Commons Sitting of 9 November 1908

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Kirkcaldy and Dysart Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].—Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
PETITIONS.
  ENFRANCHISEMENT OF WOMEN.
  Petition from Kettering, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  RIFLE ASSOCIATIONS (COLONIES) (GRANTS).
  Return [presented 6th November] to be printed. [No. 319.]
  ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND.
  Copy presented, of Twenty-sixth Report of the Royal University of Ireland, being for the year 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Rule in substitution of Rule 14 of the Rules made by the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland, sealed on 17th June, 1908 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  WINTER ASSIZES (IRELAND).
  Copies presented, of Four Orders in Council, dated 3rd November, 1908, for holding Winter Assizes in Ireland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK (REGULATIONS).
  Copy presented, of the Post Office Savings Bank Amendment (No. 1) Regulations, 1908. Dated 9th November, 1908 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Committee of Rearrangement, Victoria and Albert Museum (Art Division) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (PROCLAMATIONS).
  Address for "Copies of the Proclamation of the King, Emperor of India, to the princes and people of India, of the 2nd day of November, 1903, and the Proclamation of the late Quean Victoria of the 1st day of November, 1858 to the princes, chiefs, and peopls of India."—(Mr. Eugene Wason.)
  LAND JUDGE'S COURT (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "by counties, of the Estates in the Land Judge's Court over which Receivers have been appointed (in continuation of Parliamentary Papers, No. 182, 256, 264, and 178, of sessions 1904, 1905, 1906, and 1907)."—(Mr. Clancy.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.
MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state approximately the total amount of the assets of the local authorities of the country as compared to the local debt at the present time, or at the latest date for which figures are available.
MR. WEDGWOOD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board what is the total amount of the debt, and what is the total amount of assets of local authorities; and what the surplus of assets over debt amounts to in cases where actual valuation has taken place.
(Answered by Mr. John Burns.) Perhaps I may be allowed to answer these Questions together. The aggregate amount of the outstanding loans for all purposes of the local authorities in the United Kingdom was £564,645,200 at the end of the year 1905–6, the latest year for which the particulars are available. The total value of the assets of the local authorities cannot be given for

1655
purposes of comparison with the debt. According to the Return relating to the indebtedness of the councils of boroughs, other than Metropolitan boroughs, in England and Wales, obtained in 1904, a value of £241,000,000 was set on the corporate property and undertakings on 31st March, 1903, when the total amount of the outstanding loans of those councils was, according to the same Return, about £195,000,000. The value of the assets was, however, estimated in different ways in different boroughs. †

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Old-Age Pensions—Means of Married Couples.
  MR. BARNES: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if it is within his knowledge that total incomes of married couples of £33 16s. per annum or over have been held to be incomes of one or the other of such married couples, thus barring the husband or wife, as the case may be, from receiving a pension; and, if so, whether this is a correct interpretation of the Old-Age Pensions Act.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) No case has been brought to my knowledge in which the Act has been interpreted in the manner indicated in the Question. As I am advised, although a husband and wife may live together, the means of each must, for the purposes of the Act, be considered separately, except that the means of either of them must not be taken to be less than half of the total means of the two together.

  Hearing of County Donegal Income-Tax Appeals.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLTo ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Commissioners of Income-Tax have given notice of their intention of sitting for the purpose of hearing appeals from the county of Donegal in the court-house at Strabane on the 13th instant, and that the proposed arrangement will entail on appellants resident in the county of Donegal the expense, inconvenience, and loss of time incident to a long journey from their residences or the abandonment; and, having regard to the diffi-
  † This Answer is in substitution for that published on Nov. 5th.
  1656
  culties thus created of attempting to appeal, since the expense necessitated by so doing under these circumstances would be in many cases greater than the reductions in the sums assessed, for which the appeals are undertaken, an appellant being compelled to travel under the proposed arrangements from Glencolumbkille to Strabane, directions will be given that the Commissioners will attend at convenient centres in Donegal such as Stranorlar, Donegal Town, Ballyshannon, and Killybegs, where there are commodious courthouses, in order to facilitate appellants in bringing their claims before the Commissioners instead of obstructing them from so doing, which will be the result of the present arrangement if unmodified.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) Should it be found that appellants who have been summoned to attend at Strabane on the 13th instant have been prevented from doing so by reason of their living in parts of the County Donegal remote from that town, opportunity will be given for the subsequent consideration of their cases, provided the accounts called for by the Special Commissioners are supplied on or before the dates named in the precepts for accounts already issued.

  Distribution of John Jeffcott's Farm on the Blacker-Douglas Estate.
  MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have taken any, and, if so, what, steps to acquire, for purposes of distribution amongst the labourers and others, the non-residential farm of John Jeffcott, on the M. V. Blacker-Douglas Estate at Ballylongford, County Kerry; have agreements to purchase been filed in respect of this estate; if so, is there an agreement from Patrick Dineen in respect of Jeffcott's holding; and is he aware that Mr. Jeffcott offered, through Canon Hayes, to sell his interest to the Estates Commissioners, but that they refused to move in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners do not propose to take any steps to acquire the farm in question. Agreements for the purchase of the

  1657
  estate have been lodged, including one signed by Jeffcott for the purchase of this farm, which he has since assigned to Patrick Dineen. Jeffcott had first offered through Canon Hayes to sell his interest to the Estates Commissioners, who refused to take any action in the matter.

  Bexhill Post Office—Unhealthy Condition of Instrument Room.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the staff at Bexhill have complained for nearly two years of the unhealthy condition of the instrument room; whether the room was condemned by the chief medical officer to the Post Office in November, 1907; and whether, in view of the fact that there is an abnormal amount of sickness among those using the room, he will consider what improvements can be effected.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am not aware that there is an abnormal amount of sickness among the staff occupying the instrument room at the Bexhill sub-Post Office, but the room is admittedly cramped and difficult to ventilate, and the question of improving the accommodation of the office generally has been for some time under careful consideration. Difficulties have arisen, however, in regard to the acquisition of the additional land required for the purpose, with the result that some time may elapse before the scheme for permanent enlargement can be carried out. In the meantime I propose to authorise a temporary improvement of the accommodation for the instrument work, etc., by means of the appropriation for office purposes of part of the residence which has been vacated by the sub-postmaster.

  Messrs. White & Co. (of Cowes) and Tenders for New Destroyers.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any of the sixteen destroyers provided for in the current naval programme have been ordered from Messrs. White and Co., at Cowes; and whether any steps will be taken to prevent the discharge of large numbers of workmen from this and other yards having special facilities for building torpedo craft,
  1658
  which must inevitably follow any considerable curtailment of Admiralty orders.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The tender of Messrs. White and Co., with those of other firms, is still under consideration. With regard to the second part of the hon. Member's Question, the action of the Admiralty is necessarily limited to the allocation of the orders of the year's programme.

  Messrs. John Stones, Limited, and the Fair Wage Resolution.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the firms of John Stones, Limited, Ure Mills, Ulverston, and John Stones, of Rosside Works, sliding partition and revolving shutter, etc., manufacturers, who advertise themselves as contractors to the Admiralty, only pay the joiners in their employ from 6¼d. to 7¼d. per hour., whilst the current rate of wage in the district, vide Board of Trade Returns, is 8d. per hour; whether he will take steps to induce those firms to pay the current rate of wages; and, failing which, whether he will remove them from the list of firms invited to tender for Admiralty work.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) So far as can be ascertained, this firm has not had any dealings with the Admiralty.

  Relief of Unemployment—Extra Men at the Dockyards.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty how many men in excess of 30,500 voted this financial year are to be employed in the home dockyards as the result of the Government's effort to relieve unemployment.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The number of men who will receive employment in the dockyards as the result of the special effort made to relieve unemployment is estimated at about 2,100. Their employment is to last until 31st March, 1909.

  Delay in Repayment of Income Tax Claims.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer

  1659
  whether his attention has been called to the fact that, owing to the staff for dealing with income-tax repayment claims not being sufficiently large to deal with them without delay, claims are left in abeyance for four months without being attended to; and whether, under these circumstances, he will consider the advisability of provision being made to pay claimants interest on the money to which they are entitled at the time of making their claim.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I beg to refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by me on the 28th ultimo to the hon. Member for East Down. Under the present law interest cannot be claimed or allowed, and I do not think it necessary or advisable that the law in this respect should be altered.

  Old-Age Pensions—Voluntary Payments.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if a weekly payment voluntarily made is to be counted as a source of income for old-age pension purposes.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George) I see no warrant in the provisions of Section 4 of the Old-Age Pensions Act for excluding such contributions from the calculation for the purposes of the Act of the means possessed by the recipient.

  Old-Age Pensions Regulations—Metropolitan Boroughs.
  LORD R. CECIL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the grounds upon which the Government have been advised that the term borough in the Old-Age Pensions Act does not include a Metropolitan borough.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The term "borough" is defined by the Interpretation Act, 1889, to mean a municipal borough; and a municipal; borough is defined as a borough that is subject to the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, and therefore, does not include a Metropolitan borough.

  Cattle Driving in Ireland.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord
  1660
  Lieutenant of Ireland if he will ascertain from the Inspector-General the proportion of the total number of cases of cattle-driving reported by the police down to the end of September, 1908, which have been recorded in the official statistics of crime, distinguishing the headings under which they have been so recorded.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am unable to add anything to my reply to the Question on the subject asked by the hon. Member for Belfast North on 27th October.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—County Meath Cases.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many evicted tenants in the County of Meath have been reinstated in their former or obtained equivalent holdings; and how many applications from the same county remain to be dealt with.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that 273 applications were received from persons seeking reinstatement as evicted tenants or the representatives of tenants evicted from holdings in County Meath. After inquiry the Estates Commissioners decided not to take any action in 118 cases; fifty-five applicants have been reinstated or provided with other holdings and thirty-one applications have been noted for consideration in connection with the allotment of untenanted land. The cases of the remaining sixty-nine applicants cannot be dealt with under the Evicted Tenants Act, but will be inquired into when the estates on which they were tenants are being dealt with under the Irish Land Act, 1903.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. Hopkins, an evicted tenant on the estate of Colonel Lyster Smythe, Nobber, County Meath, has applied to be reinstated in his former holding; and, if so, whether, as the farm from which he was evicted is still in the occupation of the landlord, they will compulsorily acquire it in order to effect his restoration.

  1661
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from Francis Hopkins, and will consider it in connection with the distribution of untenanted laid in County Meath which they hope to acquire. His former holding cannot be acquired compulsorily under The Evicted Tenants Act, 1907.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have purchased the estate of Admiral Singleton, Drumconrath, County Meath; if Thomas Kirk, an evicted tenant on the estate has applied to be reinstated in his former holding; and whether the Estates Commissioners will exercise the powers vested in them to acquire for him his former holding, which is still in possession of the landlord.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that the estate belonging to Admiral Singleton, which was sold under the Irish Land Act, 1903, did not, include Thomas Kirk's former holding, and the Commissioners do not propose to acquire it compulsorily, but they have noted Kirk's application with a view to his being provided with another holding on untenanted land to be acquired by them.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Ternan, an evicted tenant on the Balfour estate, Townley Hall, Progheda, applied to the Estates Commissioners for reinstatement in his former holding, and that the inspector who visited the estate promised him a portion of the untenanted land; will he explain why the promise was not fulfilled; and whether the Commissioner will take early action to secure him a farm.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that the lands on the Balfour estate referred to in the Question were, with their approval, allotted by the owner to a former occupier. Their inspector had no power to promise them to anyone. The Commissioners will consider Ternan's application when
  1662
  they are distributing untenanted land elsewhere.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Miss Rose A. O'Reilly, who was evicted from the lands of Gibbonstown, on the Wade, estate, County Meath, has applied to the Estates Commissioners to be reinstated in her former or an equivalent holding; and, if so, what action has been taken in her case.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners received an application from Philip O'Reilly and his daughter, Rose O'Reilly, for reinstatement in a holding on the Wade estate, which is now in the occupation of another tenant. The Commissioners have provided Philip O'Reilly with another holding in County Meath, and they do not propose to take any action in reference to Miss O'Reilly's application.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Eugene Farrelly, an evicted tenant on the estate of Philip Smyth, Kilmainham Wood, County Meath, has applied to the Estates Commissioners to be reinstated in his former holding, which is still on the hands of the landlord who evicted him; and, if so, what action has been taken in his case.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) This application was not received by the Estates Commissioners within the time specified by The Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907. The estate is not pending for sale before the Commissioners, and they have not therefore been able to take any action in the matter.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what action has been taken to secure her former or an equivalent holding for Miss Margaret Clarke, Possers-town, Nobber, County Meath; whether the Estates Commissioners have acquired land in the neighbourhood of Kells; and whether, in the distribution of the land, they will consider the advisability of dealing with the claims of evicted

  1663
  tenants in County Meath before bringing tenants from other counties.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) As regards Miss Clarke's application I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar Question asked by him on 1st April last. The Estates Commissioners are acquiring land compulsorily in the neighbourhood of Kells, and will no doubt exercise due discretion in its distribution.

  Uneconomic Holdings on Kellet's Estate, County Meath.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what action the Estates Commissioners propose to take with a view to the enlargement of uneconomic holdings on Kellet's estate, County Meath.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that the owners of this estate arranged to sell 100 acres in their occupation for the purpose of distribution. The Commissioners approved of the allotment of these lands amongst the smaller occupiers, but the latter refused to accept the portions offered to them.

  Reply to Letter of Mr. P. White. M.P.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners will reply to the letter dated 28th ultimo addressed to them by the hon. Member for North Meath.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received the hon. Member's letter, and will reply to it as soon as they are in a position to do so.

  Cattle Driving in Ireland.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that the great majority of the 908 cases of cattle-dirving reported to the end of September last are not included in the Statistical Returns of Outrages, which therefore afford no trustworthy record of the volume of overt crime committed in Ireland, there is any reason why cattle-drives should not be included under the heading of intimidation.
  1664
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell) I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar Question asked by him on 28th October.

  High Velocity Ammunition.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether any, and, if so, what, limit of maximum breech pressure was imposed by the War Office when firms of ammunition manufacturers were invited to submit high-velocity ammunition with pointed bullets for testing experiments; whether any of the ammunition exceeded this limit; and, if so, was such ammunition rejected on this ground.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) As regards the first part of the Question the condition was that the mean pressure should not exceed 19·5 tons at 120° F., and that no round should exceed 20 tons. The reply to the rest of the Question is in the affirmative.

  Ammunition for ·303 Rifle.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will institute an immediate and complete series of tests and experiments upon all patterns and types of existing ·303 ammunition, without restriction as to pressure, chamber space, or magazine length, in order that a correct decision may be formed as to the best type of ammunition for a ·308 rifle.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I am afraid that I cannot undertake such an investigation. For the purpose in view a sufficient and complete investigation is being made.

  Efficiency of Service Rifle.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will submit to the Small Arms Committee, or to a Committee of independent experts specially appointed for the purpose, the question whether, in what ways, and at what cost, the fighting efficiency of our service rifle and ammunition can be improved.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Will the hon. Member kindly refer to my replies on this subject to Questions put

  1665
  by my hon friend the Member for the West Division of Hull on Thursday last?

  Quit Notice to Tenants on Salisbury Plain.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state which, if any, of the agricultural tenants of the proposed extension of the artillery ranges on Salisbury Plain received formal notice to quit, from or on behalf of the War Office, on or before Michaelmas of this year.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) In some cases owners with whom the War Office has been in negotiation have by agreement with the War Office given notice to their tenants to quit at Michaelmas, 1909, but, as I have already explained to the House, the tenants will not be disturbed until the beginning of June, 1910. As the negotiations for purchase are still pending, and the matter is at present one which concerns the owners and their tenants, it is not considered that any more specific information can properly be given.

  Automatic Rifle.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in considering the merits of various automatic rifles, the War Office has taken advantage of the investigations of the Automatic Rifles Committee of the National Rifle Association; and, if not, whether, in order to minimise the cost of future inquiries on this subject, he will now consult this committee before undertaking any further expensive investigations.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The War Office has no knowledge of the committee mentioned or of its investigation. The hon. Member may rest assured that the War Office will secure all information available in regard to automatic rifles.

  Waddington Hospital Charity.
  MR. CLOUGH: To ask the hon. Member for the Barnstaple Division, as representing the
  1666
  Charity Commissioners, whether there is a scheme for out-pensions in connection with the Waddington Hospital Charity, and, if so, when was it first put into practice; how many out-pensioners are there; how much do they each receive weekly; whether the out-pensioners are confined to persons who are married, unmarried, widows, or widowers; whether there is any age limit; whether there are any vacancies amongst the out-pensioners of the charity, and, if so, how many, and when did they occur; whether there has been any vacancy since 20th December, 1907, when the trustees promised to consider the case of William Coulthurst of West Bradford; whether Coulthurst's case has since been considered, and what was the decision arrived at; who are the present trustees of the charity; and whether there are vacancies on the board of trustees; and, if so, how many.
  (Answered by Mr. Soares.) The Waddington Hospital Charity is regulated by schemes of the Charity Commissioners, dated 4th August, 1885, and 21st October, 1887, which came into operation on those dates respectively. The pensions, which are payable out of the surplus income after providing for the other objects of the charity, are regulated by the scheme of 1885, and the number is fixed from time to time by the trustees, "with due regard to the amount of income available for their payment and the other circumstances of the charity." The number of pensioners has varied from thirty-two to twenty. At the present time there are twenty-six. The pensioners receive £20 per annum, i.e., 7s. 8¼d. per week. The pensioners must be poor persons of good character, either married or single, and possessing the qualifications as to residence specified in the scheme. There is no age limit. On 13th December, 1907, there were twenty-nine pensioners. Three have died since that date, two in March and one in May last. William Coulthurst's case has not been considered since 20th December last. The present trustees are Colonel Parker, R. J. Aspinall, H. W. Worsley Taylor, K.C., W. Peel, the Reverend F. Parker, R. C. Assheton, E. LcGendre Starkie, A. C. M. Redhead, and W. King Wilkinson. There are no

  1667
  vacancies in the body of trustees. The trustees have recently incurred a considerable expense in connection with new sewerage works undertaken by the rural district council.

  New Post Office at Machynlleth.
  MR. REES: To ask the Postmaster-General when the new Post Office will be built at Machynlleth; and whether the new site has been finally selected.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton). Premises have been selected, which the owner will adapt and partly rebuild for the purpose. I hope that it will be possible to have the work begun shortly.

  Post Office Factories—Manufacturing and Repairing.
  MR. JOYNSON-HICKS: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the Post Office factories are intended or used primarily for manufacturing purposes, or are intended or used primarily for repairing purposes; whether the factory buildings are utilised to their full capacity; and whether it is proposed to extend the use of the factories, more especially in view of the fact that the Post Office will shortly become the sole consumer of telephone apparatus in this country.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton) The Post Office factories are intended and used primarily for repairing purposes. I do not think it would be expedient largely to undertake in present circumstances at the factories the work of telegraph and telephone manufacture. Of recent years British manufacturers have, with Post Office encouragement, put down plants for telephone apparatus construction. It is to them I look for assistance in telephone development. My endeavour is to keep employment at the factories at a constant level. For this purpose I entrust certain items of construction work to them normally and others from time to time.

  Metropolitan Police Force and Production of Rent-Books.
  MR. WILES: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there is an official regulation for the Metropolitan Police Force that every constable shall present his rent-book each month for inspection by the station officer; and, if so, whether he can state if this regulation is enforced in each division.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone). An allowance in aid of rent is given to constables in the Metropolitan Police Force, and it is necessary for them to present their rent-books for inspection in order to show that the conditions on which the allowance is given are observed.

  Upkeep of Imperial Institute.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the total amount that has been expended on capital and on maintenance, respectively, out of pubic funds for the establishment and upkeep of the Imperial Institute; and what are the public services now rendered by the Institute, apart from its use as a museum and exhibition, to the self-governing Colonies, India, and the Crown Colonies.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse). The figures asked for, so far as regards the upkeep and maintenance of the Imperial Institute buildings, are given below. In addition a grant of £500 has been made from the Board of Trade Vote to the Institute for cotton-growing investigations, but this grant was only sanctioned for a term of four years and comes to an end in March next. A contribution is also made from the Vote for Colonial Services, up to a maximum of £1,500 in respect of any one year, equal in amount to one-half of any sum which might be contributed by such Colonies and Protectorates as are not in receipt of a grant in aid from Votes of Parliament. In respect of this contribution, which is paid to a fund for the maintenance of the scientific and technical department of

  1669
  the institute, £1,400 was voted in 1906–7, and the maximum of £1,500 in each of the two succeeding years. As regards the last part of the Question, I understand

  Imperial Institute Buildings.

  Expenditure defrayed by the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works, etc.

  Year.

  Proportion incurred for London University.

  Proportion incurred for Imperial Institute.

  Capital.

  Maintenance.

  Total.

  Capital.

  Maintenance.

  Total.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1899–1900

  -

  2,611*

  1,040

  3,651

  1,740*

  694

  2,434

  1900–1

  -

  -

  11,243

  1,187

  12,430

  7,495

  791

  8,286

  1901–2

  -

  -

  177

  796

  973

  118

  531

  649

  1902–3

  -

  -

  1,688

  2,390

  4,078

  1,125

  1,594

  2,719

  1903–4

  -

  -

  889

  2,279

  3,168

  593

  1,519

  2,112

  1904–5

  -

  -

  495

  1,784

  2,279

  330

  1,190

  1,520

  1905–6

  -

  -

  7,203

  2,416

  9,619

  4,802

  1,610

  6,412

  1906–7

  -

  -

  513

  1,955

  2,468

  342

  1,303

  1,645

  1907–8

  -

  -

  198

  2,059

  2,257

  132

  1,373

  1,505

  1st April to 3rd November 1908

  -

  148

  520

  668

  98

  346

  444

  25,165

  16,426

  41,591

  16,775

  10,951

  27,726

  *Exclusive of expenditure of £54,928, being the mortgage on the building and a floating debt of the Institute at the time of the transfer to this Department.

  The expenditure is charged in the ratio of Imperial Institute two-fifths and the London University three-fifths.

  Applications for Small Holdings in Surrey.
  MR. BRODIE: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board is aware that the Surrey County Council is referring applicants for small holdings of one acre to parish councils, and that in certain, parishes the councils are hostile to the Small Holdings and Allotments Act; and whether he will
  that a Report of the work of the Institute during 1906–7 is now in the hands of the printers, and will shortly be laid before Parliament.
  make inquiries so as to secure that the Act shall not be rendered inoperative in certain districts.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Board are aware of the action of the county council but not of the hostility of the parish councils to which my hon. friend refers. The duty of providing holdings of one acre rests on parish councils, but if they fail to carry out

  1671
  their obligations representations should be made to the county council, who are empowered to take action in default.

  Provision of Small Holdings in the Island of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland, having regard to the fact that the families of the landless cottars in the Island of Lewis represent a population of 7,500, equivalent to 25 per cent. of the inhabitants, and that there are 19,631 acres of farm lands in the island, not under lease, the bulk of which were scheduled by the Deer Forest Commissioners as suitable for new holdings, and that on 21st July last he undertook to ascertain the views of the proprietor as to the expediency of breaking up these farms for occupation by the people, will he now state the result of his inquiry.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I am informed that, in view of the heavy burden of local taxation in the Lewis, the proprietor is not willing to consider any proposals which might possibly have the effect of increasing expenditure or local burdens.

  Petition of Carpenters and Joiners of the Admiralty Works Department.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the petition of the carpenters and joiners of the Admiralty Works Department; whether he is aware that their petition, dated 1st January, 1907, has not yet been answered nor their prayer granted; whether the joiners in other departments have in the meantime received increases of pay; and whether the Admiralty can see its way to extending similar or proportionate privileges to the joiners of the Works Department.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The whole subject is receiving consideration, and it is hoped that a decision will be arrived at shortly.

  Stirling Castle.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask the First Commissioner of Works if he can say when Stirling
  1672
  Castle passed under the control of His Majesty's Office of Works; and what steps have since been taken to preserve the buildings, to continue the military traditions, and to maintain the historic associations of the castle.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) Stirling Castle passed under the control of His Majesty's Office of Works in December, 1906, when immediate steps were taken to rescue the ancient historic buildings from the condition of decay and defacement into which they were rapidly falling. Interesting original work of an architectural character has been discovered and preserved, and serious structural defects threatening the ruin of the actual fabric have been repaired. The military traditions remain undisturbed, the Castle being occupied by a garrison.

  Work for Stepney Unemployed.
  MR. B. S. STRAUS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has yet been asked to sanction any work of a useful character proposed to be given by the Metropolitan borough of Stepney to the unemployed.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The reply is in the negative. I understand that the Central (Unemployed) Body have been in communication with the borough council on the subject, and that the latter have expressed their regret that at this juncture they are unable to submit a suitable scheme.

  Old-Age Pension Claims from Ireland.
  MR. DELANY: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a quarter of the total old-age pension claims have been sent in from Ireland; and can he say what proportion of the Excise staff have been told off to grapple with the Irish claims.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) From the Returns already furnished, more than a quarter of the total pension claims received have been sent in from Ireland. As a large proportion of the Excise staff are engaged upon duties other than or additional to those relating to old-age pensions the proportion which have

  1673
  been told off to grapple with the Irish claims cannot be given. At present 230 pension officers are employed in the actual investigation of claims in Ireland, aided in the clerical work by a large staff of assistant officers.

  Expenditure out of Issues to meet Capital Expenditure by Government Departments.
  MR. BOWLES: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer

  By War Office:

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Under Military Works Acts, 1897 to 1903

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  1,287,415

  14

  2

  By Admiralty:

  Under Naval Works Acts, 1895 to 1905

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  3,313,603

  14

  3

  Under Cunard Agreement (Money) Act, 1904

  -

  -

  -

  -

  710,015

  8

  10

  4,023,619

  3

  1

  By Civil Service:

  Under Land Registry (New Buildings) Act, 1900

  -

  -

  20,485

  16

  2

  Under Public Buildings Expenses Act, 1898

  -

  -

  -

  244,656

  11

  0

  Under Public Buildings Expenses Act, 1903

  -

  -

  -

  165,508

  8

  8

  Under Public Offices Site (Dublin) Act, 1903

  -

  -

  -

  -

  2,358

  19

  7

  433,009

  15

  5

  By Revenue Departments (Post Office):

  Under Telegraph Acts, 1892 to 1904

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  762,033

  15

  4

  6,506,078

  8

  0

  I am not yet in possession of the figures of expenditure in 1907–8, except in regard to the expenditure under the Cunard Agreement Act, which amounted to £13,021 10s., completing the total provision of £2,600,000. The accounts for that year in respect of the other services will be laid before Parliament in due course.

  Evicted Tenants—Case of John D. M'Manus.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether the claim of John D. M'Manus, son of John M'Manus, formerly tenant on the Brackenbridge estate, Florencecourt, or his mother the evicted tenant, will be dealt with in distributing
  whether he can state for each of the financial years 1905–6 and 1907–8 the total expediture out of issues to meet capital expenditure under various Acts by the War Office, the Admiralty, the Civil Service, and the Revenue Department respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The total expenditure in 1905–6 out of issues to meet capital expenditure was as follows—
  the 140 acres of untenanted land acquired by the Estates Commissioners in County Fermanagh; and will he say if the present occupier is still unwilling to surrender the old home of these people.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that the present occupier of the farm formerly held by John M'Manus is not willing to surrender it. The Commissioners are endeavouring to provide the widow of John M'Manus with a holding, but cannot say at present whether it will be on the lands referred to in the Question.

  Poor Law Reform in Ireland.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can

  1675
  say when the Government will introduce a Bill dealing with Poor Law reform in Ireland, based on the Report of the recent Viceregal Commission; and in what way it is proposed to deal with the grievances of which Poor Law officers complain.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I understand that the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws and Relief of Distress will probably report before the end of the present year, when the whole question of Poor Law reform in England and Ireland will have to be considered.

  Qualifications for Appointment as Irish Local Government Board Auditor.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether there has been a new rule made by the Local Government Board for Ireland which makes it impossible for any person to be appointed as Local Government Board auditor except he be either a barrister, solicitor, a chartered accountant, or must have been in the accounts department of a public office of State; and, if so, whether he will say whether this rule will extend to Poor Law and other local officers whose experience and ability qualify them for promotion to Local Government Board positions, and whose promotions to such positions would only be in accordance with the rules of other Departments of the State.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The qualifications prescribed for the post are substantially as stated in the Question. Any person who fulfils them is eligible for appointment.

  Applications under the Labourers Act in Banbridge Union.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the total number of applications under the various Labourers Acts in the Banbridge Union; the total number of cottages erected; the number of cottages in course of erection; and the number now under consideration.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Local Government Board inform me that the
  1676
  total number of cottages proposed to be erected in the Banbridge Union under the Labourers Acts was 214. Of these 117 have been authorised, and there are eight with regard to which appeals are pending. Twenty-two cottages authorised under the Orders of 1903 and 1904 have been erected. There has been a difficulty in obtaining tenders for twenty-three cottages authorised under the Order of 1906, for which a loan was sanctioned in November 1907, and the Board hive suggested to the district council the advisability of having some of the houses built by direct labour as an experiment. As regards the remaining seventy-two cottages authorised under the Order of 1908, the Board await the council's application for sanction to the necessary loan.

  Irish Evicted Tenant—Case of Mrs. Delany.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what steps, if any, have been taken by the Estates Commissioners to provide Mrs. Delany, now of 49, Marlborough Road, Donny-brook, Dublin, the representative of the late John Delany, who was evicted in 1884 from a farm of 111 acres Irish, on the estate of the late John George Adair, situated at Roskeen, Queen's County, with a suitable holding, as the evicted farm is in possession of a planter, the estate being now owned by Lord Digby, who has lately sold to the tenants.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Mrs. Delany's application has been noted by the Estates Commissioners for consideration in connection with the allotment of untenanted land.

  Distribution of the Grazing Farm of the late A. J. Owen.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application made on behalf of the occupiers of uneconomic holdings and labourers in the neighbourhood, requesting that the untenanted grazing farm of Turfarney, the property of the late A. J. Owen, J.P., Shanavahy, Queen's County, situated near Rathdowney, should be purchased by them

  1677
  for redistribution; and can he say what course the Commissioners propose taking in this matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received the application referred to, and have informed the applicant that if the owner institutes proceedings for sale under the Irish Land Act, 1903, they will have the property inspected in due course.

  Nash Estate—Case of Patrick Cronin.
  MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a claim has been received by the Estates Commissioners from Patrick Cronin, a sub-tenant to Timothy Mulcahy, Ballydaly, Millstreet, County Cork, on the estate of Major Nash, requesting that he should be admitted to the benefits of purchase on the same terms as the other tenants on this estate; and will he state what action is going to be taken in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners will consider Patrick Cronin's application when they are dealing with the estate in its order of priority.

  Irish Evicted Tenant—Case of William Bullman.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether the Estates Commissioners have considered the report of their inspector upon the case of William Bullman, an evicted tenant on the estate of Mrs. Sarah Hyde, Ballindangan, County Cork; and if they hope shortly to effect his reinstatement.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that their inspector's report in this case is under their consideration.

  Relief of Distress in Ireland.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, with a view to relieving the distress consequent upon unemployment, the Irish Govern-
  1678
  ment propose to undertake any public works of permanent utility, such as those recommended by the recent Commissions upon Arterial Drainage and Reafforestation.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The matter stands in the position outlined in my reply of 30th October to a Question on the subject asked by the hon. Member for North Kildare. The inquiries which I undertook to make on that occasion are proceeding, and it is not possible to make any further statement at present.

  Irish Evicted Tenant—Case of Mrs. S. O'Donnel.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application from the representatives of the late John Derry, who was evicted from his holding in Inniscoo Island, County Donegal, about nine years ago, to be reinstated in his former holding; whether the application has been rejected, and, if so, upon what grounds; and whether the Commissioners will now favourably consider the claims of Derry's representatives to reinstatement under the provisions of the Evicted Tenants Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from Mrs. Sophia O'Donnel, daughter of John Derry, deceased, but they cannot see their way to depart from their decision not to take any action in the matter.

  Royal Irish Constabulary Bill.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now state when he hopes to be in a position to proceed with the Royal Irish Constabulary Bill; and does he intend it to become law before the end of the present session.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I trust that the necessary financial resolution will be passed by the Committee on Monday next, the 16th instant, and in that case the Bill will be introduced at the earliest possible moment, and will, I hope, become law before the end of the session.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Fleet Exercises.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty why the request of the Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Fleet, on the conclusion of the naval manœuvres, that the fleets might be combined for tactical exercises, was refused by the Admiralty.
  THE SECRETARY OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,): I can only repeat the reply I gave to my hon. Friend in answer to a similar Question on 1st August. I must decline to answer any Question relating to the manœuvres, the subject of which can only have been communicated to the hon. Member by a breach of confidence.
  MR. BELLAIRSasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the request was made to the Admiralty by wireless telegraphy, and that the message was published in the Naval and Military Record, a journal which was often inspired by the Board of Admiralty.
  MR. MCKENNA: No, sir, I am not aware of that fact.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I communicated the fact to him by letter, to which I received no reply.
  MR. MCKENNA: I am not aware of that fact either.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty on what occasions have the fully commissioned ships of the Home Fleet comprised in the six battleships of the Note division, or the eight battleships with nucleus crews in the Portsmouth and Devonport divisions, been placed under the present Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Fleet for tactical exercises in conjunction with the Channel Fleet of fourteen battleships; and whether the "Dreadnought" has ever been so exercised.
  MR. MCKENNA: So far as it is in the public interest to reply to my hon. friend, I have already done so in my
  1680
  reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, on 3rd November.

  Cowes Shipbuilding Yard.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if the usual average amount of new work has been placed with Messrs. White's yard at Cowes during the present year; and if about 700 men will be out of work very shortly at East Cowes owing to the lack of Admiralty work.
  MR. MCKENNA: I cannot recognise that the term "average" is applicable to the allocation of Government work to private yards. The placing of Government orders must depend upon considerations of price and quality. I have no information which would enable me to reply to the last part of the Question.
  MR. FELL: What orders have been placed this year?
  MR. MCKENNA: I have not the figures. I will inquire.

  Wages on Portsmouth Government Contract.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the fact that the firm of Messrs. Morrison and Mason, Government contractors at Portsmouth, are not observing the Fair Wages Clause in the payment of their labourers; and whether he will take action in the matter.
  MR. MCKENNA: The matter is being investigated, and I must ask the hon. Member to be good enough to defer his Question for a fortnight.

  Greenwich Hospital Pension.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state if the 4,700 men qualified for, but not in receipt of, the Greenwich Hospital age pension are dealt with in order of precedence as vacancies occur and funds admit, or is it necessary to bring interest to bear on the Admiralty in order to have a man's name added to the list; is there a register of names of those eligible preserved; and can he state the average number

  1681
  of men added to the list of pensioners during the past five years.
  MR. MCKENNA: Pensioners eligible for Greenwich Hospital age pensions are entered in the register of candidates as such when they make application. Awards are made as vacancies occur by selection from the oldest and most necessitous applicants, and not in order of precedence. It is not necessary to bring interest to bear on the Admiralty in order to have a man's name added to the list, and no regard is paid to such interest. An average number of 439 per annum has been added to the list of men in receipt of the Greenwich Hospital age pension during the five years ended 31st March, 1908.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that the large number of 4,700 men were discharged under the impression that they were entitled to these pensions and whether they had no chance of getting them unless pressure was brought to bear upon the Admiralty.
  MR. MCKENNAreplied they had every chance. It was only a question of money. Each case of necessity would be dealt with as soon as possible.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Are those who are entitled to pensions advised to apply to the Admiralty if they desire to have them?
  MR. MCKENNA: A record is kept of everyone qualified for a pension and where the case is necessitous a pension is awarded as soon as funds will allow.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: If I send him the names of men in twenty necessitous cases will pensions be granted?
  MR. MCKENNA: If they are qualified and I have funds at my disposal they will receive pensions.

  Liabilities of Special Reservists.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Andover Division of Hampshire. I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state whether a man
  1682
  enlisting in the new Special Reserve is liable, whenever the Army Reserve is called out, to be sent abroad to his regiment and retained abroad for one year if hostilities are still in progress.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): Yes, Sir. This liability is set forth on the attestation paper and on the notice paper served to intending recruits prior to attestation.

  The "Unemployed" Special Reservist.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Andover Division of Hampshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state whether the unemployed Special Reservist will receive 7s. per week clear, while the ordinary Special Reservist can only receive 4s. 11½d. clear of stoppages.
  MR. HALDANE: The hon. and gallant Member is under a misapprehension. There is no such person as an unemployed Special Reservist. All Special Reservists draw pay alike according to the branch of service to which they belong and the rank they hold therein.

  Health Standard for the Special Reserve.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Andover Division of Hampshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what percentage of men have been refused enlistment in the unemployed Special Reserve owing to not being able to pass the health standard.
  MR. HALDANE: Statistics of medical rejections for the Special Reserve are received quarterly. A general percentage worked out from these Returns would only be misleading, and therefore I have not attempted to compile figures showing the percentage of medical rejections.

  Royal Ordnance Department Discharges.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state how many men there are at the present time who are under three months' notice to be discharged from the Army Ordnance Department, and if any further discharges are contemplated; and whether, considering the present depressed condition

  1683
  of trade in Woolwich and elsewhere, he will reconsider the age limit of sixty.
  MR. HALDANE: There are sixteen men in the Army Ordnance Department at Woolwich Arsenal at present under three months' notice of discharge, and about twenty-five further discharges are contemplated before June next. Many of these men are entitled to pensions, and of the sixteen all but one are either pensionable or eligible for gratuities. Civilian subordinates may be called upon to retire at the age of sixty, but if fully able to discharge their duties properly may, in very exceptional circumstances, be retained from year to year to sixty-five. These discharges will make way for a number of younger men waiting to be taken on.

  First-Aid to Wounded in the Army.
  MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that special qualifications are necessary for giving first-aid to the injured and sick in the battalions of the Territorial Army, he will discontinue the present arrangements under which the musicians in the band of the battalion are called upon to render this assistance, whether he is aware that bandsmen dislike having this duty put upon them, for which they have no special qualifications; and whether he will instruct commanding officers of territorial battalions to provide an independent section to give first-aid to the injured and sick.
  MR. HALDANE: The hon. Member has apparently lost sight of the fact that the bandsmen in the Regular Army are trained as stretcher-bearers and in first-aid to the wounded. I am not aware of any reason why the bandsmen in the Territorial Force should not be competent to carry out similar work.
  MR. CARLILEwas understood to ask if the present position of Territorial bands was the most suitable one for this purpose.
  MR. HALDANEreplied that the Territorial bands were on the same footing as those of the Regular forces, and it was not deemed expedient to make a new departure in this matter.

  Beresford Barracks, the Curragh.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to keep troops stationed during the coming winter in the Beresford barracks, at the Curragh, Ireland, in view of the fact that these barracks are stated in the Army Medical Department Report for the year 1907 to be rapidly decaying and getting beyond repair, the rooms being draughty, cheerless, and very cold in winter.
  MR. HALDANE: It appears on inquiry that the barracks in question, which are huts of concrete and as such inferior to permanent barracks, are not rapidly decaying or beyond repair, with the exception of the commanding-officer's quarters. Provision is made for the extra issue of fuel in Ireland in unusually damp or cold weather. The barracks will be occupied if necessary during the winter.
  MR. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to have the official Report for 1907 corrected?
  MR. HALDANE: We are quite aware of the fact.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the barrack accommodation in Ireland is very inferior to that in England?
  MR. HALDANE: A great deal has been done in recent years to improve it, and in some cases the Irish barracks are better than the English.

  Officers' Travelling Allowances.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed in future to give free travelling allowance to officers' wives and families, by land as well as by sea, in the event of such officers being moved from a station of permanent duty, in view of his statement in Committee of Supply on 8th March, 1906, that the officer's wife and family will in future have free conveyance if the officer is sent away on duty.
  MR. HALDANE: The promise to which the hon. Member alludes, only

  1685
  referred to conveyance by sea. There is no present intention of extending the concession in the manner suggested in the Question.
  MR. ASHLEY: If it is right to give free conveyance by sea, why not by land?
  MR. HALDANE: We may consider that hereafter.
  MR. ASHLEY: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman will take the earliest opportunity of extending the privilege to land conveyance?
  MR. HALDANE: One must consider the needs of the service first and arrange accordingly.

  Regimental Canteen Contracts.
  MR. LEVERTON HARRIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can say whether any regimental canteens are bound by any agreement or undertaking or is otherwise under any obligation to obtain a supply of any intoxicating liquor from any particular person; and, it so, can he state how many canteens are so bound.
  MR. HALDANE: The contracts for the supply of articles to the regimental institutes are managed regimentally, and the War Office has, therefore, no information on the subject raised in the Question. It may be added that the Regulations lay down that no contract shall be for a longer period than six months, and also that in order to secure to the soldier the combined advantages of low prices and good quality, a sytsem of competition should be adopted.

  Special Reservists and Jury Service.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state if it is the intention of the Army Council to exempt officers and men of the Special Reserve, whether on full pay or not, from serving on any jury, as is the case with officers and men of the Territorial Force; and, if not, can he state why the privilege is extended to the junior branch of the service and denied to the senior.
  MR. HALDANE: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to a Question put on this subject by the hon. and gallant Member on 27th July last.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGasked for an answer to the last part of his Question.
  MR. HALDANEsaid there was no analogy between these officers and those of the Territorial Force.

  Pointed Bullets.
  MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the character and efficiency of the pointed bullets of some foreign nations and of the fact that much more serious wounds would be caused by them than by the bullets used by British troops, he will say what steps he proposes to take to secure that British troops shall be as effectively armed as any possible enemy.
  MR. HALDANE: The whole question of improving the ammunition is now under consideration, and I am not, therefore, able to make any statement as to the steps which will be taken in regard to pointed bullets.
  MR. HUNT: Is it not the case, and has it not been the case for some time, that the British soldier has only been able to drill quite a small hole into the enemy, while the enemy has been able to inflict a large, jagged wound upon the British soldier? How long is this to continue.
  MR. HALDANE: I am not aware that it is so. There are a great many pros and cons to be weighed in connection with these bullets, which, I would point out, have only been adopted by foreign countries in principle. We are not far behind other nations in these matters.

  Attempt upon the life of the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal.
  *MR. REESasked for information as to the attempt upon the life of the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,): The Secretary of State

  1687
  has learned with deep concern that a criminal attempt, happily unsuccessful, was made on the life of the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal on Saturday. The information supplied to the Secretary of State does not give any details beyond those contained in this morning's newspapers.

  Gyroscope Mono-Railway.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has yet had an opportunity of inspecting the working model of Mr. Brennan's Gyroscope Mono-Railway at Chatham, with the view to its application in opening out country in East and West Africa.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,): I understand that my predecessor has inspected the model, and it has also been inspected by officers with experience of the conditions of tropical Africa. Until the invention has been tested in a practical manner, in this country, it is not possible to obtain a definite report as to its suitability to those conditions.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEasked whether the model in question was a full-size working model, and whether the hon. Gentleman would afford facilities for Members of the House to see it.
  COLONEL SEELY: It is a most interesting invention, and I will consider whether it will be possible to provide facilities for hon. Members to see it.

  Natal Native Administration.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary for the Colonies if the Act of the Natal Parliament providing for the better administration of native affairs is now under the consideration of the Colonial Office; is he aware that its provisions are strongly objected to by influential friends of the natives and by local newspapers in the Colony; and, in these circumstances, will be consider carefully before advising that the Crown shall give assent to this measure.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Bill has not yet reached the Colonial Office in its final form. When it is so received from the Governor, it will have careful consideration.

  British Indians in the Transvaal.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that as recently as 10th October there were under detention at Barberton, in the Transvaal, seventeen boys, from nine to fifteen years of age, the children of some of the fifty-eight British Indians then in gaol at Barberton for not having applied for registration certificates before entering the Transvaal; whether these British-Indian parents were all holders of permits under the Peace Preservation Ordinance, 1903; and what has become of these children.
  COLONEL SEELY: According to an official Report fifty-nine adult Asiatics, accompanied by seventeen minors entered the Transvaal at Komati Poort on 29th September. Fifty-eight adults were on 1st October convicted at Barberton of being prohibited immigrants, and sentenced to a fine of £25 each, or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The fact that they held permits under repealed legislation did not entitle them to enter. The children are presumably being cared for, but inquiry shall be made.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to an appeal signed by ten ministers of religion in the Transvaal, and addressed to the Transvaal Government, complaining of the treatment of a large number of Indians on their way from Delagoa Bay to their home in the Transvaal, and appealing for careful inquiries, and praying that the religious objections of Asiatics on certain elements of prison diet might be respected; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter.
  COLONEL SEELY: No, Sir. I have not seen the appeal referred to. As to

  1689
  the dietary, scale I would refer my hon. friend to a full Answer on the subject which I gave to the hon. Member for Preston on Tuesday last.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Asiatics Registration Amendment Act of 1908, passed to validate the voluntary registration of certain Asiatics and to make further provision for Asiatic registration, was intended and understood by His Majesty's Government to supersede Act No. 2, of 1907, of the Transvaal; whether he is aware that since the sanction of the new law a number of British-Indians within the Transvaal have been prosecuted and sentenced under the old one, and that British-Indians claiming the right to re-enter the Transvaal are being kept out pending application for registration under the new law, while Indians within the Colony are being prosecuted and deported under the old one; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Act of this year was intended, and was understood by His Majesty's Government, not to supersede but to amend the Act of 1907, as is, I think, clear from the Governor's telegram of 24th August, printed at page 32 of Cd. 4327. Some Asiatics were registered under the old Act and others come under the new.

  Dinizulu's Defence.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Secretary of State is aware that the resources at the disposal of Dinizulu for his defence are exhausted; and whether, in view of the special obligations which have been incurred by the Imperial Government towards this chief, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to see that his defence is adequately provided for.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Secretary of State has telegraphed to the Governor of Natal for further information as to the facts, and I am not, therefore, at the moment, in a position to make any
  1690
  statement in reply to my hon. friend's Question.

  British Policy in Egypt.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Sir Eldon Gorst's statement that Egypt already had a constitution that had been laid down by the organic law, and that the British people were quite ready to co-operate with the Egyptians for its gradual extension as fast as the intellectual standard of the population warranted such a course, is an official declaration of the British Government being ready so to co-operate.
  I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Sir Eldon Gorst's statement to the effect that there was absolutely no truth in the report that Great Britain would shortly proclaim a protectorate over Egypt or was considering the question of annexation, and that Great Britain had given solemn pledges to Turkey and to the European Powers to respect the Sultan's rights in Egypt and did not desire to go back on that engagement, may be taken as an official declaration of the British Government's pledges and its policy in regard to Egypt.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. MCKINNON WOOD,): My right hon. friend begs to reply to the hon. Member's two Questions on this subject together. The language used by Sir Eldon Gorst is correctly quoted, and is approved by His Majesty's Government.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked whether Sir Eldon Gorst's statement was to be taken as a declaration of policy on the part of the Government.
  MR. MCKINNON WOOD: I have really answered that Question.

  Russian Officers in the Persian Army.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any reason to believe that the Russian officers employed in the Persian service have acted other

  1691
  wise than according to orders received from the Persian authorities; and whether the internal independence of Persia is a fundamental condition of the Anglo-Russian Convention.
  MR. MCKINNON WOOD: The Answer to the first Question is in the negative. The second Question is answered by the text of the Agreement referred to.

  British Indians at Lorenzo Marques.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the different treatment meted out in the British Consulate at Lorenzo Marques, Mozambique, to British-Indians as compared with Europeans; whether the offices of the British Consul are the only public buildings in the town into which British-Indians have to enter by the back way; and, if so, what action he proposes to take.
  MR. MCKINNON WOOD: My right hon. friend had not heard before that there was any such practice at the British Consulate, nor would he have thought it probable. If the hon. Member will forward the information which has led him to make the statement, inquiries shall be made.

  Inter-Parliamentary Union.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that the Inter-Parliamentary Union, although a non-Party organisation, represents only one class of opinion, he will reconsider the expediency of subsidising its operations out of public funds.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): I do not agree with my hon. friend that the Inter-parliamentary Union represents only one class of opinion, nor do I understand to what class of opinion he refers.

  Colonial Bank Account and Income-Tax.
  MR. CHARLES MACVEIGH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that income-tax is charged here on money drawn from a current account in a bank in a Brinish Colony, but is not charged
  1692
  on capital; and whether he will state when and where such moneys become capital and where and when such moneys cease to be capital.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The question whether remittances from a Colony are to be regarded as remittances of profits or of capital is a question of fact, which in any case of doubt would be decided on appeal by the District Commissioners of Taxes.

  Fiscal Policy of International Trade.
  MR. MADDISON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will shortly lay upon the Table of the House, in accordance with the promise which was understood to have been given, the document to which he referred in the Debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill on 1st June last, as prepared by one of the ablest masters of political economy, and from which he quoted figures in regard to the relative cost of living in Germany and the United Kingdom.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Paper in question, a Memorandum on the Fiscal Policy of International Trade, by Mr. Alfred Marshall, until recently Professor of Political Economy at Cambridge, is now ready for issue, and I propose to lay it at once upon the Table of the House. The paper was originally prepared in 1903, and Mr. Marshall, when consenting to its publication, kindly undertook to revise it, which has caused a slight delay in its presentation to Parliament.

  Ceylon Firm's Income-Tax.
  MR. C. MACVEIGH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Inland Revenue surveyors demand income-tax on the estimated profits of a firm established in Ceylon, and entirely directed, controlled, and managed by the partners residing there; whether the profits are liable to income-tax owing to the senior partner residing here but taking no part in the management of the firm in Ceylon, any money received by him having already paid income-tax in the Colony; and, if not, whether he will take immediate steps to end all such demands.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: If the hon. Member will inform me of the name of the firm to which he refers, and the name and address of the senior partner, I will investigate the case. In the absence of this information, it is impossible to answer the Question.

  Patriotic Fund Pensions.
  MR. SNOWDEN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the Patriotic Fund Commissioners have given notice of their intention to raise the amount of the pension to persons over seventy so that they will be disqualified for an old-age pension; that this involves a loss of £2 5s. a year to each pensioner; and what action does he propose to take in the matter.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am informed that the allowances to certain widows from Patriotic Funds have been increased from £26 to £31 11s. a year, thus disqualifying them for old-age pensions. These widows, I understand, are widows of able seamen or private soldiers, or equivalent ranks, on special funds, which are in a financial position to admit of such increase. I am also informed that the authority for this action, having been taken is the Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation charged with the administration of those funds under the direction of the Corporation, and that they adopted this action because they considered that the State should not be taxed to provide old-age pensions in the circumstances and that the widows will be adequately and generously provided for by such an allowance as £31 11s. a year. On other funds which are not in a financial position to allow of similar allowances being granted, the widows have been informed that they should apply for old-age pensions and notify the committee of the result of their applications. I do not propose to take any action in the matter.

  Imprisonment of Rate Defaulters.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board how many persons in London have been sent to prison in the year 1907 for non-payment of rates; and
  1694
  can he give the totals for England and Wales, for Scotland, and for Ireland.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I beg to answer this Question on behalf of my right hon. friend. I can only repeat the Answer I gave last Tuesday to a somewhat similar Question by the hon. Member for Darlington—that the figures are not available, and that even if it were possible to get accurate returns, their collection would, I fear, give the local authorities more trouble than the result would justify. The prison records do not distinguish rate defaulters from ordinary civil debtors. As regards Scotland and Ireland, the question is one for the Secretary for Scotland and the Chief Secretary respectively.

  Case of John Hay.
  MR. RADFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of John Hay, who was convicted at the Central Criminal Court on 28th May, 1883, on a charge of receiving stolen goods and sentenced to seven years penal servitude, was released on ticket-of-leave on 8th November, 1883, and received a free pardon from Her late Majesty Queen Victoria, on 9th May, 1885; whether he is aware that in consequence of his wrongful conviction and imprisonment John Hay has suffered heavy pecuniary loss; and whether he will consider and advise whether compensation may be properly granted to him, as was recently done in the case of Adolph Beck and in many previous cases of wrongful conviction.
  MR. GLADSTONE: This case has been repeatedly considered by my predecessors since 1885. They decided that there were, no sufficient grounds for granting compensation out of public money. I regret that I cannot re-open the question.
  *MR. RADFORD: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the fact that the misfortune has been suffered by this man since 1885 is a reason why he should not receive compensation?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Having regard to all the circumstances I am afraid I can add nothing to my Answer.

  Union Jack Motor Omnibuses.
  SIR HENRY CRAIK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any official information showing that the motor omnibuses which bear the inscription of "Union Jack" are of a faulty type and are specially liable to cause noise and nuisance in the streets; and, if so, why these omnibuses are licensed, to the discouragement of companies which provide better vehicles.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am informed that three different types of motor omnibuses run under the name of "Union Jack." It cannot be said that the types are faulty, but individual vehicles may, of course, become objectionable through not receiving attention in good time.

  Case of George Gamble.
  MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to the case of Mr. George Gamble, who was assaulted by Police Constable Edwin Ashford, of the H division, Metropolitan Police, on 25th August, 1906, consequent upon which the matter was investigated by the recent Police Commission, resulting in Ashford being indicted at the Central Criminal Court on 23rd October last and sentenced to nine months imprisonment with hard labour; whether he is aware that Gamble has been taken by Detective Sergeant Derrent and another officer to the office of Mr. Muskett, a solicitor, who offered Gamble £100 as maximum compensation on behalf of the Commissioner of Police, that Gamble declined this on the ground of inadequacy, but upon being led to believe that if the offer was refused he would get nothing he verbally accepted; whether the proceeding was irregular; and whether he will have the matter re-opened with a view to the merits of the case being fully considered and ampler compensation awarded, especially as Gamble is permanently injured and incapacitated
  1696
  from regularly following his employment as a result thereof.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: No compensation has been tendered to Gamble, the police authority not being liable for the misconduct of the constable. A sum of £100, however, was offered purely as a compassionate grant. No pressure whatever was brought to bear beyond advising him to allow this money to be held in trust for him. I am informed that Gamble, as yet, has neither accepted nor refused the offer. I must add that Ashford has now applied to the Court of Criminal Appeal for leave to appeal against his conviction.

  Case of Mary Manning.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Miss Mary Manning, who was among the twelve suffragists who were committed to one month's imprisonment in the third class by the Westminster Police Court magistrate last Thursday, is the daughter of a clergyman and a graduate in honours at the London University; is he aware that this was her first offence and was committed without any criminal intent; and does any power reside in the Home Office to modify the sentence or the prison treatment to which she is subjected.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: This lady has already been transferred to the second division by order of the magistrate.
  MR. BYLES: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of the Question. What are the limits of the Home Secretary's power in modifying sentences or treatment?
  *MR. GLADSTONE: That opens up a large question, but my hon. friend will know that I have jurisdictions regards Prison Rules, but statutory Prison Rules when made have to be observed.

  Walworth Road Motor Fatality.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to an accident which occurred in the Walworth Road on Wednesday last, when a motor omnibus collided

  1697
  with a ladder killing one man and seriously injuring two others; and what steps he proposes to take for the better protection of the people of London against these dangerous vehicles.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: It appears that the death and the injuries resulted from the overthrow of a ladder, caused by the omnibus; an inquest will be held to-day. I fear that no steps can be taken which would remove the risk of the occurrence of an accident of this nature.

  Deaths by Motor Vehicles.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the number of deaths caused by motor-vehicles within the Metropolitan Police District has risen steadily from six per annum in 1902 to 123 per annum in 1907, and that the number of persons injured has increased in the same period from 319 per annum to 5,362; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent further loss of life and limb from this cause.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: I am aware of the figures which the hon. Member quotes. I must point out that he includes accidents from tramcars driven by motor-power, which accounted for 22 of the fatal accidents and 2,119 of the non-fatal for 1907; and that, owing to the great increase in the number of motor vehicles, an increase in the number of accidents caused by them was inevitable. But the number of accidents is very serious, and the subject receives the constant attention of the police, who do all in their power to prevent them, and, when they are the result of dangerous or negligent driving, to bring the offenders to book.
  MR. HAROLD COX: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has any control over London County Council tramcars, and if he is aware that they sometimes exceed the speed limit?
  *MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir. That rests with the Board of Trade.
  MR. MACKARNESS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a man was killed in Whitehall the other day by a
  1698
  motor-car which was admitted by the driver to be going at sixteen miles an hour?
  *MR. GLADSTONE: Perhaps my hon. friend will supply me with particulars of the case.

  Tied Houses.
  MR. BARNARD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many on-licences have been suppressed under the 1904 Act; how many of these were tied houses; and how many were free houses.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: During the years 1905, 1906 and 1907, 2,805 on-licences were extinguished under the compensation provisions of the Licensing Act, 1904. I have no information as to how many of these houses were tied; and I am not yet in possession of the figures of extinctions in 1908.
  MR. BELLOC: Have the Government no statistics as to the number of tied houses?
  *MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir, but it is known that something like 90 per cent. are tied.
  MR. BARNARD: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman get the actual figures?
  *MR. GLADSTONE: Not with accuracy.

  Prosecution of Motor Owners.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, on several occasions recently, gentlemen of position have grossly insulted the Metropolitan Police when their chauffeurs have been stopped for the offence of driving motor cars at an excessive speed; and whether he will issue instructions to the Metropolitan Police that when a chauffeur is charged with such an offence, committed when his master was on the car, they shall carefully consider whether the circumstances were such as would just proceeding also against the master for aiding and abetting or counselling and procuring the offence.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: My attention had not previously been drawn to this matter, except by observing some newspaper reports. I understand from the Commissioner that, in cases of the nature indicated in the hon. Member's Question, the police would be prepared to proceed against the owner for abetting, should the circumstances justify such a course.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Have the Metropolitan Police in any single instance prosecuted the owner as well as the driver?
  *MR. GLADSTONE: I cannot answer that Question without notice.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the police instructions as suggested?
  *MR. GLADSTONE: The police are at perfect liberty to take action if they think it advisable to do so.

  Compensation for Suppressed Licences.
  MR. BARNARD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state the amount of compensation paid to the houses suppressed in 1905–6 which were assessed under Schedule A at £20,145; and what amount of compensation these houses, now assessed under Schedule A at £14,442, would have received in each of the thirteen years reduction period of the Licensing Bill.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: I am informed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that the total amount of compensation awarded by them in the years 1905 and 1906, in respect of the houses assessed in the aggregate to Schedule A at £20,145, was £455,117. To answer the second part of the Question would involve complicated calculations which, in view of the provisions of Clause 45 of the Bill, could not, in my opinion, be made with any approach to accuracy.
  MR. BARNARD: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman try it and thus enable us to discuss the Raport stage of the Bill with some knowledge of the facts?
  *MR. GLADSTONEreplied in the negative.
  MR. JAMES HOPE: Cannot we have the figures for the first of the thirteen years' reduction period?
  *MR. GLADSTONE: It is hardly a matter for me to deal with.

  Kidderminster Licences.
  MR. BARNARD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the present number of on-licences, of off-licences, of on-licensees who brew and sell their own beer, and on-licences in Kidderminster who brew and sell their own beer in Kidderminster.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The latest available statistics as to licensed premises in England and Wales show 97,554 on-licences and 25,143 off-licences. I am informed by the Inland Revenue Commissioners that it would be a matter of considerable difficulty to determine the number of on-licensees throughout the country who brew their own beer, but that it has been ascertained that in Kidderminster, where there are 131 on-licences and twenty-nine off-licences, fifty-two licence-holders brew their own beer.

  Licensing Calculation.
  MR. BARNARD: I beg to ask the Prime Minister how the calculation proposing to reduce the on-licences from about 97,000 to 68,000 is arrived at; whether it professes to give to each of the licensing districts exactly the maximum number of licences permitted by Schedule I of the Licensing Bill; and, if not, to state the deviations.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I beg to answer this Question on behalf of my right hon. friend. I can only repeat what, I and my colleagues have said before, that the calculation that some 30,000 or 32,000 licences will be extinguished under the statutory reduction provided for in the Licensing Bill does not profess to rest on an exact assignment of licences to particular areas, but represents the best estimate which the Government could

  1701
  make for the purpose of assisting the House to judge roughly the total effect of the statutory reduction.

  Licensing Administration Expenditure.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he would give some facility on the Report stage of the Licensing Bill for the purpose of considering the expediency of the Licensing Commission's paying the whole of the disbursements in respect of the charges in connection with the administration of licences, and so exempting local rates from the burden imposed by subsection 2 of Clause 28.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I beg to answer this Question on behalf of my right hon. friend. I do not think that it is possible to give Clause 28 of the Licensing Bill any preferential treatment in the allocation of time on the Report stage. It is to be observed that the expenses of justices and their clerks provided for in the clause are not wholly concerned with compensation work; and they are incurred for the benefit of the locality. It seems, therefore, a fair arrangement that one-half should be paid out of the compensation fund and one-half out of the rates, rather than wholly out of the compensation fund, as suggested by the hon. Baronet.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: Will that arrangement continue after the reduction period?
  MR. GLADSTONE: That will be a matter for consideration.

  Unemployment in Germany and United Kingdom.
  MR. J. M. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what, according to the official figures, have been the proportionate increases in unemployment in Germany and the United Kingdow between the corresponding periods of 1906 (when unemployment in both countries was at its lowest point since 1903) and 1908.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): Taking the mean of the percentages
  1702
  of trade union members reported unemployed during the present year and comparing it with the mean for the corresponding period of 1906 it would appear that the proportionate increase in the percentage has been in the United Kingdom, 115 per cent. and in Germany 145 per cent.
  MR. J. M. MACDONALD: May I infer from the right hon. Gentleman's Answer that there has been a greater instability of employment in Germany than in Great Britain during the period covered by the figures?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I should not like to say that without having an opportunity of considering all possible information.
  MR. FELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if there are "hunger marchers" parading the streets of most of the towns in Germany?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the Question.
  MR. JAMES HOPE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what are the actual proportions of unemployment in both countries at present.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I do not think the material for making an accurate comparison exists.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Are the bases of the figures of unemployment the same in England as in Germany, and are the conclusions arrived at in the same way?
  MR. CHURCHILL: My Answer applies strictly to the basis mentioned in the Question.
  SIR JOHN RANDLES: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that there is more unemployment in this country than in Germany at the present time?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is outside the Question on the Paper.

  Strangford Bar Buoy.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that no steps have yet been taken to moor a temporary buoy off Strangford Bar, that yet another ship, the "Mehall," went ashore close to Ballyquinton Point on the 3rd instant, and that with the advent of winter the local inhabitants fear serious disaster if the Commissioners of Irish Lights do not take prompt steps; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that they have arranged to have the proposed temporary lighted buoy placed off Strangford Bar early this week.

  Poor Relief Expenditure.
  MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he could give the amount paid in poor relief in Great Britain, Germany, and the United States, respectively, for the year 1906.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): The total expenditure of local authorities in Great Britain on the relief of the poor in the year 1906–7 was £15,379,600. Similar information is not available in regard to the German Empire and the United States of America.

  Motor Speed Limits—Applications by Local Authorities.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Local Government Board have refused, without local inquiry, the application of any local authority to reduce the speed of motors under Section 9 of the Motor Act, 1903; and, if so, can he state on what grounds such refusal for inquiry is justified.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I do not find that any application made to the Local Government Board under Section 9 of the Motor Car Act, 1903, has been refused without local inquiry.

  Berlin Night Shelters.
  EARL WINTERTON: I beg to ask the President of the
  1704
  Local Government Board whether the figure of 800,000 relating to persons annually relieved in the night shelters of Berlin represents separate individuals; and, if not, can he give any estimate of the number of separate individuals included in this total.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am afraid I must refer the noble Lord to Mr. Dawson's book "The German Workman" from which the figures mentioned are taken. The Answer to the latter part of the Question is in the negative.

  Imports of Meat—Christian and Jewish Standards of Fitness.
  MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that thousands of foreign cattle imported into this country are rejected as unfit for food, on the ground of disease, by the Jewish authorities, but are sold to and consumed by Christians and others; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: It is the fact that foreign carcases which, for one reason or another, have been rejected by Jewish examiners as improper for Jewish consumption are subsequently sold for food; but I do not find that I have received any representations to the effect that the carcases have been rejected on account of disease which renders them unfit for human food. In consequence of the requirements of Jewish law, carcases would be rejected by their examiners owing to the presence of conditions to which no objection would or need be taken by qualified meat inspectors of sanitary authorities.

  Accidents through Motor Traffic.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the number of persons injured by motor vehicles in the Metropolitan Police District, with a population of about 6,000,000, in the year 1907 was 5,362, and that during the same year the number of persons injured in the German Empire, with a population of over 60,000,000, was only 2,400; and whether he will seek the advice of the German authorities with a view

  1705
  to the improvement of English legislation relating to motor vehicles.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The figures quoted in regard to the Metropolitan Police District include 2,119 accidents due to tramcars, I do not know whether the corresponding figures for Germany are precisely comparable or not. It is possible, I think, that other circumstances besides differences in legislation have a share in producing the contrast to which my hon. friend calls attention. Among them is the much smaller number of motor cars registered in Germany than in the United Kingdom. So far as I can learn the number of motor cars registered in the Administrative County of London (which is a much smaller area than the Metropolitan Police District) is only slightly less than the number of cars registered in the whole of Germany. I shall be happy to consider suggestions from any source which may be useful in relation to motor cars.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERwas understood to ask for the figures relating to different classes of motor vehicles.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the detailed figures were: Motor cars, 23,717, London; 16,214, Germany. Heavy motors, 1,980, London; no figures for Germany. Motor cycles, 9,211, Loudon; 19,808, Germany.
  MR. A. DEWARasked whether there was a twenty-mile speed limit in Germany.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: That I could not say at the moment.
  MR. MACKARNESSasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had any record of the number of motor car accidents in the United Kingdom this year?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: No, Sir; the figures are only obtainable up to date for London, but I will do my best to get complete statistics for the United Kingdom.
  MR. HAROLD COXasked whether in Germany there was a speed limit of nine miles in all villages.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: As one who was in Germany last year, I can only say I did not see that speed limit.

  American Tinned Meat.
  MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the revelations of the methods of the system of preparing American tinned meat a few years ago, he has proofs that the methods now employed are as well inspected and as clean and sanitary as those in this country; whether, as regards fat cattle, he is aware that, in the great majority of cases, tuberculous disease is only apparent in the liver and lungs which, in the case of chilled, frozen, or tinned meat, are not sent to this country; and whether he has any clear proof that, if the lungs or liver are found affected with tuberculosis in cattle killed abroad, there are any regulations which really prevent the meat of cattle so affected from being imported into this country and used as food.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I can hardly institute a comparison between the two countries as to the sanitary conditions of the places in which meat is prepared for food; but I am glad to say that there is reason to believe that very considerable improvements have been made as to the sanitary conditions of American packing-houses since the occurrences referred to in the Question took place. As regards tuberculosis in fat cattle, the American law requires that meat for export shall be submitted to inspection and passed in accordance with prescribed regulations. In conformity with these regulations a carcase would be condemned if the lungs and liver were affected by tuberculosis, unless the examination showed that the lesions were limited to an extent indicated in the regulations.
  MR. HUNTasked if in this country the liver and lungs were accepted as fit although showing signs of the disease while the carcases themselves were passed by the inspector.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: No neither would they be in any country.

  Christmas Pressure in the Leeds Post Office.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the extra men to be employed as letter-sorters at the Leeds Post Office during the pressure of Christmas work are required to accept a reduction of 2d. per hour, namely, to receive 6d. per hour as against 8d. per hour paid last year, and that these men are required to work at night without any extra pay; and whether, in view of the responsible character of the work to be performed, he will say why the same pay and conditions should not be paid these men as was the case last year.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): The system of payment at Leeds has been brought into line with that prevailing elsewhere. In addition to the general rate of 6d. an hour, the men will receive the usual allowances for night duty, for work performed on Sunday and Christmas Day, and for any overtime. These concessions they have not previously enjoyed, and on the whole their total earnings under this year's arrangement will probably exceed those of previous years.
  MR. O'GRADY: But are not the wages reduced?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: That may be so, but in the end the amount will probably exceed what it did last year.
  MR. O'GRADY: Does it in any way diminish unemployment by allowing men to work night and day on the assumption that they will earn more wages at the reduced rate than at the ordinary rate?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Their normal hours will be eight, some will be day work and some night work, and they will get extra payment for Christmas and New Year's days.

  Civilian Rights in the Civil Service.
  MR. SNOWDEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether there is any rule which prevents Post Office employees taking an active part in the business of political clubs or organisations of which
  1708
  they happen to be members, provided they are not active participants in elections.
  I beg also to ask the Postmaster-General whether it is to be assumed from his recent prohibition of three Manchester postmen taking part in a political meeting at a time when no election was in progress, that it is intended to prohibit Post Office employees becoming members of political clubs or organisations.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I assume that in these Question the hon. Member refers to political clubs or organisations not consisting solely of Post Office servants. The rule applying to the Civil Service generally requires that Post Office servants as Civil servants should maintain a certain reserve in political matters. This rule precludes officials of the Post Office from taking a prominent part, or holding office, in such outside political clubs or organisations, but would not debar them from ordinary membership. As the Prime Minister has just stated, the whole question is to be considered by the Government.
  MR. SNOWDEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether it may be taken that his recent statement that the disabilities which prevented Post Office employees from taking any part in county council elections have now been removed, means that Post Office employees may become candidates at such elections, provided the proper and efficient discharge of their duties as public servants is not imperilled.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The Treasury rule applying to all Civil servants, which prohibits them from becoming candidates at county council elections, remains unaltered, but I lately abrogated a rule especially applying to Post Office servants and which prohibited them from taking any part in county council elections in the district in which their work lay.

  Foreign Letter Regulation.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General what is the provision (if any) in the International Postal Convention forbidding a correspondent to enclose within a

  1709
  sealed envelope sent abroad an unstamped letter directed to a third party.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: By statutory regulations it is forbidden to send by post any packet containing two or more packets addressed to different persons at different addresses. The Postal Union Convention contains no specific provision on this subject; but it provides expressly that the legislation of any country shall remain unaltered as regards anything which is not provided for by the stipulations contained in the Convention.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL: How can it be discovered if it is a sealed packet?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: It may sometimes escape observation, but when there are any suspicions it may be discovered.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL: How?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Education Exhibit at the Franco-British Exhibition.
  SIR PHILIP MAGNUS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether, having regard to the fact that the education section of the Franco-British Exhibition must be dismantled in? the course of the next few days, he will further consider whether the difficulties which have been raised by the Board to the acceptance of the offer that has been made to the Prime Minister to preserve the exhibit for public use can be removed; and if he will confer with the chairman and some other members of the committee of the section on the subject.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. TREVELYAN,): I have already informed the chairman of the committee of the education section that the Board would be glad to take over and house a careful selection from that portion of the exhibit which is illustrative of general education. This consists mainly of specimens of work, curricula and time-tables submitted from
  1710
  different types of schools, which could be compactly stored in a form accessible to students and might become the nucleus of a valuable collection, to be amplified from time to time, illustrative of the progress of general education in this country. The remaining portion of the exhibit, consisting of appliances and material illustrative of specialised education, is, as I have already stated, of great interest as a temporary exhibition, but of considerably less value as a permanent collection as it must inevitably become obsolete and cease to represent the best work in each particular sphere. But, apart from this objection, the Government have no space available for the storage of the bulky objects included in this portion of the exhibit, and I, therefore, regret that it is impossible for the Government to accept the generous offer of the committee. I shall be happy to arrange a conference with some of the officers of the Board as to the arrangements for taking over the material to which I have referred above, if the chairman and the committee are willing to fall in with these suggestions.

  Small Holdings in Kent—Case of David Nicholls.
  MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that David Nicholls, who has applied to the Kent County Council for a small holding, is about to be evicted from his cottage by the landlord, part of whose land was suggested as suitable for small holdings, and that Nicholls is now being subject to a local boycott, having been refused an adjacent vacant cottage on the ground of his resistance to the aforesaid eviction; whether he is aware that other persons in the locality are being restrained from making application for land under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act for fear of similar intimidation; and whether his Department contemplates any action to protect persons in such circumstances, and, if so, what.
  THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY,): The facts are as stated,

  1711
  and the President of the Board much regrets that he has no power to interfere. The President is, however, urging the county council to acquire the farm, for part of which Nicholls has applied, and has advised them to apply for a compulsory order if they cannot obtain it voluntarily.
  MR. BELLOC: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he or any of his colleagues know of any way by which this attack on an existing law can be prevented?
  MR. SPEAKER: That is too general a Question to ask without notice.
  MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that not only has Nicholls been evicted from his cottage but also dismissed from his employment, and is he in a position to state to the House the name of the person who has thus discharged him?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: No, I am not; but I shall be very glad to inquire if the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question.
  MR. CROOKS: Is any action whatever going to be taken to prevent these methods being used to coerce agricultural labourers?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I have already replied that my noble friend has no power to interfere.
  MR. BELLOC: Is he not going to do anything?
  MR. CROOKS: What is the use of passing the Act?
  MR. BELLOC: Exactly.
  [No Answer was returned.]
  *MR GEORGE ROBERTS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that the Dairy Farm, Crockham Hill, which is suitable and available for small holdings under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907, has been applied for by mem-
  1712
  bers of the Limpsfield Land Club, included among whom is David Nicholls; that the county council representatives received information relating to this farm from the secretary of the club in the spring of this year; that the negotiations have been delayed because the county council representatives have asked the applicants to pay a rent of at least £2 5s. an acre, whereas the rent now paid is less than 10s. per acre, and that upon the men refusing to pay this increased rent they were offered as an alternative certain chalk land on Westerham Hill, between four and five miles distant, without housing accommodation or water supply, and unsuited for small holdings, at an annual rental of £1 15s. per acre; and whether he will lay upon the Table the memoranda and correspondence prepared by the Limpsfield Land Club, the correspondence between the men and the county council representatives, and the report of the Board's inspector thereon.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The county council came to the conclusion that the Dairy Farm, Crockham Hill, could not be acquired voluntarily at such a price as would enable them to let it at rents which the applicants were willing to pay. They then offered them other land in the locality which they considered suitable, but this the applicants refused to entertain. The Board have made a careful inquiry into the matter and have informed the county council that the Dairy Farm appears suitable for small holdings and that the county council should consider whether it should not be acquired compulsorily. If this can be done at a reasonable price it will be possible to provide a holding for Mr. Nicholls. The Board do not think that any useful purpose would be served by the publication of the report of their inspector or of the correspondence in the matter.
  MR. BELLOC: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this land that was to be let at £1 15s. an acre has been offered at £10 an acre as freehold in the last few years?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I am not aware of that, but I am aware that

  1713
  this land is only rented now at something over 15s. an acre, and the two ladies who own it are asking £60 an acre, which seems a most exorbitant price.
  MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the many complaints that are made as to the slowness of the methods of investigating the various applications made under this Act; does he think that two inspectors are sufficient to deal with these applications; and, if not, will he consider the desirability of making further appointments?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: As I stated to the House the other day, another inspector has been appointed, and if it is considered necessary by my noble friend he will not scruple to appoint another.
  MR. CROOKS: Do you think there will be any of those who have applied alive by that time?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Foreign Coal Contracts.
  MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the injury to the coal trade of South Wales, Northumberland, and Scotland, should it be understood by foreign countries that false British colliery certificates are not held to be fraudulent, he will permit criminal proceedings to be taken in the case complained of by Messrs. Coats; and whether he will state in detail the grounds upon which he has hitherto refused to permit such proceedings to be taken in this case.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW,): The first query is a repetition of a Question already put by the hon. Member and answered. With regard to the second query, I refer the hon. Member to a Question answered by me on 29th ultimo.
  MR. CARLILE: IS the right hon. Gentleman aware that the first part of the Question is not a repetition inasmuch as it deals with other areas? Will he put himself in communication with the
  1714
  President of the Board of Trade in view of the very serious disadvantages under which British trade is likely to be placed?
  MR. THOMAS SHAW: I see no occasion for any such procedure.
  MR. CARLILE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the Question which deals with Northumberland and South Wales?
  MR. THOMAS SHAW: I shall be glad to hear any information confirming the suggestions made in the Question.

  Afforestation in Ireland.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he has received a resolution, unanimously passed at the last meeting of the Cork County Council, adverting to the Report of the Departmental Committee on Irish Forestry, pointing out that the land in woods in Ireland is now the lowest of any country in Europe, and insisting that a comprehensive scheme of forestry can only be carried out under the direction of the State; and, seeing the urgent necessity of the national scheme of afforestation recommended by the Forestry Committee, will he state what steps are being taken to give effect to the recommendations of this Committee, and whether it is proposed to include provisions in the amending Land Bill penalising the cutting down of trees unnecessarily by purchasing tenants.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): The Department have received a copy of a resolution adopted by the Cork County Council referred to. I regret that I am not at present in a position to add anything to my Answer to a somewhat similar Question put by the hon. Member for East Clare on 20th October.
  MR. CULLINAN: Cannot steps be taken to prevent landlords clearing away the timber, and thus destroying the beauty spots of Ireland?
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is it not the fact that when Irish landlords sell their estates under the Act they cut down the timber? Cannot steps be taken under the existing law to prevent that?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I am aware that both landlords and tenants are cutting down timber as fast as they can, and I very much regret it.
  MR. SHEEHAN: Cannot some provision be inserted in the Land Bill to put a stop to this practice?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Perhaps the hon. Member will wait till the Bill is introduced.

  Potato Disease in Ireland.
  MR. J. MACVEAGHasked as to the nature of the official report on the outbreak of black scab in Irish potatoes.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I am glad to say that up to this afternoon no further cases have been reported. The inspector is on the spot making all the investigations that can be made. So far as the general potato crop is concerned, I am glad to say it is estimated that it will prove the best crop for the past ten years.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the English Board of Agriculture has admitted that 244 outbreaks of black scab have occurred in Great Britain in recent years, and as this is the first outbreak in Ireland may it not reasonably be concluded that this disease was communicated from England to Ireland? Also—
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should put these Questions down on the Paper.
  CAPTAIN DONELAX: Does the hon. Gentleman include County Cork in his estimate as to the potato crop?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The estimate is for the whole of Ireland. Perhaps it will relieve the mind of my hon. friends if I say that our investigation so far as it has gone shows there is no reason to suppose the disease arose from imported potatoes.

  The Prime Minister and the Leeds Suffragists.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, whilst visiting Leeds, he declined to receive a deputation from the National Woman Suffrage Societies, representing many working women, who have always adopted constitutional methods in their reform movements, the bona fides of which deputation was guaranteed by the presence on the deputation of the hon. Members for Central and South Leeds and five leaders of local Liberalism; and whether he is now prepared to reconsider his refusal to see the deputation.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): I was unable to see the deputation in question during my visit to Leeds, and I see no advantage at present in receiving any more deputations on this subject.

  Licensing Bill.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if, before the Report stage of the Licensing Bill, he will arrange to have that Bill reprinted, with the new clauses and Amendments included, and distinguished by ink of one colour the clauses of the Bill which were discussed in Committee, and by ink of another colour the clauses which were passed under the guillotine Resolutions without discussion.
  MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir.

  Proposed Forth and Clyde Canal.
  MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the early starting of work on the Rosyth naval base, he will consider the advisability of obtaining a reliable estimate of the cost of acquiring, widening, and deepening the Forth and Clyde Canal, in order that the question of providing a direct and valuable waterway to the West Coast of Scotland may be considered.
  MR. ASQUITH: My right hon. friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has stated that the question is not one that the Admiralty considers pressing from the point of view of naval requirements, and he will defer further consideration of the matter until the Report of

  1717
  the Canal Commission, which is understood to have been dealing with it.

  Lord Ashtown's Election as a Representative Peer.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government propose to introduce legislation to render it illegal for anyone to obtain a seat in Parliament by the method of drawing lots.
  MR. ASQUITH: I am not aware that the evils, if any, which arise from the present practice are so serious or so widespread as to render legislation necessary.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask whether, if it be a fact that this arrangement for casting lots for the election of peers exists under the Act of Union, that is not an additional reason for the repeal of that Act?
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: May I ask the right hon. Gentlemen whether, in view of the recent gambling in another place, he can say whether that other place is a place within the meaning of the Act?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Irish Land Bill.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether on the occasion of the introduction of the promised Irish Land Bill, the House will be afforded an opportunity of discussing the proposals of the Government; and whether, in view of the advanced period of the session for which the introduction of a Bill of such magnitude is fixed, he will arrange that the Bill shall be introduced at an earlier date than 23rd November.
  MR. ASQUITH: Yes, Sir. There will be an opportunity for discussion. I am afraid that it is impossible to introduce the Bill before the 23rd.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Is it not a fact that only five Government days altogether have been devoted to legislation for Ireland during this year, and
  1718
  not a single hour during the present portion of the session? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman kindly to consider whether, if the introduction of this Bill is postponed until within twenty working days of the end of the session, any chance which the Bill has of passing into law will not be seriously prejudiced?
  MR. ASQUITH: I hope not. I am sorry to say I cannot fix an earlier day than that which has been mentioned.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Would it be possible to have the Bill introduced under the ten-minutes rule within the next day or two, so as not to lose time, and fix the Second Reading for 23rd November?
  MR. ASQUITH: I do not think that would be a good arrangement. I think it would be better that my right hon. friend should have an opportunity of making a full statement on the introduction of the measure.
  *MR. REES: May I ask whether the House will be sitting at a later date than 23rd November?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am afraid that it is not improbable.

  Old-Age Pension Regulations.
  LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister what facilities he proposes to afford for the discussion of the Regulations under the Old-Age Pensions Act.
  MR. ASQUITH: I propose to afford facilities for the discussion of the Regulations on Monday next on the completion of the proceedings on the Licensing Bill.

  Tied Houses.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the desire manifested in this House and throughout the country that steps should be taken to bring to an end the tied-house system, he will introduce into the Licensing Bill some provision under which the holders of all licences ultimately, and of new licences at once, will have

  1719
  secured to them complete freedom of contract in the purchase of their liquors.
  MR. ASQUITH: I am carefuly considering this matter.

  Political Bodies in the Civil Service.
  MR. SNOWDEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will introduce into the Civil Service Regulations a prohibition of the formation of political bodies within the Civil Service, and at the same time grant to Civil servants equal freedom with all other citizens to take their share in political activities outside of their hours and duties as public servants.
  MR. ASQUITH: As I said the other day, the whole matter is under consideration, and I am not at present in a position to make any statement in reply to the hon. Member's inquiries.

  Passenger Vessels and the Licensing Bill.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether in view of the fact that no opportunity was afforded to discuss Clause 34 of the Licensing Bill, which imposes liability upon the masters and owners of passenger vessels, he will arrange to give the House facilities on the Report stage for the discussion of such clause.
  MR. ASQUITH: I do not think that any peculiar facilities can be given on the Report stage for the discussion of Clause 34 and the fifth Schedule as compared with other parts of the Bill, but I may point out that Amendments appear on the Paper in the name of my hon. friend the Under-Secretary of State, which are the result of a conference with representatives of the shipowners, and I have every reason to believe that, while they do not impair the effectiveness of the provisions in the Bill, they are satisfactory to those concerned.

  Licensing Bill—Definition of a Meal.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in bringing up the new clause on the Report stage of the Licensing Bill providing for an extension of hours for London hotels and restaurants for the supply of alcoholic refreshment to persons taking
  1720
  meals, it is intended to furnish a definition of a meal.
  MR. ASQUITH: The hon. Member will see the form of the Amendment dealing with this matter in the Paper on Tuesday morning.

  Refreshment Contracts for Government Offices.
  MR. LEVERTON HARRIS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether any Departments of the Government are under any agreement to obtain a supply of any intoxicating liquor from any particular person or firm; and, if so, which Departments.
  MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir, I have no information on the subject, and I do not see what public object would be served by obtaining it.
  MR. LEVERTON HARRIS: Does that Answer apply to the Admiralty?
  MR. ASQUITH: Questions affecting the Admiralty should be addressed to my right hon. friend.

  Irish Land Purchase Block.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that upwards of 100,000 Irish tenant-farmers, who have voluntarily agreed with their landlords for the purchase of their holdings under the Irish Land Act, 1903, are being subjected to loss by reason of the delay in advancing the amount, estimated at between £40,000,000 and £50,000,000 sterling, necessary to enable purchase arrangements to be completed; and whether, having regard to the fact that all parties are agreed as to the urgent need of solving the financial difficulty, while the question of the relief of congestion is highly controversial, he will submit the proposals of the Government in reference to these matters in the form of two separate Bills, in order that the land-purchase difficulty may be surmounted as speedily as possible.
  MR. ASQUITH: As I have already announced, the proposals of the Government for dealing with Irish Land Purchase Finance and the relief of congestion will

  1721
  be embodied in one comprehensive measure. I regret that it would not be possible to discuss, within the limits of an oral answer, the reasons which render that course necessary and desirable. I must ask the hon. Member to await the statement which my right hon. friend will make when introducing the Bill.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASasked if the Government could not give a more convenient time for discussing the Resolution allocating the period for the Report stage of the Licensing Bill?
MR. ASQUITHsaid he would put down the Motion for the allocation of time for the Report stage of the Licensing Bill at the beginning of business on Wednesday. He proposed, if necessary, to ask the House to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule for the consideration of the Port of London Bill. He proposed also to move the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule to-morrow for the discussion of the Education (Scotland) Bill.

LICENSING BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
Schedule I.
MR. G. D. FABERsaid that in the absence of his hon. friend the Member for Rutland he begged to move as an Amendment the new scale standing in his name. The first Schedule of the Government took the number of persons per acre, or the density of population, and according to the density of population so was the number of licences per hundred people. Instead of beginning with one to 400 persons and ending with one to 1,000 persons, his hon. friend's amended
1722
Schedule began with one to 300 persons and ended with one to 900. Therefore, although it did not remove the objections they took to the whole method by which the Government proposed to proceed, still, so far as it went, that grievance was diminished by the Amendment. The Government might have take I serious objections to the Amendment if they had proceeded upon an accurate arithmetical computation of the number of licences to be reduced according to their scale throughout the length and breadth of the country, but the Government had been obliged to admit that they had done nothing of the kind. The Prime Minister, when he introduced the Bill, in speaking of the number of licences to be reduced, some 30,000 in number, said the calculation was a rough one, and the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, in answer to a Question a few minutes ago, had said the same thing. The Government had made no accurate computation at all, and in answer to a Question from that side of the House as long ago as last February or March the Government said they had only taken a number of sample cases. It seemed really to be a shot in the dark, a jump into space. One would have imagined that in a scheme of this kind the country would have been made aware how many licences would be reduced. The Government, on the other hand, seemed to have contented themselves with giving what they themselves called a number of sample cases. The Government also said that they founded themselves on the Minority Report. The Minority Report recommended that there should be one on-licence to every 700 persons in the towns and one to every 400 in the country. The Government had followed that plan up to a certain point, but they had graduated the licences according to population much more closely than the Minority Report recommended. There was also this remarkable difference between the scheme of the Minority Report and that of the Government. The Minority Report said one on-licence to 400 persons in the country, but the Government had gone a long way beyond that general proposition, because they did not proceed in their reduction of licences merely upon the general population of the towns,

1723
but according to the population in the area, and that he would show had a very far-reaching effect. He would take, for instance, the city of Leeds. The Minority Report would have taken the whole city of Leeds, and would then have calculated the number of licences that Leeds ought to have according to population; but the present scheme divided Leeds up into areas, with a most extraordinary result, a result which he ventured to think the Government themselves never either imagined or anticipated. Taking the Government's Schedule, on the density of population in Leeds, the city would be entitled to 764 licences, but when they cut Leeds up into areas and took the density of population according to those areas, then Leeds actually only got 549 licences, so that there was a deficiency of 215 licences. He was illustrating this most important point to show that the Government evidently could not have gone closely into the matter, and therefore it would be absurd for them to say that they were wedded to this particular Schedule. His hon. friend the Member for Ayr Burghs, on 9th March, asked for a Return to be laid showing the number of on-licences to the population and acreage of the areas as defined in Clause 1, i.e., rural parishes, wards, and urban districts, and that Return was refused by the Government, who said it was impossible to obtain and tabulate the information without very great labour extending over a period which would prevent the issue of the Return in time to be of any value for the purpose of the discussion on the Bill. He thought, therefore, he was justified in saying that a mere rough approximation had been made and that the Bill could stand equally well if any other Schedule were adopted. One criticism which occurred to his mind was that the last census was to be taken. It was in 1901, or seven years ago, and in the ordinary course of human affairs it was certain there had been large fluctuations of population.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that now was not the time to discuss that point. It would arise on a later point.
MR. G. D. FABERsaid that generally it as a fallacious way of arriving at sobriety by going upon reduction of licences according to population. He thought drunkenness depended much more upon such things as climatic influence than density of population. He took for instance two areas, (a) and (b); both with the same population, but one with a sunny, dry climate and the other a damp, heavy climate. Surely in such a case the much more important factor was the influence of the climate on the habits of the people than mere population. Again, the occupation of the people in a particular area would have been a far better determining factor than density of population. He could well imagine the population in an area with interests and occupations calling their intelligence into play having a much smaller amount of drunkenness than an area where there was a dull, dead level of uninteresting occupation. He was not there speaking as a party politician. His desire was to arrive at the best possible plan. He considered that the Act of 1904 was far in advance of the plan adopted in this Bill. That Act gave every facility, every play to the licensing justices in Quarter Sessions. It did not try to constrain them by saying: "You shall only have so many licences according to population."
THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member was going beyond the Schedule at present under discussion.
MR. G. D. FABERsaid he quite understood, but he made those observations tentatively. He insisted that the Act of 1904, by giving elasticity and suppressing only redundant licences, went far more upon the true lines than the Government Bill. His hon. friend the Member for Rutland who would have moved the Amendment intended it no doubt largely in order to afford an opportunity of stating their objections to the Government Schedule. It was only in order to bring themselves within the ruling of the Chair that the Amendment had been put down in the form in which it appeared upon the Paper.
Amendment proposea—

"Schedule 1, page 24, leave out lines 5 to 12, inclusive, and insert,"—

Persons per acre.

Number of on-licences.

2 or less

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

1 to 300 persons or part of 300.

Exceeding 2 but not exceeding 25

.

.

1 to 400 persons or part of 400

Exceeding 25 but not exceeding 50

.

.

1 to 500 persons or part of 500.

Exceeding 50 but not exceeding 75

.

.

1 to 600 persons or part of 600.

Exceeding 75 but not exceeding 100

.

.

1 to 700 persons or part of 700.

Exceeding 100 but not exceeding 200

.

.

1 to 800 persons or part of 800.

Exceeding 200

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

1 to 900 persons or part of 900.

—(Mr. G. D. Faber.)

Question proposed—"That the first 400 stand part of the Schedule."
*THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL Yorkshire, Cleveland)said that the question which the hon. Member had raised was a very narrow one. Clause 1 had decided that licences should be reduced throughout the country according to a certain scheme, and the only issue raised by this Amendment was whether or not the scale proposed by the Government was a satisfactory one, and if not what better scale could be proposed. On one previous occasion, now many years ago, a Government had introduced a Bill to reduce the number of public houses according to population. That was Mr. Brace's Bill of 1871. When the Government were preparing the present Bill they consulted the scale of that day, but found that it was far too drastic. Mr. Bruce's scale proposed that in towns under 1,500 population there should be one public-house, in towns between 1,500 and 3,000 only two public-houses, and above that there should be one additional public-house for every 1,000 inhabitants. In the rural districts Mr. Bruce's scale proposed that a village with a smaller population than 900 should have only one public-house, between 900 and 1,200 inhabitants, two public-houses, and between 1,200 and 1,800, three public-houses. The
1726
larger villages were to have one additional public-house for every 600 additional inhabitants. That was an exceedingly sweeping scale. The Government proposed to found themselves on the recommendation of the minority Report of the Peel Commission, which recommended that the proportion should be one public-house for every 400 inhabitants in the country, and one to every 750 inhabitants in the towns. After investigation of all the elements of the case, they came to the conclusion that from a common-sense, reasonable view of the present circumstances of the country and its needs; that scale was based upon figures that were acceptable. But they felt, and he was sure the Committee would agree, that it was impossible to draw a hard-and-fast line between towns and the country. If they took areas which were under municipal urban institutions—that was to say, areas included in county boroughs, non-county boroughs, and urban districts, they would have a certain definition which might be applied to the term "town"; but it was not a satisfactory definition, for there were many places which were not urban districts which had urban characteristics, and many places which were technically urban but which had rural characteristics. Besides, if they took a definition they would be drawing a hard-and-fast line between areas with one public-house to every 400 inhabitants and areas with one

1727
public-house for every 750 inhabitants, and if any borough or urban district desired to extend its municipal boundaries the effect would be that the area brought in would lose nearly half of its licences. Consequently, it was very inadvisable to attempt to draw a rigid line between what was to be considered town and what was to be considered country. They had, therefore, to take a graduated scale of density of population. The scale in the Schedule provided that in any parish where the population was less than two per acre, the number of public-houses might be one for every 400 persons. That part of the scale covered all the rural districts. There were hardly any rural parishes which had a density of more than two per acre. Most of them had very much less. On the other hand, there were exceedingly few wards in towns which had a density of less than two per acre. He thought it might be laid down as a general principle, that if they drew a line of two per acre, they did roughly include the rural districts as being those parishes with less than that density; and if they went above that density they gradually approached more and more to urban conditions. Therefore, the scale provided one public-house in the country for every 400 persons. In the urban areas the scale varied from one to 500 up to one per 1,000—or a middle term of one for 750 according to the scale of the Peel Commission. That was the basis on which the scale had been calculated, and the Government saw no reason in the speech of the hon. Member for York for changing this statutory scale. The Amendment would permit an enlarged number of public-houses all through those different areas. It would increase by one-third the number of public-houses the Government plan would allow in the rural districts and increase in a gradually descending ratio the number which they allowed until in the great towns it was increased by one-tenth. The Government did not see any reason for changing their scale. No argument had been advanced for any alteration of the figures based on the proposals of the Peel Report.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he might be permitted
1728
on behalf for those who sat around him to offer congratulations to the Under-Secretary on the very worthy and well-earned distinction which had been conferred upon him. He was quite sure those who had been connected with the progress of that Bill and other measures had seen enough to know that the honour was fully justified. As to the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman had contended that the Government scale was the best that had been laid down. But what the Opposition wanted to know was upon what basis was that scale calculated? Had any accurate survey been made? The right hon. Gentleman had reminded them of the scale introduced many years ago by Mr. Bruce, afterwards Lord Aber-dare. He did not know that the right hon. Gentleman's allusion to that abortive Bill was at all a happy one with regard to the prospects of the present Bill, because the Government which introduced that Bill did not live very long after its production. He wished to emphasise a fresh point which had been raised by his hon. friend, viz., whether an accurate survey had been made to enable the Government to arrive at the figures in these schedules. The right hon. Gentleman said these figures were based partly upon the Minority Report of Lord Peel's Commission, but if he remembered aright no figures were given or suggestion made by the Minority Report. He understood that the members of the Commission thought that great elasticity should be allowed, and they did not make any representation on this point. At all events, they had no intention that the Government should recommend a ard-and-fast line drawn by Parliament, which should apply to all the districts of the country. The present Bill proposed that in the country they should have one house to 400 inhabitants, and in the towns one to 750. Those figures must have been arrived at by a very rough calculation, especially as regards the country districts. He left other hon. Gentlemen who had greater experience to speak for the town districts, but for himself, he thought that a calculation made like this might bear very hardly indeed on some country districts. The needs of those districts ought to be much more largely considered, according to the locality and according to

1729
the position in the county in which they were situated. It was quite possible that what might be necessary for a county like Durham or Northumberland, where the people were largely dependent upon mining, did not at all apply to, say, a county like Oxfordshire or Wiltshire. He thought, therefore, that greater elasticity ought to be given to those who were to carry out the Bill than the drastic regulations in the schedules. For these reasons they, on that side, were more inclined to support the more generous proposal which had been made by his hon. friend behind him than they were to say ditto to the Government scheme.
*MR. MONTAGUpointed out that the right hon. Gentleman said he desired more elasticity, but it was evident that the Amendment simply substituted one form of rigidity for another. It was perfectly true that a scale applicable to Oxfordshire or Wiltshire might not be applicable to other parts of the country, and it was precisely for that reason that elasticity had been provided by the Government measure in the modifications? within the powers of the justices, which were set out at the bottom of the Schedule.
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSwas sure that hon. Gentlemen on the back Benches on the Opposition side of the House would wish to join in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary on the honour which had been conferred upon him. He wished to be allowed in a few words to support the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman had just told the Committee that it would only increase the number of public-houses by one-tenth in towns and one-third in rural districts, and, therefore, it was not a very great thing that they asked for. The Government had based their calculations on the Peel Minority Report, which it was said gave one public-house to every 750 inhabitants in the towns and one to every 400 in the country, but he wished to remind the right hon. Gentleman that when that Report was made that Commission had not before them these small areas. That made all the difference. They were recommending that legislation should
1730
take place of which the whole town should be taken as the area, or the county or a large part of it as the area; they did not deal with the rural district. His hon. friend had pointed out the effect as regards Leeds, and might he draw attention to another case which, he thought, was more striking, viz., that of West Hartlepool. West Hartlepool had already eighty-five licensed premises, and the maximum in the Bill was much larger, 108. But if they separated West Hartlepool into wards, it would be found that for the purposes of this Bill they would have to take forty-four away or over 50 per cent. off the already small number. In his opinion, that showed that the argument of the Government that they relied upon the Peel Minority Report was not a sound one, for the reason that the Report was based on large areas and this Bill was based on small areas. He hoped for these reasons the Government would see their way to grant this small concession.
MR. BERTRAMsaid he desired to support the Amendment, though he would have preferred that it should have been in some different form. His objection to the Government figures was that the maximum number of houses allowed by the schedule was of a nature which must hit certain areas more hardly and severely than any other portions of the country. These were the sparsely populated areas, and his opinion was that the first Amendment to substitute 300 for 400 was certainly one that he could support. They had had an answer of some kind from the Under-Secretary for the Home Department, but he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had dealt with the great difficulty which some of them who represented areas where the population was extremely small had in supporting the schedule. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the alteration of this maximum from 400 to 300 would in the rural areas really mean an increase of one-third in the number of public-houses which would survive at the end of the twenty-one years period. That, he believed, was approximately correct, but what he wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman and the Government—though it would probably

1731
make no difference in their attitude—was that there were many areas where the population was so small that the words "two or less" to the acre were perfectly ridiculous. There was in his constituency one Petty Sessional Division of 15,600 acres with a population of 3,100 persons. This area came under the division of the schedule which related to one house to 400 persons, and to show the absurdity of the schedule as it applied to this area, in order to get into the third division, one in 600, the population of 3,100 would have to grow to 390,000, which showed that though the proposal of the mover of the Amendment was as rigid as the Government scheme, the Government plan was as bad as it could possibly be. They had been repeatedly told that approximately the number of licences in the country which would be reduced by the Bill, would be 33 per cent., but he would point out that under this schedule Hertfordshire, a portion of which he had the honour to represent, would be hit to something like 50 per cent. A closing of one-third of the public-houses in Hertfordshire would amount to a reduction of 500, but a reduction such as would take place under this schedule would mean a closing of 900 houses. To his mind, it was extremely unreasonable that they should apply a maximum scale of 1 in 400 population to areas where the districts were so small as they were in Hertfordshire, with which he was well acquainted. He would give one additional set of figures. There was a Petty Sessional Division which had at present a population of 7,800, and possessed eighty-three licensed houses and ten "off" licences, in an area of 25,000 acres. The number of public-houses as allowed by the schedule of 1 to 400 persons would be twenty, and under the Amendment suggested by the hon. Gentleman, if they had 1 to 300, the number would be twenty-six. That agreed substantially with the estimate of the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Home Department when he said that this Amendment would increase the number of houses by approximately one-third. He happened to know the particular area, and no one could suggest that an area of 25,000 acres was adequately served by twenty houses. It was an area intersected by a very large
1732
number of roads. Nearly all of the houses were isolated, and it was very unreasonable that the number should be reduced to twenty. He would also mention the cases of several parishes where the area was large and the population was small—parishes that every county Member must know of. A score of these parishes at present had, perhaps, three public houses to a population of 300 or 400 people, and that number was by no means in excess of the needs of the district. No one could for a moment pretend that three public houses to a population of 300 or 400 people could have, as between themselves, anything in the nature of what was called monopoly value. The mischief of this schedule, and he thought, the mischief of this Bill, if he might be permitted to say so, was that in many cases where there was at this moment free and open competition between the brewers who owned the houses and the tenants who occupied them, they would find by this Bill a monopoly value brought into existence, by the abolition of competition and they would produce by their own Bill a state of things to remove which was their excuse for bringing in the measure. He desired to point out to the Government that there was no sufficient elasticity in their schedule to meet the requirements of any sparsely populated area in the kingdom, and he hoped they might, on Report, have some alteration or Amendment of the schedule by the Government themselves, if they could not accept this Amendment. The maximum was too low for any sparsely populated area, and he thought the figures which he had quoted showed the immense gap which existed between the 300 and 400 limit and the 600 limit. In this one Petty Sessional Division it would be necessary to increase the population from 3,000 to 390,000, in order to bring it from the first to the third category, and this condition of things would apply to a great part of rural England.
MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid the hon. Gentleman opposite, although he had twitted his hon. friend with having advanced no argument against the scale, had himself given no explanation in favour of it. The hon. Member for the Hitchin division

1733
of Hertfordshire had, however, brought forward facts of a concrete kind which ought to convince anyone with an open mind. He quite agreed that this Amendment made very little difference. It diminished the grievance, and that was all that could be said about it. But he had great doubts about voting for it, because to give a vote was to assume an improvement, and the condition under this Amendment would be only slightly less onerous than that contained in the Government Schedule. He could quite understand the right hon. Member for the Spen Valley and the hon. Member for the Appleby Division welcoming this Schedule. They were for prohibition, and this was the nearest approach to prohibition that could be attained. In many cases it would be absolute prohibition. He had been at the trouble of working out the statute acres into square miles, and if this question was looked at in square miles hon. Members would be stunned at the disabilities and hardships that were being put on the agricultural labourers, who were, as a class, sober men. At the present time there were public-houses and inns dotted about the parishes to which they might go. However sparsely-populated the place, there was an inn, a small public-house to which they might go and have their glass of beer and enjoy themselves. Those were to be taken away from them. In all cases they were to be restricted, and in some cases taken away. Why was this extraordinary proposal to be forced upon the rural population? In his own neighbourhood there was a parish containing 50,000 acres and a population of 1,844 souls. There was in that parish one person to twenty-seven acres. Yet under this Schedule those 1,844 people would have but five public-houses. Five public-houses scattered over seventy-eight square miles of territory. The population scattered over this vast area had now facilities for having their glass of beer, but those facilities were to be reduced to five public-houses. How could the right hon. Gentleman justify such a proposal? What had these people done that the Government should take away from them one of the few enjoyments they had? Everyone knew that they could go through the country and pass mile after mile of land and never see a house. If they took the
1734
rural districts of England and Wales and turned the statute acres into square miles they would find that in forty-two of the counties there were only 200 people to the square mile. Instead of there being two persons to the acre in some districts there were only 100 to the square mile. In five districts there were only fifty to the square mile. Why should the men in these districts be made to walk two, three, and sometimes more miles in order to get a glass of beer? What about the winter and bad weather? He hoped that as now they would be always able to go at once to a comfortable place and spend an hour after their hard day's work. In this case the condition was so hard that it was prohibitive. What was the object of a wealthy House of Commons taking this step towards this class, which ought to be the object of its special care instead of being worried to death in this way? He was quite sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite who represented rural districts did not want to harass and torment their constituents. They, like the Government, did not know what they were doing. What necessity was there for treating sober men in this way? In forty-two counties instead of there being two people to one acre there were six-and-a-half acres to two people; in seventy-three counties there were thirteen acres to two people, and in three counties there were twenty-six acres to two people. The fact was that the Government had never worked this out. They had simply taken the recommendations of the Minority Report of the Peel Commission. The people who kepi these small public-houses which were dotted about the country were most worthy people. The hon. Gentleman laughed. Why? He had read that at the beginning of the last century when the people entered the dimly-lighted theatre they saw written up: "People are requested not to laugh, for this is a tragedy." They were rather enacting a tragedy now, and an hon. Member was laughing at it. These worthy people had embarked their little all in these small public-houses, which were studded about these sparsely populated parishes. Had there been any accurate survey by the Government before they produced this Bill? Of course, there had not; no supporter of the Bill would say there had.

1735
His hon. friend behind him had put down an Amendment which would have met the case, namely, that the apportionment should be left to the justices who knew the local requirements; but the Government had expected that and had fallen back on this hard and fast line. He felt very indignant about this senseless imposition, this direct persecution, for it was nothing else, which was to be inflicted on a class of people who ought to be an object of the Government's care and consideration instead of their animosity. He wanted hon. Members opposite who represented counties to justify and give reasons for this proposal; he wanted someone on the Government Bench to deny that these labourers would not have in many cases to walk long distances, and frequently in bad weather, if they wanted refreshment after their day's labour. If they admitted that to be true, then he wished them to give some reason for their action.
*MR. LEIF JONESsaid it was not the first time the right hon. Gentleman had drawn a dreary picture of the desolation that would be seen in the country districts owing to the reduction of licences. The right hon. Gentleman had remarked that an hon. Member laughed at a "tragedy." There was a tragedy, but not of the kind the right hon. Gentleman thought. He had deservedly gained a great name for himself for the ideals he had held out in old days before the agricultural community, but now he had put before them that the agricultural labourer by this Bill would be deprived of his sole enjoyment, the public-house. Over and over again the right hon. Gentleman had put that picture before the House.
MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I said that the enjoyment of the public-house was a legitimate enjoyment for the working classes, and ought not to be taken away from them.
*MR. LEIF JONES: I wish the right hon. Gentleman would always confine himself to that sobriety of statement. It is in my recollection that he said "the only enjoyment."
MR. JESSE COLLINGS: One of their few enjoyments.
*MR. LEIF JONEScontinuing, said the right hon. Gentleman had been good enough to remark that he would welcome the schedule of the Bill as a prohibitionist, but he would certainly not give his vote for the schedule as a prohibitionist, for there was nothing in the schedule which would produce prohibition. The schedule was so contrived that the enjoyment of a public-house would be within easy reach—despite of what the right hon. Gentleman had said—of practically every labourer in the country. If, therefore, he welcomed the schedule, it was not in the least as a prohibitionist. He welcomed it as one of the county Members to whom the right hon. Gentleman had appealed The great majority of county Members were supporting this Bill, and whatever contempt the right hon. Gentleman might feel for such county Members, at any rate, they were entitled to speak for their constituents so long as they represented them. He could assure the right hon. Member for the Bordesley Division that in the view of this Bill which he had put before the House, he had the strong support of his constituents, a support not by any means confined to the Party which supported him at the time of the election. He could show the right hon. Gentleman communications, if he cared to look at them, from Conservatives in his constituency, thanking him for his work on the Bill and thanking the Government for having introduced it. They were told that the schedule was unsatisfactory on account of its rigidity, but he considered that the criticism was ill-founded, and that the Government, if they were to carry out a reduction at all, could scarcely do so with less rigidity. Not only did the schedule provide carefully for gradation of population, which in itself was a qualification of the rigidity of any scale, but there were modifications which provided that it should not be applied at all if there were only two houses in a parish. In paragraph 2 it might be noticed that another modification was allowed—
"If in the circumstances of the case it is expedient, owing to the isolated position of any licensed premises, etc."

1737
So far from being rigid therefore, the scale was framed with as much elasticity as was possible in carrying out a scheme of universal reduction. That had been recognised on the other side, for the Amendment proposed another rigid scale of exactly the same character as that in the Bill, with the exception that the figures were slightly different. [An HON. MEMBER: You cannot help it.] Precisely, they could not help it where they had universal reduction all over the country. He did not see how they could consistently have more elasticity than the Government had introduced. The schedule gave a good deal more elasticity than the Peel Minority Report recommended. That Report recommended one to 400 in country districts, and one to 750 in towns. Hon. Members said that one to 400 was an insufficient provision. But supposing they were starting de novo, think what it meant. Taking 400, it would mean that each public-house would supply eighty families. The right hon. Gentleman had drawn a dismal picture of 1,800 people scattered over a number of square miles.
MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Seventy-six square miles.
MR. LEIF JONESsaid this meant that there was one public-house for every 360 people—men, women and children. The temperance principles he advocated had, to some extent, prevailed in the parishes of the country, so that a considerable number of each 360 people did not want a public-house at all. Three-fifths of the 360 were children, so that they had 140 adults, men and women for each of their five licensed houses. The hon. Member for Sheffield had remarked that the scale of reduction laid down in the Peel Minority Report did not contemplate the small areas which the Bill now included. He did not know why the hon. Member said that. The Commissioners had made their recommendation and did not give a reason. But if they turned to the other part of the Report they would find a great deal to show that they had in their minds small areas. They gave some evidence, which had been forgotten in the course of this debate, as to why they made this recommendation. The Commissioners in their
1738
Report referred to Sheffield, which they said compared unfavourably with other large towns in Yorkshire, the proportion in that city being one licensed house to every forty families. They pointed out that there would have to be a very large reduction to bring the level down to that of Leeds and other Yorkshire towns.
MR. YOUNGER: Is that an extract from the evidence of a witness.
MR. LEIF JONESsaid it was an extract from the Report, p. 91. It referred to one of the witnesses, but it was a statement by the Commissioners. The Commissioners also dealt with the case of Birmingham, where they were enormously in excess of any possible requirements of the population. He was quoting this to show that the Commissioners had in mind the excess in particular areas in towns. They quoted one case of seventy-five licences in one parish, and they took the case of Hull. They said—
"In some towns there is great congestion, as in the old parts of Hull, where, according to the clerk to the borough justices, at least one-half are not required. These, though unprofitable, are maintained in the hope of compensation or of surrender for new licences elsewhere."
They certainly had in mind the small areas which the Government had taken rather than the large areas to which the hon. Member for Sheffield thought they referred. The very schedule taken by the Government was more or lesssuggested by the Peel Commissioners, although they did not actually recommend it. The Commissioners who signed the Minority Report based their recommendation on abundant evidence before them, and the Government had followed the Minority Report in. their scheme, and though it would be very easy to show that the reduction was very insufficient in a great many cases, yet considering that they were making a universal reduction, hon. Members opposite, he thought, might join in congratulating the Government on, within the limit of their reduction, having given so much elasticity to their rule. He supported the Government schedule because it was the best he could get, but if he were to put down. Amendments to it, it would

1739
be to make very many fewer houses, because, after all was said and done, there would be far too many houses left, especially in the town areas, for the possible requirements of the population.
MR. YOUNGERsaid he was not in any way concerned to take notice of the last few words of his hon. friend opposite on the subject of reductions, because they all knew exactly what his views were. But he wished to say something about his remarks as to the Report of the minority of the Royal Commission. He remembered the map of Birmingham which was before the Commission. It was more like a scarlet-fever patient than anything else. It was dotted all over with red, blue, and yellow spots, denoting the different classes of licensed houses to which each of the spots referred, and he could recollect that some of the areas in Birmingham were very congested, just as they were in some other cities. But it was also borne in upon the Commission that while very serious congestion existed in those areas it was to some extent created by a desire to keep them together to facilitate police supervision. Captain Nott-Bower gave evidence that in the case of Liverpool it was thought desirable to have the houses in a particular district and if possible in a particular street. The reason for the percentage of population recommended for the towns arose from the fact that the licences were congested in small areas, and that, if the small areas had been taken before the recommendation which was ultimately made, far too few public-houses would have been left. The hon. Member had tried to argue that if they had these areas in their mind they would have specifically said so. They did it, and the reason was that they believed that a certain number of licences were wanted in each of these places; they therefore took a town and a rural area standing by itself, and left the local justices to distribute the licences as they thought best for the convenience of the inhabitants.
MR. LEIF JONES: I can find nothing in the Report embodying that view.
MR. YOUNGERsaid he was not saying so. He was discussing the evi-
1740
dence and the considerations present in the minds of the Commission when dealing with the Report. The hon. Member had tried to argue from the fact that the Commissioners produced certain extracts from the evidence of witnesses and maps dealing with areas that, therefore, similar areas as defined in the Bill were in their minds and not, as he believed, the proportion of licences to population in a particular town.
MR. LEIF JONES: But they say so themselves on page 92 of the Minority Report—
"The ratio of licences to population may be low for the whole district, while some parts of it are very much over-licensed, so that the facts are even worse than the figures, though these are bad enough."
That definitely shows they had the small areas in their mind.
MR. YOUNGERsaid it was for that very reason that they took a general average. They knew it would reduce the licences by far too many if they did anything else than what they did in the Report. There was one ward in Birmingham where there were 158 licences. Under this Schedule they would have to be reduced by 141, leaving only 17.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Subject to the modifications.
MR. YOUNGERsaid they could not be isolated. There was no exception as far as he could see in a case of that kind.
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Subsection (3).
MR. YOUNGERsaid subsection (3) only referred to such cases as the City of London, where there was a very large day population and no large night population.
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The central ward of any town to which people flock in the course of the day, and in which licensed houses are required not merely for the wants of the night population.
MR. YOUNGERsaid he understood that, but some of these areas did not

1741
possess that qualification at all. Many areas which were densely populated could not be said to have a different population at night. That was not provided for in the Schedule. That was its weakness. An area in which there were 1,000 people in the East End of London was much more likely to use public-houses than a similar area in the West End, but that was not provided for in the Bill unless there was a shifting population which did not remain there at night. He supported the Amendment, not because he agreed with it, but because it was a little better than the Schedule. Any scale of this kind was thoroughly bad and would not work satisfactorily, but they had no assistance from the Government in finding out how bad it would be in many places, because they had not taken the trouble to find out, and although they said 33 per cent. of the licences would be taken away, they could not tell whether it would be 33 per cent., 43 per cent., or 53 per cent. He dared say it would be 60 per cent. in some cases. In the ward in Birmingham which he had mentioned it would be nearly 100 per cent. He did not think the recommendation of the Minority Report was based upon any special evidence. It was a perfectly arbitrary proposal to say there should be one public-house to 400 in rural districts, and one to 750 in towns. Perhaps the rt. hon. Member for Spen Valley could say where it was initiated. Probably the most extreme witnesses were taken and those who were not so extreme, and an average was struck. He agreed that the maximum in this case was too low. He thought the hon. Member opposite had been a little too hard on the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley, who had carefully safeguarded himself in what he said about the extreme inconvenience and hardship involved in country people being deprived of facilities for perfectly innocent and harmless enjoyment. This was only one other instance of the manner in which the Bill had been prepared. It had never been properly thought out. It was a thing of shreds and patches, and this was a very bad and ugly patch. He agreed that in many districts licences wanted to be reduced. The 1904 Act provided for that in a
1742
proper way, and left the local justices to say what was necessary in that respect, and he could wish the Bill had done the same thing. He was certain that this Schedule would in many cases create great hardships, and just because the Amendment to some extent minimised that hardship he should support it, though he did not think it was in the least degree satisfactory as it stood.
MR. BARNAKDsaid the 1898 Royal Commission had been quoted. From that time Birmingham had itself done a great deal to bring about the alteration. More than once during the last two or three months he had put questions to the Home Secretary, and he had been unable to state whether the idea conveyed by the Prime Minister that licences would be reduced from 90,000 to 65,000 was correct or not. He had been led to the conclusion that that broad calculation was probably very much off the mark. He believed that in certain districts the reduction would be far in excess of the figure suggested by the Prime Minister, and in a great many other districts it would be found that no reduction was required. When the Government laid before Parliament a great Bill affecting huge commercial interests, they ought to be able to show what changes it would bring about. It was patent to everyone that in many increasing districts like those in the East End of London the licences were far in excess of what this Schedule allowed. The Government scheme would take away more licences than the totals put before the House by the supporters of the Bill. Unfortunately, they had had very little chance of discussing the Bill, and whenever he had ventured to speak to the Under-Secretary of State, the right hon. Gentleman had never troubled to reply to him, probably because he had had enough to do replying to those of his own calibre on the front Opposition bench. He had in his possession the figures for the principal towns in his own county where the reduction under this Schedule would be 68 per cent. In Cambridgeshire the reduction would be 69 per cent.; and, taking the twelve largest villages in the district with which he was connected, the reduction would

1743
be 71 per cent. It was no good wasting time thinking the Government would go away from the general principles of their measure, and, although he disliked this Schedule, he was not going to discuss it at length. The right hon. Gentleman had just drawn attention to these modifications, but they were all subject to the approval of the Commissioners. Under those circumstances they had a right to ask the Government why some instructions should not be given to the Commissioners. When the justices sent any modifications along, and arrived at certain conclusions, they would all be subject to the arbitrary control of three Commissioners sitting in London. If the justices were to be subjected, in regard to some of their arrangements, to the order of the Secretary of State, surely the Commissioners should be treated in the same way. He would like to hear a definite statement as to what the Commissioners were to do. It would be a great relief to know exactly what they were doing, and, although one was always prepared to take a good deal on trust there ought to be something intelligible as to what was meant by these modifications. He thought the Government ought to give them a lead in this matter.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid the hon. Member had made no unreasonable demand, but it was one which it was impossible for the Government to concede. The hon. Member had asked for something of an intelligible kind, but there was nothing of that nature in this Bill or in the arguments which had been used in support of it. In all cases of this kind where the Schedules formed the operative part of the Bill it was the invariable practice for the Government responsible to produce information applying the Schedules to certain areas and showing what was likely to be the effect of the operation of the Bill in the country generally. In this case they had no such information, and the Government dared not produce it, because it would show at once the unstable foundation upon which these proposals were based. Had the Committee been placed in possession of that information the hon. Member for the Appleby Division would never have ventured to talk about the rural districts
1744
in the way he had done. The hon. Member had compared a parish with a village, and had asserted that one public-house to seventy adults ought to be enough for any village. As a rule a country village consisted of its centre part and one or two separated hamlets, and altogether there would probably be three or four public-houses in that village. Did the Government mean by this Schedule, taken in conjunction with the powers already conferred under this Bill, that the power to deal with exceptional cases was to become the rule in every case? If so, what became of all the arguments to the effect that the Bill was going to reduce public-houses enormously? An hon. Member opposite had said that the great mass of county Members opposite were supporting the Bill. That was quite true, and they were doing so although a great many of them were absent while the question was being discussed. It was true also that they came trooping into the lobby in support of the Government, but he doubted whether they were really representing the views of their constituents by supporting such proposals as those they were now discussing. The hon. Member for Appleby was quite wrong when he tried to cast ridicule upon the views of his right hon. friend the Member for the Bordesley division, for he had never suggested that there was no other method of enjoyment for the men living in the villages. Beyond digging in their gardens he did not know what opportunities the residents in villages had for recreation and rest except in the public-houses. He denied that that was an insult to working men whose morality and virtue were as high as those of anybody in the House or in the country. The working men in villages did not possess reading and recreation rooms, and they could only get reasonable refreshment in public-houses. He denied that under this Bill those men would have a public-house within easy reach. If that were so, then the whole of the Schedule, and particularly that part dealing with reduction, went for nought; it would be unworkable and neither the magistrates nor the Commissioners would be able to carry it out. The Under-Secretary had told the Committee that he rested himself upon the Minority

1745
Report of the Peel Commission, and that they had adhered to the nearest precedent to be found, namely, the proposals of Mr. Bruce. The Bruce proposals swept away the Government responsible for them, and he hoped that the new proposals of the Government would have precisely the same effect. That was the only reason why he should be inclined to vote for this Schedule in any shape or form. He believed that that was the effect it would have because of its gross injustice. The hon. Member for Appleby had stated that they could not frame a Schedule which would be more elastic than that proposed by the Government, and he referred to the Report of the Peel Commission. It was on the difference between the Report of the Peel Commission and the proposal of the Government that the Opposition founded their objection to the Schedule, namely, the selection of the area. If there had been given to those who were to carry out this measure the fullest possible power to apply it according to the character and conditions of each area, then he would not have had so much complaint to make. The complaint he made was that the Government laid down a rigid rule and applied it to all parts of the country, notwithstanding that they differed entirely in their characteristics. It was in regard to the selection of the area that the Government had erred more seriously than in other parts of the Bill. As to whether the Amendment was better than the Schedule he had nothing to say. He should vote for the Amendment not because he liked it, but because it gave an opportunity for saying that there should be something less rigid than the Government proposal. He would have voted for an Amendment to destroy the whole of the Government Schedule and to allow the local justices to take such action as they thought necessary. He did not think that would be practicable for the reasons he had stated, but he would support the Amendment as a protest against the Government proposal which he believed was unjust and hastily conceived. The Government had not produced a tittle of evidence in support of the proposal.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELexpressed his sincere thanks to hon. Gentlemen
1746
who had spoken for the complimentary references they had been good enough to make concerning himself. The criticism of the Schedule had proceeded on two lines. It had been said that the Government ought to have laid on the Table of the House tables showing the effect of the mathematical scales on the various parts of the country, and giving information as to the number of licences that would be suppressed. It had been said also that they ought not to have established any rigid mathematical scale at all, but that they ought to have left considerable elasticity in the hands of the justices. Their reply to the second criticism answered the first It was because the Government had left a wide latitude in the hands of the justices that it was impossible for them to lay on the Table a mathematical statement showing the precise effect of the scale in every rural parish or urban area. That would have been grossly misleading, because it would not show the effect of the Bill; it would be grossly misleading because it would not take into account the many modifications that would be made in the application of the Bill to suit particular circumstances. Hon. Members who had criticised the Schedule had not paid sufficient attention to the paragraphs headed "Modifications." The right hon. Member for the Bordesley Division had said that this scale would mean total prohibition in some cases.
MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Practically. What I said was that the Government would not deny that men in many cases would have to walk long distances to get a glass of beer, and having to do that, in the winter time in bad weather would amount to prohibition.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELstated that with regard to prohibition under no circumstances would the compulsory reduction of licences under the statutory scale in any place be below two. If the right hon. Gentleman would attach, weight to the words that followed, he would see that what he had pictured could not occur. The words were—
"Where the strict application of the scale appears in the special circumstances of the case

1747
to be inexpedient owing to the isolated position of any licensed premises in the parish or area"
—precisely this case—
"Or to the fact that the premises or any of them are constructed, fitted and intended to be used in good faith for any purpose to which the holding of an on-licence is merely auxiliary—"
then the justices had power to modify.
MR. BARNARD: Subject to the sanction of the Commission.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELasked if any Member of the Committee had any reason to suppose that the Commission would veto any such proposal on the part of the licensing justices. Did any hon. or right hon. Gentleman think that the three Commissioners would be men chosen especially for their wrong-headedness? Then, indeed, there would be a wrong administration of the A ct. But even although they were "a paid trio sitting in London," would they not carry out the Act in the spirit in which it was intended? Again, there was the case mentioned in the course of the discussion of the central wards of a town containing a large number of licensed houses which would be deprived of an excessive proportion of these houses if the scale were strictly applied That was covered by two modifications in the schedule. The first was that modifications might be made where any of the premises were constructed, fitted, and intended to be used in good faith for any purpose to which the holding of an on-licence was merely auxiliary. That was a form of words which would cover eating houses, refreshment rooms, hotels, railway refreshment rooms, and so on, and all of these could be exempted by the justices from the operation of the scale, and that would cover a great many cases in the central quarters of the great towns. Paragraph 3 provided that—
"Where it appears that the population of any place being a rural parish or urban area or part of a rural parish or urban area, as shown by the Census, does not represent the population for whom on-licences may be required by reason of the resort thereto of a larger number of persona than that shown in the Census during special seasons of the year or special times of the day, or for any other reason—"
modifications could again be made. These were very wide words. That modification covered the case of the City of London or the business quarters
1748
of towns, or market towns where a considerable number of people came from outside. It covered all watering-places, and places like Epping Forest, where the mere census population did not faithfully represent the number for whom the licensed houses might be required to cater. In all these cases the justices would make the necessary modifications in the scale. The hon. Member for Kidderminster had said that all the proposals were subject to the veto of the Commissioners sitting in London. That was so, and the reason why that power was given to the Commissioners was twofold. In the first place, it was in order that they might compare the scheme from one district with the scheme proposed for an adjoining district so that they should not be prepared in watertight compartments, and in order to enable the Commissioners to point out to the licensing justices in one district that the licensing justices in a neighbouring district were or were not suppressing a certain house and that it might be advisable not to suppress or to suppress a particular house near their border, It was to enable the Commissioners to make representations to the licensing justices in order to secure as far as possible the harmonious interworking of the schemes with one another; and, secondly, in order to see that in no case the justices departed from what were the clearly expressed intentions of Parliament either in one direction or the other. But it was not contemplated, and it would not occur, that the Commissioners should use their powers of arbitrarily vetoing the proposals of the justices merely to cause the maximum of inconvenience.
MR. JESSE COLLINGS: They can do it.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid they could. The Home Secretary might, no doubt, upset the criminal jurisdiction in this country by exercising his power of discharging prisoners convicted in any Court, but such a thing did not occur. The Railway Commission might destroy, if its judgments were perverse, the whole railway organisation of the country, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners might bring to an end the

1749
Established Church. They might get any number of cases where by perversity and folly on the part of Commissioners great evil might follow.
MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked why, if that was the intention of the Government, they did not accept the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham, which would have placed the regulations in the hands of the local magistrates who knew the conditions.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that it was the local magistrates who knew the conditions, and not the Licensing Commission, who would select the houses that were to be discontinued, and the only power placed in the hands of the Licensing Commission was the power of oversight. No more than that. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that if the modifications were to be operative, what was the good of the Government Schedule? It was intended that these modifications should be applied in every proper case. The number of licences were never to be reduced below two and that applied universally in every parish; but though that and the other modifications could, should and would be applied, he had no doubt in all proper cases, it did not follow that on that ground the whole of the schedule was useless and inoperative. At the present time there were places where there was gross congestion and where little or nothing was being done by the local justices to reduce the licences under the Act of 1904.
MR. BARNARDsaid that the point he was raising was this: the Secretary of State might make rules of procedure for the licensing justices and why should he not extend that to the Licensing Commission?
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he did not think that that was necessary. The Licensing Commission might make their own rules of procedure. That, however, was a minor point and did not arise on this particular Schedule. He came to the point from which he started. The fact that all these modifications could and would be made rendered it impossible to put on the Table of the
1750
House an exact statement as desired by the right hon. Gentleman. Since modifications would be made, it was impossible to say even within two or three thousand how many licensed houses would be suppressed. The Government had given the best estimate which could be formed. One other separate point had been raised. He had made a remark to the effect that this scale was based in general upon the recommendation of the Peel Commission Report. That had been challenged on the ground that they were taking the area of the ward, whereas the Peel Commission took the area of the town. If they took the area of the whole town, it was said, for one licence to every 750 inhabitants they would have a larger number of licences than if they took one house for every 750 inhabitants in the ward. But the Peel Commission said nothing about taking the area of the town. What they said was that the statutory maximum should be fixed not to exceed one licensed house to every 750 inhabitants in the town and to every 400 in the country. That meant that there should be a population of 750 persons in the town for each house. He did not think that they would arrive at that result if they took the whole area of the town and allowed a great congestion of houses in one part of the town where there might be one licensed house for every 200 inhabitants, because in another ward, inhabited by an entirely different class of people, there might be only a small number of houses. The average might not be more than one house to every 750 inhabitants, but although they might be conforming to the letter of the recommendation of the Peel Commission they would not be conforming to its spirit. That was the reason why the small area had been taken. He hardly thought it would be in order to discuss in detail that particular question upon this Schedule, because it had been decided by the Committee that the small areas should be the ones adopted for this purpose. In these circumstances he asked the Committee to adhere to the Schedule as it now stood.
*MR. CAVEsaid it was important to remember that

1751
under the Bill as it stood the amount of compensation levy for Purposes of statutory reduction was absolutely unlimited. His opinion was that the number of premises to be suppressed under the Schedule was not 30,000, but a very much larger number. It might be that the Government estimate of 30,000 would prove wrong and the levy too small, so that the levy on existing houses would be much larger than the Government reckoned. He would give a few figures from the larger towns. On this point the Committee had had no help from the Government, although the Government were asked to give the information as far back as March last. The answer then was that there was no time to get it. What the Government had not found time to do with all their resources, had been done in many cases by private effort. He himself had got figures for nearly all the large towns and cities, and he believed the estimated reduction of 33 per cent. was wholly erroneous. If they took London as a whole the number of houses allowed for the population would be 5,941. If they took it ward by ward, not borough by borough, the number allowed was 4,562, or about 1,400 less than the scale number for the whole. He agreed, however, that so far as London was concerned, 33 per cent. was not very far wrong. In Birmingham the reduction under the scale was from 1 365 to 629—a reduction of more than 50 per cent.; in Bradford it was from 581 to 368, a good deal more than 33 per cent.; in. Liverpool, out of 1,844, the number to be suppressed was 1,016,—a good deal more than 50 per cent., nearly 60 per cent.; in Hull the present total was 433, of which 248 were to be refused, again very much more than 50 per cent.; in Portsmouth the number was 753, which under the scale would be reduced by 430, again very much more than 50 per cent.; in Norwich there were at present 544 houses which under the scale would be reduced by 351, leaving 193; in West Hartlepool the present number was 85 which would be reduced by 44, again nearly 50 per cent., not withstanding the fact that there, taking the borough as a whole,
1752
the number of houses was less than that which would be allowed under the scale. With the exception of London there was no place he knew of where the estimate of 33 per cent. would be right.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not altogether accept all these figures. I think the hon. Member is wrong as regards Bradford and possibly one or two others.
*MR. CAVE: Then the Government had some figures which they had not given to the Committee. He really thought the Committee should have whatever material was in the possession of the Government, and ought not to be left to estimates which might be right or wrong. These estimates had been very carefully framed and he believed in most cases they were right. His point was that 33 per cent., or a reduction of 30,000 houses was not a reliable estimate. The number might reach 40,000. In this respect as in others, the Bill had not been carefully or fully thought out and although he was not satisfied with the amended Schedule, still it was an improvement on the Bill as drawn, and he would vote for the Amendment.
MR. JAMES HOPEsaid he should like to join in the congratulations which had been expressed to the right hon. Gentleman opposite in regard to the honour which had been conferred upon him, and, after the way in which he and the Solicitor-General had conducted this Bill, he only wished to say that with their high moral and intellectual qualities he was sorry that they had so troublesome a task before them. He thought that this debate had been conducted under great difficulties. They had been told by the Chairman that they could not discuss the general question of the operation of the scheme, as that had been decided on Clause 1. It might have been decided but it was not discussed. In Clause 1 they found these words—
"Licensing justices shall in accordance with this Act reduce the number of on-licences in their district."
That was all that was discussed, and the question which would have come

1753
later in that clause as to whether they should have a Schedule or not was never discussed. Now that they came to the Schedule, however, they were told that the matter was decided on Clause 1, and the only thing they could discuss was the exact proportion and terms of the Schedule. If they had an open chance for discussion there was no doubt that all of them would contend, not that 300 was better than 400, or 200 better than 500, but that the matter should be left to the discretion of the justices, and that no Schedule should be insisted upon at all. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to his hon. and learned friend the Member for Kingston, spoke of the Bradford figures as not being accurate, and it appeared from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that certain estimates had been obtained by the Government, at least with regard to large towns. What he would like to ask him was this. Would he not produce those estimates, showing at any rate, what the effect of this Bill would be supposing the modifications Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the Schedule were not applied? If he would do that, it would only be a matter of clerks' work and calculation and they would have some basis on which to go. He would really ask him whether before this debate came to an end, he would not give those figures of how the scheme would work, if the suggested modifications were not in the Bill. Then he would ask another question, which had not been alluded to before the hon. Member for Kingston spoke of it at the end of his speech. How were the Government sure that on the working of their scheme there would be enough money from the compensation levy at the present rate or even at the maximum rates? Could they say, or had they any data to go upon, whether there would be enough money to bring about this scheme of reduction without going beyond the maximum rates which at present existed? Because when they were disposing of an earlier clause—Clause 12, he thought—they were told that there was some possible chance that the maximum rates would be exceeded, but that the Government did not contemplate it, except just once in a way and therefore they would not put the word "maximum" in. Would
1754
those rates be exceeded? He presumed the Government had made some calculation, and if they had would they tell them what it was? If they would not how could they act upon any scale or Schedule such as this? He opposed the Schedule and supported the modification of 300, on the ground of its giving larger power to the licensing justices. Some hon. Members talked as if there was both a maximum and a minimum scale, but they must remember that under Clause 4 there was a large power of reduction. He put it to the Government whether it would not be better to have a much freer scale, because the optional reduction could be applied afterwards. On these grounds he sincerely hoped the Amendment would be passed, and before the debate came to an end he hoped an answer would be given to the two questions which he had put.
*MR. GRETTONsaid that as the Amendment which was being discussed appeared upon the Paper in his name, he thought he owed some explanation to the Committee as to why he adopted a particular scale. It was in order to find an alternative scale to that engrafted on the Bill in Clause 1 upon which clause the principle of a scale was not discussed that he put down this scale upon the Paper, because it afforded more elasticity to the justices than the more rigid scale of the Government. He did not, however, approve of any scale whatever, but in order to give the justices a greater discretion he proposed one giving them greater elbow-room and more power. The Committee would remember that the scale which the Government proposed was a maximum one, subject to modifications, and in the other clauses of the Bill there was given to the justices power to reduce below the maximum scale which the Government proposed, low as that scale was. In the somewhat remarkable speech which had just been made on behalf of the Government, he noticed that the Under-Secretary made practically no attempt to justify the Government scale. He spoke moreeasily, confidently, and fluently when he was dilating upon the excellent working of the modifications. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman based

1755
the Government case not upon the scale but upon the modifications. It had been made abundantly clear in the course of the debate that the Government themselves did not know how their scale was going to work. They had not formed any estimate to lay before the House and the country; although they had been pressed to do so over and over again, they were evidently afraid to produce any information which they had in their possession, because it would not support their case. The right hon. Gentleman had challenged his hon. and learned friend's figures with regard to Bradford. He himself also had some information about Bradford. The total number of licences appeared to be at present 581. The number to be reduced by wards under this scale would be 213. There were, in all, twenty-one wards in Bradford, but there were nine wards that had licences considerably below the numbers in the scale. In these nine wards there were 140 licences licking according to the Government scale. How did the Government propose to deal with a case like that? For fourteen years, under the earlier clauses of the Bill, the justices had no discretion to increase licences, and yet according to the scale which the Government put into the Bill this increase was necessary. A similar position existed in a large number of the cities with regard, to which he had information. The Government themselves had not yet been able to produce any justification for this scale, and did not know how it would work out either financially or ii the reduction of licences. They said the matter was within the discretion of the justices, who might make exceptions as the circumstances of the case demanded. But they forgot that the justices were to be overruled by the Commissioners, who had enormous powers given to them under the Bill. The only answer made to that was that the Commissioners would administer the Bill in the spirit in which it was drawn, and they would not be wrong-headed. They on that side, however, objected to the spirit of the Bill as being wrong-headed, and if the Commissioners administered it in the spirit in which it was prepared, they must administer it in a wrong-headed manner. He did not like his own Amendment, but,
1756
of course, it was better than the Government proposal. If he had been free to debate this question on the principle he would, have put down a different Amendment, but owing to the way their debates were trammelled and their discussion was hampered, according to the decision which the Chairman was obliged to give under the condition; of the closure Resolution, they were not allowed to express their opinions freely. As he had put down the Amendment he should certainly vote for it if the question went to a division, because it was better than the Government scale.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the hon. Member for Sheffield had made a touching appeal to the Under-Secretary to produce the figures which he evidently had in his possession, dealing with the reduction of licences and levy, and any calculations he might have made in regard to the modifications put in at the end of the Schedule. He could assure his hon. friend that, however eloquent his appeal might be, it would have no effect upon the Government bench, for the simple reason that, in his opinion, they were afraid to show the figures to the country, because if they did, even the fanatical temperance party behind them would not dare to vote for such a wholesale reduction as those figures showed. When the right hon. Gentleman's attention was drawn to the fact that the licensing justices were not instructed but only given power, the right hon. Gentleman gave two defences. His first defence was a eulogy of the justices. He compared them to the Railway Commissioners, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and all the great authorities which ruled and governed this kingdom. Might he ask why he had been so suddenly converted, and why he would not accept the Amendment of an hon. Member which would have given discretion to these justices? Another defence was that under the 1904 Act the justices could reduce the numbers in just the same way as they could now. Might he point out that there was a difference? Under this Act a plan was laid down by which Parliament instructed the licensing justices to prepare a scheme, and this plan required that a large reduction should be

1757
made. There was nothing of that sort in the 1904 Act. The licensing justices, by the very nature of the circumstances, must be bound to pay some regard to the wishes of Parliament. Under these circumstances they must make a great reduction in the number of licences. But a safeguard which was in the Act of 1904, was omitted from this Bill. Under the Act of 1904, though the compensation was larger, the levy was limited; but under this Bill, although the compensation was smaller, the levy was unlimited. He had listened to the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite upon this Amendment. The hon. Member for West Cambridgeshire and the hon. Member for the Appleby division had spoken in favour of the Schedule, the hon. Member for the Hitchin division had spoken against it, and the hon. Member for Kidderminster, who, although he sat on the Labour Benches, usually voted for the Government, and therefore must be taken to be a supporter of the Government, had also supported the Amendment. Therefore, they had two hon. Gentlemen from the Ministerial side of the House in favour of the Amendment and two against it. The hon. Member for West Cambridgeshire objected to the Amendment because it was rigid, though not so rigid as the Schedule, and suggested that if elasticity was required it should be obtained in some other way. But the short answer to that was that the Amendment was more elastic than the Schedule, and therefore better than the Government's proposal. The hon. Member for Appleby made the startling statement that it would be very easy for the labourer to get his glass of beer within an easy distance. But it all depended upon what one thought was an easy distance. The hon. Member might think two miles was an easy distance. Another extraordinary thing was this. He believed the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary, and he was sure the hon. Member for the Appleby division, supported the Schedule on the ground that it was one of the recommendations of the Minority Report. The Minority Report recommended that there should be one house for every 150 in the urban areas and for every 400 in the rural areas. The Minority Report was continually being quoted in
1758
support of the bad features of this Bill. With regard to the Amendment itself, he believed that in rural areas the Schedule would almost extinguish the public-house. He did not think it would have much effect in urban areas. In London, he was informed, the reduction would be one-third; London would have to be thankful for small mercies. In the large urban areas where they had well-lighted streets it would not be a great hardship to go a mile. It could be travelled in a County Council car very cheaply. But hon. Members did not need to be told that there were no trams in the country, and it would be a very great hardship on a winter's evening to walk a mile and a half on a country road. Then hon. Gentlemen must remember that the public-house in a small village was really used as a club. It was not the passing stranger, but the habitue of the place who went in to smoke his pipe, to see his neighbour, to have a little conversation and to pass away an hour after his employment for the day was over. That being so, it was in these particular rural districts that the Schedule would tell with great hardships. His experience of the country, especially of the thinly-populated parts, convinced him that his right hon. friend was correct, and that these people would have to walk a considerable distance, not for a glass of beer—that did not matter so much—but to meet their friends and have a pipe. Under these circumstances he should support the Amendment, and he hoped his hon. friend would go to a division.
*MR. GIBBSsaid the Under-Secretary to the Home Office had remarked that his right hon. friend the Member for Bordesley had painted an altogether too dreary picture of what would happen if the Bill passed into law. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the places where there were two or less persons per acre comprised nearly the whole of the rural districts. He then said that the modification was so very much better that it would leave the country districts practically as they were at the present time. That being the case, why apply this first Schedule to the country districts at all? He knew there were many parts of the down and

1759
moorland country and of the hilly districts where very great hardships were sure to fall upon labourers, more especially old labourers, who had had the benefit of having a public-house near to their doors where they could go to meet and see their friends. If the Government Schedule were accepted, these old people would be deprived of their evening's entertainment or would have to walk two or three or possibly more miles to a public-house. He and his colleagues had been twitted for supporting the Amendment; they only did so because it offered something better than the Government's Schedule. They would have liked the Schedule wiped out altogether. Though he supported
the Amendment, it was in the hope that at a future time it would be altered for the better.
MR. JAMES HOPEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could but would not, or whether he would but could not, answer the two questions that he had put to him.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he had already dealt with the point.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 225; Noes, 87. (Division List No. 351.)

AYES.

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Horniman, Emslie John

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Alden, Percy

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hudson, Walter

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Illingworth, Percy H.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Dobson, Thomas W.

Jackson, R. S.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Jardine, Sir J.

Barker, John

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Barnes, G. N.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Jowett, F. W.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Erskine, David C.

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Beale, W. P.

Essex, R. W.

Kekewich, Sir George

Beck, A. Cecil

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Kelley, George D.

Bell, Richard

Everett, R. Lacey

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Fenwick, Charles

Laidlaw, Robert

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Fullerton, Hugh

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lehmann, R. C.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Gill, A. H.

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Lewis, John Herbert.

Black, Arthur W.

Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Boulton, A. C. F.

Glendinning, R. G.

Lupton, Arnold

Brace, William

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Bramsdon, T. A.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Branch, James

Grant, Corrie

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Brigg, John

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Brodie, H. C.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Maclean, Donald

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Griffith, Ellis J.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Cheshire

Gulland, John W.

M'Callum, John M.

Bryce, J. Annan

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

M'Micking, Major G.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

Maddison, Frederick

Byles, William Pollard

Hart-Davies, T.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launeeston)

Cameron, Robert

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Marnham, F. J.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Haworth, Arthur A.

Massie, J.

Channing, Sir Francis Al'ston

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Helme, Norval Watson

Menzies, Walter

Clough, William

Hemmerde, Edward George

Micklem, Nathaniel

Clynes, J. R.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Middlebrook, William

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

Mond, A.

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Higham, John Sharp

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Cowan, W. H.

Hodge, John

Morse, L. L.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hooper, A. G.

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Crooks, William

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

Myer, Horatio

Napier, T. B.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Vivian, Henry

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester

Walsh, Stephen

Nicholls, George

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

Walton, Joseph

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Sears, J. E.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

Norman, Sir Henry

Seaverns, J. H.

Wardle, George J.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Shackleton, David James

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Nuttall, Harry

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Waterlow, D. S.

Perks, Sir Robert William

Simon, John Allsebrook

Watt, Henry A.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Snowden, P.

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh

Radford, G. H.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Soares, Ernest J.

Whitehead, Rowland

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Rees, J. D.

Stanger, H. Y.

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Wiles, Thomas

Ridsdale, E. A.

Steadman, W. C.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Sutherland, J. E.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Robinson, S.

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Winfrey, R.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Rose, Charles Day

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

TELLERS FOB THE AYES—Mr.

Rowlands, J.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Joseph Pease and Master of

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Tomkinson, James

Elibank.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Ure, Alexander

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Verney, F. W.

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Ashley, W. W.

Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Aubrey-Fleteher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Renton, Leslie

Baldwin, Stanley

Heaton, John Henniker

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hill, Sir Clement

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Barnard, E. B.

Hills, J. W.

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Bertram, Julius

Houston, Robert Paterson

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hunt, Rowland

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Joynson-Hicks, William

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Keswick, William

Starkey, John R.

Carlile, E. Hildred

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cave, George

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

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

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

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

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt,-Col. A. R.

Valentia, Viscount

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Craik, Sir Henry

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Whitbread, Howard

Cross, Alexander

Lowe, Sir Francis William

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

Doughty, Sir George

M'Arthur, Charles

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Young, Samuel

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Younger, George

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

TELTERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Nield, Herbert

Gretton and Mr. George

Fell, Arthur

Oddy, John James

Faber.

Fletcher, J. S.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Forster, Henry William

Percy, Earl

MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSmoved to replace the note to Schedule 1 by substituting another setting forth that the number of persons should be calculated according to a yearly estimate of the population to be made by the local
1762
authority. The note at the foot of the Schedule in the Bill stated that—
"The number of persons shall be calculated according to the last Census for the time being."
The Committee were aware that the Census took place every ten years, and the last

1763
was taken in 1901. Unless some such Amendment as he proposed was made, the people born since 1901 would be excluded from their proper share of public-houses. The total population of England and Wales in 1901 was 32,527,000, and according to the Census ten years before that it was 29,002,000, making an increase in ten years of about 3,500,000. He estimated that unless some alteration was made in this provision they would be excluding from their fair share of licensed houses between three and four millions of people. These schemes had to be made by the justices; it was compulsory that they should prepare them by 1st April next year, and the Census which they would have to take would be the Census of 1901. What he proposed was that the Government should substitute for the Census of 1901 the calculations made by the local authority of what the population was during the current year, 1908. There would be no difficulty about that at all. At the present time in England aid Wales the local authorities calculated for their own purposes what the population was, and the figures appeared in the report of the medical officer of health. There would be absolutely no difficulty at all in taking the estimates of population contained in the reports of medical officers year by year. Under Clause 6, the justices were compelled to revise their scheme if required by the Licensing Commission to do so, but how could the Licensing Commision require the revision of a scheme unless they had an accurate estimate of what the population was? He hoped the Government, for these reasons, would meet them by accepting the Amendment. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 24, lines 13 and 14, to leave out the words 'the last Census for the time being,' and insert the words 'a yearly estimate of population to be made by the local authority.'"—(Mr. Samuel Roberts.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
MR. ASHLEYsaid that this Amendment, which he most strongly supported, closely
1764
affected the interests of his constituents in the town of Blackpool. Earlier in these debates the Solicitor-General had rather doubted the figures as to the actual population of that town, but on further investigation he apparently was inclined to think that his statement as to the number of the population was perfectly correct. The last Census was taken in 1901, when the population of Blackpool was 47,000. At the present moment, according to the statement of the town clerk in a return made by the municipal authority, the population was 60,000. Thus, if the Government proposal were carried into effect, 13,000 people in Blackpool would not have the licensed house accommodation to which the Government themselves said they were entitled. Of course, the Government would say that if they looked at subsection (4) it would be seen that by modifications they tried to meet the justice of the case. His answer was that while no doubt they would mitigate the injustice, yet he failed to see why the Government could not accept the reasonable Amendment of his hon. friend which put the matter on as fair a basis as possible. If any subsequent modifications were necessary, then let the magistrates make such further modifications as were thought necessary to make the arrangement more just. In 1903, Blackpool was made into a county borough, and the authority who granted incorporation put the population at 50,000, though according to the Census in 1901 it was 47,000. If the Local Government Board, who had charge of the incorporation of county boroughs, thought the municipal authorities of Blackpool were sufficiently reliable to give their estimate of the town's population, surely it was open to the Committee to consider whether other local authorities all over the country were sufficiently responsible to estimate their own populations. He thought the Amendment a most reasonable one. It did not in the least strike at any principle which hon. Members opposite had so much at heart, and he hoped the Government would see their way to accepting it.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir S. EVANS,)said there seemed to be reasonableness underlying

1765
the Amendment, though it would be difficult to apply in practice. It was true the last Census available was that of 1901, which was published a year or two years later. There was a very general desire that the Census should be quinquennial and not decennial, and probably that would be adopted after the next Census. The difficulty was this. They must have a normal standard. They could not rely merely on estimates, and the Amendment would make it compulsory on local authorities in every ward to estimate the population every year. He knew it was done in some cases now, but it was not universally done, and in any event they were merely estimates. In theory he was not much against the Amendment, and the Government were not, but they considered it better to have as a normal standard the authoritative figures of the Census instead of a mere estimate. Modification 3 of the Schedule said that a modification could be made—
"Where it appears that the population of any place being a rural parish or urban area or part of a rural parish or urban area, as shown by the Census, does not represent the population for whom on-licences may be required by reason of the resort thereto of a larger number of persons than that shown in the Census during special seasons of the year or special times of the day, or for any other reason."
The combined effect of this and of subsection (3) of Section 6, which authorised licensing justices to revise their schemes with reference to any alteration in the circumstances of the district, really made the Amendment unnecessary. The objection to the Amendment was really a practical objection arising from the advisability of having some normal standard like the authoritative figures of the Census, instead of mere estimates which might or might not be made. Although the schemes would be made under the Census of 1901 it would be possible to revise them after the next Census, or even before that. Where there was a rapid change, a considerable increase in population, it would probably be in districts where new licences were required rather than a reduction of existing houses. The scheme would spread over a period of fourteen years, and he did not think in practice it would be found inadvisable to stick to the
1766
normal authoritative figures of the Census instead of these estimates.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he was sorry the Solicitor-General had not been able to give a more hopeful reply. Even the case as put by his hon. friends did not represent by any means the full case as it was known to those who were conversant with the changes which frequently had to be made in local government areas. The Solicitor-General had overlooked the case which most frequently occuried, that within a period of ten years a railway company found its works were situated in the wrong place, and moved them suddenly to a fresh district. Within a period far less than ten years, the population might grow up to several thousands. That occurred when the Great Western Railway moved their works to Swindon, and the South Western to Eastleigh. The Solicitor-General would see the ridiculous result of applying this Bill upon a basis of population to an area which according to the last Census had a population of a few hundreds, but which in reality had a population of many thousands, or one which was a rural district with a scattered population according to the Census, but in reality a town with a rapidly increasing population. These cases must be provided for, and they were not by any means so exceptional as the Solicitor-General appeared to think. Take, further, the case which not infrequently occurred of the extension of a town to include district outside the borough area. It was not part of the town. It was returned in the Census as a village with a population of 800 or 1,000, though there might be an urban population of 6,000 to 10,000 people by the lime the Bill came into operation. The Solicitor-General said there was power to re-arrange, but he could not conceive how this re-arrangement was to be effected. They laid down a strict scale in the Bill. All these difficulties would have disappeared if the Government had earlier accepted their suggestion that there should be power given to those who would have to administer the Act to deal with the matter according to the requirements of various districts. But they were compelled to deal with it in a particular fashion and upon particular

1767
data which the Bill laid down. The Solicitor-General said they could reconsider it when the next Census had been taken. The Bill was going to cause a great deal of agitation and unrest in various districts. They were debating the other day the time which was to elapse after a house had been condemned. They were to take the population of a particular area as given in the Census, although the Commissioners would know that the population was totally different. There, again, he presumed they got the same answer as was given on the previous Amendment. "It is true this is what we lay down in the statute, but we do not intend it to be so regarded by those who will have to enforce it. We expect them to overlook our ignorance of local conditions and requirements and to interpret it in a different fashion, and in effect to make all that is intended to be the exception into the general practice." If that was what they intended to be done they should make it clear in the Act. Application was frequently made by a borough with a population of 50,000 to be made a county borough, and by an urban district to be incorporated. In both these cases the locality was entitled to make application upon the population as arrived at and not upon the population as it appeared in the Census. In a great many cases no difficulty would arise, and where the population had naturally altered they would remove the practical difficulty by accepting the Amendment. He was sufficiently charitable to desire that the Bill should be shorn of as many of its rough edges and awkward angles as possible. This really was a very rough edge. He had no desire whatever to help in improving the character of the Government and he did not much care how angular the measure was, but this was so simple a matter and the question was so common that he would appeal to the Government to reconsider their decision and accept the Amendment, which would really do something to improve the appearance of their measure.
SIR S. EVANSsaid he would like to meet the wishes of the Committee so far as he reasonably could. He thought they must stand to the Census as indi-
1768
cating the normal population all over the country. That was the invariable practice. When the last Education Bill passed through the House of Commons, when they were discussing what ought to be the population in areas which were to be autonomous, they took the Census of 1901 as a hard and fast line. He remembered perfectly well pointing out that Carmarthen, for instance, became by reason of the figures of the Census an autonomous area, because the county asylum was within the borough area, and this brought the population above 10,000. He was perfectly willing, in order to make the matter a little clearer and beyond any doubt from the point of view of construction, when they came to line 29 of the modifications to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kingston, and the power to modify would be given in these express terms—
"Where it appears that the population of any place being a rural parish or urban area or part of a rural parish or urban area, as shown by the Census, does not represent the population for whom an on-licence is required, by reason of a substantial increase of population since the Census"—
and so on. He thought that reasonably met the point raised by the Amendment.
*MR. BERTRAMwished to point out one thing in regard to the modification suggested. The licensing magistrates were to ascertain the number of persons to the acre from the Census. They had in the case of boroughs to consider the wards. It seemed to him that the Amendment the Solicitor-General had expressed his intention of accepting did not really meet the point. The information required was not given in the Census returns so far as the acreage of wards was concerned and the justices could not in fact procure it as the Schedule directed them to do.
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. G. D. FABERmoved to substitute the word "shall" for the word "may" in order to make it obligatory on the justices in given circumstances to make modifications in the strict application of

1769
the scale. In order to secure that justice should be done it was only reasonable that it should be compulsory upon the magistrates to make the modifications. Justices might not turn out such reasonable men for the purposes of this Schedule as the Government imagined, and injustice might arise.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 24, line 16, to leave out the word 'may,' and insert the word 'shall.'"—(Mr. G. D. Faber.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Schedule."
SIR S. EVANShoped the hon. Member would not press this Amendment because he thought he would see on reflection that the word "may" was the proper word. No doubt the justices in the majority of cases would regard "may" in the sense of "shall." They desired to leave these matters to the discretion of the justices and they had to have regard to various considerations.
*MR. STUART WORTLEYthought his hon. friend was quite justified in moving his Amendment, because it was a very mild compulsion to place upon the justices. The modifications could only apply where "it appears inexpedient to reduce the number below two." "Inexpedient" was capable of a very elastic construction. The word "may" suggested to the justices that they would be at liberty to disregard evidence tendered in favour of the modifications specified. Magistrates would naturally conclude that Parliament would not have inserted "may" if "shall" had been the intention, and some benches might be inclined to use this distinction
in a fanatical sense. Therefore, he thought the substitution of "shall" for "may" was a necessary change.
MR. ASHLEYcould not see what possibly objection there could be to saying to the licensing justices: "You shall take into consideration the growth of this town, and you shall modify the scale in accordance with the number of people now known to exist in the town." If they left in the word "may" it might cause a great injustice to a town where a fanatical bench was in power. If his hon. friend went to a division he should support him.
MR. CARLILEasked what the Government wished to be done in this matter. Did they desire the justices to take into consideration all the circumstances referred to in the modifications or did they wish them to have an absolutely free hand? He would like to know if the intention was that the justices should ignore the modifications altogether? The Government were not willing to put this small amount of pressure upon the justices in order that they should consider this evidence, and the whole tendency of retaining the word "may" was against a proper consideration of these just and proper modifications. The Government did not hesitate, where they wanted their own particular policy carried out, to coerce the justices, and take the whole control out of their hands. It was clear that the Government did not wish the justices to entertain any evidence on the subject at all, but desired to close the door against any elasticity in order to harass and restrict the trade.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 225; Noes, 84. (Division List No. 352.)

AYES.

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Barker, John

Berridge, T. H. D.

Alden, Percy

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Barnes, G. N.

Black, Arthur W.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Boulton, A. C. F.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Beale, W. P.

Brace, William

Astbury, John Meir

Beck, A. Cecil

Bramsdon, T. A.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Bell, Richard

Branch, James

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Brigg, John

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Brodie, H. C.

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Cheshire

Illingworth, Percy H.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Bryce, J. Annan

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Robinson, S.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Jackson, R. S.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Byles, William Polland

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Rose, Charles Day

Cameron, Robert

Jardine, Sir J.

Rowlands, J.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Jowett, F. W.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Clough, William

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Clynes, J. R.

Kekewich, Sir George

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Kelley, George D.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Sears, J. E.

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Laidlaw, Robert

Seaverns, J. H.

Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Shackleton, David James

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.

Cox, Harold

Lehmann, R. C.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Crooks, William

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lewis, John Herbert

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Lupton, Arnold

Snowden, P.

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lyell, Charles Henry

Soares, Ernest J.

Dobson, Thomas W.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Stanger, H. Y.

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Maclean, Donald

Stanley, Hn. A Lyulph (Chesh.)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Steadman, W. C.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

M'Callum, John M.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Sutherland, J. E.

Essex, R. W.

M'Micking, Major G.

Tennant, Sir Edward (Sailsbury)

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Maddison, Frederick

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Everett, R. Lacey

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Fenwick, Charles

Marnham, F. J.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Fullerton, Hugh

Massie, J.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Menzies, Walter

Tomkinson, James

Gill, A. H.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Ure, Alexander

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Middlebrook, William

Verney, F. W.

Glendinning, R. G.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Vivian, Henry

Glover, Thomas

Mond, A.

Walsh, Stephen

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Walton, Joseph

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Grant, Corrie

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Morse, L. L.

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Myer, Horatio

Waterlow, D. S.

Gulland, John W.

Napier, T. B.

Watt, Henry A.

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

Nicholls, George

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Hart-Davies, T.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Whitehead, Rowland

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Norman, Sir Henry

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Nuttall, Harry

Wiles, Thomas

Helme, Norval Watson

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Perks, Sir Robert William

Williamson, A.

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

Higham, John Sharp

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Radford; G. H.

Winfrey, R.

Hodge, John

Rainy, A. Rolland

Hooper, A. G.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

Rees, J. D.

Joseph Pease and Master of

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

Elibank.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Richardson, A.

Hudson, Walter

Ridsdale, E. A.

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex, F.

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Baldwin, Stanley

Barnard, E. B.

Ashley, W. W.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

1772

1773

Bertram, Julius

Heaton, John Henniker

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hill, Sir Clement

Renton, Leslie

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hills, J. W.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Carlile, E. Hildred

Houston, Robert Paterson

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Cave, George

Hunt, Rowland

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Joynson-Hicks, William

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

Keswick, William

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

Clive, Percy Archer

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Starkey, John R.

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

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

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

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Craik, Sir Henry

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Thornton, Percy M.

Cross, Alexander

Lowe, Francis William

Valentia, Viscount

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

M'Arthur, Charles

Whitbread, Howard

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Morpeth, Viscount

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

Faber, George Denison (York)

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Young, Samuel

Fell, Arthur

Nield, Herbert

Younger, George

Fletcher, J. S.

Oddy, John James

Forster, Henry William

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Gardner, Ernest

Percy, Earl

Samuel Roberts and Mr.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

George Gibbs.

Gretton, John

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Hamilton, Marquess of

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

MR. YOUNGERmoved an Amendment to substitute for the first modification the following:—"Where it appears inexpedient to reduce the number of on-licences in any parish or area below two." He said the schedule at present provided that where there were three licences it would be possible under the scale to reduce the number to one. It seemed unreasonable to suggest that competition should be entirely removed in a matter of this kind, and, therefore, the Amendment was proposed in order to meet what he believed was an oversight on the part of those who drafted the Bill.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 24, to leave out lines 18 and 19, and to insert the words 'Where it appears inexpedient to reduce the number of on-licences in any parish or area below two.'"—(Mr. Younger.)
Question proposed, "That the words down to the word "on-licences" in line 18 stand part of the schedule."
SIR S. EVANSsaid he had no objection at all to the object of the Amendment, but he thought the same object would be arrived at and in a rather better way by adopting the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Kingston. If it would meet the wish of the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs,
1774
he would be quite prepared, on behalf of the Government, to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kingston.
MR. YOUNGERthought that was probably the better course. He asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 24, lines 18 and 19, to leave out the words 'number of on-licences in any such parish or area does not exceed,' and to insert the words 'strict application of the scale would reduce the number of on-licences below.'"—(Mr. Cave.)
Amendment agreed to.
*MR. CAVEmoved an Amendment to provide that consideration should be given, before the scale was strictly a plied, "to the fact that the premises or any of them are situate near to the boundary of an adjoining parish or area in which the number of on-licences is below the scale number." He said that in parish A the number of licensed houses might exceed the number allowed by the scale, while in parish B adjoining the number was far below the scale. It might be that the greater portion of the inhabitants of parish B made use of licensed houses in parish A, and if the scale was strictly applied the effect

1775
would be that they must cut off the public-houses serving parish B only because they were situate over the boundary of parish A. He did not think that was a commonsense way of dealing with the matter. Some discretion ought to be given to the local bench, and therefore this Amendment ought to be accepted. It would meet the boundary difficulty.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 24, line 22, after the word 'area,' to insert the words 'or to the fact that the premises or any of them are situate near to the boundary of an adjoining parish or area in which the number of on-licences is below the scale number.'"—(Mr. Cave.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR S. EVANSthought the question ought to be dealt with as one of population, and, therefore, if a modification was to be made, it ought to be in Paragraph 3 and not in Paragraph 2. It was not the mere fact that there was a boundary on one side of which there might be more, and on the other side less public-houses than were required by the scale that would justify the justices in not giving a strict application to the scale as incorporated in the schedule. He saw the difficulty which the hon. Member had in view, and he thought the best way of dealing with it was when they came to the last line of Paragraph 3 to insert the words "or from the adjoining area," the meaning of which would be that a third modification could be made by the justices where they found that area A was resorted to by the population from area B.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he was glad that the Solicitor-General had agreed to accept the principle of the Amendment. He knew actual cases where the population living on one side of the road were in a different parish from those living on the other side. In such cases it would be a great hardship if something in the nature of what his hon. friend had suggested were not accepted.
MR. CAVEthought the substance of his Amendment would be attained by adopting that of the Solicitor-General.
1776
He asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. GRETTONmoved as an Amendment to insert after "area" in Paragraph 2 of the Schedule the words "or owing to the defects of roads or facilities of transit special treatment is required." This Amendment, he said, applied to the second modification in the schedule, and gave a greater latitude to the justices when they were applying the modification to the strict scale in the first part of the Schedule. This exception applied to hotels and refreshment rooms, where the licence was not the main purpose of the house but only auxiliary to it. It might be that a licensed house was on the main road, where there was a large traffic, and the modification proposed in the Schedule provided for such a case. But there was another case where the strict application of the scale would be a distinct hardship. There were large districts where the number of inhabitants was very small, and the means of communication were not well developed, where the roads were merely foot-ways or bridle-paths. If in such places there should not be a sufficient number of houses to meet the wants of the travelling public, discretion should be left to the justices to provide such houses. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 24, line 22, after the word 'area,' to insert the words 'or owing to the defects of roads, or facilities of transit, special treatment is required.'"—(Mr. Gretton.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR S. EVANSsaid he was sorry the Government could not accept the Amendment. If the hon. Member meant that the house was among defective roads, then there could be no demand for it, and therefore that licence ought to go.
MR. GRETTONsaid that his purpose was that in districts where the number of licensed houses was small and the means of getting to them was only by

1777
long roundabout roads, the wants of the travelling public should be met.
Amendment negatived.
*MR. GRETTONmoved to leave out the word "population," and to insert the words "number of persons." He said it was not quite clear as to what was the legal interpretation of "population." One interpretation of the word was the resident inhabitants of a town or district and not the moving population, which varied from day to day, as in the case of agricultural shows, country fairs, market days, and race meetings. This verbal alteration which he proposed would make it quite clear that the Government intended to meet the convenience of persons visiting different parts of the country for a short time, and would include such cases as a Territorial camp and the application for a canteen where the civilians and visitors would be allowed to obtain refreshment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 24, line 28, to leave out the word 'population,' and to insert the words 'number of persons.'"—(Mr. Gretton.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'population' stand part of the Schedule."
SIR S. EVANScongratulated the hon. Member on his philological research as to the meaning of the word'' population." He had no objection to accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. CAVEsaid he understood from what had been said that his next Amendment would be accepted. It was to insert after the word "required," the words "by reason of a substantial increase of population since the Census or." He was glad to find an accommodating spirit on the part of the Government, although it had come a little late in the day. If the same spirit had been shown earlier, on much more important clauses, the shape of the Bill would have been very different from what it was and very much better.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 24, line 29, after the word 'required,' to insert the words 'by reason of a substantial increase of population since the Census or.'"—(Mr. Cave.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR S. EVANSsaid he had very much pleasure in accepting the Amendment. With regard to the general observation of the hon. and learned Member, he would see that immediately they came to a part of the Bill where reasonable Amendments were moved on the Opposition side, they were at once met by equally reasonable concessions from the Government Bench.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. CAVEmoved to insert after the word "day," the words "or from an adjoining parish or area." This Amendment, he said, had been suggested by the Solicitor-General at an earlier stage.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 24, line 31, after the word 'day,' to insert the words 'or from an adjoining parish or area.'"—(Mr. Cave.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. LEIP JONESwas inclined to think that the Government had been too yielding, and he was sorry that the Government had accepted the Amendment, which seemed to suggest that it was desirable to have a public-house on the borders of one parish to which the inhabitants of another parish might resort. Assuming that a public-house was necessary, it should be left to the justices to be considered under the words "or for any other reason."
SIR. S. EVANSthought his hon. friend might rest satisfied that the words were sufficiently covered by the latter words in the clause. As he had promised to accept the words of the hon. and learned Member opposite he could not oppose the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. YOUNGERsaid he was not at all certain what would be the full meaning of the words "or for any other reason," at the end of the subsection. He, therefore, moved the addition of the words "or where in an urban area, owing to the nature of the district and the proportion of the resident population making use of licensed houses, a modification of the strict application of the scale appears requisite to prevent the reduction leading to overcrowding in the remaining houses." It must be obvious to the Committee that the Schedule scale, which might apply perfectly reasonably to the West End of London, would be extremely arbitrary and very unequal in its effect if applied to the East End. Taking 1,000 people in the West End of London, very few of them might use public-houses, whereas in the East End nearly all of them would do so. If the Government strictly applied the scale, they would undoubtedly, by reducing the licences in a locality by too large a number, create overcrowding in the remaining houses. Some provision ought to be made by which a strict application of the scale ought not to be held to be necessary. This was a case in which, if in the opinion of the local justices the scale should be more than that provided by the Schedule, there should be some liberty of proposing modifications. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 24, line 31, at the end to add the words 'where in an urban area owing to the nature of the district and the proportion of the resident population making use of licensed houses a modification of the strict application of the scale appears requisite to prevent the reduction leading to overcrowding in the remaining houses.'"—(Mr. Younger.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
SIR S. EVANSsaid the acceptance of the Amendment would introduce a very considerable change in the principle underlying the Bill, and upon which they relied. They had set up the principle that the number of houses should be

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex, F.

Baldwin, Stanley

Barnard, E. B.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

Ashley, W. W.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Bignold, Sir Arthur

according to the acreage and the population, and they could not accept an Amendment which would allow the justices to say that they would not apply the principle or the scale which they put into their Act of Parliament, because they thought if they shut up public-house A they would overcrowd public-house B. If there was overcrowding in public-house B the justices could be applied to to deal with the case as it ought to be met, by enlargement of the premises, but a provision in the Bill ought not to have the effect of enabling the justices to put aside entirely a Schedule which the Government thought ought to be inserted.
MR. YOUNGERsaid the Solicitor-General seemed to assume that it was possible in all these cases to increase the size of the public-houses. That could not be done in many cases.
SIR S. EVANSsaid the Government had, rightly or wrongly, specified in the Schedule the number of public-houses which ought to exist. The justices could, in particular cases, allow the house to be enlarged so as to have greater accommodation than it had before.
MR. YOUNGERsaid that was not his point, but that, although the licence-holder might be at liberty to apply to the justices for increased accommodation and the justices might be prepared to give him it, yet it might not be possible to get it. The licence-holder might not hold or be able to get the property adjoining.
SIR S. EVANSsaid they did not think there would be overcrowding, but in any case they could not allow the justices to say that, because to apply the Schedule would be to overcrowd one public-house or another, they would not carry it out.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Aves, 81; Noes, 222. (Division List No. 353.)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hill, Sir Clement

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hills, J. W.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Bull, Sir William James

Hogan, Michael

Remnant, James Farquharson

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Renton, Leslie

Cave, George

Houston, Robert Paterson

Renwick, George

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Hunt, Rowland

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

Clive, Percy Archer

Joynson-Hicks, William

Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

Kimber, Sir Henry

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Cross, Alexander

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Douglas, Hon. A. Akers-

Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Starkey, John R.

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

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

Talbot, Lord E. (Chicehester)

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Thomson, W. Mitehell- (Lanark)

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Thornton, Percy M.

Fell, Arthur

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Valentia, Viscount

Fletcher, J. S.

M'Arthur, Charles

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Forster, Henry William

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

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

Gardner, Ernest

Morpeth, Viscount

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Young, Samuel

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Gretton, John

Nield, Herbert

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)

Oddy, John James

Younger and Mr. George

Hamilton, Marquess of

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Faber.

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Heaton, John Henniker

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

NOES.

Agnew, George William

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstd

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Alden, Percy

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Helme, Norval Watson

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Cowan, W. H.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Crooks, William

Higham, John Sharp

Astbury, John Meir

Davies, David (Montgomery Co

Hobart, Sir Robert

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hodge, John

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Hooper, A. G.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

Barker, John

Dobson, Thomas W.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Barnes, G. N.

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Hudson, Walter

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Beale, W. P.

Essex, R. W.

Hyde, Clarendon

Beck, A. Cecil

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Bell, Richard

Everett, R. Lacey

Jackson, R. S.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Fenwick, Charles

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Jardine, Sir J.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Findlay, Alexander

Jones Leif (Appleby)

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Black, Arthur W.

Fullerton, Hugh

Jowett, F. W.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Brace, William

Gill, A. H.

Kekewich, Sir George

Bramsdon, T. A.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Kelley, George D.

Branch, James

Glendinning, R. G.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Brigg, John

Glover, Thomas

Laidlaw, Robert

Brodie, H. C.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Lamont, Norman

Bryce, J. Annan

Grant, Corrie

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Greenwood, G. (Pererborough)

Lehmann, R. C.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Griffith, Ellis J.

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Byles, William Pollard

Gulland, John W.

Lewis, John Herbert

Cameron, Robert

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Lupton, Arnold

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose

Lyell, Charles Henry

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Clough, William

Hart-Davies, T.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Clynes, J. R.

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

Maclean, Donald

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

M'Callum, John M.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

M'Crae, Sir George

1782

1783

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Richardson, A.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Maddison, Frederick

Ridsdale, E. A.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Tomkinson, James

Massie, J.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Ure, Alexander

Menzies, Walter

Robinson, S.

Verney, F. W.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Vivian, Henry

Middlebrook, William

Rowlands, J.

Walsh, Stephen

Molteno, Percy Alport

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Walton, Joseph

Mond, A.

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Montague, Hon. E. S.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Morse, L. L.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Watt, Henry A.

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Myer, Horatio

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh

Napier, T. B.

Sears, J. E.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Shakleton, David James

Whitehead, Rowland

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Nicholls, George

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Wiles, Thomas

Norman, Sir Henry

Simon, John Allsebrook

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Nuttall, Harry

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Williamson, A.

Paulton, James Mellor

Snowden, P.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

Pearce, William (Limehouse

Soares, Ernest J.

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke

Spicer, Sir Albert

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Stanger, H. Y.

Winfrey, R.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Steadman, W. C.

Radford, G. H.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Joseph Pease and Master

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Sutherland, J. E.

of Elibank.

Rees, J. D.

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Question proposed, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the first Schedule to the Bill."
*MR. GRETTONcalled attention to the fact that, in spite of the Amendments which the Government had made to the Schedule, they had been very careful to adhere to its principle. He wished to point out, therefore, that in spite of amendment, they had not obtained any concession which in any degree modified the scale which the Government put in their Schedule, with all the hardships which the application of the scale would entail. Before the Schedule was added to the Bill, therefore, he wished to put very clearly before the mind of the Committee that both sides of the House were divided still as to the expediency of having a scale at all, but they were precluded from discussing the principle and they on that side were as much opposed to the scale even with the Amendments as they were at the commencement of the debate.
MR. JAMES HOPEsaid the Under-Secretary had stated at an earlier period
1784
that he had answered the questions he had put. He had asked two questions. The first was, how many houses would be reduced under this scheme, supposing there were no modifications? The second was as to the basis on which the Government calculated that the scheme could be put into effect without raising the compensation levy above the amounts stated in the Schedule, He knew the right hon. Gentleman could not answer those questions now, but he would ask him to look into the matter, and give the information asked for on Report. The matter of compensation levy had been left very obscure.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that he had already dealt with the first question as far as he could. With regard to the second question the Prime Minister had stated when introducing the Bill that the estimates of the Government showed that the Bill as it stood might be roughly calculated to result in the reduction during the fourteen years of rather more than 30,000 licences. Taking that as the figure they had come to the conclusion that the compensation would come well within the amount of the levy.
MR. G. D. FABERsaid that even with the modifications this was a cast-iron schedule. Neither Government nor anybody else in the country at the present moment knew how the reduction would work out. The Prime Minister had said that he calculated there would be a reduction of from 30,000 to 32,000 licences during the reduction period, but that after all was only a rough approximation. Up and down the country it had been assumed that during the reduction period about 33 per cent. of the total licences in the country would disappear. It had been made pretty clear in the course of the debate that that would be by no means the extent of the reduction when they applied the reduction in the small areas initiated by the Bill. At the end of the reduction period they might find that not 30,000 to 32,000 licences, but 40,000, or even 50,000 licences had disappeared. They were working entirely in the dark, and he did not think the Government had behaved fairly in the matter. It would have been perfectly easy for them when introducing a Bill of such scope and character to have worked out beforehand, area by area, the number of licences there would be in the country. The Committee would then have had before it, mathematically, the number of licences that would be reduced. But they now had nothing of the kind, and upon this the last evening of the Committee Stage they were left with the pregnant evil that the first quantity of the Bill was absolutely unknown. The scheme of the Government depended upon the fact that a certain number of licensed houses had to be reduced. The whole matter proceeded on the hypothesis that the number reduced would be 30,000. That hypothesis now turned out to be unfounded. The effect the great increase in the number of houses reduced would have on the compensation levy must be extraordinary. The whole levy might have to be doubled, and the effect on the trade would be tremendous. The position of the trade, in fact, would be infinitely worse than that suggested in the Bill.
MR. YOUNGERconsidered that there was no excuse whatever for the failure of the Government to provide the informa-
1786
tion which had been asked for. When the Committee left off considering the schedule they would be in as great a condition of ignorance as they were when it came before them. The country and the trade were entitled to have the information which had been asked for. It was an extremely unbusinesslike thing that on such an important matter as this, involving in many cases something next door to ruin, the Government had not taken the trouble to meet the very strong and frequent appeals that had been made to them for some definite information. He was one of those who had always believed the Prime Minister had no ground on which he could say with any degree of accuracy that one-third of the licences would go. The Government had not taken the Bill very seriously of late, and he was not surprised that they had not taken the trouble to get the information demanded. That was the only excuse the Government might have for their failure to do anything in this matter.
SIR S. EVANSsaid it had been remarked that the trade did not know how they would stand at the end of fourteen years. He thought the trade knew pretty well how they would stand, and having regard to the state of the market at the present time, he thought the trade were not very apprehensive of the ruin which had always been predicted for them by their supporters in the House. The Government thought there would be a reasonable, gradual, and uniform reduction of licences during the fourteen years, with reasonable compensation for those whose licences were taken away. The trade also knew there would be seven years given in which there would be no monopoly and no statutory reduction, and when that concession was made by the Prime Minister the trade fully appreciated it. Moreover, as the Government had provided in the Bill, another effect of the concession would be that there would be an additional three years added by way of compensation for every house taken away during the last years of the fourteen years period. Moreover, the trade knew that after twenty-one years had elapsed the monopoly value extracted from them would be on a fair a

1787
equitable basis. That was obvious to everybody, and it was the opinion of the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs.
*MR. YOUNGER: I beg the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon; I must contradict him as to that. What I said was that the method of computing the monopoly value was not the method of the Act of 1904, which only dealt with new licences and that it afforded some reasonable chance of finding it out in the case of existing licences without including goodwill and so forth, which everybody is agreed on both sides ought not to be included at all.
SIR S. EVANSsaid he remembered perfectly well the substance and tone of the hon. Gentleman's observations after the Prime Minister made his statement as to the basis of monopoly value calculated for twenty-one years. But he did not wish to pin the hon. Gentleman to anything except what he actually said on that occasion. The trade knew perfectly well what the position would be, and it would not be an unfair position to them. The hon. Member for York and the hon. Member who had just sat down had objected that the Government were not treating the Bill seriously. That was an extraordinary statement to make. Here they had been day after day, week after week, and month after month, dealing with this very thorny, complicated, and most important subject, and surely it was an extraordinary thing at this stage to suggest that the Government, who had given all this time and trouble to the measure, did not regard it with seriousness. They did regard it with the utmost seriousness, and the only reason why they could not put the figures before the House as to the exact effect of the reductions was that it was impossible for anyone to say with exactness what the number of reductions would be or what would be the amount of the levy. First of all, they must know the number of houses to be taken away, the character of the houses taken away, and the amount of compensation to be given for the licences extinguished. Under the circumstances the best they could do was to make an estimate. The Committee knew perfectly well that the
1788
Government in producing this Bill had been as well and as accurately advised as they could be, and the conclusion which they had come to, unless something extraordinary transpired in the operation of the measure as regarded the number of licences extinguished and the amount of compensation paid, was that the compensation levy during the fourteen years would not be exceeded at all. When they came to the Compensation Schedule they would be able to discuss that point. The rate levied was precisely what it was under the Act of 1904, with this difference, of course, that there was the possibility in certain cases not merely of the statutory reduction but what was called the optional reduction—a further reduction for which, if circumstances made it necessary, it would be required that they should increase the levy. But as he had said before he said now, that according to the best advice they could get, practically there was no expectation whatsoever on the part of anybody that there would be any addition to the levy put in the Schedule, and that in truth and in fact, although it did not literally appear in the Bill, the levy would be the maximum levy and not the minimum levy.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid the hon. Gentleman had told them what the trade thought and felt with regard to this Bill. He was not competent or entitled to represent the trade. All he knew was that he had read during the passage of the Bill a great many criticisms of it and a great many prophecies as to its ultimate fate, none of which, he was bound to say, agreed with the description given by the Solicitor-General. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the expectation of the trade, and claimed, to start with, that the proof of the soundness of his view was to be found in the fact that brewery shares had not suffered, and that this was because the trade were satisfied with the Government. The hon. and learned Gentleman took an extraordinary view of the situation. Though knowing nothing about the trade, and not entitled to speak for it, yet he ventured to say that the reason given by the Solicitor-General was not the reason why brewery shares had shown that they were not affected.

1789
The real reason was very different. He suspected that the members of the trade were saying to themselves what a great many Members on the other side of the House would say in a short time, "Thank God there is a House of Lords." This would be said very shortly by many of those hon. Gentlemen whom the hon. Member for Appleby claimed were enthusiastic supporters of the Bill. The reason why these securities had not suffered was because—and he gave credit to the hon. and learned Gentleman for knowing it—there was no belief that the Bill in anything like its present form was going to pass, and consequently those who were mainly interested were not contemplating an exercise against them of the powers which this Bill contained. ["Oh!"] The hon. Member for Appleby said "Oh!"
MR. LEIF JONES: I said "Order, order."
MR. WALTER LONG: If I had known that I would not have given way.
MR. LEIF JONES: I wish to know, Sir, if the right hon. Gentleman is in order in discussing the Bill generally on this Motion?
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman cannot discuss the Bill generally, but he may make references.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he must protest against the action of the hon. Member for Appleby, who addressed the Committee repeatedly, who made many statements which he was unable to prove, and who, when his own Government advanced arguments, endeavoured to prevent the Opposition from meeting them. That was an unusual method to adopt in that House, and he hoped that not many Members would be found to follow the hon. Gentleman's example. He believed that there was no foundation for the view attributed to the trade by the Solicitor-General. In the first place, he believed that the method that the Government were adopting, as instanced by the Schedule, was an unfair one. In the second place the question asked by the hon. Member for York had
1790
never been answered by any member of the Government, including the Solicitor-General, who was one of the most ingenious, and most able advocates that any Government could have. What had the hon. and learned Gentleman to say in answer to his hon. friend the Member for York, who had complained that they were passing this Schedule completely in the dark? They had no knowledge whether the number reduced would be 30,000 or 50,000. What was the answer of the Solicitor-General? He said that he had dealt with the point frequently before, and that it was impossible for the Government to give any reliable information. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wished them to understand that it was impossible to obtain any reliable information, then what was the estimate of the Government based upon? By the hon. and learned Gentleman's own admission the estimate was pure guess work and worth nothing at all. The calculation of his hon. friend was at least worth as much as that of the Government, which the Solicitor-General admitted was based on no figures at all. The figures which he himself had seen were not based on guess work; they were based on the Bill as it would be worked out over certain areas of the country, and those figures made the number of reductions very much larger than the figures quoted by the Prime Minister and the Solicitor-General. He believed that the figures which he had seen were much nearer the truth. The Solicitor-General said that it was impossible to get the figures. Why? Because they had to ascertain certain things. First of all, they had to ascertain the character of the house; secondly, the neighbourhood; and thirdly, the amount of compensation to which the house was entitled. He submitted that there were scores of different cases all over the country which could be taken, and anyone who took eight or ten districts might make the calculation, and put the result in the form of a return which could hive been presented to Parliament. If that had been done, at all events they would have had some reliable information. If his hon. friend pressed his opposition to this Schedule to a division, he should certainly vote with him. At present, the Government had failed

1791
to justify their position by argument, and they had failed to do what they could easily have done, namely, provide information which at all events would have let them know in some degree what the effect of the Bill would be. They had only themselves to thank if the Opposition not only resisted their proposal, but complained of the method by which they sought to foist this measure on an uninformed House and an uninformed country.
*MR. BARNARDsaid he had understood the situation, for his part, to be of a very pleasant description, for he had thought that it was going to be very much worse, and when the definition of monopoly value came he was still more pleased. With regard to this Schedule, however, he was most discontented. It seemed to him that they had a right to remember the figures which were quoted by the Prime Minister when he told them that the houses were to be reduced from 90,000 to 60,000. Since then he had repeatedly asked questions in order to get at something to show how this matter was dealt with. He had been most unlucky in his inquiries, and had found out nothing. Yet the Solicitor-General told them that they need not be a bit afraid of the levy, because he was sure that it would never be exceeded. How could he know that if he could not get those figures which had been refused to him? Not being able to get the figures from the Government he had tried to make some investigations himself. In about thirty-five different areas he found that the results worked out most extraordinarily different compared with what was stated by the Prime Minister in his speech. The Prime Minister had stated that the number would be reduced from 90,000 to 60,000. He could not help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman had not taken into account the areas where there were licences which did not reach the maximum, and he was perfectly certain that if they went all over the country making inquiries, they would find that in all places in the country except those on the borders of London, which were populous, the figures would show results in no sense comparable with those stated by the Prime Minister.
1792
In Kidderminster the number of houses would be reduced from 130 to fifty. In the village in which he lived, if this Schedule stood, the number would be reduced from eighteen to four. He was a magistrate in two different counties, and in many other places he found that the figures of reduction were much in excess of those quoted by the Prime Minister. He thought that the Government might even yet before the Bill was finished try to give them some information which would enable them to check the figures.
MR. JAMES HOPEsaid he had failed to get satisfaction out of the Under-Secretary, and he appealed to his chief, the Home Secretary. The question was a simple one. He had asked what would be the effect of the reduction in the First Schedule if there were no modifications, and he thought that was capable of a direct answer. What were the data on which they would have to go? He would quote a few words of the first clause—
"Licensing justices shall, in accordance with this Act, reduce the number of on-licences in their district so that at the end of a period of fourteen years from the fifth day of April nineteen hundred and nine the number of those licences in any rural parish or urban area in their district shall not exceed the scale set out in the First Schedule to this Act as applied to that parish or area under the provisions of that Schedule.'"
Surely it would be possible to ascertain in the first place the population of every rural parish, and in the second of every urban area, and it was only a matter of clerical work to find out the effect of the First Schedule on that basis of population. He would ask the Home Secretary to see that that was done before the House passed the Bill.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he always felt very loth to enter into any discussion upon legal points with the Solicitor-General, but when the hon. and learned Gentleman made statements about finance, he felt that, though perhaps not equal to him in ability or as an orator, he had some claim to say something upon that subject. All brewery companies were not quoted on the Stock Exchange and all breweries were not companies. In the

1793
case of many small brewery companies, banks had called in loans which they had made. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had devoted his talents to brewing instead of to the law would he have said that this Bill had no effect upon his company if he had had a loan of £20,000 from a bank called in when the Bill was introduced, and he had been unable to borrow money anywhere else? Whatever he said he would have felt that a very serious hardship had been inflicted on him. About March or April there was an enormous fall in the value of brewery shares. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley said it arose not from the introduction of the Bill but from the fact that there had been reckless finance. The fall was very much greater than was generally supposed. It was impossible to sell a brewery share. The quotation was absolutely nominal. There had been a change, but though prices now were better than the lowest for the year, they were nothing like what they were a year ago. They were recovering because true business people did not suppose that the House of Lords was going to allow a Bill of this sort to be smuggled through the Legislature under the closure—a Bill which would not achieve its object and which was unjust to everybody whom it attacked. He did not claim for himself any great power of speech, but he claimed honesty of purpose. The late Sir William Harcourt had said that the House of Commons was a House of discussion, and he hoped those old traditions would be maintained, and that it would continue to be a House of discussion long after this bad Government had passed away. The hon. Member for Sheffield, notwithstanding the warning he had given him a short time ago, had repeated his request to the Chief of the Under-Secretary to give him the figures which the Government had in their secret dossier—somewhere in a little red box which possibly for the occasion had been given to the stranger below the gallery.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid these general observations could not be made on every Amendment.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid, in order to save time, he was going to point out to his hon. friend that he had better not pursue his request to produce the figures.
MR. JAMES HOPE: I am sure my hon. friend misjudges the right hon. Gentleman. I fully expect at the conclusion of my hon. friend's speech he will promise me the information.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he should be exceedingly surprised if he did. The Schedule would inflict very great hardship upon the rural districts. If he had his way he would have no Schedule at all, and that was why he was going to vote for its omission. In the large towns there could be no question that people who wanted to avail themselves of the public-house would be able to do so though at a considerably increased amount of inconvenience. But he did not believe the unfortunate rural labourer would be able to get his glass of beer. He did not think this was a question of intoxication, because rural labourers were, as a class, most sober, but it was this class that the Schedule was going to attack in the greatest degree. In outlying hill and moorland districts the population was extremely sparse, and if they allotted only one house to 400 people a very large number would have to travel a considerable distance before they could get a glass of beer. The Government admitted that there would be an evil which must be met by their modifications, and they specially drew attention to scattered areas where the houses did not at present exceed two, and where it was not desirable to reduce that number. His complaint with the Schedule was that that order ought to have been made mandatory instead of giving the option to the local justices to carry it out. He did not go so far as to say he should have voted for the Schedule if that Amendment had been made, but it would have been a very great improvement to the Bill. As it stood now the smaller areas would suffer, and their only possible hope was the discretion of the licensing justices. That discretion was tempered, because it was subject to the paid trio who would sit in London. Under these circumstances, and believing that a very great

1795
blow was going to be struck at an industry which after all had invested its money under the sanction of Acts of Parliament, and holding at the same time the view that the Schedule would not in any way promote temperance, he should have much pleasure in supporting his hon. friends.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE,)said he only rose out of courtesy to the hon. Member for Sheffield. He was sure he could not have been in the House when he answered the question of the hon. Member for Kidderminster. He felt convinced that his answer was quite consistent with what his right hon. friend stated a short time ago.
MR. REMNANTasked the Solicitor-General whether his attention had been drawn particularly to the case of a great city like London. The Government admitted that they had made no estimate at all. It was a rough and ready reckoning that a third of the licences taken away in fourteen years would bring them down to what they thought a fair number. Unsatisfactory as that course was, they had had to introduce modifications to deal with a case such as London, which had a small resident population compared with the number of people in the City during the day time. He, as representing a London constituency, most strongly objected to the scheme of the Government which, practically, was a leap in the dark. They did not know what was going to be the consequence. The justices would be bound down to this Schedule which would inflict very great hardship on the City of London, and would not help forward the cause of temperance which they so loudly acclaimed as being the sole object of the Bill. They were left in the dark, and all he could do was to form an estimate based on the experience of many years. The scheme of the Government would do what hon. Members opposite little expected—it would not help the cause of temperance, and besides inflicting a great injustice on the licence-holders, it would be a very great inconvenience to those who
1796
used the City during the day and did not live there during the night. The effect of the Bill would be to increase very largely the reduction during the reduction period and would throw an enormous incubus upon the remaining licence-holders, inflicting a burden which very few of them would be able to bear. The Solicitor-General had referred to the market-value of brewery companies' shares, and upon that he had made a very interesting statement. It was rather remarkable that when the Government were dealing with licences they refused to consider the market value, but when they wanted to consider the effect of their proposals on the trade they were prepared to pay attention to the market value. He did not believe anybody would raise any objection if the Government paid compensation based on the market-value. If they paid the market-value they might take the whole lot of the licences, and that was what they ought to do if they really meant temperance. Under this scheme they did neither one thing nor the other. What they were doing would ruin licence-holders, and not promote temperance at all. He hoped the Solicitor-General would tell them what he meant by the period during which no compensation levy would be paid. The hon. and learned Gentleman also said that the compensation levy proposed by the Bill was practically the same as that paid under the Act of 1904, but it was nothing of the sort. Under the Act of 1904 the levy could not go beyond the maximum, whilst under this Bill it could. Under the Act of 1904 if the local authorities did not require the whole amount they did not raise it, but under this Bill they were obliged to raise the maximum. He entered his protest against this Schedule and the way they were being treated. He was very glad indeed that they had a Second Chamber to prevent the passing of hasty and ill-considered measures such as that they were now discussing.
MR. ASHLEYsaid the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley division had made an eloquent appeal to the Committee to consider the hardships which would be inflicted upon the

1797
agricultural labourers if this Bill became law. He did not think the Committee had realised the very few amusements which were open to the ordinary agricultural labourers who had to work very hard and get up very early. If the Committee adopted this Schedule those men would be compelled after a hard day's work to walk two or three miles to obtain their only amusement in the public-house where they could see their friends, smoke their pipes, and drink their glass of beer. This proposal would be treating a very deserving class unjustly. In the towns, if they reduced the number of licences, it was open to the people to establish a club anywhere, but it was not open to the agricultural labourers to start clubs because they had not the money. If this Bill passed they would compel the agricultural labourer to give up one of his few pleasures, and an innocent pleasure, and he would only be able to meet his friends once or twice a week instead of every evening as hitherto. The Solicitor-General had stated that the Bill had done no damage to the value of licensed property or the property of brewery companies. Only that morning he had received a letter from a gentleman in a good position pointing out how he and his relations would personally be adversely affected by the operation of this schedule. It appeared that some two years ago he invested £10,000 of trust money on the security of licensed premises in the City of London, and the value of those premises was given as £21,000. At the present moment his friend was calling in that loan, and he had been advised that it was very doubtful whether he would get his £10,000 at all.
MR. T. F. RICHARDSsaid that a little practical experience in this matter was better than a good deal of theory. He had found
during the debates that those who knew least about the trade had spoken the most. He held a very different view of this question from that which had been expressed during the evening. He had experience of a town which he represented on the borough council, where within the area of a quarter of a mile there were no less than eighteen licensed houses, every one of them tied. He had been employed in one of them himself, and when his governor found the house was bought over his head he gave up the licence and refused to become a tied tenant. Some of his shopmates kept those houses and were paid from 30s. to 35s. a week. Why were those houses being kept open? Simply to obtain the benefit of compensation. In that particular area of a quarter of a mile three licences were given up not long ago merely for the power to extend the licence of a hotel. If licences were so cheap as that it was evident that those houses were being kept open for other purposes than appeared on the surface. Those who were acquainted with the trade knew that no person would take one of those licences with the intention of getting a living, because they were mantraps in every sense of the word. Men had gone into those houses and they had been valued in and valued out. He hardly needed to state that the valuation out was much less than the valuation in. It was a fact that there were many more houses in all the large towns than there appeared to be a legitimate trade for, and he hoped the Solicitor-General would not listen to any suggestion in the direction of altering the Schedule.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 217; Noes, 73. (Division List No. 354.)

Brigg, John

Hodge, John

Rainy, A. Rolland

Brodie, H. C.

Hogan, Michael

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Rees, J. D.

Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Cheshire

Hooper, A. G.

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

Bryce, J. Annan

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

Richardson, A.

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Ridsdale, E. A.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hudson, Walter

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Byles, William Pollard

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Robinson, S.

Cameron, Robert

Hyde, Clarendon

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Illingworth, Percy H.

Rowlands, J.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Jackson, R. S.

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Clough, William

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Clynes, J. R.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jowett, F. W.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Kekewich, Sir George

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Kelley, George D.

Sears, J. E.

Cory, Sir Clifford John

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Shackleton, David James

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Laidlaw, Robert

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

Cowan, W. H.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Cox, Harold

Lamont, Norman

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Crooks, William

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Simon, John Allsebrook

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Lehmann, R. C.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Dobson, Thomas W.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Snowden, P.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Lewis, John Herbert

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Lupton, Arnold

Soares, Ernest J.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Spicer, Sir Albert

Essex, R. W.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Stanger, H. Y.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Lynch, H. B.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Everett, R. Lacey

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Steadman, W. C.

Fenwick, Charles

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Maclean, Donald

Sutherland, J. E.

Findlay, Alexander

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

M'Callum, John M.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Fullerton, Hugh

M'Crae, Sir George

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Ure, Alexander

Gill, A. H.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Verney, F. W.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Marnham, F. J.

Vivian, Henry

Glendinning, R. G.

Massie, J.

Walsh, Stephen

Glover, Thomas

Menzies, Walter

Walton, Joseph

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Micklem, Nathaniel

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Middlebrook, William

Watt, Henry A.

Grant, Corrie

Molteno, Percy Alport

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Mond, A.

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Gulland, John W.

Morse, L. L.

Whitehead, Rowland

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Napier, T. B.

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Wiles, Thomas

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Hart-Davies, T.

Nicholls, George

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Williamson, A.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Norman, Sir Henry

Wills, Arthur Walters

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

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

Haworth, Arthur A.

O'Grady, J.

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Paulton, James Mellor

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Helme, Norval Watson

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Winfrey, R.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Perks, Sir Robert William

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Pollard, Dr.

Mr. Joseph Pease and Master

Higham, John Sharp

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

of Elibank.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Radford, G. H.

NOES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Bertram, Julius

Ashley, W. W.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Balcarres, Lord

Barnard, E. B.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Baldwin, Stanley

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Bull, Sir William James

1800

1801

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hunt, Rowland

Renwick, George

Cave, George

Joynson-Hicks, William

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Clive, Percy Archer

Keswick, William

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

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

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A.R.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

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

Starkey, John R.

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Faber, George Denison (York)

M'Arthur, Charles

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Faber, Capt, W. V. (Hants, W.)

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Thornton, Percy M.

Fell, Arthur

Morpeth, Viscount

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Fletcher, J. S.

Morrison-Bell, Captain

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Forster, Henry William

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Gardner, Ernest

Nield, Herbert

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

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Oddy, John James

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Gretton, John

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Youngl Samuel

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Younger, George

Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Heaton, John Henniker

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Hills, J. W.

Rawlinson, John Frederick peel

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield

Remnant, James Farquharson

and Viscount Valentia.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Renton, Leslie

Schedule 2:
MR. GRETTONmoved to leave out the word "hotels" in order to elicit information from the Government. This Schedule was taken almost entirely, he believed, from the Act of 1904, and the note at the end of the Schedule making certain exceptions from the full charge of levy for compensation was word fur word from the Act of 1904, with the exception of the word "hotels." There was a difficulty in the interpretation of the Act of 1904, and a case came before the Courts. There were many different kinds of hotels, and he wished to know what the Government meant by "hotels," and how they meant to adjust their charges with respect to the different classes of buildings. It was perfectly reasonable and just that a hotel in a country town which lodged travellers should come under this Bill. He was not saying for a moment that it was unreasonable that large modern caravanserais should also come under the scheme. He wished to know how the Government proposed to levy the rate in respect of the different heads of business carried on in some hotels.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 25, line 25, to leave out the word 'hotels.'"—(Mr. Gretton.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'hotels' stand part of the Schedule."
SIR S. EVANSsaid the Schedule and the note at the foot of it made an alter-
1802
ation in the law applicable to hotels, as it had been settled by decisions in the Courts, and that alteration was entirely in favour of hotels. He pointed out that a case came before the Courts in 1907 in which a large hotel had also a bar, valued at more than £25, as part of the premises. The decision of the Court was that the hotel must pay the full levy because the public-house bar could not be exempted. But where there was a hotel without a public-house bar the levy charge would be one-third of that made in ordinary cases. It was an alteration that had been made in favour of the hotels.
MR. GRETTONsaid the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman was adequate to meet the case, and he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. AGAR-ROBARTESmoved an addition to the Schedule providing that no levy should be charged to a hotel or restaurant where the holder of the licence agreed not to sell and was thereby prevented from selling any intoxicating liquor to any person who (1) was not residing in the hotel; or (2) was not having a meal in the hotel or restaurant. He said he had put down the Amendment for two reasons. In the first place, he wished, if possible, to remove an injustice arising out of the Act of 1904, which would be continued by this Bill, and in the second place

1803
he believed his Amendment was certain to promote the cause of temperance reform. The injustice under the Act of 1904 would be remedied in this way. That class of hotel which would avail itself of the provision was the barless hotel. There was a wide difference between a hotel with a bar and one without a bar; the former were many and the latter few; the former catered for the outside customer and the latter entirely for bona fide residents. It was the latter class of hotel which would be enabled to benefit by this provision, provided that the licence-holder would agree to carry on only the business indicated. He would give an illustration from the county of Cornwall. In that delectable duchy he knew of two hotels which were barless and which did not sell in the year more than five pounds worth of alcohol to outsiders, and these two hotels had to pay £30 and £10 respectively. That was to say, in fourteen years time they would have paid no less than £760 towards the compensation fund, and what for? Simply and solely for shutting up drinking-shops in which they had no interest and from the abolition of which they themselves could not obtain any advantages. He had also included restaurants, because he was convinced that the more provision they made for setting up the bona fide class of house where drink could only be obtained with meals, the more they would advance the cause of temperance reform. He would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that perhaps when they were going down for luncheon to a rendezvous at the Ritz and when they on his side of the House trudged down for a chop at the "Cheshire Cheese," they would no doubt earn the gratitude of their constituents for having laid down that every hotel or restaurant should have the opportunity of closing its bars, and thus inflict a blow at that constant tippling which had done so much in the past to manufacture the inebriate. He appealed with some confidence to all sections of the Committee to support his Amendment, but he was willing to withdraw it if the Government would give him some assurance that at a later stage they would put in words which would cover his object.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 25, line 32, at the end, to add the words 'No levy shall be charged to a hotel or restaurant where the holder of the licence agrees not to sell and is thereby prevented from selling any intoxicating liquor to any person who: (1) Is not residing in the hotel; or (2) is not having a meal in the hotel or restaurant.'"—(Mr. Agar-Robartes.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
SIR S. EVANSsaid that the Committee welcomed his hon. friend back to the House after his temporary absence. He wished that on this occasion he had been able to make a concession to his hon. friend. The Government had not been unmindful on this very important matter; it had been most carefully considered; but the hon. Member must know that such a provision as he proposed could not be confined entirely to the case of old hotels in the country. It must include anything in the shape of a restaurant or eating house which sold liquor to be consumed with meals. If all these were included, he was afraid that there would be a considerable inroad into the compensation fund. He was not able to make the concession asked for by the hon. Member without inflicting injustice. They had already made it impossible for the justices to levy more than one-third of the compensation levy in respect of such houses as were described in the proposed Amendment. That was a very substantial concession.
MR. AGAR-ROBARTESasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that before the Amendment was withdrawn he wished to draw attention to the peculiar argument used by the Solicitor-General. The hon. and learned Gentleman first of all said that he would be delighted to meet his hon. friend, and he was under the impression that he was going to accept the Amendment. Then the Solicitor-General said he could not accept the Amendment, and he waited to hear some weighty arguments against its acceptance. But all the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman was that if they accepted the Amendment they

1805
would not obtain the necessary amount of money from these unfortunate licensees to carry out the various objects of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman must have been influenced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his search after a hen roost. He hoped that the Home Secretary or the Under-Secretary would advance some argument to show that there was a case against the Amendment. If the thing was right it ought to be carried, whether it brought in more money or not; if it was wrong, it should be negatived.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*MR. CAVEasked if the alteration in the heading of the Schedule as compared with the Act of 1904 meant an increase in the amount of levy.
SIR S. EVANSsaid that the Committee had long ago come to the conclusion by a large majority that it was necessary to allow the levy to be increased for the purpose of reducing excessive licences, and the alteration had been made in order to bring the Schedule into conformity with that decision. As the hon. and learned

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Cheshire

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Agnew, George William

Bryce, J. Annan

Essex, R. W.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Alden, Percy

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Everett, R. Lacey

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Fenwick, Charles

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Byles, William Pollard

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Cameron, Robert

Findlay, Alexander

Astbury, John Meir

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Fullerton, Hugh

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Clough, William

Gill, A. H.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Clynes, J. R.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Barker, John

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Glendinning, R. G.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Glover, Thomas

Barnes, G. N.

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Beale, W. P.

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Beck, A. Cecil

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Bell, Richard

Cowan, W. H.

Gulland, John W.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Cox, Harold

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale)

Benn, Sir J. Williams) Devonp'rt

Crooks, William

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Bennett, E. N.

Crosfield, A. H.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Hart-Davies, T.

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

Black, Arthur W.

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Brace, William

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Dobson, Thomas W.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Brigg, John.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Helme, Norval Watson

Brodie, H. C.

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.

Member was aware, the annual value for compensation was to be taken under Schedule A of the Income Tax.
*MR. CAVE: Would it increase the amount of the levy?
SIR S. EVANSsaid he was not sure, but he did not think so.
MR. YOUNGERsaid that surely the hon. and learned Gentleman must know that the change was bound to increase the levy. Under the Act of 1904, the levy was limited; now it was unlimited. No one knew in the least what burden or obligation this Schedule would impose upon the unfortunate licence-holders throughout the country. They on that side of the House had not altered their views on this subject. They thought the levy was too high; and they objected very strongly to its being unlimited.
Question put, "That this be the second Schedule to the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 233; Noes, 80. (Division List No. 355.)

Henry, Charles S.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Shackleton, David James

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Middlebrook, William

Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.)

Higham, John Sharp

Molteno, Percy Alport

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Mond, A.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Hodge, John

Morse, L. L.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Holland, Sir William Henry

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Hooper, A. G.

Myer, Horatio

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

Napier, T. B.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Snowden, P.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Hudson, Walter

Nicholls, George

Soares, Ernest J.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Spicer, Sir Albert

Hyde, Clarendon

Norman, Sir Henry

Stanger, H. Y.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Jackson, R. S.

Nuttall, Harry

Steadman, W. C.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Grady, J.

Sutherland, J. E.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Partington, Oswald

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Jowett, F. W.

Paulton, James Mellor

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Kekewich, Sir George

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Kelley, George D.

Perks, Sir Robert William

Ure, Alexander

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Verney, F. W.

Laid law, Robert

Pollard, Dr.

Vivian, Henry

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Walsh, Stephen

Lamont, Norman

Radford, G. H.

Walton, Joseph

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Rainy, A. Rolland

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Lehmann, R. C.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Rees, J. D.

Waterlow, D. S.

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh

Lewis, John Herbert

Richardson, A.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Ridsdale, E. A.

Whitehead, Rowland

Lupton, Arnold

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf d

Wiles, Thomas

Lynch, H. B.

Robinson, S.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Rose, Charles Day

Williamson, A.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Rowlands, J.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Maclean, Donald

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

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

M'Callum, John M.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

M'Crae, Sir George

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Winfrey, R.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Marnham, F. J.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Massie, J.

Sears, J. E.

Joseph Pease and Master of

Menzies, Walter

Seaverns, J. H.

Elibank.

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex, F.

Faber, George Denison (York)

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Ashley, W. W.

Fell, Arthur

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

Balcarres, Lord

Fletcher, J. S.

Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Baldwin, Stanley

Forster, Henry William

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

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gardner, Ernest

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Barnard, E. B.

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham

M'Arthur, Charles

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Morpeth, Viscount

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Gretton, John

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Bertram, Julius

Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)

Nield, Herbert

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hamilton, Marquess of

Oddy, John James

Bull, Sir William James

Heaton, John Henniker

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hill, Sir Clement

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Clive, Percy Archer

Hills, J. W.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

Hogan, Michael

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Craik, Sir Henry

Houston, Robert Paterson

Remnant, James Farquharson

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hunt, Rowland

Renton, Leslie

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Joynson-Hicks, William

Renwick, George

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Keswick, William

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

1808

1809

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Thornton, Percy M.

Young, Samuel

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Valentia, Viscount

Younger, George

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Starkey, John R.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Mr. Cave and Sir Frederick

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

Banbury.

Schedule 3—
*MR. CAVEmoved the omission of subsection 2, which provided that except where the rent was the rent payable by the licence-holder: (a) The amount deducted from the rent should not in any case exceed one-tenth of the rent; and (b) No deduction should be made from the rent where the amount of the rent was less than one-fifth of the annual value of the premises for income-tax purposes under Schedule A. The Committee would know that under the Act of 1904 it was provided that the deduction from the rent should not exceed half of the rent, but that was altered by this Bill. The Schedule made a great difference to many people, and they ought to know why the alteration was made. He would give some figures to show how the change worked in an actual case. There was a public-house let at a ground-rent of £10 a year, with fourteen years to run. The house was sub-let to the occupier for the same term, less one day, for £100 a year, with the building upon the land. The levy under the Act of 1904 would be £20. Under the present system the actual tenant deducted 25 per cent., or £5, and paid £15. The intermediate lessor to whom he paid his rent could deduct the whole £5 from his head-rent, so that he paid nothing. Thus the lessee paid £15 and the owner or brewer £5 a year. Under this Bill the effect of the change was that the £5 a year which the brewer now paid would be paid by the intermediate lessee who had no interest in the licence, because he had sublet the whole of his term and it did not matter to him whether the licence went on or not. Yet this payment was put upon him instead of upon the freeholder, who was interested in the licence going on. He did not see the sense or justice of that or upon what principle the change was made. The intermediate lessee whom he had in mind wrote to the Home Office some time ago to call
1810
their attention to the matter, and was told that in the Bill, which was then about to be brought in, attention would be paid to the point, but, so far from that being the case, he was worse off now than under the Act of 1904. The effect was capricious, and he would like to know why this change which seriously affected the pockets of a number of people was going to be made. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 26, line 11, to leave out subsection (2)."—(Mr. Cave.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
SIR S. EVANSsaid that this was a very complicated question, and one very difficult to deal with by way of argument. He might point out, however, that the scheme of deduction to be found in this Bill was on exactly the same scale as that of the Act of 1904. Under that Act there was a rough and ready method of doing justice to those who only received ground rent, by means of a note at the end of the scale saying that in no case was more than one-half of the rent to be deducted. Many complaints had been made of injustice caused by that rule of thumb; it could not be described as anything else, because there was no application of any principle which had the result of arriving at a rule of that kind. What they had tried to do, and what they thought they had succeeded in doing under this schedule, was to make the deduction of rent, which was, of course, a part payment of the compensation levy, only payable by those interested in the perpetuation of the licence. Let him give the simplest case possible. Supposing a house was worth £100 per annum without a licence, and £200 with a licence, and the landlord had merely a ground rent of £5, he was not interested in the payment

1811
of the compensation levy nor in the receipt of the compensation money. His rent was absolutely and fully secured by the premises themselves without any reference to the licence. That was the case which they had dealt with under sub-head (b) of subsection 2, where they provided that no deduction should be made where the rent was less than one-fifth of the annual value. The Bill assumed that where the rent was less than one-fifth of the annual value of the premises the ground rent was absolutely secured without any licence attaching to the premises at all. Then as to subhead (a) the Government thought they had made it fairer for those people whose rent was not part of the rack-rent, but who were abundantly secured without any reference to the licence attaching to the premises. He did not know whether in the case put the intermediate lessee paid more than his share, but he was certainly very much better off under their Bill than he would be under the Act of 1904.
MR. CAVEsaid the case he put had not been met, because the intermediate lessee had no interest in keeping up the licence, as he would have the same rent whether the licence went or not, and he had to pay £5 for nothing.
SIR S. EVANSsaid he would look into the matter a little more closely. It was the sort of thing they intended to provide for by their modification. It was a most difficult subject, but he was perfectly certain that they had approached it from the right point of view, and they had made modifications which would prevent a great deal of injustice.
*MR. BERTRAMsaid he desired to put this concrete instance, and in order to put it clearly before the Committee he would refer to himself as the intermediate lessee. He was the leasehold owner of a licensed house. He held that house on a term of years, and paid the ground landlord £2 a year. He did not occupy the premises himself. They were sub-let to a firm of brewers, Watney, Coombe & Co., who paid him £20 a year. The assessable value of the premises was £100 a year. Watney,
1812
Coombe & Co. had since acquired the freehold reversion, and the position was that the tenants of his leasehold house paid him £20 a year, and he paid them £2 a year as the ground landlords. Their contribution to the compensation fund under the Act of 1904 enabled them to come to him and say: "Our contribution has been in excess of £10, and we are going to reduce your rent by 50 per cent." They then paid him only £10 a year, and he in return was entitled to reduce his payment to them of £2 a year by 50 per cent. That was a case which was never contemplated by the Act of 1904, for though he lost £10 every year he obtained no share of the compensation fund. He had taken counsel's opinion on the matter, and had been advised that he had no option but to submit to the reduction of rent. He again consulted counsel, and pointed out that though it was true Watney, Coombe & Co. carried on a licensed business in a proper manner they had covenanted not to carry on any trade which prejudiced or annoyed him, and that they were prejudicing him by deducting half his rent, because the premises if used for other purposes would pay him the full rent. Counsel said that would not do, that he was straining the meaning of words beyond that which they ought to bear, and that he had no remedy. He then looked to these sub-clauses to relieve him of the hardships imposed upon him by the Act of 1904. He particularly called attention to the governing words of Sections (a) and (b)—
"Except where the rent payable is rent payable by a licence-holder."
As in his case the rent was paid by the licence-holder, in spite of the fact that these premises were worth £100 a year, and that he would far sooner they were used for any other purpose than the sale of alcoholic liquor, he was excluded from the benefit of the section. He was sure that it was not the intention of the Government to exclude him in this way. Those were the particulars of a case—he was not the leaseholder, and only referred to himself as such to put the case clearly—where protection ought to be afforded to the person who had an interest in the premises, apart altogether from the licence, in which he had no int rest

1813 A
whatever, and he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman in the consultation he proposed to have with the hon. and learned Member for Kingston would be able to arrive at some solution which would do away with this hardship.
SIR S. EVANSsaid he was grateful to the hon. Member for the lucid manner in which he had put his case. It was not only put before him clearly, but also with some pathos, and it was with great astonishment and equal delight that he found his hon. friend was not the unfortunate leaseholder. It was the case of such a house that the Government wanted to meet in sub-clauses

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Cooper, G. J.

Helme, Norval Watson

Agnew, George William

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Hemmerde, Edward George

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Alden, Percy

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Cowan, W. H.

Henry, Charles S.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Crooks, William

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Crosfield, A. H.

Higham, John Sharp

Astbury, John Meir

Crossley, William J.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hodge, John

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Hogan, Michael

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Barker, John

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Hooper, A. G.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

Barnard, E. B.

Dobson, Thomas W.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Barnes, G. N.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Hudson, Walter

Beale, W. P.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Beck, A. Cecil

Erskine, David C.

Hyde, Clarendon

Bell, Richard

Essex, R. W.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Jackson, R. S.

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Everett, R. Lacey

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Bennett, E. M.

Fenwick, Charles

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Bertram, Julius

Findlay, Alexander

Jowett, F. W.

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Black, Arthur W.

Fullerton, Hugh

Kekewich, Sir George

Boulton, A. C. F.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Kelley, George D.

Brace, William

Gill, A. H.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Laidlaw, Robert

Brigg, John

Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Brodie, H. C.

Glendinning, R. G.

Lambert, George.

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Glover, Thomas

Lamont, Norman

Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Cheshire

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Bryce, J. Annan

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Griffith, Ellis J.

Lehmann, R. C.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Gulland, John W.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Byles, William Pollard

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Cameron, Robert

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Lewis, John Herbert

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hart-Davies, T.

Lupton, Arnold

Clough, William

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Clynes, J. R.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Lynch, H. B.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

(a) and (b). Some alteration was no doubt necessary, and if his hon. friend would increase his obligation to him by joining in the consultation he proposed to have with his hon. and learned friend the Member for Kingston he thought they would be able to arrive at a satisfactory solution.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, "That this be the third Schedule to the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 262; Noes, 88. (Division List No. 356).

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

Perks, Sir Robert William

Soares, Ernest J.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Spicer, Sir Albert

Maclean, Donald

Pollard, Dr.

Stanger, H. Y.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Radford, G. H.

Steadman, W. C.

M'Callum, John M.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

M'Crae, Sir George

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Sutherland, J. E.

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.

Rees, J. D.

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

M'Micking, Major G.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Maddison, Frederick

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Richardson, A.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Marnham, F. J.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Tomkinson, James

Massie, J.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Ure, Alexander

Menzies, Walter

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Vivian, Henry

Micklem, Natheniel

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Walsh, Stephen

Middlebrook, William

Robinson, S.

Walton, Joseph

Molteno, Percy Alport

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

Mond, A.

Rose, Charles Day

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Rowlands, J.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Montgomery, H. G.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Waterlow, D. S.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Watt, Henry A.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Morse, L. L.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Myer, Horatio

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Whitehead, Rowland

Napier, T. B.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester)

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Newnes, Sir George (Sawnsea)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Wiles, Thomas

Nicholls, George

Sears, J. E.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Seaverns, J. H.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Norman, Sir Henry

Seddon, J.

Williamson, A.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Shackleton, David James

Wills, Arthur Walters

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

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

Nuttall, Harry

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

O'Grady, J.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Winfrey, R.

Partington, Oswald

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Paulton, James Mellor

Sloan, Thomas Henry

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Joseph Pease and Master of

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Snowden, P.

Elibank.

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.

Gardner, Ernest

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Nield, Herbert

Balcarres, Lord

Cooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Baldwin, Stanley

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Oddy, John James

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gretton, John

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hamilton, Marquess of

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Bowles, G. Stewart

Heaton, John Henniker

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hill Sir Clement

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Bull, Sir William James

Hills, J. W.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Renton, Leslie

Cave, George

Houston, Robert Paterson

Renwick, George

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Hunt, Rowland

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Clive, Percy Archer

Joynson-Hicks, William

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

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

Kerry, Earl of

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Starkey, John R.

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

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

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Faber, George Denison (York)

Lowe, Sir Farncis William

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W)

M'Arthur, Charles

Thornton, Percy M.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Fell, Arthur

Magnus, Sir Philip

Valentia, Viscount

Fletcher, J. S.

Morpeth, Viscount

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Forster, Henry William

Morrison-Bell, Captain

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

1816

1817

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

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

Young, Samuel

Frederick Banbury and Mr.

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

Younger, George

Ashley.

Schedule 4 agreed to.
Schedule 5:
MR. MCARTHURwished to say a word as to the shipping industry in reference to the Bill. The Bill made no difference between the conditions afloat and on shore, and the consequence was that it was altogether impossible as regards practical shipping. They thanked the Under-Secretary for the concessions he had made and for the Amendment which appeared in his name; but they did not go quite far enough. They failed altogether to distinguish between conditions on shore and conditions afloat. It was quite practicable for a licence-holder to avoid permitting drunkenness on shore, because, if a man entered his premises in a state of drunkenness, he had simply to turn him out into the street. In the case of a ship, they could not do that. They could not turn a man out of a ship by heaving him overboard. Then the owner or master of a vessel had no power to search a passenger. Supposing a passenger brought on board some intoxicating drink in his pocket, who was to prevent him drinking it? The master of a ship was a man whose mind was occupied altogether with other matters than those behind the bar; he was responsible for the safety of the ship, and of the lives of those on board; and it was simply unjust to make him liable to a fine of £10 for the first offence, and of £20 for a subsequent offence for permitting drunkenness on his vessel. He submitted that some such Amendment as he proposed, or as was proposed by the hon. Member for Gloucester, was necessary to adapt the Schedule—not to destroy it—to the conditions which prevailed at sea.
Amendment proposed—
"In, page 29, to leave out line 30."—(Mr. McArthur.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the Schedule was rendered necessary by the very great evils which existed, especially on certain river steamers on some of the rivers of England, which were practically run as floating public-houses mainly for the purpose of drinking. The late Government was impressed by this and was, he believed, anxious to deal with it in one of their Bills, but it was impracticable to do so. The question raised no party issue. The condition of things which was known to exist on certain of our rivers needed to be dealt with by the Legislature. The Government had had complaints, from the Worcester County Council for example, with regard to the state of things which existed on the Severn, and occasionally with reference to abuses on the Thames, and there were other places in which the evil occurred. It had been suggested that the right remedy was to require the boats to take out a justices' licence and put them under the same control as a public-house; but for various administrative reasons it was impossible to apply the machinery of a justices' licence to movable vessels. It was proposed therefore to leave them as at present with an excise licence, but to impose additional restrictions upon them. The problem before them was very similar to the problem of the clubs. They had to distinguish there between the mainly drinking club and the reputable club, which was not to be interfered with more than was absolutely necessary. They had here to strike at the evil on board the drinking steamer and to leave the ordinary reputable steamers which had excise licences for the sale of intoxicants as little interfered with as possible. He admitted that the Schedule as originally drafted was in some of its particulars too drastic, and he had had the opportunity of conferring with hon. Members who represented ship-owners, and, as a result, there were a series of Amendments standing in his name which he understood from a deputation which saw him a few days ago met their case. The Amendment, however, which the

1819
hon. Member opposite had moved would really destroy the purpose of the Schedule. He proposed to leave out the line which imposed the penalty for permitting drunkenness. The line applied to the case of these ships, Section 13 of the Licensing Act of 1872, which seemed perfectly applicable to them. That section provided that if any person permitted drunkenness or any quarrelsome or riotous conduct to take place on his premises or the sale of any intoxicating liquor to any drunken person he should be liable to a penalty. The word "permitted" implied that be permitted with knowledge. A shipowner who took ordinary precautions and appointed suitable persons to serve as stewards and in other ways provided against drunkenness would not be liable to a penalty if someone surreptitiously imported bottles of liquor and consumed them, and no prosecutions would lie. It was known, however, that in the case of river steamers gross drunkenness took place, and if the owner or master were warned by the police that this was taking place, then a prosecution could follow, and it could be proved that he had with his knowledge permitted drunkenness. If line 30 were left out, the purpose of the Schedule would be completely defeated; and, if it were left in, it would impose no real hardship upon any reputable master or owner of a ship.
MR. STUART WORTLEYcould not believe that so cute a man as the right hon. Gentleman had not fully appreciated the gist of the Amendment. It was not merely the case of a man who had surreptitiously brought drink on board and so made it possible for the shipowner to say he did not know he was getting drunk. The licence-holder on shore, even where evidence was wanting to show that he had done anything to make a man in his house drunk, could nevertheless be convicted because he allowed a drunken person to remain on his premises, because he might thus be said to have condoned, connived at, or permitted drunkenness. In the case of the steamer afloat there was no means of getting rid of a person who might surreptitiously have brought drink on board, and thus got
1820
drunk, and that was really what his hon friend had tried to provide for. He could quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman had difficulty in accepting the total deletion of line 30; but he did not see why he should not be ready to accept some less drastic Amendment, such as was proposed by the hon. Member for Gloucester, providing that the permitting of drunkenness should relate to> the sale of intoxicating liquor to any drunken person.
MR. ASHLEYsaid it seemed to him from the speech of the Under-Secretary that the whole of the passenger vessels that plied round the coasts of England were to be penalised, and a stigma put upon them, simply because, according to him, certain launches on rivers had misbehaved in the past. He protested most earnestly on behalf of companies who had a most respectable service from London, Liverpool, Blackpool, Fleetwood, etc., that their conduct should be brought under review in this way simply because in certain places on inland rivers misconduct had occurred. Why, if these coasting steamers were to be penalised in this way, should not foreign going steamers be equally brought" under review? These things occurred on foreign going steamers as much as on coasting steamers. Also, if the right hon. Gentleman was going to penalise the steamer that went from Liverpool to the Isle of Man, why should not the-steamer that went from Dublin to Holyhead or from Glasgow to another port in Scotland be similarly treated? It was not proposed that these things should be made illegal in Ireland or Scotland-Surely what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander, and if they were to have these drastic provisions enforced in England, it was right that Scotch and Irish companies should be treated in the same way. What the right hon. Gentleman proposed to, do in this Schedule was to make the whole of a passenger steamer into licensed premises. A public-house was only licensed as regards certain rooms, but here they were going to say drunkenness was an offence not merely in the bar or the saloon, but in a passenger's private cabin. Surely that was carrying interference with individual liberty very

1821
much too far. Were not Acts of Parliament already in force sufficient to meet the case? A man at present who was drunk and disorderly, and refused to go ashore when requested, at the next port of landing, was liable to a fine of 40s. recoverable in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. But the most unfair part of the Schedule was that it made the wretched captain liable for any act of drunkenness which might occur in any part of the ship. If a man came on board perfectly sober with a bottle of whisky in his pocket, and repaired to his cabin and become drunk, the captain on the bridge was liable to a fine of £50 for having permitted such a thing to go on. How on earth could he prevent it? Was it fair that this very deserving class of men should be put under this disability? If they must do something the thing to do was to say that each vessel must have a licence. Let the Commissioners appoint a licence-holder for each vessel, in preference the chief steward, and make him liable, but for Heaven's sake, and in the name of commonsense and honesty, let them not make the wretched captain liable who was much better employed in navigation.
*MR. F. E. SMITHhoped sincerely that the Committee would very carefully consider before they supported the proposal which the Government was putting forward in opposition to the Amendment. The subject matter of the Amendment was more strongly felt at Liverpool and other large ports than probably any Amendment that had engaged the attention of the Committee in the whole controversial and stormy course of the Bill. There was in Liverpool an extremely influential merchant guild which represented some thousands of masters in the mercantile marine, and although these men, unfortunately, were practically though not nominally, disfranchised, and therefore unable to bring Parliamentary pressure to bear, there existed amongst them the very strongest feeling In opposition to the proposals of the Government. Prima facie, those proposals required very considerable justification, but the right hon. Gentleman's speech only came to this, that in his judgment, and that of the Government, in
1822
the case of river steamers great evils were admitted to exist, and he had spoken of some inchoate proposals on the part of the late Government which never reached maturity, for the purpose of dealing with those evils. That argument, with the greatest possible respect, was a most lamentable justification for extending the most tyrannous inspection not to the river steamers, which alone were complained of, but to all sea-going steamers. Further, the right hon. Gentleman's explanation on the legal side left something very greatly to be desired. He spoke of what was the meaning of permitting drunkenness. If he did not know, the Solicitor-General would inform him what the effect of decisions of the Courts had been to define the offence of permitting drunkenness. It had teen laid down by the existing decisions as to permitting drunkenness that whether or not in fact the person charged with permitting drunkenness knew of it, the law under all circumstances imposed upon him the onus of showing that he did not know of it, and that every conceivable precaution against drunkenness had been used. He would not say that that decision was a perfectly reasonable one, but a great deal was to be said on behalf of it when dealing with the licensee of a public-house in parts of which alone it was permissible to sell intoxicating drink. To throw the onus on the captain, whose business had nothing to do with the sale of alcohol, was absurd and illogical. They might as well say when the right hon. Gentleman sat on the front bench, which furnished a rough analogue for the quarter-deck, he was to be responsible for anyone in the smoking-room of the House. His means of judging and of exercising control would be exactly comparable to those possessed by a master. Indeed, there would be this difference in favour of the right hon. Gentleman, as compared with the master, that it would matter very little if the right hon. Gentleman's attention on the front bench were to stray a little. He had always the Solicitor-General to take up a point he might miss. But the Government imposed upon the master the onus of roaming through the passages of the ship, including the saloons of the ladies. He supposed they had searched

1823
through the casualty lists, and were of opinion, having regard to the necessities of modern seamanship, that it was a move in the right direction that duties of this kind should be imposed upon the master, upon whom the primary responsibility for the safety of the ship existed. It was obvious that if the Government wished to impose any such responsibility it must necessarily be imposed, not upon the master, but upon either the head steward or some new functionary to be created to discharge duties comparable in their character to those discharged by a licensee of licensed premises. He submitted to the better judgment of the Committee that the whole of these provisions, so far as merchant vessels were concerned, had never been thought out. They could not be introduced into the Bill, with the main object of which they had nothing whatever to do, without the greatest possible risk to the safety of the vessels. He hoped they would hear from the Government that if their reforming tendencies were to be applied to merchant vessels, at least they would not choose as the subject of their experiment the person on whose constant devotion to the actual duties of his office the safety of the vessel and those in it depended.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he should like to answer two points which had been raised. The first was the suggestion that it might be possible to devise some geographical line to

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Cameron, Robert

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Agnew, George William

Bennett, E. N.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Berridge, T. H. D.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Alden, Percy

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

Clough, William

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Black, Arthur W.

Clynes, J. R.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Brace, William

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Astbury, John Meir

Bramsdon, T. A.

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Brigg, John

Cooper, G. J.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Bright, J. A.

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Brodie, H. C.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Barker, John

Brooke, Stopford

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Barnard, E. B.

Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Cheshire

Cowan, W. H.

Barnes, G. N.

Bryce, J. Annan

Cox, Harold

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Beale, W. P.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Crooks, William

Beck, A. Cecil

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Crosfield, A. H.

Bell, Richard

Byles, William Pollard

Crossley, William J.

distinguish between river steamers and other steamers. It was impracticable to devise any such line, for many steamers plied partly in rivers and partly on the sea. With regard to the suggestion that if they had to impose restrictions some person should be invented or devised on whom the penalty might fall, other than the master, in all their legislation dealing with shipping, the master or captain of the vessel was always the person made technically liable.
*MR. F. E. SMITH: Certainly, but this Bill is not a shipping Bill.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid it was impossible, in practice, to provide-any other person for fear of evasion of the law by the owners of the vessel. Nothing could be simpler in the case of boats that plied, especially on Sundays, on rivers, and which were merely floating public-houses, than to put in nominal charge of the bar some man of straw who, after he had been penalised on one occasion, could be easily replaced by another. As to the main objection, the person who was responsible for any act of misconduct in the largest hotel was not the man behind the bar, but the owner of the hotel.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 285; Noes, 101. (Division List No. 357.)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Kekewich, Sir George

Rainy, A. Rolland

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Kelley, George D.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Rees, J. D.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Laidlaw, Robert

Richards Thomas (W. Monm'th

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Richardson, A.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lambert, George

Ridsdale, E. A.

Dobson, Thomas W.

Lamont, Norman

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Lehmann, R. C.

Robinson, S.

Erskine, David C.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Essex, R. W.

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Rose, Charles Day

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Rowlands, J.

Everett, R. Lacey

Lewis, John Herbert

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Fenwick, Charles

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Findlay, Alexander

Lupton, Arnold

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Fullerton, Hugh

Lyell, Charles Henry

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lynch, H. B.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Gill, A. H.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Mcadonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Sears, J. E.

Glendinning, R. G.

Maclean, Donald

Seaverns, J. H.

Glover, Thomas

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Seddon, J.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Seely, Colonel

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

M'Callum, John M.

Shackleton, David James

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

M'Crae, Sir George

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Griffith, Ellis J.

M'Micking, Major G.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Maddison, Frederick

Simon, John Allsebrook

Gulland, John W.

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Marnham, F. J.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Snowden, P.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Massie, J.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Menzies, Walter

Soares, Ernest J.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

Micklem, Nathaniel

Spicer, Sir Albert

Hart-Davies, T.

Middlebrook, William

Stanger, H. Y.

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Harwood, George

Mond, A.

Steadman, W. C.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Montgomery, H. G.

Sutherland, J. E.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Helme, Norval Watson

Morse, L. L.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Hemmerde, Edward George

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Thomasson, Franklin

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Myer, Horatio

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Henry, Charles S.

Napier, T. B.

Tomkinson, James

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Higham, John Sharp

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Ure, Alexander

Hobart, Sir Robert

Nicholls, George

Verney, F. W.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Vivian, Henry

Hodge, John

Norman, Sir Henry

Walsh, Stephen

Holland, Sir William Henry

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Walton, Joseph

Hooper, A. G.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

Nuttall, Harry

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

O'Grady, J.

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Partington, Oswald

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Hudson, Walter

Paulton, James Mellor

Waterlow, D. S.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Hyde, Clarendon

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh

Illingworth, Percy H.

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Perks, Sir Robert William

Whitehead, Rowland

Jackson, R. S.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Pollard, Dr.

Wiles, Thomas

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Jowett, F. W.

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Radford, G. H.

Williamson, A.

1826

1827

Wills, Arthur Walters

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

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

Winfrey, R.

Joseph Pease and Master

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

of Elibank.

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex, F.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Ashley, W. W.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Balcarres, Lord

Gretton, John

Remnant, James Farquharson

Baldwin, Stanley

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Renton, Leslie

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)

Renwick, George

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Hamilton, Marquess of

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Heaton, John Henniker

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hill, Sir Clement

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hunt, Rowland

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Joynson-Hicks, William

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Kerry, Earl of

Starkey, John R.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Keswick, William

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Clive, Percy Archer

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

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

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

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Thornton, Percy M.

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Valentia, Viscount

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Craik, Sir Henry

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

Watt, Henry A.

Cross, Alexander

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Whitbread, Howard

Doughty, Sir George

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Magnus, Sir Philip

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Morpeth, Viscount

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

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Morrison-Bell, Captain

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

Faber, George Denison (York)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

Nield, Herbert

Young, Samuel

Fardell, Sir T. George

Oddy, John James

Younger, George

Fell, Arthur

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Fletcher, J. S.

Percy, Earl

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Forster, Henry William

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

M'Arthur and Mr. Cave.

Gardner, Ernest

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 29, to leave out line 35."
"In page 29, to leave out lines 39 to 41, inclusive."
"In page 30, line 6, to leave out the words '1828 to 1906.'"
"In page 30, to leave out lines 8 to 12, inclusive."

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Alden, Percy

Astbury, John Meir

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Agnew, George William

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

"In page 30, to leave out lines 21 and 22."
"In page 30, line 23, after the word 'under,' to insert the words Paragraph (2) of.'"
"In page 30, line 34, to leave out the words 'or on board any other vessel belonging to the same owner. Provided that nothing in this provision shall prevent the supply of intoxicating liquor to a person taking a meal in a part of the vessel assigned for the purpose, or requiring the liquor on account of illness.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
Amendments made.
Question, "That this Schedule as amended be the fifth Schedule to the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Aves, 285; Noes, 102. (division List No. 358.)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Barker, John

Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.

Maclean, Donald

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Glendinning, R. G.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Barnard, E. B.

Glover, Thomas

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Barnes, G. N.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

M'Callum, John M.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

M'Crae, Sir George

Beale, W. P.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Beck, A. Cecil

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

M'Micking, Major G.

Bell, Richard

Griffith, Ellis J.

Maddison, Frederick

Bellairs, Carlyon

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Gulland, John W.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Marnham, F. J.

Bennett, E. N.

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose

Massie, J.

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romfr'd

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Black, Arthur W.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r

Menzies, Walter

Boulton, A. C. F.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

Micklem, Nathaniel

Brace, William

Hart-Davies, T.

Middlebrook, William

Bramsdon, T. A.

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Brigg, John

Harwood, George

Mond, A.

Bright, J. A.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Montague, Hon. E. S.

Brodie, H. C.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Montgomery, H. G.

Brooke, Stopford

Haworth, Arthur A.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Morgan, J. Lloyd Carmarthen)

Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Cheshire

Helme, Norval Watson

Morse, L. L.

Bryce, J. Annan

Hemmerde, Edward George

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Myer, Horatio

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Henry, Charles S.

Napier, T. B.

Byles, William Pollard

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Cameron, Robert

Higham, John Sharp

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Hobart, Sir Robert

Nicholls, George

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hodge, John

Norman, Sir Henry

Clough, William

Holland, Sir William Henry

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Clynes, J. R.

Hooper, A. G.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

Nuttall, Harry

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

O'Grady, J.

Cooper, G. J.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Partington, Oswald

Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Hudson, Walter

Paulton, James Mellor

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hyde, Clarendon

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Illingworth, Percy H.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Cowan, W. H.

Jackson, R. S.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Cox, Harold

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Pollard, Dr.

Crooks, William

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Crosfield, A. H.

Jowett, F. W.

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Crossley, William J.

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Radford, G. H.

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Kekewich, Sir George

Rainy, A. Rolland

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Kelley, George D.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Rees, J. D.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Laidlaw, Robert

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Richardson, A.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lambert, George

Ridsdale, E. A.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lamont, Norman

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Dobson, Thomas W.

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Lehmann, R. C.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Robinson, S.

Erskine, David C.

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Essex, R. W.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Rose, Charles Day

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Lewis, John Herbert

Rowlands, J.

Everett, R. Lacey

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Fenwick, Charles

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Lupton, Arnold

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Findlay, Alexander

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Lyell, Charles Henry

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Fullerton, Hugh

Lynch, H. B.

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Gill, A. H.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

1830

1831

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Sears, J. E.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Whitehead, Rowland

Seaverns, J. H.

Thomasson, Franklin

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Seddon, J.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Seely, Colonel

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Wiles, Thomas

Shackleton, David James

Tomkinson, James

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Ure, Alexander

Williamson, A.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Verney, F. W.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Vivian, Henry

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

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Walsh, Stephen

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Snowden, P.

Walton, Joseph

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Winfrey, R.

Soares, Ernest J.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

Wood, T. M. Kinnon

Spicer, Sir Albert

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Steadman, W. C.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Joseph Pease and Master

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Waterlow, D. S.

of Elibank.

Sutherland, J. E.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh

NOES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Ashley, W. W.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Rawlinson, john Frederick Peel

Balcarres, Lord

Gretton, John

Remnant, James Farquharson

Baldwin, Stanley

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Renton, Leslie

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)

Renwick, George

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Hamilton, Marquess of

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Beach, Hn. Micheal Hugh Hicks

Heaton, John Henniker

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hill, Sir Clement

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hunt, Rowland

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Joynson-Hicks, William

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Cave, George

Kerry, Earl of

Starkey, John R.

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Keswick, William

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

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

Clive, Percy Archer

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

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

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich

Thornton, Percy M.

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham)

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Watt, Henry A.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

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

Whit-bread, Howard

Craik, Sir Henry

Lowe, Sir Francis William

White, Patric (Meath, North)

Cross, Alexander

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Doughty, Sir George

M'Arthur, Charles

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Magnus, Sir Philip

Winterton, Earl

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Morpeth, Viscount

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

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Faber, George Denison (York)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

Young, Samuel

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

Nield, Herbert

Younger, George

Fardell, Sir T. George

Oddy, John James

Fell, Arthur

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Fletcher, J. S.

Percy, Earl

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Forster, Henry William

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Viscount Valentia

Gardner, Ernest

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Schedule 6:

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 286; Noes, 99. (Division List No. 359.)

AYES.

Abraham William (Rhondda)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Alden, Percy

Ashton Thomas Gair

Agnew, George William

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Astbury, John Meir

Question, "That this be the sixth Schedule to the Bill."

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Gill, A. H.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.

Maclean, Donald

Barker, John

Gendinning, R. G.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Glover, Thomas

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Barnard, E. B.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

M'Callum, John M.

Barnes, G. N.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

M'Crae, Sir George

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.>

Beale, W. P.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

M'Micking, Major G.

Beck, A. Cecil

Griffith, Ellis J.

Maddison, Frederick

Bell, Richard

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Gulland, John W.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Marnham, F. J.

Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Bennett, E. N.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Massie, J.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Menzies, Walter

Black, Arthur W.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

Micklem, Nathaniel

Boulton, A. C. F.

Hart-Davies, T.

Middlebrook, William

Brace, William

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Bramsdon, T. A.

Harwood, George

Mond, A.

Brigg, John

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Bright, J. A.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Montgomery, H. G.

Brodie, H. C.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Brooke, Stopford

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Helme, Norval Watson

Morse, L. L.

Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Cheshire

Hemmerde, Edward George

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Bryce, J. Annan

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Myer, Horatio

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Henry, Charles S.

Napier, T. B.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Byles, William Pollard

Higham, John Sharp

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Cameron, Robert

Hobart, Sir Robert

Nicholls, George

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hodge, John

Norman, Sir Henry

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Norton, Capt. Cecil William.

Clough, William

Hooper, A. G.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Clynes, J. R.

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

Nuttall, Harry

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

O'Grady, J.

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Partington, Oswald

Cooper, G. J.

Hudson, Walter

Paulton, James Mellor

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Hyde, Clarendon

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Jackson, R. S.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Cowan, W. H.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Pollard, Dr.

Crooks, William

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Crosfield, A. H.

Jowett, F. W.

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Crossley, William J.

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Radford, G. H.

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Kekewich, Sir George

Rainy, A. Rolland

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Kelley, George D.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Rees, J. D.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Laidlaw, Robert

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Richardson, A.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lambert, George

Ridsdale, E. A.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lamont, Norman

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Dobson, Thomas W.

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Lehmann, R. C.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Robinson, S.

Erskine, David C.

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Essex, R. W.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Rose, Charles Day

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Lewis, John Herbert

Rowlands J.

Everett, R. Lacey

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Fenwick, Charles

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Lupton, Arnold

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Findlay, Alexander

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Lyell, Charles Henry

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Fullerton, Hugh

Lynch, H. B.

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

1834

1835

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under Lyne

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Sears, J. E.

Thomasson, Franklin

Whitehead, Rowland

Seaverns, J. H.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Seddon, J.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Seely, Colonel

Tomkinson, James

Wiles, Thomas

Shackleton, David James

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

Ure, Alexander

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Verney, F. W.

Williamson, A.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Vivian, Henry

Wills, Arthur Walters

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Walsh, Stephen

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

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Walton, Joseph

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Snowden, P.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

Winfrey, R.

Soares, Ernest J.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Wood, T. M. Kinnon

Spicer, Sir Albert

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Steadman, W. C.

Waterlow, D. S.

Joseph Pease, and

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Watt, Henry A.

Master of Elibank.

Sutherland, J. E.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

NOES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Ashley, W. W.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Balcarres, Lord

Gretton, John

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Baldwin, Stanley

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)

Renton, Leslie

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Hamilton, Marquess of

Renwick, George

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Heaton, John Henniker

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hill, Sir Clement

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hills, J. W.

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Houston, Robert Paterson

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hunt, Rowland

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Cave, George

Joynson-Hicks, William

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Kerry, Earl of

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Keswick, William

Starkey, John R.

Clive, Percy Archer

King, Sir Henry Sevmour (Hull)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

Colling, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

Thornton, Percy M.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Craik, Sir Henry

Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Cross, Alexander

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

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Doughty, Sir George

Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Winterton, Earl

Du Cros. Arthur Philip

M'Arthur, Charles

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

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Morpeth, Viscount

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Faber, George Denison (York)

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Young, Samuel

Faber, Capt.W. V. (Hants, W.) |

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Younger, George

Fardell, Sir T. George

Nield, Herbert

Fell, Arthur

Oddy, John James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Fletcher, J. S.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Forster, Henry William

Percy, Earl

Viscount Valentia.

Gardner, Ernest

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Schedule 7:
Amendment proposed—
"In page 34, line 34, after the word 'three,' to insert the words 'Section 4, from' which is represented 'down to 'taken into consideration.''"—(Sir S. Evans.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Alden, Percy

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Agnew, George William

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Astbury, John Meir

Question put; "That the Amendment be made."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 285; Noes, 98. (Division List No. 360.)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Fullerton, Hugh

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Gill, A. H.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Maclean, Donald

Barker, John

Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Glendinning, R. G.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Barnard, E. B.

Glover, Thomas

M'Callum, John M.

Barnes, G. N.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

M'Crae, Sir George

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Beale, W. P.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

M'Micking, Major G.

Beck, A. Cecil

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Maddison, Frederick

Bell, Richard

Griffiths, Ellis J.

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Gulland, John W.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Marnham, F. J.

Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Bennett, E. N.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Massie, J.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'd)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

Menzies, Walter

Black, Arthur W.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh

Micklem, Natheniel

Boulton, A. C. F.

Hart-Davies, T.

Middlebrook, William

Bowerman, C. W.

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

Moteno, Percy Alport

Brace, William

Harwood, George

Mond, A.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Brigg, John

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Montgomery, H. G.

Bright, J. A.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Brodie, H. C.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Brooke, Stopford

Helme, Narval Watson

Morse, L. L.

Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Hemmerde, Edward George

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Chesh)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Murray, James (Aberdeen,; E.)

Bryce, J. Annan

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Myer, Horatio

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Henry, Charles S.

Napier, T. B.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Higham, John Sharp

Nicholls, George

Byles, William Pollard

Hobart, Sir Robert

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Cameron, Robert

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Norman, Sir Henry

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Hodge, John

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Holland, Sir William Henry

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hooper, A. G.

Nuttall, Harry

Clough, William

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Clynes, J. R.

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Grady, J.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Partington, Oswald

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Paulton, James Mellor

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Hudson, Walter

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Cooper, G. J.

Hyde, Clarendon

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Illjngworth, Percy H.

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Philippe, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Jackson, R. S.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Pollard, Dr.

Cowan, W. H.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Crooks, William

Jowett, F. W.

Radford, G. H.

Crosfield, A. H.

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Crossley, William J.

Kekewich, Sir George

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Kelley, George D.

Rees, J. D.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

Davies, M.Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Laidlaw, Robert

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Richardson, A.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.

Lambert, George

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lamont, Norman

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Dobson, Thomas W.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lehmann, R. C.

Robinson, S.

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Rose, Charles Day

Erskine, David C.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Rowlands, J.

Essex, R. W.

Lewis, John Herbert

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Everett, R. Lacey

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Fenwick, Charles

Lupton, Arnold

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Findlay, Alexander

Lyell, Charles Henry

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Lynch, H. B.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

1838

1839

Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Scott, A.H. (Ashton under Lyne)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Sears, J. E.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh

Seaverns, J. H.

Thomasson, Franklin

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Seddon, J.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Whitehead, Rowland

Seely, Colonel

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Shackleton, David James

Tomkinson, James

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Wiles, Thomas

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Ure, Alexander

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Verney, F. W.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Vivian, Henry

Williamson, A.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Walsh, Stephen

Wills, Arthur Walters

Snowden, P.

Walton, Joseph

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

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Soares, Ernest J.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

Winfrey, R.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Steadman, W. C.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Waterlow, D. S.

Joseph Pease and Master of

Sutherland, J. E.

Watt, Henry A.

Elibank.

NOES.

Acland-Hood, R. Hn. Sir Alex. F.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Ashley, W. W.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Ratcliffe, Major R. F.

Balcarres, Lord

Gretton, John

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Baldwin, Stanley

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Remnant, James Farauharson

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Guinness, W.E. (Bury S. Edm.)

Renton, Leslie

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Hamilton, Marquess of

Renwick, George

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

Harrison, Broadley, H. B.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Heaton, John Henniker

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hill, Sir Clement

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hills, J. W.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Bull, Sir William James

Houston, Robert Paterson

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hunt, Rowland

Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Joynson-Hicks, William

Starkey, John R.

Cave, George

Kerry, Earl of

Talbot, Lord E. (Chicehster)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Keswick, William

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

Cecil, Lord R. (Maylebone, E.)

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Clive, Percy Archer

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Thornton, Percy M.

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

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Valentia, Viscount

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham

Lee Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt-.Col. A.R.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Craik, Sir Henry

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

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Cross, Alexander

Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

Doughty, Sir George

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Winterton, Earl

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

M'Arthur, Charles

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

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Morpeth, Viscount

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Young, Samuel

Faber, George Denison (York)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

Younger, George

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.

Nield, Herbert

Fell, Arthur

Oddy, John James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Fletcher, J. S.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Samuel Roberts and Mr.

Forster, Henry William

Percy, Earl

Salter.

Gardner, Ernest

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Amendment proposed—
"In page 34, line 37, after the word '(2),' to insert words 'from "Provided that" to the end of the subsection.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Agnew, George William

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Astbury, John Meir

Barker, John

Alden, Percy

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Barnard, E. B.

Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 278; Noes, 97. (Division List No. 361.)

Barnes, G. N.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Gulland, John W.

Marnham, F. J.

Beale, W. P.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Beck, A. Cecil

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Massie, J.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Menzies, Walter

Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Bennett, E. N.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

Middlebrook, William

Berridge, T. H. D.

Hart-Davies, T.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

Harvey, W.E. (Derbyshire, N.E.

Mond, A.

Black, Arthur W.

Harwood, George

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Montgomery, H. G.

Bowerman, C. W.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Brace, William

Haworth, Arthur A.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Morse, L. L.

Brigg, John

Helme, Norval Watson

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Bright, J. A.

Hemmerde, Edward George

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Brodie, H. C.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Myer, Horatio

Brooke, Stopford

Henderson, J.M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Napier, T. B.

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Henry, Charles S.

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Bryce, J. Annan

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Higham, John Sharp

Nicholls, George

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hobart, Sir Robert

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Norman, Sir Henry

Byles, William Pollard

Hodge, John

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Holland, Sir William Henry

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hooper, A. G.

Nuttall, Harry

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Clough, William

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Grady, J.

Clynes, J. R.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Partington, Oswald

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Paulton, James Mellor

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hudson, Walter

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Hyde, Clarendon

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Cooper, G. J.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Jackson, R. S.

Pollard, Dr.

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Cowan, W. H.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Radford, G. H.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Jowett, F. W.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Crooks, William

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Crosfield, A. H.

Kekewich, Sir George

Rees, J. D.

Crossley, William J.

Kelley, George D.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Davies, David (Montgomery Co)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Laidlaw, Robert

Richardson, A.

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Ridsdale, E. A.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Lambert, George

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Dickinson, W.H. (St. Pancras, N.

Lamont, Norman

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Robinson, S.

Dobson, Thomas W.

Lehmann, R. C.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Rose, Charles Day

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Rowlands, J.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Erskine, David C.

Lewis, John Herbert

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Essex, R. W.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Everett, R. Lacey

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Fenwick, Charles

Lyell, Charles Henry

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Lynch, H. B.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Findlay, Alexander

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Fullerton, Hugh

Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

Scott, A.H. (Ashton under Lyne

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Sears, J. E.

Gill, A. H.

Maclean, Donald

Seaverns, J. H.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Seddon, J.

Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Seely, Colonel

Glendinning, R. G.

M'Callum, John M.

Shackleton, David James

Glover, Thomas

M'Crae, Sir George

Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick, B.)

Goddard, Sit Daniel Ford

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

M'Micking, Major G.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Maddison, Frederick

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Grey, Rt. Hon.. Sir Edward

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

1842

1843

Snowden, P.

Ure, Alexander

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Verney, F. W.

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Soares, Ernest J.

Walsh, Stephen

Wiles, Thomas

Spicer, Sir Albert.

Walton, Joseph

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Steadman, W. C.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n)

Williamson, A.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Sutherland, J. E.

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

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

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Waterlow, D. S.

Winfrey, R.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Watt, Henry A.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Thomasson, Franklin

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Thorne, G.R. (Wolverhampt'n)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.

Joseph Pease and Master of

Tomkinson, James

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Elibank.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Whitehead, Rowland

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Ratcliff, Major, R. F.

Ashley, W. W.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Balcarres, Lord

Gretton, John

Remnant, James Farquharson

Baldwin, Stanley

Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston)

Renton, Leslie

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Guinness, W.E. (Bury S. Edm.)

Renwick, George

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Hamilton, Marquess of

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Heaton, John Henniker

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hill, Sir Clement

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hunt, Rowland

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Joynson-Hicks, William

Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Cave, George

Kerry, Earl of

Starkey, John R.

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey

Keswick, William

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

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

Clive, Percy Archer

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

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

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Thornton, Percy M.

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham)

Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A.R.

Valentia, Viscount

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S)

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

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Craik, Sir Henry

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Cross, Alexander

M'Arthur, Charles

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

Doughty, Sir George

Morpeth, Viscount

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Young, Samuel

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Neild, Herbert

Younger, George

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

Oddy, John James

Fell, Arthur

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Fletcher, J. S.

Percy, Earl

George D. Faber and Earl

Forster, Henry William

Powell, Sir Fanacis Sharp

Winterton.

Gardner, Ernest

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Question put, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the seventh Schedule to the Bill."

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Bennett, E. N.

Agnew, George William

Barker, John

Berridge, T. H. D.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

Alden, Percy

Barnard, E. B.

Black, Arthur W.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Barnes, G. N.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Bowerman, C. W.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Beale, W. P.

Brace, William

Astbury, John Meir

Beck, A. Cecil

Bramsdon, T. A.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Brigg, John

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Bright, J. A.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

Brodie, H. C.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 270; Noes, 97. (Division List No. 362.)

Brooke, Stopford

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Higham, John Sharp

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Bryce, J. Annan

Hobart, Sir Robert

Nuttall, Harry

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hodge, John

O'Grady, J.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Holland, Sir William Henry

Partington, Oswald

Byles, William Pollard

Hooper, A. G.

Paulton, James Mellor

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Horniman, Emslie John

Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Clough, William

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pollard, Dr.

Clynes, J. R.

Hudson, Walter

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hyde, Clarendon

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Radford, G. H.

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Rainy, A. Rolland

Cooper, G. J.

Jackson, R. S.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester

Corbett, C.H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Rees, J. D.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Rithards, T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Jowett, F. W.

Richardson, A.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Kekewich, Sir George

Ridsdale, E. A.

Crooks, William

Kelley, George D.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Crosfield, A. H.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Crossley, William J.

Laidlaw, Robert

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Robinson, S.

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Lambert, George

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lamont, Norman

Rose, Charles Day

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Rowlands, J.

Dickinson, W.H. (St. Pancras, N.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lehmann, R. C.

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Dobson, Thomas W.

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Levy, Sir Maurice

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Lewis, John Herbert

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Erskine, David C.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Essex, R. W.

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester)

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Scott, A.H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

Everett, R. Lacey

Lyell, Charles Henry

Sears, J. E.

Fenwick, Charles

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Seaverns, J. H.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Seddon, J.

Findlay, Alexander

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Seely, Colonel

Fullerton, Hugh

Maclean, Donald

Shackleton, David James

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Gill, A. H.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

M'Callum, John M.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

M'Crae, Sir George

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Glendinning, R. G.

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Glover, Thomas

M'Micking, Major G.

Snowden, P.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Maddison, Frederick

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Soares, Ernest J.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Marnham, F. J.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Steadman, W. C.

Gulland, John W.

Massie, J.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Sutherland, J. E.

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Menzies, Walter

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Middlebrook, William

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Mond, A.

Thomasson, Franklin

Harmsworth, R.L. (Caithn'ss-sh

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Thorne, G.R. (Wolverhampton)

Hart-Davies, T.

Montgomery, H. G.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Tomkinson, James

Harwood, George

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Morse, L. L.

Ure, Alexander

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Verney, F. W.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Walsh, Stephen

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Myer, Horatio

Walton, Joseph

Helme, Norval Watson

Napier, T. B.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Hemmerde, Edward George

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Henderson, J.M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Nicholls, George

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Henry, Charles S.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

1846

1847

Waterlow, D. S.

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Winfrey, R.

Watt, Henry A.

Wiles, Thomas

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh

Williamson, A.

Joseph Pease and Master of

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Elibank.

Whitehead, Rowland

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

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

NOES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Ashley, W. W.

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Balcarres, Lord

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Baldwin, Stanley

Gretton, John

Remnant, James Farquharson

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston)

Renton, Leslie

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)

Renwick, George

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Hamilton, Marquess of

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Heaton, John Henniker

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hill, Sir Clement

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hills, J. W.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Bull, Sir William James

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Houston, Robert Paterson

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hunt, Rowland

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Cave, George

Joynson-Hicks, William

Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Kerry, Earl of

Starkey, John R.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Keswick, William

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Clive, Percy Archer

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

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

Cochrane, Hon. I'hos. H. A. E.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Thornton, Percy M.

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A.R.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Craig, Captain James (Down, E)

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

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Craik, Sir Henry

Lowe, Sir Francis Wiliam

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Cross, Alexander

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

Doughty, Sir George

M'Arthur, Charles

Winterton, Earl

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Morpeth, Viscount

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

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Young, Samuel

Faber, George Denison (York)

Nield, Herbert

Younger, George

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

Oddy, John James

Fell, Arthur

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Fletcher, J. S.

Percy, Earl

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Forster, Henry William

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Viscount Valentia.

Gardner, Ernest

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Whereupon the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report the Bill to the House.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 368.]
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 31st July, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at twenty-four minutes before Twelve o'clock.