HC Deb 09 November 1908 vol 195 cc1721-848

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

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

Schedule I.

MR. G. D. FABER (York)

said 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 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, 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 CHAIRMAN

said that now was not the time to discuss that point. It would arise on a later point.

MR. G. D. FABER

said 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 CHAIRMAN

said the hon. Member was going beyond the Schedule at present under discussion.

MR. G. D. FABER

said 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 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 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-DOUGLAS (Kent, St. Augustine's)

said he might be permitted 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 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. MONTAGU (Cambridgeshire, Chesterton)

pointed 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 ROBERTS (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

was 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 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. BERTRAM (Hertfordshire, Hitchin)

said 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 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 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 COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

said 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 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 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. 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 JONES (Westmoreland, Appleby)

said 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 JONES

continuing, 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. 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 JONES

said 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 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 (Ayr Burghs)

Is that an extract from the evidence of a witness.

MR. LEIF JONES

said 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 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. YOUNGER

said 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. YOUNGER

said he was not saying so. He was discussing the evi- 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. YOUNGER

said 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. YOUNGER

said 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. YOUNGER

said 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. YOUNGER

said he understood that, but some of these areas did not 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 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. BARNAKD (Kidderminster)

said 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 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 LONG (Dublin, S.)

said 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 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 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 SAMUEL

expressed his sincere thanks to hon. Gentlemen 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 SAMUEL

stated 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 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 SAMUEL

asked 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 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 SAMUEL

said 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 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 COLLINGS

asked 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 SAMUEL

said 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. BARNARD

said 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 SAMUEL

said 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 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. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston)

said it was important to remember that 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, 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 HOPE (Sheffield, Central)

said 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 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 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. GRETTON (Rutland)

said 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 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, 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. BANBURY (City of London)

said 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 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 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. GIBBS (Bristol, W.)

said 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 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 HOPE

asked 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 SAMUEL

said 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 ROBERTS

moved 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 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 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. ASHLEY (Lancashire, Blackpool)

said that this Amendment, which he most strongly supported, closely 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,) Glamorganshire, Mid.

said there seemed to be reasonableness underlying 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 normal authoritative figures of the Census instead of these estimates.

MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.)

said 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 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. EVANS

said 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- 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. BERTRAM

wished 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 ROBERTS

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. G. D. FABER

moved 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 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. EVANS

hoped 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 WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)

thought 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. ASHLEY

could 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. CARLILE (Hertfordshire, St. Albans)

asked 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.
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. YOUNGER

moved 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. EVANS

said 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, he would be quite prepared, on behalf of the Government, to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kingston.

MR. YOUNGER

thought 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. CAVE

moved 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 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. EVANS

thought 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-DOUGLAS

said 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. CAVE

thought the substance of his Amendment would be attained by adopting that of the Solicitor-General. He asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GRETTON

moved 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. EVANS

said 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. GRETTON

said 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 long roundabout roads, the wants of the travelling public should be met.

Amendment negatived.

*MR. GRETTON

moved 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. EVANS

congratulated 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. CAVE

said 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. EVANS

said 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. CAVE

moved 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 JONES

was 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. EVANS

thought 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. YOUNGER

said 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. EVANS

said 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. YOUNGER

said 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. EVANS

said 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. YOUNGER

said 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. EVANS

said 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
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. GRETTON

called 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 HOPE

said the Under-Secretary had stated at an earlier period 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 SAMUEL

said 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. FABER

said 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. YOUNGER

considered that there was no excuse whatever for the failure of the Government to provide the informa- 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. EVANS

said 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 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. EVANS

said 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 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 LONG

said 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. 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 LONG

said 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 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 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. BARNARD

said 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. 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 HOPE

said 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. BANBURY

said 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 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-CHAIRMAN

said these general observations could not be made on every Amendment.

SIR F. BANBURY

said, 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. BANBURY

said 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 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,) Leeds, W.

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. REMNANT (Finsbury, Holborn)

asked 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 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. ASHLEY

said 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 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. RICHARDS (Wolverhampton, W.)

said 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
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. GRETTON

moved 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. EVANS

said the Schedule and the note at the foot of it made an alter- 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. GRETTON

said 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-ROBARTES (Cornwall, St. Austell)

moved 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 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. EVANS

said 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-ROBARTES

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

SIR F. BANBURY

said 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 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. CAVE

asked 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. EVANS

said 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. EVANS

said he was not sure, but he did not think so.

MR. YOUNGER

said 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)
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. CAVE

moved 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 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. EVANS

said 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 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. CAVE

said 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. EVANS

said 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. BERTRAM

said 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, 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 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. EVANS

said 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)
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. MCARTHUR (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

wished 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 SAMUEL

said 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 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 WORTLEY

could 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 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. ASHLEY

said 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 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. SMITH (Liverpool, Walton)

hoped 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 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 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 SAMUEL

said 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 SAMUEL

said 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.
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)
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.
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)
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
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)
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.