Winfrey, R.|
|Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Toulmin, George||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)||Verney, F. W.||Joseph Pease and Master of|
|Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)||Vivian, Henry||Elibank.|
In page 14, line 14, after the word 'but,' to insert the words 'a justices' licence shall not be required for the grant of an excise licence to a wine dealer to enable him to sell wine by wholesale only, and.'"—(The, Solicitor-General.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. JAMES HOPE
asked whether the hon. and learned Solicitor-General was not rather dissatisfied with the ambiguity of the words "to enable." If they meant that the licensee was to give an undertaking not to sell by retail, had that not better be put in on the face of it before they got to the Report stage? As the Amendment stood there would be many different constructions of the words.
§ SIR S. EVANS
did not think there was ambiguity, but he would certainly consider the matter, because when they were at one as to the object to be attained the question of words must be considered. Since the last discussion took place he had had an opportunity of consulting the authorities, and he would read the instructions issued by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in 1905. First of all, the Instruction 621 dealt with the similar case of the sale of sweets either by wholesale or retail. It ran—A person who has obtained a licence to deal in sweets may also retail sweets without taking 1018 out any further excise licence. In Great Britain he must obtain a justices' licence or certificate before he commences to retail, but in Ireland a certificate is not required.Instruction 645, dealing with the wine licence, said—A licensed dealer in foreign wine may sell such wine or sweets, made wines, mead or metheglin, in any quantity, but only for consumption off the premises." "With the following exceptions a justices' licence or certificate is required in the case of every excise licence under which intoxicating liquor may be sold by retail, including the sale of wine under a wine dealer's licence." "Exceptions. It is not required: (1) In England for a licence taken out by a spirit dealer or a wine dealer for premises which are exclusively used for the sale of intoxicating liquors or intoxicating liquors and mineral waters or other non-intoxicating drinks, and which have no internal communication with the premises of any person carrying on any other trade or business.He was advised that it was within the competence of the authorities at Somerset House to grant, on the principle of the greater including the less, a wholesale excise licence, and under that licence a wholesale dealer could carry on his trade without any justices' licence; but if he intended to or did sell by retail on the premises he would require a separate justices' licence also.
§ *MR. YOUNGER
said the difficulty was that there was no form of licence to meet the case. Exactly the 1019 same difficulty arose in Scotland. The Paisley justices had granted, illegally, as it proved, six-day licences, because they could only grant a seven-days licence, and in consequence, the people were prosecuted for refusing to serve travellers on Sunday and convicted. A licence was issued to the wine dealer which at present included the right to retail, but if he refused to sell by retail he might get into the same difficulty that the unfortunate people of Paisley did.
§ MR. JAMES HOPE
asked whether, when a man had got a wholesale wine licence, he could go on selling by retail. There did not seem to be anything to prevent him, whatever undertaking he might give, except his own conscience. The only consequence was that it would not be renewed at the end of the year, but he could go on for the year, in spite of all the justices could do to him.
§ MR. WYNDHAM
thought the Solicitor-General must realise that he had not made this point clear to laymen. It was important that those who had not the benefit of legal experience should be informed of the nature of the laws they were making. Already the words of the Solicitor-General had been understood in different ways. He understood that at present a wholesale wine merchant got a licence from the justices which enabled him to sell by retail, and so far as he understood the Solicitor-General he intended that if a man had a licence which entitled him to sell both wholesale and retail, he would not require a justices' licence. But these words did not provide for any practical potentialities of what might occur if this Amendment was adopted. It might be held that a man having a wholesale licence who sold two or three bottles of wine was selling by retail. If that were the case, a great number of wholesale wine dealers would have off-licences, and in view of what had been vaguely foreshadowed as to what the Government meant to do on the Report stage, it was impossible for the Committee to imagine what the effect of this Amendment would be.
§ SIR S. EVANS
thought it was quite possible for the authorities of the Inland Revenue to grant a licence without the sanction of the justices, for the purpose of carrying on a wholesale business, and it was possible for them to append a footnote to that licence that it did not cover the retail sale of wine, unless there was also a justices' licence. In the book on the Excise Laws of Sir Nathaniel Highmore, the greatest authority, in Vol. II., page 6, it was stated—By reason of Secton 5 of 25 & 26 Vict. c. 35., Part IV., a licence to a dealer in wine in Scotland does not confer any authority to sell wine by retail unless the holder thereof is in possession of a certificate from the justices under that Act authorising him to sell wine by retail.He was informed by Sir Nathaniel Highmore himself that he had a distinct recollection that the note in his book followed the footnote which appeared at that time—1899—on the licence granted to a wine dealer in Scotland. His object was to protect the wine dealer, and if better words could be found he would consider them; but he was informed that a wine dealer's licence could be granted by the Inland Revenue authorities to a person desiring to sell wine by wholesale only with such a note, and would by that means be limited to sale by wholesale, and that any sale by retail under that licence would not only be a breach of the Act of 1902, if the person selling was a person required to obtain a justices' licence, but would also be a breach of Section 24 of the Revenue Act of 1889 as being a sale in contravention of the terms of the Excise licence.
§ MR. YOUNGER
said he could give the case in point to which he had already referred. Under the old Scottish Act there was no such thing as a six-day licence for hotels. There were only seven-day licences, and when the justices granted a six-day licence they were told they had no right to do so, though they put a footnote on the licence to cover that objection. These licences only permitted sale on six days of the week—not on Sundays, except to people arriving at hotels. A man, a bona fide traveller, believing this to be illegal, demanded drink on a Sunday in Paisley, and was refused. The case came before a Scottish Court, and it was held that a six-day licence was invalid, 1021 and that the hotel-keeper had no business to refuse, and he was fined.
§ SIR S. EVANS
did not think that was quite per incuriam, but if it should turn out that the Inland Revenue authorities had not the authority he would see that provisions were brought forward giving them that authority.
§ *MR. CAVE
pointed out that the Prime Minister; in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Liverpool, had stated that there was no wine dealer's licence for sale by wholesale only. A justices' licence would, therefore, under the provisions of this clause be required, before an Excise licence to deal with wines could be obtained in view of the permission to engage in retail trade given by that licence. The spirit dealer's licence on the other hand covered wholesale trade only, and, therefore, did not come within the provisions of the clause. The hon. Member for Hampshire asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would consider the possibility of issuing a special ten guinea form of Excise licence applicable to the cases of wholesale wine dealers and shippers only for which it would not be necessary to apply for a justices' licence in addition. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that a new form of licence such as that which was suggested could not be issued without fresh legislation. Was it not clear, therefore, that no such licence as was referred to in the Amendment could be legally issued? If that were so, now or on the Report stage was the time to supply this hiatus in the Act, and he hoped they would have a promise that the Government would reconsider the matter.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. W. R. REA (Scarborough)
moved to leave out the words "at the commencement of this Act," and to insert the words "on the fifth day of April, nineteen hundred and eight." He explained that the Amendment was designed to stop a loop hole which had been overlooked by Government. The clause, 1022 while abolishing exemption, made a privileged class of present holders of these special licences. The words "commencement of this Act," however, enabled anyone desiring to evade the clause to apply now, and the Amendment to substitute 5th April ensured that only those holding licences for the present year should be placed in a position of special privilege.
In page 14, lines 15 and 16, to leave out the words 'at the commencement of this Act,' and to insert the words 'on the fifth day of April, nineteen hundred and eight.'"—(Mr. W. R. Rea.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the clause."
§ SIR S. EVANS
said he had an open mind on this Amendment. He did not think there was any such danger as that mentioned by his hon. friend. He thought they had taken the ordinary course in saying that the provision should date from the commencement of the Act. He did not know that there was any objection to the Amendment being put, but if there was it could be withdrawn.
§ MR. MITCHELL - THOMSON
reminded the hon. and learned Gentleman that it was conceivable that there might be a case in which this privilege, which it was desired should be a continuing privilege, would not be easy to secure as the Bill stood. It was only to be given to one who held an Excise licence at the commencement of the Act and "holds it" at the time of the application. The application for the justices' licence was not to be treated then as an application for a new licence. The first Brewster Sessions after the passing of the Act would be in the February, and it might happen that the successors of a man who held one of these licences, and who died in January, wished to continue the business. It was inconceivable that it was the intention of the Government to exact from these people the monopoly value, because their predecessor had happened to die in the six weeks that intervened between the passing of the Act and the holding of the Brewster 1023 Sessions. He was certain that that was not the intention of the Government, and therefore it was obviously necessary to fill up that gap in order to fulfil the intentions the Government had in bringing up this clause.
§ MR. SHERWELL (Huddersfield)
thought the hon. Member who had just sat down had not quite seen the point. The licence in question was an Excise licence, and might be called for at any time.
§ MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON
said his point was that the two conditions necessary for an excepted licence were that the licence was held at the date of the commencement of the Act, and at the date of the application. He put the case of a licence, held by a man at the date of the commencement of the Act, but who had died, and which was held by his successor at the date of the application.
§ MR. SHERWELL
expressed his regret at having misunderstod the hon. Gentleman. Obviously there was a loophole in the clause there as it now stood. He thought the Government should fix a date with regard to that. It was a matter of indifference what the date was.
§ MR. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland, Appleby)
suggested that it should be a past and not a future date, say, 1st November. His point was that the Government should not give notice of the advantage conferred upon these holders, otherwise a number of people would take up these licences in order to obtain the advantages which the clause would confer upon them.
§ MR. YOUNGER
said that the people who held these licences had really had notice since last February, and if they wished to take advantage as suggested they would have done so long ago. It did not matter whether the date was a past or future date.
§ *MR. GRETTON
said the real difficulty was that there was a hiatus in the 1024 Bill owing to the fact that it would come into force in its present form on 1st January and the Brewster Sessions would not be held until a day in February. A dealer in wines and spirits might have an Excise licence, but he could not obtain a justices' licence unless he had an Excise licence now, because the Bill said he must hold such a licence at the commencement of the Act. A wine merchant would, therefore, have to carry on his business illegally for some weeks after the 1st January until he could obtain a justices' licence as required by the Bill. Also, the holder of the licence might die in the interval between the 1st January and the date of Brewster Sessions. In that case his successor or partner could not obtain a justices' licence, because the Bill said he must have held a licence at the commencement of this Act. There were many of these wine merchants' businesses being carried on, and some of them were old-established concerns under the control of elderly men. If such a holder died his successors would have to apply for a new licence and to pay the monopoly value because of the death of the former proprietor. He thought it was the intention of the Government that the wine merchant should not pay the monopoly value even at the end of the term laid down for the other licences; therefore he urged upon them that this was a very important omission, which, if not dealt with, would add greatly to the complexity of the subject.
§ MR. LYTTELTON
said he had listened to the speeches made by his hon. friend upon this point, and it seemed to him that an answer was required. It was the business of those responsible for Acts of Parliament at all events to see that those Acts were coherent. If he understood the law rightly the owner of a licence such as this, which on the face of it gave him the power, had a right to trade either by wholesale or retail. He was now to be prevented from trading by retail unless he had a justices' licence. That was one incoherence, and it was to be succeeded by another, viz., that between 1st January and the holding of the Brewster Sessions he could not trade at all.
§ SIR S. EVANS
said the first two conditions referred to the Excise licence and not to the justices' licence. The holder of an Excise licence must have held it at the commencement of the Act and must hold it at the time of his application for the justices' licence. He saw no difficulty at all in the matter. If he wanted while he had the licence, to have the rights attaching to it, the holder must apply for the justices' licence. But it was only if he held the licence on those two dates that he would have the right to go to the justices and apply for a licence.
§ MR. JAMES HOPE
thought the Solicitor-General might accept some such words as "who or whose predecessor is entitled." The right hon. Gentleman had not covered the case of that of an old gentleman who might, as not infrequently happened after the festivities of the season, die early in the year. It would be rather hard lines if because of the death of the holder of the licence before the date of application to Brewster Sessions—which was the first possible date for the application to be made—his successors should be mulcted.
said this point could be raised on another Amendment. An Amendment had been handed to him on which this particular point could be more naturally raised.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON
thought the point which the Committee had just been discussing might be met if the hon. and learned Gentleman would consent to the insertion of the words "whether by himself or his successors." It was a form of words, he believed, known to the law, certainly of Scotland if not of England. He begged to move.
In page 14, line 16, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'whether by himself or his successors.'"—(Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR S. EVANS
did not think the words were very apt. He did not know whether 1026 the hon. Gentleman meant to confine those words to predecessors in title.
§ SIR S. EVANS
said it was just possible that a man might die between 1st January and the date of the Brewster Sessions, and that his successors might desire to have some rights under this section. If the hon. Gentleman stopped there he might put in some words to meet that case. If it was the case of the representative of a person who died between those two dates, then in that particular case, in order to allay the apprehensions of the hon. Member opposite who apparently thought so badly of the Christmas season and the possible effect of the coming of this Act into operation, he would promise to consider the matter before the Report stage.
§ MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON
said he had no objection, after what had been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman, to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Question proposed, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ VISCOUNT HELMSLEY (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk)
said they ought to have some explanation from the Government why they considered the clause necessary. He disagreed with the Solicitor-General when he said that they were all at one. He thought there was a larger difference of opinion than the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think. No one knew whether it was the intention of the Government to make an ordinary wine dealer, whether in town or country, take out a justices' licence if he sold by retail. If that was the intention, there was a wide divergence of opinion between the Government and some of them on that side of the House. He could not understand why the clause should be held necessary. It was not held necessary when the Act of 1902 1027 was passed; and he thought the Committee was entitled to know why the Government considered it necessary now to make a wine dealer take out a justices' licence. It was not as if it were alleged that disorder and drunkenness arose from the conduct of a wine merchant's business. It seemed to him that the clause would inflict a great grievance on a very respectable body of men. In view of the Amendment made to Clause 3, to include "off" licences, the matter became one of considerable importance. He was aware that Amendments were to be moved on Report, but they did not know what they were or whether "off" licences were to be included or not. If they were included, then Clause 21 became of very great importance indeed, and he certainly thought they ought to have an explanation from the Government as to the grounds of their policy.
§ *MR. G. D. FABER
said after the many days that he had sat through the licensing debates listening to the Government's expositions of the clauses, he could not help becoming suspicious of each one in the Bill. He could not help feeling that somewhere at the bottom of this clause there was a desire to drive the wine merchant to take out a retail licence, which necessitated a justices' licence, with the inevitable result that at the end of the reduction period he would come within monopoly value. The wine merchant would find himself on the horns of a dilemma. They were going to dislocate his present mode of carrying on his business. He would no longer be able to sell wines or spirits in small quantities without taking out a justices' licence. If he did not take out a justices' licence, his business would materially suffer. If he did, then at the end of the reduction period his justices' licence would be a new licence and come within all the provisions respecting monopoly value. That was an unfair predicament in which to put him. He should have thought that the Government would have been slow to interfere with the conduct of the ordinary wine merchant's business. There could be no moral reason for doing so. The greatest advocate of temperance could not say that drunkenness or intemperance proceeded from the wine merchant's business. 1028 They must, therefore, search for some other reason, and the reason could be no other than the pecuniary benefit which the Government anticipated they would receive when at the end of the reduction period the wine merchant was mulcted in monopoly value. The clause was a needless and wanton interference with trade. It was not based on any desire to promote sobriety. It was simply in their greedy desire to snatch the monopoly value, that the Government included the wine merchant in the meshes of their net. He hoped the Opposition would divide against the clause.
§ MR. LANE-FOX (Yorkshire, W.R., Barkston Ash)
wished to press upon the Government the point made by the hon. Member for York, as regarded this interference with the trade of wine merchants. To his mind one of the chief causes of intemperance in this country was the extraordinary nastiness of temperance drinks. If hon. Gentlemen opposite, instead of bringing forward bad Bills, would suggest some really good appetising temperance drink, they would do more for the cause of temperance than anything else they could possibly do. Obviously people could not go on perpetually drinking warm water and other nasty temperance concoctions when, if they could afford it, they could obtain small bottles of light wine. These were the people whom temperance advocates should encourage, yet it was this very class who were being discouraged by this legislation. The clause would do a great deal of harm to the cause of temperance, and as far as he could see, with no possible object, unless it was the desire to take somebody else's money.
§ MR. WYNDHAM
said he should certainly vote against the clause which combined in a particularly flagrant degree the main phases of the whole of this legislation, which mixed temperance principle with eccentric finance. The whole object of taxation was to get money with as little discomfort and inconvenience as possible to that portion of the community which provided the money. But the financial provisions of this Bill were drawn up so as to impose the maximum amount of discomfort 1029 and inconvenience on the persons who provided the money. The cause of temperance was not served by such a clause as this. The result, when the clause matured at the end of the period, would be to make wine merchants sell heady and bad wines instead of light and pure wines; in the view of the Opposition at any rate, it would tend to put the wine trade of the country under such conditions as he had described. He thought the operation of the clause would be to force those who enjoyed such privileges as were afforded, to make as much money as they could in the shortest possible period. The Government seemed to have forgotten that it was once the policy of the great Liberal Party to encourage temperance by a wise mixture of temperance legislation with financial legislation. They deliberately moved the heavy duties off light wines. The "Gladstone claret" was one of the emblems embroidered on their flag, and he believed that they had exercised some influence on the taste of the wine drinking public by legislation of that character. Legislation of the character now proposed would also exercise an influence on the taste of the wine-drinking public, but it would be a bad instead of a good influence.
§ VISCOUNT HELMSLEY
thought the Government should give some reason in support of the clause. He would point out, in addition to what he had already said, that if at the end of the period the wine merchants were forced to pay monopoly value, then the sum they might have to pay would be very large indeed, because there might be a difference between the value of the premises with a licence under Schedule A., and their value without a licence, owing to the fact that the premises, consisting so largely of cellar accommodation, would be absolutely without a licence; therefore, a very big financial consideration might be involved. He hoped the Solicitor-General would give them some answer.
§ SIR S. EVANS
said he was sorry that he was unable to add anything to what he had already said, except, perhaps, that the noble Lord was wrong in saying that the object of this clause 1030 was that the Government might attach the monopoly value, whatever it might be, of the licence twenty-one years hence. That that was not the object of the clause was obvious from the fact that the clause was as it was originally presented, before they made the Amendment to Clause 3, which included the off-licence. The object of the clause was to bring within the jurisdiction of the justices all premises where intoxicating liquors were sold by retail. It had been found that where the justices refused a licence to sell intoxicating liquor by retail on the ground of the premises communicating with other parts of the premises where other business was carried on, grocers and merchants took small premises which did not communicate with other premises where a business was carried on and thereby brought themselves within the mischief against which they were providing.
§ MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University)
said he quite accepted the hon. and learned Gentleman's assurance, but he ought to put it in the Bill. When the Government started this idea they had no intention of taking this very large monopoly value from wine merchants. The effect of the Bill as it now was was to take this tremendous sum from wine merchants at the end of fourteen years.
§ MR. RAWLINSON
said that if a wine merchant had a retail business he would have to pay monopoly value, and he might assume that the bulk of them had retail businesses. Although he agreed thoroughly with the Solicitor-General in bringing these licences under the control of the local magistrates, he equally agreed with the original intention of the Government, namely, that they did not mean to bring them within the purview of payment of monopoly value. It was obvious justice that if the clause was to be carried in this way there should be some assurance from the Government that they would exempt wine merchants from the liability to pay monopoly value at the end of fourteen years. They had the assurance of the Solicitor-General that the Government never had the slightest 1031 intention when they brought the clause in of exacting monopoly value. It was not too much to say they never had any idea that by amending Clause 3 they would let in this very large amount of monopoly value from retail wine merchants. He urged them to put in words to exempt retail licences from the effect of the monopoly value provisions. If they did not he should certainly vote against the clause. If it was done he should vote in favour of the clause.
§ MR. YOUNGER
said that perhaps they could get an answer from the Prime Minister to the question—what was the monopoly value of the retail portion of a wholesale wine merchant's business? They had, of course, on the Amendment Paper, the Government definition of the monopoly value of any ordinary on-licence, but it would be interesting to know whether that definition was supposed or intended by the Prime Minister to apply to the monopoly value in cases where small
§ quantities of champagne or liqueur might be sold under a retail licence by the largest wine merchants in Pall Mall.
The hon. Member is asking a question. If he makes out that his vote on the clause depends on the answer he is in order, but it is not the time to ask questions now of the general kind that he is doing unless he can tell me that his vote depends on the answer.
§ MR. YOUNGER
said it had every bearing on his vote. He entirely objected to the monopoly value being charged at all in this case and therefore he should vote against the clause. But when this monopoly value was for the first time brought in in this connection they ought to know what the Government regarded as the monopoly value and how they arrived at it.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 255; Noes, 110. (Division List No. 319.)1035
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Faber, G. H. (Boston)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Fenwick, Charles|
|Agnew, George William||Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Ferens, T. R.|
|Alden, Percy||Byles, William Pollard||Findlay, Alexander|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Cameron, Robert||Fuller, John Michael F.|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Fullerton, Hugh|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Gibb, James (Harrow)|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Cheetham, John Frederick||Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Clough, William||Glendinning, R. G.|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Clynes, J. R.||Glover, Thomas|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford|
|Barker, John||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Grant, Corrie|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)|
|Barnard, E. B.||Cory, Sir Clifford John||Greenwood, Hamar (York)|
|Barnes, G. N.||Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Griffith, Ellis J.|
|Beauchamp, E.||Cowan, W. H.||Gulland, John W.|
|Bell, Richard||Cox, Harold||Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale|
|Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo)||Crossley, William J.||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)|
|Bethell, Sir J. H. (Esssex, Romf'rd||Davies, David (Montgomery Co.||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)|
|Black, Arthur W.||Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh)|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Hart-Davies, T.|
|Brace, William||Duckworth, James||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.|
|Brigg, John||Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Haworth, Arthur A.|
|Bright, J. A.||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Hazel, Dr. A. E.|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall||Helme, Norval Watson|
|Brooke, Stopford||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Henry, Charles S.|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Erskine, David C.||Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Evans, Sir Samuel T.||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Everett, R. Lacey||Higham, John Sharp|
|Hobart, Sir Robert||Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard.||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Hodge, John||Napier, T. B.||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Holland, Sir William Henry||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Holt, Richard Durning||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)|
|Hooper, A. G.||Nuttall, Harry||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)|
|Horniman, Emslie John||O'Grady, J.||Steadman, W. C.|
|Horridge, Thomas Gardner||Parker, James (Halifax)||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Partington, Oswald||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Hudson, Walter||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)||Summerbell, T.|
|Jardine, Sir J.||Perks, Sir Robert William||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)||Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury|
|Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Pollard, Dr.||Thomas, Able (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Kearley, Sir Hudson E.||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)||Thomasson, Franklin|
|King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton|
|Laidlaw, Robert||Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Pullar, Sir Robert||Toulmin, George|
|Lambert, George||Radford, G. H.||Verney, F. W.|
|Leese, Sir Joseph T. (Accrington||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)||Vivian, Henry|
|Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Levy, Sir Maurice||Redmond, William (Clare)||Walsh, Stephen|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th||Walton, Joseph|
|Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n|
|Lupton, Arnold||Richardson, A.||Wardle, George J.|
|Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Ridsdale, E. A.||Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Lynch, H. B.||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Watt, Henry A.|
|Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs||Robinson, S.||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Maclean, Donald||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|M'Callum, John M.||Roe, Sir Thomas||Whitehead, Rowland|
|M'Crae, Sir George||Rogers, F. E. Newman||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.|
|Mallet, Charles E.||Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Marnham, F. J.||Scarisbrick, T. T. L.||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Massie, J.||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Masterman, C. F. G.||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)||Winfrey, R.|
|Menzies, Walter||Scott, A. H. Ashton-under-Lyne||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Micklem, Nathaniel||Sears, J. E.||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Middlebrook, William||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Montagu, Hon. E. S.||Seddon, J.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Joseph Pease and Master of|
|Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)||Elibank.|
|Morrell, Philip||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.||Cave, George||Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Fardell, Sir T. George|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)||Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||Fell, Arthur|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Fletcher, J. S.|
|Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc.||Gardner, Ernest|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Clark, George Smith||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Clive, Percy Archer||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm||Gretton, John|
|Bertram, Julius||Courthope, G. Loyd||Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.||Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Cross, Alexander||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||Harris, Frederick Leverton|
|Bull, Sir William James||Doughty, Sir George||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Hay, Hon. Claude George|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Du Cros, Arthur Philip||Heaton, John Henniker|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan||Helmsley, Viscount|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Faber, George Denison (York)||Hill, Sir Clement|
|Hills, J. W.||Morrison-Bell, Captain||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.|
|Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Houston, Robert Paterson||Oddy, John James||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Hunt, Rowland||Parkes, Ebenezer||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)|
|Joynson-Hicks, William||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Kimber, Sir Henry||Percy, Earl||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Randles, Sir John Scurrah||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Lane-Fox, G. R.||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)||Remnant, James Farquharson||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col A. R.||Renton, Leslie||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.||Ronaldshay, Earl of||Winterton, Earl|
|Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Lowe, Sir Francis William||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Salter, Arthur Clavell||Young, Samuel|
|MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|M'Arthur, Charles||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir|
|Marks, H. H. (Kent)||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)||Alexander-Acland-Hood and|
|Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Stanier, Beville||Viscount Valentia.|
|Morpeth, Viscount||Starkey, John R.|
§ Clause 22:
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
§ *MR. CAVE
desired to protest against the abolition of the power to remove a licence from one house to another, which had been extremely useful in distributing licences more evenly. When a licence was no longer required in a particular district the section it was now proposed to repeal (Section 50 of the Licensing Act of 1872) enabled the justices to sanction the removal of that licence to a part where the population had grown, and so to meet the general convenience without increasing the drinking facilities of the district. The removals were not very numerous, and amounted to only about fifty or sixty last year. He was at a loss to understand why it was proposed that this section should be repealed. If it interfered with the operation of the scale under Clause 1 he could understand it, but that difficulty could be easily overcome by the acceptance of the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, which provided that the justices should not sanction the removal of a licence to a new district if the effect would be to bring the number above the statutory number in that area. The object of the Government seemed to be that nobody should be allowed to set up a house in a fresh position without paying monopoly value for the privilege. The plan adopted seemed to be to get as 1036 much as they could out of the owner even at the expense of inconveniencing the administration of the licensing laws. The only result of this would be that new licences would be granted in districts where they were required and the old licences, which might have been removed, would remain where they were not required. It was a mistake to repeal a provision which had been so useful, and some cause ought to be shown for the decision of the Government to put an end to a provision against which no complaint had been made so far as he knew.
§ *MR. BARNARD (Kidderminster)
totally disagreed with the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken. It appeared to him that there was no necessity for this clause in the Bill at all. A great many removals had taken place which had been enormously to the advantage of the new licensees. As to the future if the scheme of the Bill stood with monopoly value and the rest of it, it could not matter in the slightest degree, for if one licence went monopoly value would be taken into account and the exchange would in no way in practice touch the question which the hon. Member had raised. The scheme of the Bill provided that there should be a certain number of licences in a certain area. Did the hon. and learned Member mean that they were to exchange licences from one district into another or was the operation to be confined to the same district? Section 50 of the Act of 1872 was of no 1037 consequence whatever, and no principle was involved by its repeal. There was no necessity to waste time in discussing the clause at all.
§ SIR S. EVANS
said it would be convenient at this point to give the reasons why the Government adhered to the clause as it stood. The history of the removal of licences from one set of premises to another was rather peculiar. There was, under the Act of 1828, a limited right of removal; it was introduced merely as a temporary expedient in the Act of 1871, which was called the Licences Suspension Act, when it was intended to deal with the licensing question in the following session. The Act of 1871 recited that it was expedient to restrict the issue of new licences and certificates until the legislature had further dealt with the question. Provision for the removal of licences was introduced for the first time in the Act of 1871 for a temporary purpose. The justices might refuse the removal, and there was no appeal against it. That removal provision was continued in Lord Aberdare's Act, and the question now was whether that power of removal should be continued. They were now only dealing with Section 50 of the Act of 1872. The power of removal of a restricted character under the Act of 1828 referred amongst others to cases where premises were swept away by a storm or where the premises were taken for a public purpose. In such cases removal was obviously right, because if a man lost his house under such circumstances it was obviously right that he should be allowed to have another house somewhere else. This also applied to cases where a house was destroyed by fire or in some other way rendered unfit for the reception of travellers. Whatever powers of removal were given under that Act they did not touch by the repeal of this provision, because they were now only putting an end to the power of removal under Section 50 of the Act of 1872. He submitted that it was right to prevent such removals. Under Section 50 a removal could be ordered by the justices from one part of a county to another. The removal might take place from the eastern corner to the western corner of a county without any relation 1038 whatever between the two areas affected. The hon. and learned Member for Kingston had referred to the advisability of allowing justices to retain this power of removal. He contended that licences which became unnecessary in one district ought to be done away with, and if another licence became necessary in another district the demand should be met by granting a new licence. He would mention a case of possible hardship to licensed victuallers. Suppose a man held a licence some miles away from a rapidly increasing population in an industrial centre, and a licence had been granted to holder A. who had paid the monopoly value. If another licence became necessary in that district would it be right to allow the justices to say to holder B. in an area miles away: "If you will shut up your small public-house we will give you the right to remove your licence into the same district as licence-holder A."
§ SIR S. EVANS
said that in the illustration he had given they would be making the house in the industrial centre subject to monopoly value and adding another which would not be subject to monopoly value at all. Even if such premises were very near each other it was obvious that the character of the premises might be totally changed, and it was perfectly right under the circumstances to require that the new premises should be subject to monopoly value. The hon. and learned Member for Kingston said he was at a loss to understand why they had put in this clause unless it was to get as much as possible at the expense of inconvenience to the administration of the licensing laws; but that was not so. When a licence was removed to another area it became in fact a new licence, and therefore they were entitled to seize the monopoly value. He did not often cite the opinion of bishops, but he would do so in this case. He did not know whether the hon. and learned Member was aware that it was proposed in the House of Lords when the Act of 1904 was under discussion to incorporate something of this kind. That Act was quite silent as to this power of removal, 1039 but there was an Amendment moved by Lord Salisbury which sought to give express power to remove a licence from one set of premises to another. That Amendment was withdrawn, and at a subsequent stage of the Bill an Amendment in a contrary direction was moved and was also withdrawn. Both Amendments being withdrawn, the matter was left sub silentio, so far as Parliamentary provision was concerned. In the discussion of one of the Amendments on 5th August, 1904, the Archbishop of Canterbury said—The noble Marquess treated it as a small matter, but it appeared to him one of the gravest changes they could introduce in the Bill. If the interpretation he (the most rev. Primate) put upon this Amendment were true, it would practically mean that no one who could help it would apply for a new licence, but everybody would apply for a 'removal,' for the reason that he could thus escape the new obligations imposed by Clause 4 on new licences. Their Lordships would remember that there were two quite different Acts relating to such 'transfers' or 'removals.' There was, first, the Act of 1828, under which the cases on which a removal could be justified were such things as the burning down of a house, and under that Act the 'removal' could only take place within the same licensing district. But there was absolutely no restriction under the Act of 1872 as to the grounds on which the renewal might be sanctioned, and it might be a removal to any other part of the country—that was to say, those who held a great many licences, instead of asking for a new licence, which would be placed under the severer conditions now imposed, would ask for the transfer by removal, which would give them all the opportunities of escaping the obligations they had heard so much of under Clause 4. If that were so, the change might be good or bad (he, himself, thought it was exceedingly bad), but at all events it was a very great thing to do, and it seemed to him to take away the merits they had heard so much belauded under Clause 4.
§ SIR S. EVANS
No, no. I will read the Amendment. It was as follows—In Clause 4, page 3, line 40, after the word 'licence,' to insert the words 'or of an order sanctioning the transfer or removal of a licence under Section 50 of the Licensing Act, 1872.The speech of the Archbishop of Canterbury was directed entirely against the omission of the clause which the hon. and learned Gentleman wished to omit in a subsequent stage. Speaking on 8th 1040 August, 1904, the Archbishop of Canterbury said—… after this Bill passed there would be the greatest possible inducement to the owners of public-houses to try by any scheme they possibly could to escape the conditions which, under Clause 4, attached to new licences granted after the passing of the Act. Under that clause new licences were to be subject to a charge for monopoly value, but that condition would not apply to a transfer. He earnestly hoped that the House would obtain from the Government some promise that they would not be deprived in this way of what they had hoped had been gained in Clause 4.On the same day the Bishop of London also took part in the debate. In giving an illustrative case he said—If a licence which was being given up in, say, Bethnal Green, because the house was unprofitable, was allowed to be transferred, say, to the large and rising district of Clayton, that licence would be subject to none of the conditions which would attach to a new licence; and if at a subsequent period the house in Clayton was shut up, it would be compensated for at a value very considerably higher than if the compensation money had been granted in respect of the house in Bethnal Green. It was monstrously unfair that a man should be able to take a valueless licence and put it down in prosperous district, and then not be subject to the conditions attaching to a new licence.The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had said that the effect of doing away with this provision would be that they would get undesirable houses existing in some places, whereas they would be shut up if the licences could be removed elsewhere. He agreed, if he might respectfully say so, with the Bishop of London, who said that it would be monstrously unfair to allow removals of that kind from one district to another, thereby relieving the persons who got licences in new districts from the obligations imposed by the Act of 1904.
§ SIR EDWARD SASSOON (Hythe)
said the Solicitor-General had read quotations from speeches of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London, evidently with great satisfaction to himself, in order to justify the repeal of this recent provision. The quotations were from people whom the hon. and learned Gentleman was seriously thinking of disestablishing next year. 1041 He thought the hon. Member for Kidderminster entirely misconceived the scope of the intention of those who desired to omit Clause 22. Under Section 50 of the Licensing Act of 1872 arrangements might be come to between the licensing justices and the brewers in cases where new and populous districts had come into being to transfer or remove an old licence from an over-licensed area to a new district where the requirement for a licence was very much felt. He would point out that when they spoke of an over-licensed area they did not mean that the licences were in excess of the statutory requirements under the Bill; they referred to the comparative requirements of the new district to which the licences might be removed with great advantage. These removals, if effected, would give a far better distribution without any draft on the compensation fund. In the earlier portion of the arguments which the Solicitor-General used yesterday he clearly pointed to the fact that the motive which animated the Government in repealing Section 50 of the Act of 1872 was more to extort the monopoly value from a new district than to consult the general convenience of the district. He thought there was a spirit of vindictiveness throughout the Bill. Evidently the whole measure was honeycombed with the desire to make the position of the licence-holder as hard and difficult in carrying on his business as it was possible to make it. He feared very much that the sincere and genuine desire which the Government had to bring about a great temperance reform would be to a great extent defeated by those harassing and objectionable restrictions they wished to place on licence-holders. The result would be that instead of having a respectable body of licence-holders to carry on the liquor trade of the country the business would fall into bad hands and the general community would, consequently, suffer. He appealed to the Government to accept the Amendment.
§ MR. STUART WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)
said there was one distinction between the Government of the present day and those right reverend minds who saw many dangers in the path in 1904. The Archbishops and bishops were seeking temperance in that 1042 year; the Government were now seeking money, and so far as he could see they were not seeking temperance at all. After all, actions were judged by their probable effects. Humble persons were so judged and the Government were going to be judged by that ordinary test. The foundation for cutting out this part of the law was that the licensing justices in whom such confidence was placed were going to be so green as not to see through a general conspiracy on the part of licensees to obtain by removal that for which they would otherwise have to pay the monopoly value as if it was a new licence. He did not suppose the Government imagined anything of the kind was likely to take place. Although magistrates were not likely to be taken in in this way, there might be a case where removal was the only thing to be done. The only result of the passing of this would be that the removal would not be applied for; the old bad house would be left in the old bad place and they would not get the public convenience which the legislature saw in 1872 would undoubtedly be gained to the public by the exercise of this power.
§ *MR. CLAVELL SALTER (Hants, Basingstoke)
said the question before the Committee was whether the licensing justices were to be deprived of the discretion which they had exercised for thirty-six years in permitting the removal of licences in cases where it seemed to them proper to do so in the public interest. It appeared to him that it was not a very profitable use of the time of the Committee for the Solicitor-General to give a history of the clause in the Act of 1872 in the hope of showing that it was originally temporary in its nature. It was enacted as a permanent provision of the law, and it had worked well for thirty-six years. The justices had no power to remove a licence if any objection was raised in the quarter from which it was to be removed and if they refused removal there was no appeal. He ventured to submit to the Committee that this was not a question of the number of licensed houses at all. Apart from the number altogether he believed that it was a good and desirable thing in the interests 1043 of temperance and order that there should be power to remove a licence from a district where it was not required to a district where it was required, from premises which were unsuited for the purposes of the trade to premises which were well suited, well found and convenient. Was it not quite obvious that that useful process would be stopped if this power were taken away from the justices? It stood to reason that if a person desired to transfer from premises (a) to premises (b) he would not apply under the law as it would stand if this clause remained. And for this reason, if he applied for removal to a district where the existing licences exceeded the statutory ratio it would be idle, because no new licences were to be granted. But even if that were not the case, he would know that the monopoly value he would have to pay for the new licence would vastly exceed any compensation he would get for the old one. The result would be that a great number of ill-found houses would remain. References had been made to ecclesiastical dignitaries and their sayings in another place. They knew that there were authorities who could quote Scripture when it suited their purpose. But if the argument which the hon. and learned Gentleman had quoted—he thought from the Bishop of London—was a sample of the argument he would use in another place hereafter when the Solicitor-General reached it, he would find himself in very poor argumentative company. The Bishop said that a man might get the transfer of a valueless licence in one place to a valuable licence in another. The answer to that was that the licensing justices had a discretion and they were not fools; they would safeguard the public interest. In a recent case the Lord Chief Justice observed that not merely had the licensing justices a discretion to refuse renewal on the ground of the loss of the monopoly value, but it was their business to take into account when considering whether the removal was desirable or not, whether or not they would be giving a valuable property without exacting compensation which ought to be given for it. The only question for the Committee was whether the licensing justices were or were 1044 not to be deprived of their discretion to permit a removal on proper cause shown.
§ MR. WYNDHAM
said it was very difficult to trace any connection between the attitude of the Government towards one clause and another. But their memories did go back more than twenty-four hours. Yesterday the Committee were asked to believe that the licensing justices and they only were competent to decide rather minute questions of the internal economy and arrangements of a public-house; but it was well-known that the discretion of the justices in such matters had not met with universal approval throughout the country. To-day they were asked to decide that the only competent men to settle these small points were totally incompetent to come to a right decision as to the places where public-houses should be opened. That was the only practical result which would follow from the Government insisting on repealing Clause 50 of the Act of 1872. They might hold out to those who sat behind them the glittering bait that the monopoly money was going to be poured into an exhausted exchequer, but did anybody suppose that a licence-holder could enjoy such a concession as the Government had made to the licence-holders unless he were compensated for the old licence? It had been amply demonstrated in the course of these debates that such a man would stay where he was rather than remove, although the removal might be for the convenience of the public and the justices might desire such removal. The result would be to keep a public-house where it was not wanted and might do harm, and prevent it being removed to a place where it was wanted and where it would do no harm.
§ SIR GEORGE WHITE (Norfolk, N.W.)
said he was about to make precisely the same remark as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover had made as to the ability of the licensing justices, but from an entirely different point of view. However, he felt that this was a question in which they might be guided by experience. Licensing justices very often had the bait put before 1045 them of the surrender of two or three licences in order that a licence might be granted in another neighbourhood. From his own experience he was bound to say that this bait sometimes succeeded. He would not say that the licensing justices were fools, to use the impolite expression of the hon. Gentleman opposite, but he was afraid that they did not always bring their average commonsense to bear when this question of the removal of licences was before them. There was only one principle which applied in such cases, viz.: Was the licence required, or was it not? If it was not, then it should not be removed. Again, did the place suggested for the transfer require the licence or not? If it did the licence should be granted. In his opinion it was rather an immoral transaction for justices to accept the pledge of the surrender of two or three licences in order that a licence might be granted in another neighbourhood. The hon. Member opposite said that the transfer would occur without any increase in drinking, but the hon. Member should remember that this was purely a trade business. The removal was not done for philanthropic purposes but because the man imagined that he would do a great deal more trade in the new premises. Certainly he would not ask for a transfer of the licence if he did not believe that it would lead to an increase of drinking. He had been somewhat surprised at the cheers with which hon. Gentlemen received the quotations from the speeches of the Bishops in another place, because though the sentiments were admirable they did not lead to any practical result. At the same time those quotations were apt to go to the root of the subject, because they presented to hon. Members in a concrete form the actual facts. The Amendment was supported by hon. Gentlemen opposite because the clause would secure the monopoly value for the State. Why should monopoly value be attacked as vindictive and destructive in this Bill when the principle was passed in the Act of 1904? He hoped the Government would remain firm in their determination to go forward with the clause.
§ LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)
said he wished to begin by entering his protest against the grave sacerdotalism developed 1046 on the opposite benches. He observed that the quotations read by the hon. and learned Solicitor-General had been received with approval by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Archbishops, Bishops and Nonconformist divines might be safe guides in their proper sphere but he did not think they were always safe guides in secular legislation. [An HON. MEMBER on the MINISTERIAL benches: What a confession!] The whole question of removal dealt with two quite different operations. They might have a removal of a kind which he quite agreed was in substance a request for a new licence. The licence-holder might come to the justices with a bid—a proposal to give up his present licence which was valueless and ask them to give him a new licence in a different district which would be a valuable thing to him. But in such a case the justices would know their business and refuse the bid. On the other hand there were applications for removal which were really meant to keep alive a licence under substantially the same conditions as existed before; and partly in the interest of the public, and partly in the interest of the licence-holder, it would be competent to transfer that licence to another house either in the same district, or in a closely adjoining district. That would really be the removal, the transfer of a technical licence granting the privilege of selling liquor for the public convenience. There were such applications, though he admitted they were not numerous. It seemed to him that that power ought to be kept alive. It was not in any sense a new licence but was really the removal of a licence, and it was evident that there were many cases in which such applications might be granted in the public interest. It might be that the new house which was proposed was far better fitted for the purpose, or better situated, or more convenient for the requirements of the public, or more easily supervised, and these things might very well come into the consideration of the magistrates. In such cases as that, he thought they would do well to grant removals, if they had the power to do so. They were asked to take the authority of the Bishops and Archbishops, but as a matter of fact, the danger which they feared and to which they gave expression in the House of 1047 Lords had turned out to the non-existent. In 1904 the Archbishop, the Bishop of London, and he thought the Bishop of St. Albans, expressed a great fear that this power, if it were kept alive, would be misused by the justices and that they would be persuaded to grant removals which would be in substance the grant of new licences, and an evasion of the Act. But the then Government pointed out that that would be very unlikely to occur, and that the justices might be perfectly safely trusted not to allow any evasion of the Act. And that had been the result. The noble Lords who said that the justices in Quarter and Petty Sessions might be trusted turned out to be right. The Solicitor-General shook his head, but there were very few of these cases in which removals were granted.
§ SIR S. EVANS
said that so far from the number being small it was large. In 1906 there were thirty-nine removals and only fifty-six new licences, a good deal more than half, and in 1907 there were thirty-nine removals and sixty-eight new licences, again more than half.
§ LORD R. CECIL
said that these figures appeared large to the Solicitor-General because the hon. and learned Gentleman insisted upon regarding the removals as new licences; but thirty-nine all over the country was really a very small number, and unless the Solicitor-General had information to the contrary he thought it might be assumed that these were genuine removals in the public interest and in no sense the grant of new licences. He was much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the figures, and the fact that there were only thirty-nine cases seemed to him absolutely to prove the point. There must have been thirty-nine cases in which genuine removals for genuine reasons were desirable and in which they had been granted. And let him point this out to the Committee and to hon. Members opposite. They were constantly told that the great vice of the Act of 1904 was that it was a great interference with magisterial discretion and removed the conditions established by Sharp v. Wakefield. As to removals, however, they had precisely the conditions of Sharp v. Wakefield; they had the absolute and 1048 complete discretion of the magistrates whether they should grant or refuse an application for such removal. There was no limit to it. If they thought it was an undesirable application they were entitled to refuse it absolutely, without any limitation of their discretion. There they had absolutely the pre-1904 condition of absolute discretion of the justices whether to grant or refuse, and the moment they had that hon. Members were not satisfied but desired to remove their power altogether. He trusted they would hear no more of the desire of hon. Members to return to the pre-1904 conditions and of their distrust of the discretion of the magistrates.
§ MR. MACLEAN (Bath)
was understood to claim that the figure of thirty-nine removals in a year proved the case they put forward, because it showed that thirty-nine licensees obtained the monopoly value, whereas if they were substantially new licences they ought to have paid the monopoly value. Where it was in substance a new licence monopoly value ought to be paid according to the principles of the right hon. Gentleman's own Act of 1904, and the number of removals—thirty-nine out of fifty-six—proved, he thought, the necessity for this clause. What really happened? He would take the noble Lord's instance of a removal from one district to another. It might be a small district, and they would have a useless public-house in a back street replaced by a public-house in a front street, with the result that an entirely new licence would be created, and one which would obtain the full monopoly value. He would give the noble Lord an instance of what happened before the Act of 1904, and he would take the Solicitor-General's case. A small useless public-house in a Welsh colliery district was removed to another district just over an intervening hill, the plea being put forward before the magistrates that they were not, by granting the removal, increasing the number of licences in their district. They, by their action in that case, handed over to the applicant a free grant of £8,000 or £9,000, which they on that side wished to exact for the monopoly value. They wanted to take 1049 away this power from justices who, like Cabinet Ministers, might err, and they wanted some restraint on their powers. They said that the justices should safeguard the interests of the public and that the monopoly value should be exacted for what was in fact a new licence. That was a principle which now underlay the whole of the licensing law and the actual practice, and the proposal of the Government was fair and just.
§ MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
said he did not think the Solicitor-General had given the Committee any really good reason for inserting this provision in the Bill. In fact the only reason the hon. and learned Gentleman had given was that the Government wished to seize the monopoly value. That was just the reason why they objected to it. It was at the bottom of their objection to the whole Bill that the Government wished to seize, or, in other words, to rob, the monopoly value. The Solicitor-General said that this was a provision which had been in operation under the Act of 1872, and he called it a temporary provision. It had, however, been in operation for thirty-six years.
§ SIR S. EVANS
was understood to say that he stated that it was a temporary provision under the Act of 1871.
§ MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS
said that at all events it had been in operation for thirty-six years withuot being repealed, so that it had served a useful purpose. It was quite true that perhaps it had not been used very much. Thirty-nine licences were exchanged last year, but was not that just the number after the passing of this Bill—if it became law, which they hoped it would not—where this provision could be usefully employed? The plan of the Government was to reduce licences to a dead level according to population, and they all knew that some of our large cities had far too many, while in some districts there were very few. What was more reasonable than to give the bench of justices power in places where there were too many to remove one to a district where it was required, without having to exact the monopoly value? 1050 But that was not the object of the Government, which was money, and that was what they objected to. If the Solicitor-General could not give them any better reason he hoped he would consent to withdraw this provision. The hon. and learned Gentleman had quoted the words of a prelate in another place—he thought it was the Archbishop of Canterbury—to the effect that if this provision was allowed to continue it might act most unfairly. But it was necessary to go further and say that the justices acted unfairly, and if they did so there was nothing more to say, but he thought it was generally conceded that the justices of this country acted fairly in all these licensing matters. For these reasons he hoped it was not too late to appeal to the Solicitor-General and the Prime Minister to reconsider then decision in this matter, especially when they remembered that their scheme was to try and reduce licences according to the density of the population.
§ MR. LANE-FOX (Yorkshire, W.R., Barkston Ash)
wished to point out that the Solicitor-General would have had a stronger case if he had been able to quote real cases of actual experience, instead of giving to the Committee hypothetical cases, even though they were backed up by a Bishop in another place. The hon. and learned Gentleman had told them that these removals were thirty-nine in 1906, but he did not tell them how many surrenders were made in consideration of those removals or how many licences were extinguished in order to procure those removals. It was all very well to quote the Bishops in another place. It was most refreshing to hear hon. Members opposite quoting Bishops and he hoped they would continue to do so, but they on that side did not look up to their Bishops for their politics. [MINISTERIAL laughter.] Other hon. Members did, and he thought a few cases of actual fact or experience, such as the case which the hon. Member for Bath had quoted, would have been of far more assistance in this debate than mere hypothetical cases which might have no foundation in fact.
§ *MR. TOULMIN (Bury, Lancashire)
said they had been told by the hon. Member for Sheffield that they wanted 1051 to "seize the monopoly value, that was to rob." They were told that if there was a district which had not a licence, but into which a licence was to be put, if it were given as a new licence it was "robbery." That licence could be put there in one of two ways. It could either be put there under the Act of 1904, when they would get a monopoly value and thereby "rob" somebody or other—he could not see that they would do anything of the sort—or they could do what this clause sought to prevent, namely, give this new licence in a new district in return for the surrender of several other licences. It was not a removal of a licence from one district to another. The new licence was more often than not granted because two, three, four or sometimes half a dozen licences, which were presumably not needed, were given up for the one new licence in the new area. It was that policy that had so greatly diminished the utility of the Act of 1904, in respect of the clauses as to new licences, which were a most valuable part of that Act. Hon. Members opposite had accused the Government of being vindictive to the licence-holders. The Bill was not vindictive, it was the Amendment that was vindictive, because there were generally three or four licence-holders affected by this transaction. If the matter were left to the Bill itself, the man who had the licence and kept the house, the actual tenant, would have the compensation. But what happened now was that these three or four licence-holders were thrown into the street and their licences surrendered to the justices in order that another person might get a good house in a new and good neighbourhood. So far as he could see there was no injustice in this clause to the real licence-holder.
§ MR. C. DUNCAN (Barrow-in-Furness)
contended, with regard to the removal of a licence to a new district, that the people of the district into which it was to be removed had at any rate a right to veto the licence. He quite agreed that when any removals that were practically new licences were made the monopoly value should be taken by the State. That policy was a good one and there was no robbery or plunder about it. It seemed to be assumed 1052 that it was a fair and reasonable proposal to make to the justices that they should remove a licence from one place and dump it down in another, whether the people desired it or not. That was the whole tone of the argument of the debate, and as he objected strongly to that, he said that wherever a licence was to be moved the whole thing should be regarded as a new licence. The whole question of removal was a dodge to get over the local veto. He, therefore, hoped the Government would adhere to this clause. The matter resolved itself into a question of personal gain. Neither brewers nor publicans desired to move a licence from a good to a bad district. They always wanted to remove it from a poor district to one in which they hoped to make a profit. His contention was that before any licence was dumped down in a new district the people had a right to say whether that licence should come into the district or not. The Government were absolutely justified in putting this clause into the Bill, and he hoped it would be carried by a large majority.
§ MR. LYTTELTON (St. George's, Hanover Square)
said it was fair to say if there was any substantial improvement resulting from the removal of a licence that improvement should be paid for by the person benefited. But if the licence was really a new licence, and it was to pass under the yoke of this Bill, they ought to agree that the provisions should apply to the monopoly value. That was a point which had been wholly misunderstood by former speakers. The Opposition objected to all monopoly value, but no one denied that if monopoly value was to apply it ought to apply to a new licence. If a perfectly valueless licence was to be removed from one district to another where it became valuable no one would say that it ought not to pass under this Act, but it was assumed by hon. Gentlemen opposite that the licensing justices, when a simple problem like this was put before them, were absolutely incompetent to deal with it and look after their own districts. The allegation of hon. Members was that the justices were likely to remove licences in order to avoid monopoly 1053 value and put valueless licences into places were they would become very valuable. The experience of the working of the Act of 1904 showed that the number of removals granted last year by the justices was fifty-eight, and in every single case the removal had not been from one end of a county to another, but in the same district. In fact the Bill would stereotype licences in places where they ought not to exist and prevent them from being removed to places were they were wanted.
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,) Fifeshire, E.
said that this clause had nothing whatever to do with the new provisions of the Bill. It was necessitated by the provisions of the Act of 1904, and although it was perfectly true that at the end of the time-limit a number of licences which were now old licences would fall under this provision as to monopoly value, yet for the time being and for many years to come this would only be an excuse for avoiding new licences.
§ MR. LYTTELTON
said his right hon. friend was not in the House at the time, otherwise he would have seen that the whole argument was that by this removal provision they were seeking to avoid monopoly value.
§ MR. ASQUITH
said that Section 4 of the Act of 1904 was the provision which required the justices to attach, as a condition to the granting of new licences, the monopoly value to the State. The objection taken by anticipation in 1904, was that so long as the power of removal remained it would be possible and probable that licences which, under Section 4 of that Act, would pay monopoly value to the State would be treated as mere removals and so escape payment of monopoly value and also put themselves into a position to be compensated. Figures had been quoted by the Solicitor-General which certainly indicated, having regard to the very large proportion of removals as compared with new licences, that the process of removals had been resorted to instead of the granting of new licences. What was the object of retaining the power of removal in this 1054 Bill? If a licence was not wanted in one place and a licence was wanted in another, the proper course to be taken by the justices was in the one case to suppress the redundant licence, and in the other to grant a new licence. There was no doubt about that, and the fact that a new licence secured this monopoly value was an additional reason for not providing any possible loophole for removals. That was what they meant in bringing this Bill forward, and no one, he ventured to say, had yet succeeded in the course of the debate in showing any reason for the retention of this removal provision.
§ MR. BONAR LAW (Camberwell, Dulwich)
pointed out that if a licence was not wanted in one district and was wanted in another the licensing justices could suppress in one case and could give a new licence in the other. Was it not conceivable that there were licences in particular places in some districts where it would be a distinct gain to the public to have them removed and replaced by an off-licence? In regard to that matter, the other side had entirely misrepresented the position of those on that side of the House. They said that it was perfectly fair and right—and they had put it in the Bill of 1904—that the monopoly value of any new licence should not go to the lucky man who got it, but to the State to which it belonged. But that was not the point here. While they admitted this was true, they said it was also equally true that they should not prevent a change which was in the public interest from being made when they were taking away the goodwill of a man's business and calling it monopoly value. That was the difference between the Government and the Opposition. He had no objection to the State getting the full monopoly value. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken as if the facts since 1904 had nothing to do with this question. That was the whole point. The objection raised in the other House to this provision remaining was that the justices would evade the Act of 1904 and, in fact, create new licences. The contention of the Opposition was that that had not happened. The evil which was feared, and the only evil which they 1055 were fighting against now, was one which experience had shown did not exist. The Solicitor-General and the right hon. Gentleman seemed to speak as if it were a case of transferring licences from one district to another.
§ SIR S. EVANS
said he had stated that a licence might be removed from one part of the county to another, or from one street to another, or from one side of the street to the other, but it would be a new licence.
§ MR. BONAR LAW
said the real point at issue, and the reason why they were pressing this Amendment was simply this. They believed that it was in the public interest that a number of licences which were in a bad situation, or not in the best situation, should be given up, and instead of them another licence should be granted in any situation which was found to be in the public interest as a whole. The case of the Opposition was that they had a perfect right to say that where a removal meant that the publican or anybody else was going to get a great deal of money by the change, then the State, or whatever body was intended, should have the monopoly value. But they also said that to pass a clause which made it absolutely impossible for the licensing justices to make removals from one situation to another in the public interest was, on the part of the Government, simply to condemn the justices as unfit to undertake the duty.
§ MR. SHERWELL
said his reason for opposing the Amendment proposed on the other side would be equally strong if there were no provision concerning the taking of monopoly value in the Act of 1902 and the Act of 1904. He opposed the Amendment simply because he believed that it added confusion to the bare intent of the original licensing laws, which had been so constantly obscured by administration in the past. The whole theory of granting the licence was that it was required in the public interest. His contention was that the suppression of a licence in one quarter, and granting a licence in another district, were cases which ought to be kept entirely distinct. The changes in a 1056 certain locality made a particular licence redundant, and therefore it should be suppressed. The change in the condition of a district might seem to require the granting of a new licence, and that application should be dealt with solely on its merits. He objected most strongly to this confusion between a licence which should be properly suppressed, and another application which might or might not have strong arguments in support of it. The right hon. Gentleman would see on reflection that the effect of carrying out his recommendation would be that if in a particular district a licence was clearly redundant there would be an application for a new licence in another district, and the tendency would at least be to incline the magistrates to grant a new licence not strictly on its merits but merely in consideration of finding that way of suppressing the redundant licence.
§ *MR. STUART WORTLEY
said that hon. Members opposite persisted so steadily in treating this question as one of removal from one district to another, and in treating the suppression of a licence as if there must be a redundancy, that he felt he ought to rise, if only to state the case which he had in his mind, one which very often occurred. Take the case of a public-house just outside the gates of large works, a case very often met with. That public-house did not require to be suppressed because of redundancy; what was wanted was removal, because it was in the wrong place. He submitted that the power to remove that house was a useful power, and that its removal was only in a technical sense the granting of a new licence. Substantially it was the removal of the same thing to another and a better place, to a place where the licensee would probably not make so much money. The Solicitor-General had quoted figures to show that there was a certain number—a small number, he thought—of removals in 1907, but the hon. and learned Gentleman had not quoted figures, or he would have done so if he could, to show that there was a marked increase of removal after the passing of the Act of 1904.
§ MR. CHARLES ROBERTS (Lincoln)
said the point of the right hon. Member for 1057 Sheffield could be met by transferring the licence under the Act of 1828, which was not touched by the Government's proposal to abolish the power of removal under the Act of 1872. Certainly he should imagine that a change in the position of a house generally meant an addition to its value—a change in value which might be very considerable; and in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, it would be very wrong so to arrange that any monopoly value arising from the granting of a new licence should not be secured to the State. One other matter. The whole of the surrender system had had a very bad effect. It had kept alive hundreds and thousands of licences merely for the purpose of their being used as counters in bargaining. He remembered a case in a division of Sussex where it was said that a particular licence was merely a surrender licence, and it was obviously treated as one of the counters in a bargain in which, he thought, in this instance as in others of a similar sharacter, the justices did not get the better of it. Where they were clearing away two or three small licences of no value they were granting a really valuable licence. The result which had been produced as a matter of fact was foreseen and objected to by the bishops in the House of Lords, and it was seen from the cases which occurred in 1905 that this power of removal really meant the driving of a coach and horses through the clauses.
§ MR. RICHARDSON (Nottingham, S.)
said he was certain he was voicing the views of many members of all parties when he said that this proposal would do something to release them from the tied house system. Close observation in his own neighbourhood had taught him that whenever offers were made for a new licence in a new neighbourhood in exchange for old licences, or for a single old licence in an old neighbourhood, those offers were not made by the owners of free houses but always by the brewers. If that class were not dealt with by the Bill, or if the Amendment were carried,
§ he was afraid that they would fasten the tied house system still more closely round the necks of the people. What was wanted more than anything was the growth of free licences. In the city which he represented he met a deputation of owners of free houses whose united holdings in their houses amounted to over £70,000. He would like to hear of a similar number of brewers' tied houses where there was the same financial interest on the part of the licensees. He urged that they should encourage in new neighbourhoods free men managing their own houses, and do everything possible to kill the brewers' tied-house system.
§ *MR. CAVE
said he only rose for the purpose of pointing out that the case put by the right hon. Member for Sheffield could not, as suggested by the hon. Member for Leicester, be dealt with by an order of renewal under the Act of 1828. That Act provided that if a licensed house should be "by fire, tempest, or other unforeseen and unavoidable calamity" rendered unfit for the purposes of an inn, an order of renewal might be made. But he did not think even his hon. friend opposite would say that the erection, say, of a large factory or a school next door to a public-house, was an unforeseen and unavoidable calamity within the meaning of the statute.
§ *MR. R. PEARCE (Staffordshire, Leek)
asked the Solicitor-General to consider this case. There was a public improvement under which an inferior public-house was pulled down and an arrangement made with the owner of an adjoining house that that house should be substituted for the old one. It was better placed and adapted for the convenience of the locality. The name of the house pulled down was the "King Charles' Head," and the name of the builder who rebuilt it Oliver Cromwell.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 257; Noes, 103. (Division List No. 320.)1061
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Ashton, Thomas Gair|
|Agnew, George William||Armitage, R.||Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry|
|Alden, Percy||Armstrong, W. C. Heaton||Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton||Mond, A.|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale||Montagu, Hon. E. S.|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)|
|Barker, John||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Morrell, Philip|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard.|
|Barnard, E. B.||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||Myer, Horatio|
|Barnes, G. N.||Hart-Davies, T.||Napier, T. B.|
|Bell, Richard||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)|
|Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Nuttall, Harry|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Haworth, Arthur A.||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Partington, Oswald|
|Black, Arthur W.||Hemmerde, Edward George||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Brace, William||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Perks, Sir Robert William|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Henry, Charles S.||Pollard, Dr.|
|Branch, James||Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Brigg, John||Higham, John Sharp||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Hobart, Sir Robert||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Hodge, John||Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Holland, Sir William Henry||Radford, G. H.|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Holt, Richard Durning||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Hooper, A. G.||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.||Rees, J. D.|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Horniman, Emslie John||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Byles, William Pollard||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th|
|Cameron, Robert||Hudson, Walter||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Richardson, A.|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Hyde, Clarendon||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Clough, William||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd|
|Clynes, J. R.||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Robinson, S.|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John||Jowett, F. W.||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Kearley, Sir Hudson E.||Rose, Charles Day|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Kekewich, Sir George||Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.|
|Crooks, William||Laidlaw, Robert||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Crossley, William J.||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Curran, Peter Francis||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Davies, David (Montgomery Co.||Lambert, George||Scarisbrick, T. T. L.|
|Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan||Lamont, Norman||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh. S.)||Levy, Sir Maurice||Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne|
|Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.||Lewis, John Herbert||Sears, J. E.|
|Duckworth, James||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Seddon, J.|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Lupton, Arnold||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Lyell, Charles Henry||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall||Lynch, H. B.||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs||Snowden, P.|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||Mackarness, Frederic C.||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Evans, Sir Samuel T.||Maclean, Donald||Stanger, H. Y.|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Steadman, W. C.|
|Faber, G. H. (Boston)||Macpherson, J. T.||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Fenwick, Charles||M'Callum, John M.||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Ferens, T. R.||M'Crae, Sir George||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro||M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Findlay, Alexander||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Stuart, James (Sunderland)|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||M'Micking, Major G.||Summerbell, T.|
|Fullerton, Hugh||Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Gibb, James (Harrow)||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Glendinning, R. G.||Marnham, F. J.||Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury|
|Glover, Thomas||Massie, J.||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Masterman, C. F. G.||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||Menzies, Walter||Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.|
|Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Micklem, Nathaniel||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Greenwood, Hamar (York)||Middlebrook, William||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Molteno, Percy Alport||Toulmin, George|
|Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Wedgwood, Josiah C.||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Verney, F. W.||White, Sir George (Norfolk)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Vivian, Henry||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)||White, Luke (York, E. R.)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Walsh, Stephen||Whitehead, Rowland||Winfrey, R.|
|Walton, Joseph||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Wardle, George J.||Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan||Wiles, Thomas|
|Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)||Wilkie, Alexander||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Waterlow, D. S.||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)||Joseph Pease and Master of|
|Watt, Henry A.||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)||Elibank.|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Haddock, George B.||Renton, Leslie|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd)||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Heaton, John Henniker||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Helmsley, Viscount||Salter, Arthur Claveli|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hill, Sir Clement||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East|
|Bull, Sir William James||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Houston, Ropert Paterson||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Joynson-Hicks, William||Stanier, Beville|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Kerry, Earl of||Starkey, John R.|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)|
|Cave, George||Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc.||Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.|
|Clive, Percy Archer||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Cross, Alexander||M'Arthur, Charles||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||Marks, H. H. (Kent)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Du Cros, Arthur Philip||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan)||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Winterton, Earl|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||Morpeth, Viscount||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)||Morrison-Bell, Captain||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Fell, Arthur||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)||Young, Samuel|
|Fletcher, J. S.||Oddy, John James||Younger, George|
|Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington|
|Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)||Percy, Earl||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Randles, Sir John Scurrah||Alexander Acland-Hood and|
|Gretton, John||Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne||Viscount Valentia.|
|Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)||Ratcliffe, Major R. F.|
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause 23:
§ *MR. YOUNGER
said he wished to move an Amendment in order to raise what appeared to be an important question. If an exception was to be made in favour of cider which contained very often 8 per cent. of proof spirit 2 per cent. more than Bass's beer, he wanted to know on what principle any liquor containing not more than 5 per cent. should not be specially exempted, as it was now proposed to exempt cider. That enabled one to raise the whole question as to whether it was not a desirable thing that something or other 1062 in the shape of the legislation recently passed in Denmark should not be put in this Bill, to encourage the sale of light wines, beers, stouts or ciders in houses specially set apart for the purpose, specially regulated and under special provisions, providing as they did in many cases all that was wanted in the way of intoxicating liquors by many people. It appeared essential to raise the question when this exemption was being proposed in favour of cider, and to point out that many ciders were considerably stronger than beer. As one knew from the analyses made every year in Somerset House, many temperance 1063 drinks which were sold as non-alcoholic were found to contain 10 per cent. and 12 per cent. of alcohol. He noticed that most teetotallers drank stone ginger. They did not know perhaps why, but the real truth was that there was spirit in that, and there was none in the other sort.
In page 14, line 25, to leave out the word 'alone,' and to insert the words 'or of any liquor containing less than 5 per cent. of proof spirit.'"—(Mr. Younger.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'alone' stand part of the clause."
§ SIR S. EVANS
said he was not competent to enter into a discussion with regard to the quantity of alcohol in stone ginger beer, cider, or anything else. He knew cider was to a certain extent intoxicating and, unless one was used to it, perhaps more intoxicating than things one was in the habit of drinking containing more alcohol. The clause was not very important as it stood. The number of houses was small—only twenty-five he thought in 1906–7—and the holders were in this position, that they did not want compensation if their licence was taken away, and they did not want the compensation levy. He did not know whether it was intended to include them in the definition of on-licence, but they came within it and if they were to be dealt with it must be in this way.
§ MR. COURTHOPE (Sussex, Rye)
said that if the intention was not to give a preference he did not see why the Government had taken any action. Why not treat them as other licences? He did not think they really could be satisfied with the Solicitor-General's explanation that cider and pe[...]ry licences had been exempted merely because the licensees were not asking for compensation. If that was the sole reason he did not think there was any justification for this clause.
As a matter of order, if the hon. Member desires to discuss the clause, I think he had better wait until we have got rid of this Amendment, and I will then put the question "that the clause stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. YOUNGER
said there did not seem any particular reason in the explanation given why, if these people selling this particular class of liquor did not wish to pay any levy or have any compensation they should not be encouraged.
§ *MR. LUPTON (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)
said he should support, the Amendment. He was aware that, as the Bill stood, the Amendment could only have a moral effect, but it might lead on the Report stage to further Amendments giving effect to the principle of the encouragement of the sale of drink containing a low percentage of proof spirit. That would be a very great improvement. Everybody who had studied the question knew that people who lived in Belfast and other towns where spirits were drunk to a great extent regarded beer-drinking as comparable to teetotalism. If they could only get the people in this country to prefer the less harmful beverages like light beer and cider they would be taking steps in the direction of temperance. The question was how could they best get a real measure of temperance reform. In his opinion it could be best achieved on the lines of an Amendment to encourage the sale of light beverages. He did not say that cider was not an intoxicant, because people had been made drunk wth it, but he thought they might encourage the sale of a cider containing not more than 5 per cent. of proof spirit. When there was any difficulty in obtaining non-intoxicating beverages people often bought the concentrated drink. They could not very well carry home enough of 5 per cent. beer in their pocket to get drunk upon. He hoped the Government would see their way to incorporate this Amendment in the Bill.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
desired to ask a question as to the scope of the clause which they were now discussing. Was its effect to take the cider licences out of the whole of the provisions of this Bill, or merely out of the compensation levy? Would the cider licences be subject to the local veto provisions and also to the provisions dealing with renewals?
§ SIR S. EVANS
replied that it only modified existing on-licences and did not affect any provisions as to new licences.
§ MR. LAMBTON
did not see why cider should be exempted. He had seen people get very drunk on cider. He did not think any special encouragement should be given to people to sell cider upon which a man could get drunk. The Solicitor-General's explanation was not satisfactory. He ought to have proceeded to tell the Committee what the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London, thought on the subject. By Clause 23 the Government deliberately proposed to increase drinking. Under Clauses 21 and 22 a large monopoly value would be obtained by the Government at the end of the time-limit, and under Clause 23 he thought the monopoly value they would get out of cider was not worth having. All sorts of endeavours were being made to obtain monopoly value out of the trade, but there was no endeavour made by the Government to provide for real temperance.
§ MR. ASQUITH
invited the Committee not to prolong the discussion on this Amendment. If there was any serious opposition to the clause the Government would at once withdraw it. There was no sinister motive about the clause. The Government did not attach any importance to this provision, and it was not intended to encourage a preferential taste for cider. It was inserted simply on the representation of a small body of traders whose case seemed to present a little hardship and who stated that they had been included in the Act of 1904 per incuriam, because, technically, they came under the description "existing on-licences."
§ SIR E. CARSON (Dublin University)
said he did not object to the Government proposal, perhaps because he was a cider-drinker. It really was very doubtful whether cider was a temperance drink.
§ MR. YOUNGER
stated that he would withdraw his Amendment, although he thought that it would, be better not to have that clause in the Bill.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Question proposed, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."1066
§ MR. JAMES HOPE
said he was not at all clear that the twenty-five licensees of cider really understood the position they were in. It was true they would not pay compensation levy, nor get compensation, but would they be included in the scheme of reduction? If so, they might be reduced in number without compensation being paid. As he understood it they would be in the position of the ordinary off-licence holder who was not protected in any way. If they managed to survive to the end of the twenty-one years, then they would get the monopoly value. He wished to know if they would be put under the unfettered discretion of the justices to refuse or renew their licences.
§ MR. ASQUITH
said he supposed the licensees in questions knew their own mind when they made representations on the subject. If however, there was to be any discussion on the clause he would withdraw it altogether.
§ Clause 24:
§ SIR S. EVANS
moved to leave out the words "except in the case of a licence granted for a term," and stated that if this and other Amendments of which he had given notice were adopted the clause would read as follows:—"(1) The payments required under Section 4 of the Licensing Act, 1904, in respect of monopoly value shall in every case of a new licence granted after the passing of this Act be determined by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and in the case of a licence not granted for a term shall not exceed the monopoly value for a year as ascertained in accordance with this section, and, in the case of a licence granted for a term, shall be based on the monopoly value as so ascertained. The monopoly value shall be taken to be the sum by which, in the opinion of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, the value of the premises, as adopted or estimated for the purpose of Income-Tax under Schedule A., when licensed, and without taking into consideration any provisions for securing to the public the monopoly value, exceeds the value of the premises 1067 for that purpose when not licensed. Provided that in ascertaining the monopoly value of hotels or other premises where the value of the premises does not mainly arise from the sale of intoxicating liquor, any value of the premises other than that arising from the sale of intoxicating liquor shall be excluded from consideration. (2) If a licence, granted before the passing of this Act as a new licence under Section 4 of the Licensing Act, 1904, but not as a licence for a term, is extinguished at any time during the reduction period, and the holder of the licence proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that the amount required to be paid in any year on account of monopoly value has exceeded the monopoly value for a year, and that the licence has not been extinguished on the ground of misconduct, the Commissioners shall allow the repayment of such portion, if any, of the sum paid on account of monopoly value as they think just, having regard to the time which has elapsed since the original grant of the licence. Any sum allowed shall be paid by the Commissioners to the holder of the licence, and shall be deducted from the next payment made out of the local taxation account to the council of the county or county borough who have had the benefit of the original payment. The conditions attached to the grant of a new licence for the purpose of securing to the public the monopoly value may provide for the revision of the payment fixed for the purpose on the renewal of the licence either annually or periodically, or for fixing in some future year the amount of the payment to be made in the event of the licence being renewed in that year." He said the clause raised the whole question of what the monopoly value provisions were to be, and he would leave the Prime Minister to explain them to the Committee.
In page 14, line 28, to leave out the words 'Except in the case of a licence granted for a term."—(Sir S. Evans.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."1068
§ MR. ASQUITH
said he thought it might be for the convenience of the Committee if he made a statement showing the effect of the changes now proposed in the general scope of the clause. The first subsection with which they were now dealing, as originally drawn, was put in with the intention of preventing a practice which had grown up under the Act of 1904 of the justices taking a lump sum down, often considerable in amount, as monopoly value, and granting a licence not for a term, but only for a year. It was a case which had occurred in sixty-five instances between 1905 and 1908 where the monopoly value was paid for either wholly or in part in money, and in twenty-five cases there had been paid some capital consideration other than money. The total amount so paid in money was £81,370. The Leader of the Opposition the other day expressed his surprise that this practice, totally foreign to the intentions of the framers of the Act of 1904, should have grown up, and he gathered that the right hon. Gentleman would be at one with them in putting an end to it. It was a practice which had already given rise to difficulty, for the hon. Member for Sheffield had repeatedly pointed out that in the case of some of these licences granted only for a year there had been paid down sums amounting to thousands of pounds which had gone into the local exchequer. He thought it would be admitted from the very first that it would be unjust to treat the licensees who had made the payments as though the licences were to come to an end at the end of the year without some attempt to refund a portion of the consideration money which had been paid. That was the main object of the first subsection, but it dealt with two other matters as to both of which the Amendments of the Solicitor-General were in fulfilment of pledges which he had given on behalf of the Government in the course of these debates. The first object was to remove the duty of assessing the monopoly value from the licensing justices to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and that was a change which he thought those interested in the trade would themselves approve. It had at any rate the merit that it introduced uniformity into their system instead of the extraordinary variety of practices which had hitherto 1069 prevailed among different benches of licensing justices. In some cases the bench took a large lump sum down for the grant of a licence, and in other cases they granted licences for a term of years. The Amendment would secure that the persons interested in the public-house on the one side, and the State, upon the other, would have a tribunal acting upon fixed principles, and which could be relied upon to apply to every case as it arose the principles which were applied to others. That matter was dealt with by the first Amendment. The second change was to introduce—what the Act of 1904 did not attempt to do—a definition of monopoly value. The phrase "monopoly value" appeared for the first time in the Act of 1904, where justices were directed to attach such conditions to a new licence as they thought best adapted for securing to the public any monopoly value which was represented by the difference between the value of the premises licensed and unlicensed.
§ MR. ASQUITH
said it was correct so far as it went. He did not say that it defined it completely. Might he point out by way of explanation that Clause 24 was in the view of the Government a mere Amendment of the Act of 1904, and was not necessitated by any provision in the present Bill; nor would it have any fresh application to the state of things created by the Bill till the expiration of the time limit when, for the first time, the question would arise of the resumption by the State of the monopoly value. The Government thought it desirable, and there had been a feeling shown in the course of these debates that it was desirable, that the Legislature itself should place upon the Statute-book some measure by which the assessing authority—in future to be the Commissioners of Inland Revenue—could act in determining the difference between the value of premises licensed and unlicensed. Their proposal was to say that the monopoly value should be taken to be the sum by which, in the opinion of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, the value of the premises, as adopted or estimated for the purpose 1070 of income-tax under Schedule A, when licensed, and without taking into consideration any provisions for securing to the public the monopoly value, exceeds the value of the premises for that purpose when not licensed. In other words, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue were to take as the measure of monopoly value in the grant of a new licence the same criterion by which the Government proposed, when an existing licence was suppressed for redundancy, that the accompanying compensation should be fixed. It was the difference between the Schedule A value of the premises with a licence, and all its privileges, as compared with the Schedule A value of the premises without the licence.
§ MR. ASQUITH
Exactly the same, and it was the principle which had been adopted, rightly or wrongly, as the basis of compensation. He need not remind the House that Schedule A value of premises as licensed ought to include and if properly taken did include, all the ingredients of monopoly value. It included local goodwill—the value arising from situation—and it included the value conferred on the premises by the licence in regard to freedom from competition, and the other privileges with which a licence was accompanied. On the other hand, Schedule A value of the premises without a licence was the rent which the tenant would pay for them without any of these special advantages, and the difference between the two the Government thought—and it was in accordance with commonsense—was the monopoly value. It was the additional value conferred on the premises by the licence. He might point out in passing that there were some words in one of the Amendments which seemed to require explanation. The words were—And without taking into consideration any provisions for securing to the public the monopoly value.Of course, if they had premises actually let at a rack rent as a free house, the Schedule A value would represent, as compared with the Schedule A value of the same premises let to a draper or grocer, the monopoly value. In other 1071 words, the landlord was receiving the monopoly value. It did not matter to the tenant whether he paid that monopoly value in a lump sum as part of the rent, or whether he paid to his landlord the rent which he would pay for unlicensed premises, and also paid the monopoly value in another way to the State. The Government were inserting words with the object of providing that if and when the State resumed the monopoly value, the Schedule A value of the premises licensed and unlicensed should be the same—to show that they must take into account, when they were estimating the two things which had to be compared, that the monopoly value had passed away from the landlord to the State as an ingredient in assessing the value of the premises licensed.
§ MR. ASQUITH
said it was just to meet that difficulty that the Government proposed to make this Amendment. The assessment of the premises licensed and unlicensed would be the same. The monopoly value which now went to the landlord would in future go to the State. It would not appear in the rate-book at all. This was the procedure which would be followed by the Inland Revenue when they were asked by licensing justices to assess the monopoly value of these new licences. They would look at Schedule A; it would not always be correct but they would look at it. There was no necessity for making any alteration in any way.
§ MR. ASQUITH
No, it has nothing whatever to do with rating. It was simply for making the calculation as to what was a fair sum for the State to take as monopoly value when it granted the privilege of a new licence. It was merely machinery for the purpose of ascertaining in particular cases what the monopoly value should really be.
§ *MR. YOUNGER
Assume that £120 goes to the landlord, and supposing the 1072 monopoly value is £20, what is to be the value in the valuation roll upon which the tenant is to be rated?
§ MR. ASQUITH
would say £100. But he was speaking not of the tenant but more of the landlord. That did not affect any question of rating. It was merely a question of machinery for ascertaining in particular cases what was the particular value. In the discussions on compensation he thought the general tendency of the criticisms to which the Government were exposed was that they were not acting over generously in giving to the persons interested in the extinguished licence merely the difference between the Schedule A valuation. At any rate, they were acting on the same principle now, and they were not securing for the State, in the shape of monopoly value, anything more than the persons interested in the licensed premises would obtain if the licence were extinguished on the ground of redundancy.
§ MR. ASQUITH
said that as was pointed out the other day the actual Schedule A was taken at the present moment, but the real Schedule A value ought also to be considered. The monopoly value had never hitherto formed part of Schedule A value.
§ MR. ASQUITH
said that in the case of a licence not granted for a term, the monopoly value was not to exceed the monopoly value for one year as ascertained under this procedure. In the case of a licence granted for a term, it would be based on the monopoly value as so ascertained. If it was granted for one year, the monopoly value would be the difference between the two valuations.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
asked whether the monopoly value for a term would be paid in a lump sum at the beginning of the term, or as an annual sum each year of the term.
§ MR. ASQUITH
said it certainly might be paid down in a lump sum. He did not see any objection to a lump sum payment on principle. When they were giving a licence for a term of years, it might be more convenient for all parties. The objectionable practice was taking a big sum down and giving a man only the precarious tenure of one year. What they were doing here was, first of all, to give the assessment of monopoly value in all cases to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue with the object of securing uniformity in principle, and, next, to lay down a measure of monopoly value corresponding, mutatis mutandis, with the measure which they had laid down for compensation, and which would prevent the State from taking from the licence-holder a larger sum than it was fairly entitled to receive in view of the privileges it gave in granting a new licence. He thought this provision would be a great improvement on the Act of 1904.
§ SIR E. CARSON
said it was exceedingly difficult, at this stage of the Bill, to discuss an entirely new principle of granting a new licence. He doubted if anybody reading the Amendment could possibly have understood what it was it aimed at without hearing the speech of the Prime Minister, and, although he had had considerable experience in reference to licensing matters, and had followed the working of the Act of 1904 very closely, he confessed he hardly felt competent, on the short consideration, he had been able to give to it, to deal with the subject in any reasonable way.
§ MR. ASQUITH
said he was extremely sorry that the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee should be embarrassed by the shortness of notice, though he thought he had more or less indicated in previous speeches what they were going to do. He agreed that the matter was of great importance, and he would undertake on the Report stage to put it in such a position that if, after mature consideration, further argument should be thought necessary there should be an opportunity for hearing them.
§ SIR E. CARSON
said they were obliged to the Prime Minister for that 1074 offer, but it was necessary that he should make such observations as now occurred to him. As the section stood before the alteration now suggested it was a very simple section, and there was nothing in it which anybody could not understand. He did not think that it was ever intended that on the passing of the Act of 1904 in the grant of an annual licence they were to take something for a period which extended beyond the year, but only to take the monopoly value for one year. When a man was given a licence for a term of seven years he paid a sum of money for that, either an annual sum or a lump sum to begin with. He thought that in practice a good many paid an annual sum. In practice the Act of 1904 had worked perfectly well. What he understood to be the main objections to the present Amendment were two. The first was that the magistrates who were granting the licence, who were aware of the needs of the district and of the probabilities of the trade, and who were, most of all, aware of the value that was likely to accrue from the granting of the licence, were to have no voice whatever in the future in finding the amount to be paid. In his opinion that was a grave mistake, and he doubted very much whether it would work out in practice. He did not understand that Section 4, subsection (a) of the Act of 1904 was being repealed, and, therefore, what was to happen was that magistrates, when an application came before them, would have power to attach whatever conditions they pleased to the granting of the licence. Take the case of a six-days licence, or that the house was to be closed on Sundays or to be open only during certain hours. How on earth could the Inland Revenue Commissioners, sitting in London, ascertain what the effect of the various conditions which the magistrates might impose would be upon the value? The thing would really not be capable of working. No matter what the conditions were, all the Inland Revenue Commissioners would see would be the value of the income-tax schedule, and what it was unlicensed. That was all they would be able to do, and it would be a hard and fast rule in every case. Many valuers had different methods, 1075 and there was great variety in the conditions which they attached, and how on earth the Commissioners were to ascertain what was the effect quo ad Schedule A of the Income-Tax Act under these conditions he failed entirely to see. Surely the best qualified persons to decide this question were the justices, who were not only themselves attaching these conditions, but were the persons who knew exactly the needs of the district, and what was likely to be the proper value of a house. He suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that this was not a matter that could be done by the Inland Revenue, but it could only be done by those people who were acquainted with what was really the contract entered into between the parties, and with many other things which would occur to anybody familiar with the practice. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman approved or disapproved of the practice of telling a man who applied for a new licence that he must give up other licences, say in a place which could not be properly policed, but it was very common for magistrates to do that. The man very often undertook not to apply for a renewal under these conditions, but under this section all that wolud be at an end, or if it was not at an end, it would not be a matter which the Inland Revenue hard and fast line, which they were now laying down, could possibly take into consideration. It would be utterly impossible to work under conditions made by the magistrates, and at the same time run a hard and fast line between a comparison of the premises unlicensed and under Schedule A of the Income-Tax, so as to work out a just result in every one of these cases. He believed the thing was quite impracticable. There was another matter; were the Inland Revenue going to have a hearing? Were they going to hear the parties on the value of the premises as unlicensed? Surely if they were to form any kind of an estimate at all as to how this matter was to be worked out the parties ought to be heard. Take six-day licences when the houses closed altogether on Sundays. Take it that the magistrates put on conditions that the premises were to close at 2 on Saturday—because they could impose what conditions 1076 they liked—how on earth were these things to be gauged by the Inland Revenue if there was no hearing of the parties? It seemed to him that in practice, if the parties were not heard, and if the Inland Revenue did this behind their backs, that it would be found an extremely difficult system to work. He had not really had time to go into the question of how the income-tax Schedule A was to work. He really did not gather from the Prime Minister what was to happen to the book which contained the assessment under Schedule A. As he understood, it would go on just as it was at present. [An HON. MEMBER: They will alter it.] No; they might make a new assessment, but they could not alter it, because they were not repealing the Income-Tax Acts in any way. Possibly they might apply for a new valuation, but that was a different thing; but they could not alter the principles. They had pointed out before, but they had never had an answer, that if they were to alter the value under the Income-Tax Act only in the case of public-houses, they would be putting this high value, or this increased value for taxation, in opposition to the usual tax, and Schedule A of the Income-Tax Act would have no application. Where they were to get the Schedule A value was a part of the thing he had not followed at all. How they were to get the Schedule A value without licence, and without taking into account any of the conditions imposed for the security of the public, he did not know. He did not gather that the Prime Minister said that it appeared anywhere, and he did not see how it was to work out. He knew that the Government wanted to make a symmetrical scheme and to apply this principle as had been done in the case of compensation; but very often a plan might have a nice appearance but work out very badly. One of the great difficulties was this: in the estimate of compensation they had an estimate under Schedule A of the value of licensed premises, but they had not got it here. These premises were unlicensed, to which they were going to give a valuation under Schedule A as licensed. Therefore they had to make a new valuation in the case of the new licence. That was why he said it did not bear any relation to 1077 compensation even for purposes of symmetry. Here they would have to have an estimate made of what was to be the valuation under Schedule A. They would have then another valuation, he supposed, deducting from that—he did not know whether it was deducting or adding—deducting from that the money that had been paid for monopoly value. He supposed that was what was meant, because that was money which had, so to speak, been earned out of the item of valuation, and all that would have to be done. It seemed to be a tremendously complicated, business. It appeared to him also that they would have in the Inland Revenue a most unsuitable tribunal. In every one of the cases where a man had this new licence they would have to deal with it without the slightest assistance so far as amendment went and without having anybody before them to tell them anything or give them information as to these values. He regretted that he could, not make his point of view any clearer at present to the Committee, but it seemed to him, as far as he could understand the provisions, to be about as clumsy a method, as possible of carrying this out, and for no reason in the world except to secure symmetry. This was one of those changes of front to which they were becoming accustomed. On this matter the Government would not trust the justices. A short time ago they were trusting them absolutely, now they would not trust them, and said, they were not fit to decide on these matters on evidence. He hoped the matter would be reconsidered before the Report stage. He might say, however, that as far as he was concerned it was not a portion of the Bill that in the slightest degree excited him or in which he took any interest, comparatively speaking. He did not care very much how difficult the Government made it for any person to obtain a new licence, or how onerous were the terms upon which such a licence was granted, for the applicant acted with his eyes open and would get what the law said he should and what he bargained for. That was entirely different from the other clauses of the Bill, which took away from him something that he had already. Therefore he did not feel the same hostility to this kind of amendment 1078 of the law, but he did think they should not set up something which might prove extremely clumsy and take away the power of deciding from the tribunal which had all the facts before it, and which had been perfectly well able to make these assessments from time to time.
§ *MR. BARNARD
was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman approached this portion of the Bill without any of the excitement with which he regarded some other portions. He was in the same position, but he welcomed very much the decision of the Government to place in the hands of the Inland Revenue authorities this very serious duty. He thought it would have been a deplorable thing if they had left it to 999 benches in the country to come to different conclusions by perhaps various methods of arriving at this monopoly value. The right hon. Gentleman was not present yesterday, or perhaps he would have remembered what his ordinary allies and colleagues said about the magistrates. Yesterday they were not so inclined to trust the magistrates on a number of trivial things—much less important things than these—but to-day the right hon. Gentleman said he did not consider the Inland Revenue Commissioners able to come to a conclusion, but thought that the justices were. If he understood the position aright, the magistrates would be able to impose on every licence a variety of conditions, and he took it that the Inland Revenue authorities would be able to fill up what those conditions really meant, and so they would be able to decide the monopoly value according to the different conditions that were placed upon the licensee. He thought the House ought to remember, in discussing all questions of value, that they had been promised on a great many occasions, connected with a great many different subjects, that they should have a new Valuation Bill which would consolidate the valuing authorities of the country. If they had that it would assist them very largely in this matter. He thought that a Valuation Bill would be an advantage, and a great consideration in connection with the matter. In regard to Schedule A 1079 he would like to elicit from the Government some information. The Prime Minister had told them that this question would not affect the rating of the country, but—he might be quite wrong—it appeared to him that it would very seriously affect the rating considerations of the various local authorities of the country, and he would tell the House why. The value of a licensed house was apparently to consist, so far as Schedule A went, of the value of the structure, and the value for monopoly purposes. These two things put together would be what a person was paying to be inside the house. Would not that valuation, therefore, be the basis of assessment for ordinary rating purposes?
§ MR. BARNARD
said then perhaps the hon. Gentleman would tell the Committee what the real rating value would be. Because, if 30,000 public-houses were to be got rid of and if in the future they were not to have on the rating books this monopoly value, which after all represented a portion of what the man paid in order to be in the house, the local authorities would be heavy losers. The other point on which he desired some information was with regard to the £81,000 which the Prime Minister said had been received for the licences of sixty-five and twenty-five houses. No doubt some of that £81,000 would be returned as compensation. He found no fault with that, as most of them were new licences, and he did not suppose that many of them would come under the redundancy clause. But he protested against this monopoly being charged to the local taxation account. They had several funds in the country out of which this money could be paid: the compensation fund, the whisky moneys, which different Governments had kept, and others, and it certainly was hard lines whenever a few pounds were required that the local authorities should be raided by the money being charged on the local taxation account.
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL
said the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Dublin University had maintained in the first place that it would be very difficult for the Income-Tax Commissioners to 1080 assess the value of licensed houses to Schedule A if the imposition of conditions for new licences were not in their hands, but in the hands of the local justices. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that the local justices might limit the licence of certain premises to a six-days licence or impose any other conditions which they thought desirable. But, of course, the Income-Tax Commissioners would consider that in their assessment as they would any other circumstances. They would take everything into consideration, and there was no reason why the Inland Revenue Commissioners should not fix the assessment, although the local justices imposed the conditions. The Inland Revenue authorities would assess the value in the same way as they now did. With regard to the practicability of assessing valuations by considerations of this kind, he would point out that this clause would apply now and ultimately to two classes of licences, viz., new licences, premises open for the first time for the purpose of public-houses, and those which would be technically new licences at the conclusion of the time-limit of twenty-one years. With regard to the former, the duty cast upon the Inland Revenue Commission would be the same as that now cast on the local justices by Section 4 of the Act of 1904. They would have to assess the monopoly value as represented by the difference between the value of the premises when licensed and the value of the same premises when not licensed. That would not be difficult to do. With regard to those which would become technically new licences at the end of twenty-one years, but which had been used for public-house purposes between now and then, the Inland Revenue Commissioners would be able to take the valuation of the premises as between now and then. There would be no difficulty in assessing those premises for this purpose. He asked hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they could not approve of this basis of assessing monopoly value, what basis would they suggest? They had repeatedly complained and had said they did not wish the owners of licensed premises to be left to the mercy of the local justices without knowing what the assessment would be and what they would have to pay. They had asked repeatedly that 1081 the trade should be clearly informed what was meant by monopoly value and what they had to provide against. The Government had in this clause submitted a practical method of assessing it.
§ *MR. YOUNGER
did not think the hon. Gentleman's analogy between paying compensation and taking monopoly value was quite a fair one. He thought the Government had made a not unsuccessful effort to define in this clause what the monopoly value really was, but he thought it was unfortunate that the Government had not told the Committee before that the monopoly value was what it was now stated to be, and not what they had understood it to be from the right hon. Member for the Spen Valley and other supporters of the Bill. With regard to what the hon. Member had said on the subject of the difference between the assessable and the Schedule A rental being taken as the measure for compensation, he would only say that the hon. Member entirely forgot that in taking the monopoly value in twenty-one years he took that value for good and all, but in paying compensation he only gave fourteen years purchase and in some cases about four years—in the extreme cases fourteen years.
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL
Subject to the modifications already announced consequential on the addition of seven years.
§ *MR. YOUNGER
pointed out that he was allowing for that, and that this was a very different thing from taking the permanent value of the monopoly as the hon. Gentleman proposed to do. They were perfectly at liberty, if they chose, to argue that the scheme sketched out in this Amendment was a fair basis for estimating the monopoly value, and yet to say that the same basis as applied to compensation when taking the whole business was not fair. He agreed that if they took twenty-five years as a basis upon which to pay compensation it would be equal treatment as far as that part of the value was concerned. If they took this basis as the value for monopoly then they must give twenty-five 1082 years purchase as the value for compensation before they could claim equality. He was bound to say it was an extremely difficult thing to give a proper definition of monopoly value. They did not want to include the tenant's goodwill and other considerations of that kind rightly chargeable under Schedule D. What they wanted to get at was the monopoly value of the licence in whosever hands the house might be; that was to say, to get rid of the goodwill and take the local element only—the passing trade. In Scotland this question had been dealt with for many years under their system of valuation, and he did not think the great difficulties suggested by his right hon. friend were altogether likely to arise in valuing under Schedule A. In Scotland at this moment these values were for the most part fixed by assessors appointed by Somerset House. The Government I surveyor of taxes was usually appointed, and in valuing public-houses he invariably added a certain amount for the monopoly value. There was no actual system by which it could be accurately arrived at, but he believed that generally it was based on the quantity of spirits which the publican had sold in the course of the year. On that the assessor made his calculations, which enabled him to find out in a rough and ready way what the monopoly value of those premises might be. There were, of course, disputes. The publican always considered that he was too heavily rated, and the assessor was always trying to put on a little more. They very often found great difficulty in dealing with these cases in Court, and in deciding between the two. It often appeared to the assessor that he was entitled to place a certain extra valuation on the premises for reasons which did not always appeal to the Court. But they had the local county and borough councillors who were members of the Valuation Committee, and sat as a Valuation Appeal Court every year. They dealt with these appeals as with other objections to assessments which had been made by the Government assessor, and he had never known a case in which the Inland Revenue had refused to accept the decisions of that particular Court on disputed points as between the assessor and the publican. 1083 He should imagine that it would be the same in England if that system were adopted here, and that it would work fairly smoothly, and with an amount of fairness equal to that which had been experiencedin Scotland, though the system was not unattended with difficulty, and where, as his right hon. friend the Member for Dublin University had pointed out, they had the varying conditions which attached to these licences under Clause 20, probably differing in districts within the same area in which the assessor resided, they must inevitably have added difficulties in making the valuation. For himself, he thought that this would not yield nearly such a proximately accurate results as those which they arrived at in Scotland. Of course, in that country they dealt purely with statutory obligations or restrictions, which were identical wherever they met them; they did not vary in any way. This clause had been suddenly sprung upon them, and it was extremely difficult to commit one's self to any precise opinion on the subject. Personally, he must excuse himself from doing so. He should like to have some time to look into the various intricate points, particularly after the Prime Minister's ex-plantation of some of them. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman's explanation was very lucid, although it was somewhat difficult to follow him in the matter. Therefore, he hoped that they would not be expected to commit themselves to-night as to whether this was the best possible solution of the difficulty. If the time were to be extended in such a way and under such conditions as to make it palatable, then he thought that there was a method sketched out in this Amendment which probably afforded as good a chance of defining what might reasonably be called monopoly value, as any other system he could, for the moment, suggest. Therefore he was prepared to give it a friendly consideration, though it in no way altered his objection to the method aid manner of taking this monopoly value from those who now possessed it.
§ *MR. LUPTON (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)
said he took rather a different view of this clause and the Amendment of the Solicitor-General from that taken by 1084 other speakers, who had discussed the matter entirely from the point of view of the interests of the trade. He regarded the clause as one of the most important in the Bill. The very first time he read the measure through he thought he saw in this clause a possibility of making the measure a real temperance proposal. In the giving of monopoly value they had the means of making a temperance measure. Let him give an instance of what he suggested. Take the case of a public-house which was adjoining a colliery. Without a licence it would be worth £100 a year, and with a licence £500, leaving £400 a year as the monopoly value. According to the proposal of the Government, the Inland Revenue Commissioners would assess the monopoly value at £400, and that would be the amount to be paid annually for the licence. It would be all very well to go upon that basis, if that were all that had to be considered. But this Bill was framed for the purpose, as he understood it, of reducing the consumption of strong drink.
§ *MR. LUPTON
believed that was the intention sincerely held by the Government and by the Liberal Party, If the Inland Revenue had assessed the monopoly value at £400, then what must be the object of the licensee? It would be to sell as much strong drink as he could to recoup him that £400 and leave a profit. Was that the object of the Government, to bind every tenant to sell the maximum possible of strong drink? Let the tenant be as good as a man could be, it was ordinary human nature that he should seek to recoup himself, and they could not expect him to work day after day in a manner contrary to his interest. He would sooner give up the business altogether. This man had to pay £500 a year rental before he could get anything for himself and family. Could they not so arrange this monopoly value of £400 that it 1085 would be to the interest of the tenant to sell as little strong drink as possible, or at any rate, not to seek to sell as much as possible? The Inland Revenue Commissioners might say to the tenant that he could afford to pay £400 a year monopoly value, if he conducted the house In the ordinary way, and, therefore, it called upon him to pay £100 down on account. The Commissioners, having assessed the monopoly value at £400, would roughly estimate the amount of wine, beer and spirits that would be sold, and knowing the percentage of proof spirit contained in each of those drinks would be able to estimate approximately the total amount of proof spirit which the licence holder was expected to sell in a year. If in this particular case the estimated amount of proof spirit was 8,000 gallons, they would divide the £400 annual monopoly value by that number of gallons, and in this case the monopoly value per gallon would work out at 1s. a gallon on the proof spirits which had been sold. (The monopoly value would not be the same for each house, but would vary according to the situation and other circumstances, and the monopoly value per gallon of proof spirit would vary with each house, from a great variety of causes, and would have to be roughly estimated for each house; though in practice it would work out that similar houses would be grouped at the same rate.) But at the end of the year, it might be found that the tenant instead of having sold enough spirit to make up £400 at the above rate of 1s. per gallon, had sold only enough to make up £200. Now he suggested that what the Commissioners should do in those circumstances was to reduce the monopoly value to £200. Thus, instead of being compelled to sell a great amount of strong drink, the tenant would be benefited, by having sold teetotal drinks—tea, coffee, and mineral waters—by having to pay only half the provisionally estimated monopoly value. If the Government would adopt that view he thought it would be very easy to make provision for it. But suppose the publican took the other line, and sold as much strong drink as possible, say enough to make up £600 at the same rate per gallon, then they would increase the monopoly value, and make him pay £600. He knew it was 1086 possible to raise objections of detail, but provision could easily be made where there was a will and a thorough desire to effect the object. By his proposal the publican who sold a great amount of strong drink would be penalised, while the publican who sold very little strong drink would be benefited by the reduction of the monopoly value from £400 to £200 or whatever the difference might happen to be. If he sold 8,000 gallons of proof spirit he paid £400. If he sold twice that amount he paid £800, and if he sold half he paid £200. The amount he paid depended on the amount of alcohol that he sold. Alcohol was a poison, as was admitted by scientific men, the consumption of which they wished to reduce. The only way, in his opinion, to reduce the consumption was by educating the people as to what were and what were not poisons. Who was the greatest educator in a district? The public-house keeper, far more than the clergyman and schoolmaster. What was the use of having the best schoolmasters and lecturers when they had at the public-house the most influential man in the district, whose living depended and was made to depend upon the amount of strong drink that he sold? By this Bill they were going to charge him monopoly value and unless he sold enough alcoholic poison to cover this amount he would be ruined. How could they expect that man to instruct the people who came to his house that strong drink was a poison? He could not do it, and the effect of monopoly value payments, unless modified as he (Mr. Lupton) suggested, would be to cause him to increase the sale of drink because they gave him the very strongest motive that could possibly actuate him. What could be done by a public-house keeper who did not want to force the sale of drink in an unreasonable way, who did not want to make people drunk up to the verge of police drunkenness so that he just escaped having a note made on his licence? The average public-house keeper was just as good as any men in that House. They wanted to conduct their business to the honour of man and the glory of God if they had the chance. Hitherto they had not had the chance. This was the only way in which they could possibly have a chance, to let the 1087 monopoly value that they paid depend on the amount of alcohol that they sold. It might be asked what evidence there was to show that this would have a good effect. He would take a case from South Wales. The laws were identical in Cardiff and Swansea as to the mode in which drink was sold and yet the convicted drunks in Swansea were in 1906 more than three times the convicted drunks in Cardiff, and the population of Cardiff was nearly twice the population of Swansea. Therefore, the ratio of drunks in Swaneea per 10,000 of the population to those in Cardiff was six to one, with the same laws, much the same business, the same character of population, if anything a greater proportion of seafaring men in Cardiff. That showed what a difference might be effected by some slight difference in the mode of managing things where personal influence came in. He had been told the reason was this, that in Cardiff the police and the public-house keepers worked together. The police helped the public-house keeper and warned him at the entrance to his house of any man who was likely to be made drunk by being served. That was done in the friendliest possible way, and it enabled them to keep down the number of drunks to that small figure. That showed what personal influence was. Personal influence in each public-house would have very great effect in increasing or diminishing the sale of strong drink, in making the people who attended the public-house beastly drunkards or in making them reasonable citizens getting a reasonable amount of refreshment in an honourable manner. It was far better than any attempts to degrade the public-house. They had in the village three Government institutions, the church, the school, and the public-house. The last and most influential was to be made a degraded place because they were going to make it a condition of the licensee holding his licence that he sold so much strong drink a year, and unless he was going to ruin himself that was what he would have to do. He hoped His Majesty's Ministers might take this matter into serious consideration and introduce some Amendment into the Bill. He knew exactly what would happen. As soon as they went to their officials they would be 1088 told that what he was proposing was impossible. He never knew a good scheme yet but what the Government officials said it was impossible. He would be told that all sorts of difficulties would be created, but if they were going to be stopped by difficulties and frightened by every lion in the path they would never get on. But the question was, was the Government going to face this really serious proposition and make it the interest of every keeper of a licensed house to reduce the amount of alcohol he sold.
§ *THE DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. CALDWELL, Lanarkshire, Mid.)
The hon. Member's own Amendment will be superseded by the Solicitor-General's Amendment and hence be out of order, so that he is quite entitled to discuss his alternative scheme in opposition to the proposal of the Solicitor-General.
§ *MR. LUPTON
said the point on which, he was speaking when he was interrupted had escaped his mind. That was one of the effects of interruption—that it rather lengthened debate than shortened it. The public-house keeper who was in a position to affect the sobriety of his district could gradually lessen the amount of alcohol in the beer year by year until it went down to the minimum and could encourage the sale of light beers. He was aware that the Inland Revenue would object to that because it derived a revenue proportionate to the amount of alcohol sold. They had one Department in the Government bringing in a Bill intended to reduce the sale of alcoholic drink and another Department which would resist that because it would reduce revenue, and a reduction in revenue was a fearful thing for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to face. It was only by the very strongest influence and pressure of Members who really wanted temperance that they would overcome the difficulties brought forward by the Inland Revenue. If the public-house keeper sold whiskey 1089 with too much water in it he was prosecuted for adulteration because he mixed with an admitted poison the purest and best element in Nature. That was what the Revenue Department of the Government did towards temperance. He had been told that water must not be mixed with beer because it made a horrid concoction. He did not drink much beer but when he did he found it was greatly improved by being diluted with twice as much water as beer.
§ *MR. LUPTON
said they must put pressure on the Government to introduce a clause on the Report stage to make the monopoly value dependent on the amount of proof spirit which was sold.
§ MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS
said he would like to ask the Solicitor-General a question on the latter part of the Amendment at the end of line 32. That provision was intended to meet the promise which the Prime Minister gave him in July when he moved an Amendment to Clause 1 to exclude the post-1904 licences from the operation of the reduction scheme. The Prime Minister said he, would endeavour to make the best provision he could to meet the justice of the case, and he said—I will introduce words to make it impossible for those licences to be selected.That was, to be selected for extinction. That had not been met. The hon. and learned Gentleman had put down an Amendment attempting to meet it, but it did not do really because these licences could well be extinguished under the reduction scheme, and he provided in this Amendment that compensation should be given to them. He failed to understand on what principle the Government proposed to compensate these licence-holders if their licences were taken away. Most of them had paid large sums—one £9,000 and several over £6,000—for an annual licence on the faith that it would not be taken away. He hoped that the Government would give them a further opportunity of discussing this question, because the 1090 Amendment they were discussing had only been put down that morning. The terms of the Amendment had been altered and this had made a change in the measure of compensation to be paid. What did the Government mean by the words: "If the amount required to be paid in any year on account of monopoly value is exceeded the monopoly value for a year"? That passed his comprehension. In consideration of some of the new licences being granted old licences had been surrendered in many cases. He hoped it would be taken into consideration that those people had paid the monopoly value down on the faith that their licences would be continued. They would not have paid so large a sum of money if they had felt that they would only have the licence for one year. Where a man carried on his house properly it would be an injustice to take his licence away without paying him full compensation.
§ SIR S. EVANS
said he did not want to divert the attention of the Committee from the main question, but perhaps it would be convenient for him to deal with the point raised now. The Prime Minister was most anxious to fulfil not only in the spirit but in the letter any pledge he had given. On this matter he had consulted him personally. The hon. Member for Sheffield communicated with him with reference to the Amendment on the Paper and requested him to substitute the word "shall" for the word "may." He had made that change and that was the only alteration in the Amendment. This provision had been made in fulfilment of the Prime Minister's pledge. The Commissioners had to decide whether the amount paid exceeded the monopoly value for the year. If not, they had not made any over-payment, because they had had the benefit of it. But where the amount was shown to the Commissioners to be such as obviously to exceed the monopoly value for the year, then that must be taken into consideration, and they would allow the repayment of such proportion as they thought just, having regard to the time which had elapsed. Under this provision the Commissioners would have regard to all the circumstances and would consider the amount exacted in the first 1091 place as well as the period of time for which the licence had been in existence.
§ MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS
asked how they were going to ascertain what the annual value was when the sum had been paid down in a large lump sum.
§ SIR S. EVANS
replied that that was a problem which the Commissioners would have to decide. Let them suppose that £4,500 had been paid. It was obvious that was more than the monopoly value, and they would have to find out how much was the fair monopoly value per annum of the house. They would then decide how much of the original sum should be returned.
§ SIR F. BANBURY
said the hon. Member for Sleaford had been misled by the impression that the object of this Bill was to promote temperance. He advised him to correct that obvious error, and then he would understand better the proceedings of the Government. He quite agreed with the Under-Secretary when he said that the demand from that side of the Committee hid always been: "Let us know what the monopoly value is going to be and on what principle the different authorities are going to assess us, so that the licence-holder and the brewer may know where they stand." He acknowledged that they ought to be obliged to the Government for having introduced this clause. But whilst he admitted that, he did not think it followed that they were bound to believe that the manner in which the Government were going to define monopoly value was the right one. He had a great belief himself in the Inland Revenue authorities, and he did not in the least wish to throw any doubt upon their bona fides and capability. When they said they desired that a fixed principle should be arrived at to ascertain monopoly value the justices could do it upon a fixed principle, and there was some ground for the argument that the justices would be better able to find out what was just in each case than the Inland Revenue authorities sitting in London. Although he had had the advantage of hearing every word the Prime Minister said on this question he did not fully understand the effect of this clause. Take as an illustration a house the 1092 ordinary value of which under Schedule A would be £100 a year, and its value as a licensed house, £150 a year. The difference between £100 and £150 would be the monopoly value per annum, or £50 per year. He wanted to know whether the licence-holder would have to pay twice over when assessed for income-tax or rates upon that value. He understood the Prime Minister to say he would not have to do that, and that in future the real value would be £150. Consequently he would only be assessed at £100 because he would have paid £50 to the Inland Revenue as monopoly value. If that were so, it was evident that the local authorities would suffer a diminution in the rateable value of their areas. That ought to be considered when they remembered that although at the present moment this clause would only apply to new licences, at the end of twenty-one years it would apply to all the licences existing in the kingdom. He would like to know what was going to happen supposing existing licence-holders said: "This monopoly value is too great and we are not going to pay it." His recollection was that on the Second Reading of the Bill the Under-Secretary said that the result of this measure would be to bring in an abounding revenue to the State. These people paid the monopoly value, but if, because the monopoly value was fixed in this way, they did not pay, the State would not get it. What they ought to do in this matter was to act on ordinary business principles. In that case, when a licence fell in they would practically put it up to auction and say—What will you pay for this licence? That would be a business-like way of dealing, and they would avoid the multiplication of officials which must otherwise take place. It must be remembered that, in twenty-one years there would be something like 60,000 houses to be dealt with, and the-revenue authorities would have to go into all the circumstances of the cases. If they said to the justices that they could ascertain the monopoly value by putting a licence up by auction, the justices would be able to sell it to the highest bidder. Then if a buyer paid too much for it, he would not be able to blame anyone. That was his look-out. They would thus avoid all the trouble and 1093 expense which would be occasioned by the method proposed. He did not know what line hon. Members on that side of the House would take in regard to the Amendment. It was rather difficult to take any given line on an Amendment which was only brought forward yesterday, and only appeared on the Paper that morning. It was now eight months since the Second Reading of the Bill was passed, and it was rather curious that the Government had not made up their minds during the interval on this matter. It put the Opposition in rather an awkward position to discuss a new clause on an important subject at such short notice. His own idea was—when in doubt vote against the Government. In the circumstances, therefore, he would vote against the Government.
§ *MR. CLAVELL SALTER
said he wished to say a word on a matter on which the Solicitor-General had addressed the Committee. There were two classes of cases where hardship might arise. There were those licence holders who had practically purchased their licences for cash, and those who had acquired licences by cash value by the surrender of existing licences. He thought the Prime Minister had fairly met the case of those who had purchased for cash, but from a study of the Amendment it did not appear to him that the other cases had been fairly met. The cases where there had been surrenders were very numerous. As to the main question before the Committee, namely, the monopoly value, he agreed that they should not desire to make too much of the grievance, but it did seem strange and most unfortunate that they should be called upon to discuss a matter of extreme difficulty and complexity at such exceedingly short notice. He heard with pleasure the promise of the Prime Minister to give a further opportunity for the consideration of the subject. At present it was really impossible for anyone to do more than offer a few disjointed observations, mainly in the nature of inquiry, as to the important new machinery which had been suddenly placed before the Committee. They were all agreed that the monopoly value must be ascertained and paid in certain, cases. They all desired that the real monopoly value should be ascertained 1094 as distinct from any other items of value, and further that the work should be done by a competent authority. The question was whether the authority proposed by the Government was better than the existing authority. It appeared to him quite clear that Section 4 of the Act of 1904 was not expressly repealed. Under that section the justices were not only entitled but bound to exact as the condition of the granting of a new licence payment of the monopoly value. The justices were to discharge the function of assessing that value. The justices might assess the market value of a house at £50, but the Commissioners of Inland Revenue might take the view that the value was £75. That appeared to him to be a difficulty, and he wished to have some light upon it from the Solicitor-General. He wished to know how far Section 4 of the 1904 Act was to be repealed, whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue were substituted for the justices, and whether there was in future to be a different method of assessment. As to the authority to make the assessment, he confessed he had a preference for the justices, who had local knowledge. At present the plain and simple plan followed by the justices was to make two assessments ad hoc, one representing the value of the premises licensed, and the other the value unlicensed. The difference was the amount they had to arrive at. Under the new machinery the Commissioners of Inland Revenue would not have to make two assessments of their own. They would find one assessment in existence, and they were to take that, and then make another assessment for the purpose of comparison. The assessment which the Commissioners would find in existence would not be a real and reliable assessment made ad hoc. It appeared to him that there might well be cases in which the Inland Revenue Commissioners might not be able to take the existing assessment at all. Take the case of a licence current for many years which would become a new licence at the expiration of twenty-one years, and suppose that in the granting of the licence for the first year after the time-limit the justices imposed new and onerous terms which would reduce the value of the licence, the Commissioners 1095 could not take that which they had found in years past, for the new terms would have greatly reduced the value. They would have to make two assessments of their own for this purpose. He did not in the least understand the manner in which the Commissioners were going to work the new machinery. It might be a familiar method in Scotland, but it had not been followed hitherto in this country.
§ SIR S. EVANS
said the Prime Minister was anxious that the case put forward by the Opposition should be fully met. He therefore was quite willing to modify his Amendment to the clause which stood on the Paper, empowering the Commissioners to allow the repayment of such portion, if any, of the sum paid on account of monopoly value as they thought just, having regard to the time which had elapsed since the original grant of the licence, by the addition of the words "and to all the circumstances under which the amount was fixed."
§ MR. WYNDHAM
said they were obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the concession. But they thought that, as further words were to be added to what was admittedly a new clause put down by the Government, the period at present fixed for the Report stage should be enlarged in order that it might be adequately considered. Was he to understand that the right hon. Gentleman had promised to give a greater period of time for the Report stage.
§ MR. WYNDHAM
appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to say whether they were not entitled to ask for some further time to look at the fence before they took this leap.
§ *MR. CAVE
said they were now dealing with a clause connected with those parts of the Bill which he had looked upon as involving confiscation, viz., the time-limit clause and that regarding the reduction of licences. He thought this Amendment made the element of confiscation stronger than it was in the clause as originally drafted. He said that for two reasons. To begin with, it defined 1096 the monopoly value. They had been told by the Government on the first stage of the Bill that there was no intention on their part to exact as monopoly value the value of the goodwill; but this definition did give the State the goodwill attached to the public-house. Monopoly value was to be the difference between the assessment of the house under Schedule A as licensed, and the assessment under Schedule A without a licence. The Under-Secretary in a very cogent argument on Friday last had assured the Committee that the Schedule A assessment included the local goodwill of the house, and the value of the tie. It was true that the assessment was not always rightly made in that respect, for in some cases the assessment did not include the goodwill, but he was disposed to agree with the Under-Secretary that Schedule A ought to include the local goodwill. Therefore the Government were going to take the annual value of the house and the goodwill, to deduct the house without the goodwill, and to exact the difference as monopoly value. Did it not follow that they were going to take the yearly value of the goodwill as monopoly value? Again, they were going to re-estimate every year, so that as the goodwill grew, as the capital and energy which the licensee put into the business increased, so the monopoly value to the State would also increase. That was bringing about the very thing he ventured to predict on the Second Reading. The intention was not merely to take the monopoly value of the licence but the profits of the house as well. The second objection he took to the Amendment was that under the existing law monopoly value was estimated by an impartial authority. The question being between the licensee or the house-owner and the State, an impartial tribunal was put in between the two, the justices, who might be trusted to make a fair and impartial estimate. But by the Amendment the Government were setting up the officers of the Inland Revenue themselves as a tribunal to assess the monopoly value which was to come into the revenue. In other words, they were empowering those officials to fix the sum to be paid into their own pockets; they were making them the judges in their own cause. 1097 He regarded the change made by the Amendment as of a very serious nature indeed. He would not go into the old controversy about the justices. The Government were always saying that the justices were an impartial and independent authority and might be trusted to do their duty; but here they took out of their hands something which they were quite competent to do, and which they had already done perfectly fairly; and put it into the hands of an authority which, from the public point of view, had the greatest possible interest in making the monopoly value as high as possible.
§ *MR. CAVE
said he supposed the right hon. Gentleman meant that it went indirectly into the county fund. But most people knew that the justices had no control over the county fund. The county fund was under the control of the county council, and it was news to him to hear it suggested that the justices had any interest in increasing it. The county council was wholly independent of the licensing authorities, and consisted of persons, most of whom were not justices.
§ *MR. CAVE
said he hoped he had made his point quite clear and he strongly pressed his friends to vote against the Amendment. The more they looked into it the more they would see that the Amendment would make a principle, already vicious enough, more vicious still, and increase the hardship to the tenant.
§ *MR. J. M. HENDERSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)
wished to say a few words in regard to monopoly value. What was running in the minds of the hon. and learned Gentleman and of the brewers was, first of all, the amount of compensation that would have to be paid them; and secondly, the monopoly value they would have to pay. Under the Act of 1904, the hon. and learned Gentleman said that the monopoly value was arrived at by assessment. It was not done by assessment; the monopoly value for a new on-licence was settled by the Committee after hearing sworn evidence of value. The monopoly value which the licensing justices had charged had been the most extravagant they could possibly fix; so much so, that the number of licences granted during the past few years had been very small. A clerk to one of the licensing justices had told him that in his district only four new licences had been taken up on the ground that the monopoly value attached to new licences by the present justices had been so exaggerated as to put a prohibitive price upon them. Of course, the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite said that this money was not taken by the licensing justices, but, like the motorcar fines in the Kingston Division of Surrey, it went to increase the county fund. However, what he was anxious 1099 to have was that just as the compensation should be reasonable and fair, so the monopoly value should be reasonable and fair. A true definition of the monopoly value as he held it to be was this, the difference of the profits which the licensee would make by reason of the fact that the number of people in the trade would be limited, and the profits which he would make in an ordinary business. Supposing a man could by ordinary trade make £500 a year, and supposing he got a licence, and by reason of the restricted number of the licences he could make £1,000 a year, then, according to one view £500 was the monopoly value. But he maintained that that was not the case, because it did not take into account the additional amount of labour and capital which the man put into the business to earn the additional £500. Therefore, the monopoly value must be held to be something less than £500. When it was fully and fairly considered it ought not to be prohibitive. He believed that Schedule A would give a very much less monopoly value than under the present method of arriving at value. They all knew what valuers were. If they were going to value up, they valued up; if they were going to value down, they valued down. They could get from any valuer any value they liked, and from a brewer's valuer even more so Old-established hotels like the Savoy and the Carlton paid £60 a year, but for new hotels the valuation of the monopoly value was fixed at 1,000 guineas. That was the new method by which the money went into the funds of the county council. He wanted the money to go to the State. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that if they were going to charge such monopoly values it would be nothing else than 1100 robbing the publicans. He agreed; and just as he protested against the system of compensation adhered to lately, so he deprecated the system of overvaluing the monopoly value. He was quite sure that taking the new value on Schedule A was not a perfect system, but it would be much lest onerous to the new licensee after fourteen years than the present extravagant methods which had been adopted by the licensing justices.
§ SIR E. CARSON
said he had already spoken at an earlier period of this debate when he explained to the Committee the great difficulty there was in understanding what was the full effect of the clause they were then considering. He ventured to ask questions which might in his absence have been answered, but he had been unable to find out from his friends what the answer was. The question he asked was this. At the present moment under the procedure of the Act of 1904 the magistrates had the power of attaching any conditions they liked to the granting of a new licence, and they had the power of fixing the monopoly value. Anybody must see that a great deal of the monopoly value must depend upon the conditions made. For instance, the justices might make a condition that the house was not to be open on Sundays, and there would be a six-day licence or they might restrict the hours on Saturday when there would only be a partial six-day licence. The monopoly value in such cases must be entirely different from what it was in the case of a full licence. The question he desired answered was this—
§ SIR E. CARSON
said he was sorry. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would pardon his putting it again. The justices when they heard the matter had before them all the materials, they knew the district, and had some idea of the probabilities of the amount of trade which would be conducted, the effect of the conditions they themselves attached, and they had the matter argued before them, on the application for a new licence. The question he wished an answer to was this: Would there be any hearing before the Inland Revenue Commissioners; or would they, sitting in London, be the persons who were to make this valuation, having regard to the conditions attached by the magistrates, without any local knowledge whatever?
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL
said he had answered the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question shortly after he spoke, but unfortunately he had left the House. Of course, the Inland Revenue Commissioners would take into account all the conditions attached to the licence. Any restrictions which affected the rental value would be taken into account under Schedule A. There would be no difference in the procedure from that under the Act of 1904.
§ SIR E. CARSON
said it could not be the same. There was nothing in the new clause setting up any hearing before the Inland Revenue, and he had never heard of any hearing before them before. Was there to be one or was there not?
§ MR. ASQUITH
The Inland Revenue will exercise exactly the same jurisdiction and proceed by the same rules and methods as they do under the Act of 1904 in assessing compensation.
§ SIR E. CARSON
said that that surely, with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, was really misleading the House. It was not a question of compensation at all. It was a question of taking away a hearing that already existed, and of whether another was to be substituted. It was perfectly plain from what the right hon. Gentleman said that there was to be no hearing whatsoever.
§ MR. ASQUITH
remarked that he had not said anything of the kind. The problem and the conclusion to be arrived at were precisely the same. In regard to the methods of procedure, if it were shown that persons had not a real opportunity of a hearing, he would consider whether or not the procedure ought to be modified.
§ SIR E. CARSON
said that what the right hon. Gentleman had said amounted to this—that at all events, up to the present, there was no hearing in the Bill. How on earth could the Inland Revenue, who did not know the local circumstances, who had no arguments before them, who did not know what the full effect of the conditions attached by the magistrates might be, and who did not know what effect those conditions would have on the value of the licence and on the trade, properly assess the monopoly value that was to be paid? What possible reason had been shown for taking away from a judicial tribunal such as the justices were, and who had to hear the whole 1103 case in any circumstances, the power of deciding the one essential matter when they were granting the licence—namely, on what terms they were to grant it? They had to fix the conditions, they knew the local situation and the local effect of what they were doing. The Government said they might decide all that on the one hand, but were not fit to say what value was to be paid in regard to the very terms they were imposing.
§ *MR. CAVE
asked the Prime Minister whether, as the Act of 1904 gave to any party aggrieved by the decision of the Inland Revenue Commissioners on the question of compensation an appeal to the High Court, he would, in this Bill, give to a person aggrieved by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue on the question of monopoly value a similar appeal?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he did not wish to repeat arguments which had not been answered, and to which, he presumed, no answer was possible, but he did wish, in the three minutes that still remained to them, again to call the attention of the Committee to the conditions under which they were conducting their business. This was a matter which the Government might have laid before them any time since the Second Reading of the Bill, but not until the day itself were they allowed
§ to deal with the problem. The result was that, when it did come on, and in the few minutes which were allowed to them to deal with the problem, questions of the most simple and elementary character were asked and no answer was forthcoming. And the only solatium, a word appropriate to this Bill, given them by the Government was that, out of the time already fixed and irrevocable and unalterable on the Report stage some fraction that ought to be devoted, and originally was intended to be devoted, to other questions was to be allocated to discussing the errors the Government had made in framing their Bill. He did not think any further comment was necessary.
§ MR. ASQUITH
thought a little more comment was necessary. The Committee had, ever since eight o'clock, been discussing this matter, and discussing it in very great detail. The Amendments he had put on the Order Paper, and on which the Committee were about to divide, were Amendments entirely in response to appeals made to him by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The response to those Amendments was not such as to encourage the Government in future to make further Amendments.
§ Question put.
§ The Commitee divided:—Ayes, 126; Noes, 318. (Division List No. 321.)1109
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)||Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Beckett, Hon. Gervase|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.||Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester||Bignold, Sir Arthur|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Bridgeman, W. Clive|
|Bull, Sir William James||Heaton, John Henniker||Rawlinson, John Frederick Pee|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Helmsley, Viscount||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Hill, Sir Clement||Renton, Leslie|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hills, J. W.||Renwick, George|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Houston, Robert Paterson||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|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||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc||Keswick, William||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)|
|Clark, George Smith||Kimber, Sir Henry||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Clive, Percy Archer||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Stanier, Beville|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Starkey, John R.|
|Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.||Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Cross, Alexander||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.)||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)|
|Doughty, Sir George||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Du Cros, Arthur Philip||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan||M'Arthur, Charles||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||Magnus, Sir Philip||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Faber, Capt, W. V. (Hants, W.)||Marks, H. H. (Kent)||Whitbread, Howard|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Fell, Arthur||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Fletcher, J. S.||Morpeth, Viscount||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Gardner, Ernest||Morrison-Bell, Captain||Winterton, Earl|
|Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)||Nield, Herbert||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Oddy, John James||Young, Samuel|
|Gretton, John||Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)||Younger, George|
|Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir|
|Haddock, George B.||Percy, Earl||Alexander Acland-Hood and|
|Harris, Frederick Leverton||Randles, Sir John Scurrah||Viscount Valentia.|
|Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Ratcliff, Major R. F.|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Black, Arthur W.||Compton-Rickett, Sir J.|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Boulton, A. C. F.||Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd|
|Agnew, George William||Bowerman, C. W.||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.|
|Alden, Percy||Brace, William||Cory, Sir Clifford John|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Bramsdon, T. A.||Cotton, Sir H. J. S.|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Branch, James||Cowan, W. H.|
|Armitage, R.||Brigg, John||Cox, Harold|
|Armstrong, W. C. Heaton||Brocklehurst, W. B.||Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Brodie, H. C.||Crooks, William|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Brooke, Stopford||Crossley, William J.|
|Astbury, John Meir||Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Curran, Peter Francis|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Bryce, J. Annan||Dalmeny, Lord|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Davies, David (Montgomery Co.|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan|
|Barker, John||Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)|
|Barnard, E. B.||Byles, William Pollard||Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.|
|Barnes, G. N.||Cameron, Robert||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.|
|Beale, W. P.||Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Beauchamp, E.||Cawley, Sir Frederick||Dobson, Thomas W.|
|Bell, Richard||Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Duckworth, James|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Cheetham, John Frederick||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)|
|Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)|
|Bennett, E. N.||Clough, William||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Clynes, J. R.||Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall|
|Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'd||Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Erskine, David C.||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||Lamont, Norman||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd|
|Evans, Sir Samuel T.||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich||Robinson, S.|
|Fenwick, Charles||Levy, Sir Maurice||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Ferens, T. R.||Lewis, John Herbert||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Findlay, Alexander||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Freeman-Thomas, Freeman||Lupton, Arnold||Rose, Charles Day|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Fullerton, Hugh||Lyell, Charles Henry||Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.|
|Gibb, James (Harrow)||Lynch, H. B.||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Glendinning, R. G.||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Glover, Thomas||Mackarness, Frederic C.||Scarisbrick, T. T. L.|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Maclean, Donald||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)|
|Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)|
|Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Macpherson, J. T.||Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne|
|Greenwood, Hamar (York)||M'Callum, John M.||Sears, J. E.|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||M'Crae, Sir George||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Seddon, J.|
|Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Seely, Colonel|
|Gulland, John W.||M'Micking, Major G.||Shackleton, David James|
|Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton||Mallet, Charles E.||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Marnham, F. J.||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Massie, J.||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Masterman, C. F. G.||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||Menzies, Walter||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh||Micklem, Nathaniel||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Hart-Davies, T.||Middlebrook, William||Snowden, P.|
|Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Molteno, Percy Alport||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.||Mond, A.||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Harwood, George||Montagu, Hon. E. S.||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Montgomery, H. G.||Stanger, H. Y.|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)|
|Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Morrell, Philip||Steadman, W. C.|
|Hemmerde, Edward George||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard)||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Myer, Horatio||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Henry, Charles S.||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Stuart, James (Sunderland)|
|Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Summerbell, T.|
|Higham, John Sharp||Nuttall, Harry||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Hobart, Sir Robert||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Parker, James (Halifax)||Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury|
|Hodge, John||Partington, Oswald||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Holland, Sir William Henry||Paulton, James Mellor||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Holt, Richard Durning||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Hooper, A. G.||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Thompson, J. W. M. (Somerset, E.|
|Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.||Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton|
|Horniman, Emslie John||Perks, Sir Robert William||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Horridge, Thomas Gardner||Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)||Toulmin, George|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Hudson, Walter||Pollard, Dr.||Verney, F. W.|
|Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||Vivian, Henry|
|Hyde, Clarendon||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)||Walsh, Stephen|
|Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)||Walters, John Tudor|
|Jardine, Sir J.||Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Walton, Joseph|
|Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Radford, G. H.||Wardle, George J.|
|Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Rainy, A. Rolland||Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan|
|Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Rees, J. D.||Watt, Henry A.|
|Jowett, F. W.||Rendall, Athelstan||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Kearley, Sir Hudson E.||Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Kekewich, Sir George||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Richardson, A.||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Laidlaw, Robert||Ridsdale, E. A.||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Wiles, Thomas||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Wilkie, Alexander||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)||Joseph Pease and Master of|
|Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)||Elibank.|
|Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)||Winfrey, R.|
|Williamson, A.||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
§ And it being after half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 17th July, successively to put forthwith the Question on the Amendments moved by the Government, of which notice had been given, and the Questions necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded this day.
In page 14, line 30, to leave out the words 'for any year.'
In page 14, line 30, after the word 'value', to insert the words 'shall in every case of a new licence granted after the passing of this Act be determined by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and in the case of a licence not granted for a term.'
In page 14, lines 31 and 32, to leave out the words 'estimated by the licensing justices,' and to insert the words 'ascertained in accordance with this section, and, in the case of a licence granted for a term, shall be based on the monopoly value as so ascertained. The monopoly value shall be taken to be the sum by which, in the opinion of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, the value of the premises, as adopted or estimated for the purpose of income tax under Schedule A, when licensed, and without taking into consideration any provisions for securing to the public the monopoly value, exceeds the value of the premises for that purpose when not licensed. Provided that in ascertaining the monopoly value of hotels or other premises where the value of the premises does not mainly arise from the sale of intoxicating
liquor, any value of the premises other than that arising from the sale of intoxicating liquor shall be excluded from consideration.'"
In page 14, line 31, to leave out the second word 'the,' and to insert the word 'a.'
In page 14, line 32, at end, to insert the words '(2) If a licence, granted before the passing of this Act as a new licence under Section 4 of the Licensing Act, 1904, but not as a licence for a term, is extinguished at any time during the reduction period, and the holder of the licence proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that the amount required to be paid in any year on account of monopoly value has exceeded the monopoly value for a year, and that the licence has not been extinguished on the ground of misconduct, the Commissioners shall allow the repayment of such portion, if any, of the sum paid on account of monopoly value as they think just, having regard to the time which has elapsed since the original grant of the licence. Any sum allowed shall be paid by the Commissioners to the holder of the licence, and shall be deducted from the next payment made out of the local taxation account to the council of the county or county borough who have had the benefit of the original payment.'
In page 14, line 33, to leave out the word 'on-licence,' and to insert the word 'licence.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
§ Amendments agreed to.
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 319; Noes, 127. (Division List No. 322.)1113
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Ashton, Thomas Gair||Barnes, G. N.|
|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||Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Bell, Richard|
|Alden, Percy||Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Bellairs, Carlyon|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Barker, John||Bennett, E. N.|
|Armitage, R.||Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Berridge, T. H. D.|
|Armstrong, W. C. Heaton||Barnard, E. B.||Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||Maclean, Donald|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.|
|Black, Arthur W.||Greenwood, Hamar (York)||Macpherson, J. T.|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||M'Callum, John M.|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Griffith, Ellis J.||M'Crae, Sir George|
|Brace, William||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Gulland, John W.||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)|
|Branch, James||Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton||M'Micking, Major G.|
|Brigg, John||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Mallet, Charles E.|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale||Manfield, Harry (Northants)|
|Brodie, H. C.||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)|
|Brooke, Stopford||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Marnham, F. J.|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Massie, J.|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||Masterman, C. F. G.|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh||Menzies, Walter|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Hart-Davies, T.||Micklem, Nathaniel|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Middlebrook, William|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Byles, William Pollard||Harwood, George||Mond, A.|
|Cameron, Robert||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Montagu, Hon. E. S.|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Haworth, Arthur A.||Montgomery, H. G.|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Helme, Norval Watson||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Hemmerde, Edward George||Morrell, Philip|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Clough, William||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard|
|Clynes, J. R.||Henry, Charles S.||Myer, Horatio|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||Napier, T. B.|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.||Higham, John Sharp||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||Hobart, Sir Robert||Nussey, Thomas Willans|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Nuttall, Harry|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John||Hodge, John||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Holland, Sir William Henry||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Cowan, W. H.||Holt, Richard Durning||Partington, Oswald|
|Cox, Harold||Hooper, A. G.||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Crooks, William||Horniman, Emslie John||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Crossley, William J.||Horridge, Thomas Gardner||Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)|
|Curran, Peter Francis||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Perks, Sir Robert William|
|Dalmeny, Lord||Hudson, Walter||Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)|
|Davies, David (Montgomery Co.||Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)|
|Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)||Hyde, Clarendon||Pollard, Dr.|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||Price, C. K. (Edinb'gh, Central)|
|Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.||Jardine, Sir J.||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Dobson, Thomas W.||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Radford, G. H.|
|Duckworth, James||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Rainy, A. Rolland|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)|
|Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Jowett, F. W.||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')|
|Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Kearley, Sir Hudson E.||Rees, J. D.|
|Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall||Kekewich, Sir George||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th.|
|Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Laidlaw, Robert||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)||Richardson, A.|
|Erskine, David C.||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||Lambert, George||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Evans, Sir Samuel T.||Lamont, Norman||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd|
|Fenwick, Charles||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Ferens, T. R.||Levy, Sir Maurice||Robinson, S.|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro||Lewis, John Herbert||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Findlay, Alexander||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Freeman-Thomas, Freeman||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Lupton, Arnold||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Fullerton, Hugh||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Rose, Charles Day|
|Gibb, James (Harrow)||Lyell, Charles Henry||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)||Lynch, H. B.||Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.|
|Glendinning, R. G.||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Glover, Thomas||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Bg'hs)||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Mackarness, Frederic C.||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Scarisbrick, T. T. L.||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)||Watt, Henry A.|
|Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)||Strachey, Sir Edward||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Schwann, Sir C. K. (Manchester)||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne||Stuart, James (Sunderland)||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Sears, J. E.||Summerbell, T.||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Seaverns, J. H.||Sutherland, J. E.||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Seddon, J.||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Seely, Colonel||Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)||Whittaker Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.|
|Shackleton, David James||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)||Thomasson, Franklin||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n|
|Sherwell, Arthur James||Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Silcock, Thomas Ball||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)||Williamson, A.|
|Simon, John Allsebrook||Thorne, William (West Ham)||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John||Toulmin, George||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Sloan, Thomas Henry||Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||Verney, F. W.||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Snowden, P.||Vivian, Henry||Winfrey, R.|
|Soames, Arthur Wellesley||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Soares, Ernest J.||Walsh, Stephen||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Spicer, Sir Albert||Walters, John Tudor|
|Stanger, H. Y.||Walton, Joseph||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)||Wardle, George J.||Joseph Pease and Master of|
|Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)||Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan||Elibank.|
|Steadman, W. C.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Stewart, Halley (Greenock)||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.||Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)||Percy, Earl|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Gretton, John||Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.||Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)||Ratcliff, Major R. F.|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond)||Haddock, George B.||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Renton, Leslie|
|Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Renwick, George|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Heaton, John Henniker||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Helmsley, Viscount||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Hill, Sir Clement||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hills, J. W.||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Bull, Sir William James||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Houston, Robert Paterson||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Hunt, Rowland||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Joynson-Hicks, William||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.||Stanier, Beville|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Kerry, Earl of||Starkey, John R.|
|Cave, George||Keswick, William||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Kimber, Sir Henry||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||King, Sir Henry Scymour (Hull)||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Clark, George Smith||Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Clive, Percy Archer||Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Valentia, Viscount|
|Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.)||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Whitbread, Howard|
|Cross, Alexander||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||M'Arthur, Charles||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Doughty, Sir George||Magnus, Sir Philip||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Marks, H. H. (Kent)||Winterton, Earl|
|Du Cros, Arthur Philip||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||Morpeth, Viscount||Young, Samuel|
|Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)||Morrison-Bell, Captain||Younger, George|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)|
|Fell, Arthur||Nield, Herbert||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Fletcher, J. S.||Oddy, John James||Lord Edmund Talbot and|
|Gardner, Ernest||Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)||Mr. Pike Pease.|
|Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Parkes, Ebenezer|
§ Clauses 25 to 27 agreed to.
§ Clause 28:
§ The Committee divide:—Ayes, 318;
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Helme, Norval Watson|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Cowan, W. H.||Hemmerde, Edward George|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Cox, Harold||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)|
|Agnew, George William||Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)|
|Alden, Percy||Crooks, William||Henry, Charles S.|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Crossley, William J.||Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Curran, Peter Francis||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)|
|Armitage, R.||Dalmeny, Lord||Higham, John Sharp|
|Armstrong, W. C. Heaton||Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)||Hobart, Sir Robert|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Hodge, John|
|Astbury, John Meir||Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Holland, Sir William Henry|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.||Holt, Richard Burning|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Hooper, A. G.|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.|
|Barker, John||Dobson, Thomas W.||Horniman, Emslie John|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Duckworth, James||Horridge, Thomas Gardner|
|Barnard, E. B.||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Howard, Hon. Goeffrey|
|Barnes, G. N.||Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Hudson, Walter|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Hutton, Alfred Eddison|
|Beale, W. P.||Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall||Hyde, Clarendon|
|Beauchamp, E.||Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel|
|Bell, Richard||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Jacoby Sir James Alfred|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Jardine, Sir J.|
|Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt||Erskine, David C.||Johnson, John (Gateshead)|
|Bennett, E. N.||Esslemont, George Birnie||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Evans, Sir Samuel T.||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)|
|Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd||Everett, R. Lacey||Jones, Leif (Appleby)|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Fenwick, Charles||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Ferens, T. R.||Jowett, F. W.|
|Black, Arthur W.||Ferguson, R. C. Munro||Kearley, Sir Hudson E.|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Findlay, Alexander||Kekewich, Sir George|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Freeman-Thomas, Freeman||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)|
|Brace, William||Fuller, John Michael F.||Laidlaw, Robert|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Fullerton, Hugh||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)|
|Branch, James||Gibb, James (Harrow)||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)|
|Brigg, John||Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)||Lambert, George|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Glendinning, R. G.||Lamont, Norman|
|Brodie, H. C.||Glover, Thomas||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)|
|Brooke, Stopford||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||Levy, Sir Maurice|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Greenwood, Hamar (York)||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Griffith, Ellis J.||Lupton, Arnold|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes|
|Byles, William Pollard||Gulland, John W.||Lyell, Charles Henry|
|Cameron, Robert||Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton||Lynch, H. B.|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Mackarness, Frederic C.|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Maclean, Donald|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.|
|Clough, William||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||Macpherson, J. T.|
|Clynes, J. R.||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh||M'Callum, John M.|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Hart-Davies, T.||M'Crae, Sir George|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras W.)||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)|
|Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||Harwood, George||M'Micking, Major G.|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Mallet, Charles E.|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Haworth, Arthur A.||Manfield, Harry (Northants)|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John||Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)|
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Noes, 128. (Division List No. 323.)1119
|Marnham, F. J.||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Massie, J.||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd||Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)|
|Masterman, C. F. G.||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Menzies, Walter||Robinson, S.||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.|
|Micklem, Nathaniel||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Middlebrook, William||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)||Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.|
|Molteno, Percy Alport||Roe, Sir Thomas||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampt'n)|
|Mond, A.||Rogers, F. E. Newman||Toulmin, George|
|Montagu, Hon. E. S.||Rose, Charles Day||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Montgomery, H. G.||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Verney, F. W.|
|Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.||Vivian, Henry|
|Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Morrell, Philip||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)||Walsh, Stephen|
|Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Walters, John Tudor|
|Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard||Scarisbrick, T. T. L.||Walton, Joseph|
|Myer, Horatio||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)||Wardle, George J.|
|Napier, T. B.||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)||Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan|
|Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)||Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Sears, J. E.||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Nussey, Thomas Willans||Seaverns, J. H.||Watt, Henry A.|
|Nuttall, Harry||Seddon, J.||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Seely, Colonel||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Parker, James (Halifax)||Shackleton, David James||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Partington, Oswald||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Sherwell, Arthur James||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)||Silcock, Thomas Ball||Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.|
|Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)||Simon, John Allsebrook||Wiles, Thomas|
|Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Pollard, Dr.||Sloan, Thomas Henry||Williams Llewelyn (Carmarthen|
|Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||Snowden, P.||Williamson, A.|
|Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)||Soames, Arthur Wellesley||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)||Soares, Ernest J.||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Spicer, Sir Albert||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Radford, G. H.||Stanger, H. Y.||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Rainy, A. Rolland||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Rea, Russell (Gloucester)||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)||Winfrey, R.|
|Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')||Steadman, W. C.||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Rees, J. D.||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Rendall, Athelstan||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)||Strachey, Sir Edward||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)||Joseph Pease and Master of|
|Richardson, A.||Stuart, James (Sunderland)||Elibank.|
|Ridsdale, E. A.||Summerbell, T.|
|Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc.||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.||Clark, George Smith||Gretton, John|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Clive, Percy Archer||Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingham||Haddock, George B.|
|Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester||Courthope, G. Loyd||Harris, Frederick Leverton|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Craik, Sir Henry||Hay, Hon. Claude George|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Cross, Alexander||Heaton, John Henniker|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||Helmsley, Viscount|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Doughty, Sir George||Hill, Sir Clement|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Hills, J. W.|
|Bull, Sir William James||Du Cros, Arthur Philip||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan||Houston, Robert Paterson|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Faber, George Denison (York)||Hunt, Rowland|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Faber, Capt, W. V. (Hants, W.)||Joynson-Hicks, William|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Fardell, Sir T. George||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Fell, Arthur||Kerry, Earl of|
|Cave, George||Fletcher, J. S.||Keswick, William|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Gardner, Ernest||Kimber, Sir Henry|
|Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)|
|Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Parkes, Ebenezer||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Lane-Fox, G. R.||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)||Percy, Earl||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)||Randles, Sir John Scurrah||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ)|
|Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)|
|Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)||Ratcliff, Major R. F.||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.)||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Remnant, James Farquharson||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Renton, Leslie||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Renwick, George||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|M'Arthur, Charles||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Magnus, Sir Philip||Ronaldshay, Earl of||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Marks, H. H. (Kent)||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Salter, Arthur Clavell||Winterton, Earl|
|Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Morpeth, Viscount||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Morrison-Bell, Captain||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)||Young, Samuel|
|Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)||Younger, George|
|Nield, Herbert||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Nolan, Joseph||Stonier, Beville||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir|
|Oddy, John James||Starkey, John R.||Alexander Acland-Hood and|
|Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh)||Viscount Valentia.|
§ Clauses 29 to 33 agreed to.
§ Clause 34:
§ The Committee divide:—Ayes, 317;1120
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Noes, 125. (Division List No. 324.)
|Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)||Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Seely, Colonel|
|Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Shackleton, David James|
|Hart-Davies, T.||Marnham, F. J.||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Massie, J.||Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick, B.)|
|Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.||Masterman, C. F. G.||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Harwood, George||Menzies, Walter||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Micklem, Nathaniel||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Middlebrook, William||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Molteno, Percy Alport||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Mond, A.||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Hemmerde, Edward George||Montagu, Hon. E. S.||Snowden, P.|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Montgomery, H. G.||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Henry, Charles S.||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.||Morrell, Philip||Stanger, H. Y.|
|Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)|
|Higham, John Sharp||Myer, Horatio||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)|
|Hobart, Sir Robert||Napier, T. B.||Steadman, W. C.|
|Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Hodge, John||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Holland, Sir William Henry||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Holt, Richard Durning||Nuttall, Harry||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Hooper, A. G.||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Stuart, James (Sunderland)|
|Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.||Parker, James (Halifax)||Summerbell, T.|
|Horniman, Emslie John||Partington, Oswald||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Horridge, Thomas Gardner||Paulton, James Mellor||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury|
|Hudson, Walter||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Hyde, Clarendon||Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)||Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.|
|Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||Pollard, Dr.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton|
|Jardine, Sir J.||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||Toulmin, George|
|Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)||Verney, F. W.|
|Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)||Vivian, Henry|
|Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Radford, G. H.||Walsh, Stephen|
|Jowett, F. W.||Rainy, A. Rolland||Walters, John Tudor|
|Kearley, Sir Hudson E.||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)||Walton, Joseph|
|Kekewich, Sir George||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')||Wardle, George J.|
|King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Rees, J. D.||Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan|
|Laidlaw, Robert||Rendall, Athelstan||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster||Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Lambert, George||Richardson, A.||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Lamont, Norman||Ridsdale, E. A.||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Levy, Sir Maurice||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas|
|Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Robinson, S.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Lupton, Arnold||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n|
|Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Roe, Sir Thomas||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||Rogers, F. E. Newman||Williamson, A.|
|Lynch, H. B.||Rose, Charles Day||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs||Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Mackarness, Frederic C.||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)|
|Maclean, Donald||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Macpherson, J. T.||Scarisbrick, T. T. L.||Winfrey, R.|
|M'Callum, John M.||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|M'Crae, Sir George||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne|
|M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Sears, J. E.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|M'Micking, Major G.||Seaverns, J. H.||Joseph Pease and Master of|
|Mallet, Charles E.||Seddon, J.||Elibank.|
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Percy, Earl|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.||Gretton, John||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)||Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)||Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)||Ratcliff, Major R. F.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Haddock, George B.||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Renton, Leslie|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Renwick, George|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Helmsley, Viscount||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Hill, Sir Clement||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Hills, J. W.||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Bull, Sir William James||Houston, Robert Paterson||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Hunt, Rowland||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Joynson-Hicks, William||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool Walton)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Kerry, Earl of||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Keswick, William||Stanier, Beville|
|Cave, George||Kimber, Sir Henry||Starkey, John R.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.|
|Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. Worc||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.|
|Clark, George Smith||Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)|
|Clive, Percy Archer||Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos H. A. E.||Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Valentia, Viscount|
|Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham)||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.)||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Watt, Henry A.|
|Cross, Alexander||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||M'Arthur, Charles||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Doughty, Sir George||Magnus, Sir Philip||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Marks, H. H. (Kent)||Winterton, Earl|
|Du Cros, Arthur Philip||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||Morpeth, Viscount||Young, Samuel|
|Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)||Morrison-Bell, Captain||Younger, George|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)|
|Fell, Arthur||Nield, Herbert||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Lord|
|Fletcher, J. S.||Nolan, Joseph||Edmund Talbot and Mr.|
|Gardner, Ernest||Oddy, John James||Pike Pease.|
§ Clause 35:
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 311;
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Barnard, E. B.||Bramsdon, T. A.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Barnes, G. N.||Branch, James|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Barran, Rowland Hirst||Brigg, John|
|Agnew, George William||Beale, W. P.||Brocklehurst, W. B.|
|Alden, Percy||Beauchamp, E.||Brodie, H. C.|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Bell, Richard||Brooke, Stopford|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Bellairs, Carlyon||Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)|
|Armitage, R.||Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt||Bryce, J. Annan|
|Armstrong, W. C. Heaton||Bennett, E. N.||Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Berridge, T. H. D.||Buckmaster, Stanley O.|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex Romf'rd||Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas|
|Astbury, John Meir||Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Byles, William Pollard|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Black, Arthur W.||Carr-Gomm, H. W.|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Boulton, A. C. F.||Cawley, Sir Fredrick|
|Barker, John||Bowerman, C. W.||Channing, Sir Francis Allston|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Brace, William||Cheetham, John Frederick|
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Noes, 120. (Division List No. 325.)
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Henry, Charles S.||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)|
|Clough, William||Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Clynes, J. R.||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Nussey, Thomas Willans|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Higham, John Sharp||Nuttall, Harry|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Hobart, Sir Robert||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Compton-Rickett, Sit J.||Hodge, John||Partington, Oswald|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Holland, Sir William Henry||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Holt, Richard Durning||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John||Hooper, A. G.||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.||Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)|
|Cowan, W. H.||Horniman, Emslie John||Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)|
|Cox, Harold||Horridge, Thomas Gardner||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Pollard, Dr.|
|Crooks, William||Hudson, Walter||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Crossley, William J.||Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)|
|Curran, Peter Francis||Hyde, Clarendon||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)|
|Dalmeny, Lord||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)|
|Davies, David (Montgomery Co.||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan||Jardine, Sir J.||Radford, G. H.|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Johnson, John (Gateshead||Rainy, A. Rolland|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)|
|Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Rees, J. D.|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Jowett, F. W.||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Dobson, Thomas W.||Kearley, Sir Hudson E.||Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th|
|Duckworth, James||Kekewich, Sir George||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Richardson, A.|
|Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)||Laidlaw, Robert||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)||Lambert, George||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd|
|Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Lamont, Norman||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Robinson, S.|
|Erskine, David C.||Levy, Sir Maurice||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||Lewis, John Herbert||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Evans, Sir Samuel T.||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Fenwick, Charles||Lupton, Arnold||Rose, Charles Day|
|Ferens, T. R.||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro||Lyell, Charles Henry||Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.|
|Findlay, Alexander||Lynch, H. B.||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Freeman-Thomas, Freeman||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Fullerton, Hugh||Mackarness, Frederic C.||Scarisbrick, T. T. L.|
|Gibb, James (Harrow)||Maclean, Donald||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)|
|Glendinning, R. G.||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)|
|Glover, Thomas||Macpherson, J. T.||Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||M'Callum, John M.||Scars, J. E.|
|Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||M'Crae, Sir George||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Seddon, J.|
|Greenwood, Hamar (York)||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Seely, Colonel|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||M'Micking, Major G.||Shackleton, David James|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Mallet, Charles E.||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Gulland, John W.||Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick, B.)|
|Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Marnham, F. J.||Silcock, Thomas-Ball|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale||Massie, J.||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose))||Masterman, C. F. G.||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil||Menzies, Walter||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Micklem, Nathaniel||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||Middlebrook, William||Snowden, P.|
|Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh||Molteno, Percy Alport||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Mond, A.||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.||Montagu, Hon. E. S.||Spicer, Sir Albert.|
|Harwood, George||Montgomery, H. G.||Stanger, H. Y.|
|Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Stanley, Hn. A. Lynlph (Chesh.)|
|Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Morrell, Philip||Steadman, W. C.|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Hemmerde, Edward George||Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard)||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Myer, Horatio||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Napier, T. B.||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Stuart, James (Sunderland)||Walters, John Tudor||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n|
|Summerbell, T.||Walton, Joseph||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Sutherland, T. E.||Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan||Williamson, A.|
|Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury||Waterlow, D. S.||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)||Watt, Henry A.||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)|
|Thomasson, Franklin||White, Sir George (Norfolk)||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton||White, Luke (York, E. R.)||Winfrey, R.|
|Toulmin, George||Whitehead, Rowland||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Verney, F. W.||Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Vivian, Henry||Wiles, Thomas||Joseph Pease and Master of|
|Walsh, Stephen||Wilkie, Alexander||Elibank.|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Gretton, John||Percy, Earl|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston)||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond)||Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)||Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Haddock, George B.||Ratcliff, Major R. F.|
|Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Renton, Leslie|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Helmsley, Viscount||Renwick, George|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Hill, Sir Clement||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Hills, J. W.||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Bull, Sir William James||Houston, Robert Paterson||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Hunt, Rowland||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Joynson-Hicks, William||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Kerry, Earl of||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Keswick, William||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Cave, George||Kimber, Sir Henry||Stanier, Beville|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Starkey, John R.|
|Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc.||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Clark, George Smith||Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.|
|Clive, Percy Archer||Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham||Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark.|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham)||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham||Waldron, Hon. Lionel|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.)||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Cross, Alexander||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||M'Arthur, Charles||Winterton, Earl|
|Doughty, Sir George||Magnus, Sir Philip||Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Marks, H. H. (Kent)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Du Cros, Arthur Philip||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Young, Samuel|
|Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Younger, George|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)||Morrison-Bell, Captain||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir|
|Fell, Arthur||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)||Alexander Acland-Hood and|
|Fletcher, J. S.||Nield, Herbert||Viscount Valentia.|
|Gardner, Ernest||Nolan, Joseph|
|Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Oddy, John James|
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
§ Adjourned at half after Eleven o'clock.