Commons Sitting of 16 November 1908

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PETITIONS.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Northamptonshire against; to lie upon the Table.
  TRAWLING IN PROHIBITED AREAS PREVENTION BILL.
  Petition from Nairn, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the Borough of Nelson, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for certain classes of shops within the borough [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
  Copy presented, of Order granted to Mary Anne Spillane, a convict under detention in Aylesbury Prison, permitting her to be at large on condition that she enter the Elizabeth Fry Refuge, 195, Mare Street, Hackney, E. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copies presented, of Colonial Report, No. 584 (Report on the work of the Imperial Institute for 1906–7); No. 585 (Barbadoes, Report for 1907–8) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRANSVAAL.
  Copy presented, of Correspondence relating to a proposal to recruit labour in

  839
  Madagascar for employment in the Transvaal Mines [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Copy presented, of Annual Report of Proceedings under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Acts, etc., for the year 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  Copy presented, of Return of Advances made under The Irish Land Act, 1903, during the month of March, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  JUDICIAL STATISTICS (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Report on the Judicial Statistics of Scotland for the year 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CENSUS OF PRODUCTION ACT, 1906.
  Copies presented, of Rules made by the Board of Trade [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  BANK OF ENGLAND.
  Copy presented, of Return of the amount of the Notes issued more than forty years and outstanding on 28th October, 1908, which have been written off [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Murders in the Metropolitan Police District.
  EARL WINTERTON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state the number of murders that have taken place in the Metropolitan Police district from 1st January, 1903, until the present date; and in how many cases the perpetrator has not been discovered.
  840
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The following figures, supplied by the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, give the information desired. Cases of infanticide (murder of children under the age of one year) are not included:—

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  Year.

  Total number of murders committed

  Number included in Column 2 in which the perpetrator has not been discovered

  1903

  17

  —

  1904

  20

  2

  1905

  19

  1

  1906

  15

  2

  1907

  11

  3

  1908, to 30th September

  10

  2

  Total

  92

  10

  Four of the ten murders included in the third column as cases in which the perpetrators have not been discovered were cases in which women had died as the results of illegal operations, one in each of the years 1904, 1905, 1906, and 1908. I have included in this column not only the cases in which the criminal has not been traced but also those in which the police possess information which convinces them that only one person could have committed the crime, but have found it impossible to obtain the legal evidence necessary to justify his or her arrest or, in case of arrest, to secure his or her conviction.

  Increased Pay for Auxiliary Rural Postmen.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Postmaster-General, whether the increased pay recommended by the Parliamentary Committee to

  841
  auxiliary rural postmen in Ireland has yet been paid to them; if not, when will it; and whether it will be retrospective from the date of the recommendation.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Instructions to pay the higher rates have been given at a number of offices in Ireland, and the work of checking the claims from the remaining offices is proceeding as rapidly as possible. It will be completed very shortly. The higher rates of pay take effect from 1st January, 1908.

  German Customs Union and the Registration of Merchandise.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the rules governing the registration of merchandise imported into or exported from the German Customs Union, printed on page 57 of the Report of the Departmental Committee on Trade Records, is a correct translation of the rules existing, respectively, prior and subsequent to 1st March, 1906; and whether, especially, Sections 3 and 4 do not exclusively relate to rules prior to 1906.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) As stated in the Report, only extracts from the rules in force prior to and since 1st March, 1906, have been translated. I understand that the translation given is substantially correct. The rules under head B (in force from 1st March, 1906), including Sections 3 and 4, to which the honourable Member specially refers, form part of a decree of the Federal Council, dated 9th February, 1906, resolving to approve the rules and to put them in force from 1st March, 1906, in substitution for those then in force.

  War Office's Stores purchased from Foreign Finns.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the Secretary of State for War, if he can state the total amount involved in the contracts for general stores and other manufactured articles secured by foreign firms during the last two years; and if he will classify the goods in question and state what sum has been saved to the Exchequer by making those purchases abroad instead of in this country.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.)—Manufactured Articles * ordered from
  842
  abroad (including those obtained through agents in this country).

  Article.

  Value of contracts, 1906–7.

  Value of contracts, 1907–8.

  £

  £

  Acetone

  22,925

  72,203

  Air-composer

  —

  193

  Aluminium

  —

  297

  Ambulance, cycle

  22

  —

  Ammeters

  —

  —

  Antimony, regulus

  1,179

  255

  Antimony, sulphide

  31

  16

  Apparatus, wireless telegraphy

  —

  —

  Apparatus, self-registering

  —

  —

  Apparatus, pattern-producing

  —

  —

  Asbestos fibre

  108

  —

  Billiard balls, bonzo-line

  71

  221

  Binoculars and parts

  196

  312

  Blocks, pulley

  —

  —

  Blocks, chain

  24

  —

  Board leather and straw

  10

  151

  Bottles, water

  52

  —

  Brandy

  —

  547

  Bugles, &c.

  —

  —

  Butter

  171

  —

  Carbons, electric light

  —

  3

  Carbon shot

  —

  106

  Cartridge cases

  —

  —

  Castings, steel

  —

  —

  Chairs

  —

  1,337

  Chalk, prepared

  —

  36

  Members of the Government and Special Police Patrols.
  MR. H. C. LEA: To ask the Secretary for State for the Home Department whether any members of the present Government are having the privilege of special police being stationed outside the doors of their private residences; and, if so, will he specify the names of those Ministers enjoying this special privilege and state the reason why this privilege is conferred, and also the extra cost involved and who is defraying that cost.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I am not aware what precise measures ate being taken. In any case in which any individual members of the public are liable to annoyance, the Commissioner of Police takes such steps as he considers to be required to prevent the annoyance and to maintain order. The matter is one of police administration with which I am not prepared to interfere. No extra cost is involved.

  Scottish School Board Electors.
  MR. WATT: To ask the Secretary for Scotland how many new
  846
  voters are estimated to be enfranchised for school board elections in Scotland under the new Education Act, and of what classes they will consist.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The proposals of the Bill will admit to vote at school board elections all householders with rentals under £4 who are disqualified by the existing school board franchise and also persons other than householders who are entitled to vote at Parliamentary elections. It is not possible to give any estimate of the number of these classes respectively.
  MR. WATT: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his Department has formed any estimate of how many electors who have up till now voted in school board elections will be disfranchised under the Education (Scotland) Bill if it passes into law, on account of the fact that parish council registers will then be utilised; if so, will he say of whom these disfranchised voters will consist; and how many they are estimated to be.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The only persons at present qualified to vote at school board elections who will not have a vote under the proposals of the Bill will be those not qualified to vote at Parliamentary and parish council elections on account of non-payment of rates. Certain other persons such as joint owners or occupiers whose names appear automatically on the school board roll as being on the valuation roll will, in future, require to make application to be placed upon the roll. It is not possible to make any satisfactory estimate of the number of these persons.

  Assassination of a Bengali Detective.
  MR. REES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House any information regarding the assassination of the Bengali detective Nundo Lal Bannerjee; whether this is the man who traced the anarchist who threw the bomb which killed Mrs. and Miss Kennedy; and whether the murderers have been apprehended.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) Nundo Lal Bannerjee was murdered in a dark

  847
  and narrow lane at about 7 p.m. on 9th November. The murder was witnessed by a number of shopkeepers, who state that the murderers were two young Bengalees. A reward of Rs. 5,000 has been offered. No arrests have yet been made. The murdered man was the officer who traced Profulla Chaki, one of the perpetrators of the Muzzaffarpur outrage, to Mokaneh railway station, where Profulla shot himself to avoid arrest.

  Distribution of Untenanted Lands on the Reynell Estate.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief-Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received a memorial from the tenants on the Reynell Estate, County Meath, suggesting that the untenanted land on the estate should be purchased and distributed among the occupiers of uneconomic holdings and the descendants of evicted tenants on the estate; and if the prayer of the petition will be acceded to.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) A communication on behalf of these tenants has been addressed to the Estates Commissioners asking them to acquire the untenanted land on the estate. The matter will be considered when the estate is being dealt with under the Irish Land Act, 1903.

  Tenants and Land of the Congested Districts Board.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief-Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the extent of land now in the hands of the Congested Districts Board, and the number of tenants under the board; whether fair rents have recently been fixed on a number of holdings held by tenants direct from the board; whether he will state how many head of cattle and sheep the Congested Districts Board had for sale at the last great autumn fair of Ballinasloe in October last; on what lands they are grazed; and why these lands have not been divided up in farms for the landless or for the enlargement of uneconomic holdings.
  848
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The extent of tenanted and untenanted land now in the hands of the Congested Districts Board is 286,347 acres. The number of tenants on these lands is 7,590. Fair rents have been fixed in the case of 12 of these tenants during the past year. The board sold 256 cattle and 98 sheep at Ballinasloe fair; these had been grazed on the Longford, Oldtown, Oat-field, and Newcastle farms. The existing limitation upon the powers of the board as to the disposal of land has hitherto made it difficult to deal with these farms. The question of extending the board's powers in this regard will be dealt with in the forthcoming Bill.

  Irish Land Purchase.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the making of voluntary purchase agreements under the Irish Land Act, 1903, cannot proceed while the future conditions of land purchase are in doubt; and whether, having regard to the practical impossibility of passing into law a large and comprehensive Land Bill without months of delay, he intends to submit any proposals for avoiding the complete stoppage of land-purchase operations.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Purchase agreements are still being lodged at considerably above the average rate. For the proposals of the Government I must ask the hon. Member to await the introduction of the Irish Land Bill, which I hope will take place on Monday next.

  Road Improvements at Woolwich.
  MR. CROOKS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the London County Council proposes to apply to Parliament in the session of 1909 for authority to reconstruct for electric traction the tramways from the Lord Howick public-house via Albion Road and George Street to Chapel Street, Woolwich; whether he will co-operate with the council in widening, where necessary, the portion of the route outside the royal dockyard by adding to the public way the narrow strip of the dockyard needed for such an improvement, in order that the necessary paving, etc., work may be put in hand

  849
  at an early date with a view to providing suitable employment for a number of persons, and in order that the reconstruction of the tramway, if and when sanctioned by Parliament, may be undertaken without delay; and whether, if satisfactory arrangements be made with the council, the work will be put in hand by the Government without delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The War Department is prepared to grant the strip of land in question for the purposes of widening the road provided suitable terms can be arranged with the London County Council. It is not anticipated that there will be any difficulty in arriving at the terms. Every endeavour will be made to facilitate the progress of the work, but it must be remembered that, before the existing wall can be demolished, the new wall must at least in part be completed for the protection of the arsenal.

  Christchurch Sewage Scheme.
  MR. A. ALLEN: To ask the Secretary of State for War when it is expected that the Army Council will be in a position to give their decision with regard to the new sewerage scheme of the borough of Christchurch; and whether in view of the fact that a representative of the Royal Engineers inspected the plans so long ago as 21st September, he will undertake to expedite the matter, and so put an end to the inconvenience which the delay is causing.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The decision of the Army Council was communicated to the town clerk on the 12th instant.

  Patent Bights of Mr. J. Bielefeld, of Hammersmith.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will look into the case of Julius Bielefeld, of 48, Basscin Park Road, Hammersmith, who states that an invention, for which he was granted letters patent, has been used by the Government without payment of the royalties claimed by him, although the amount of such royalties was never objected to by the authorities; and, if
  850
  so, what reward he will advise should be given to him.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Mr. Bielefeld has been paid the royalty granted for all nosebags obtained by the War Department that are covered by his patent. The nosebags now obtained by the Department are not covered by his patent, and no royalty therefore can be paid in regard to them.

  Clerical Staff of Post Office Provincial Superintending Engineer's Offices.
  MR. HUNT: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the scheme of reorganising the clerical force in provincial superintending engineers' offices is yet complete; whether it embodies a proposal to employ permanently assistant clerks (abstractors) in those offices: and, if so, will he indicate the probable date on which this proposal is to take effect.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) A revision of the staff in provincial superintending engineers' offices is at present under consideration, and in the meantime I am, unable to furnish particulars of future arrangements or to say when they will come into operation.

  Post Office Clerks and the Washing of Office Towels.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Postmaster-General under what regulation Post Office clerks have now, for the first time, to bear the cost of the provision and washing of the towels in Post Office lavatories; and whether in view of the fact that the use of towels is rendered necessary by their employment, he will rescind the regulation in question.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am not aware of any alteration of rule bearing on the subject. If the hon. Member will be good enough to let me have the name of the particular office that he has in mind, I will have inquiry made.

  School Fees in Scotland.
  MR. PIRIE: To ask the Secretary for Scotland what total sum would be received by the school

  851
  board of Aberdeen providing it received the same sum for each pupil in average attendance as will be received respectively by the authorities in Dumfriesshire Forfarshire, Peeblesshire, and Perthshire respectively, under his second allocation of the balance of £436,500.
  MR. PIRIE: To ask the Secretary for Scotland what sum on the average will be received by the local authorities in Aberdeen, Dumfriesshire, Forfarshire, Peeblesshire, and Perthshire, respectively, for each pupil in average attendance in board schools and other State-aided schools under his second scheme of allocation of the balance of £436,500; and what sum would they receive on the average if this balance were equally divided amongst the authorities with sole regard to the pupils in average attendance.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I would refer the hon. Member to my Answer to similar Questions put to-day by the hon. Member for South Lanark.

  Ground Purchased for School at Cathcart Bridge.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will say what was the area of the ground recently purchased by the Cathcart School Board at Holmlea Road, Cathcart Bridge, as a site for a public school; what was the date of the purchase, what was the price paid for it, and what was taken at the time of the purchase as its annual value for rating, or, if it formed part of a larger subject, by how much the annual value for rating of that larger subject has been reduced by reason of the severance of the purchased portion.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I am informed that the area of the site in question is 6,886 square yards, and that the purchase was completed in April, 1908, the net price paid being £3,270 17s. The site formed part of a larger subject which was let at a rent of £2 9s. 10d. an acre, and I understand the rent has been reduced pro rata in consequence of the sale.

  Civil Service Clerkships.
  SIR G. KEKEWICH: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that many boy clerks will complete their terms of service during the next twelve months, and that during that period the examinations for Second Division clerkships are to be wholly suspended, and the examinations for assistant clerkships and assistants of Excise and Customs are being postponed, he will state how the Treasury propose to deal with boy clerks who will attain twenty years of age in the period during which those examinations are suspended or postponed.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) It is not anticipated that there will be any postponement of the examinations for assistant clerkships during the next twelve months, or that examinations for the Second Division will be wholly suspended during that period. The postponement of the competitions for the Second Division and for assistantships of Excise and Customs will not shut out-boy clerks who reach the age of twenty during the next twelve months for the general regulations allow reductions of age to be made for boy clerk service.

  International Copyright Convention.
  MR. SEAVERNS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the decisions of the International Copyright Conference are likely to be arrived at, and whether he will cause them to be communicated to the House; and whether any of the decisions can be put into effect until they have been submitted to and sanctioned by Parliament.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The final sitting of the Conference took place on Saturday last and His Majesty's Government are awaiting the Report of the British delegates. The Report will be published in due course. As regards the method of giving effect in this country to any alteration of the Convention, I must refer my hon. friend to the reply given to-day to the hon. Member for North Salford.

  Pay of the First Sea Lord.
  MR. DU CROS: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, having regard to the fact that the Navy-Estimates 1908–9 show on page 160 that the half-pay of admirals of the fleet is £1,222 15s. annually, and that a note is appended stating stating that one of these officers is in receipt of half-pay at the rate of £2,000 a year, an Order in Council was issued to sanction this increase; if so, what is the date of the said Order and what are its precise terms; and, having regard to the sums shown on pages 258 and 148 of the Navy Estimates for 1908–9 as making up the total emoluments of the First Sea Lord to £3,865 a year, what precedent exists for increasing the Navy Estimates by £800 in the half-pay of the First Sea Lord; and whether that increase is to be retro-active and permanent in the case of Admirals of the Fleet.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The reply to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative, the Order in Council is dated 8th January, 1906. Its terms authorise the Admiralty, in the event of the office of First Sea Lord being held by an Admiral of the Fleet who has rendered exceptional and special service, to grant, subject to the concurrence of the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury, naval half-pay at the rate of £2,000 a year, instead of at the ordinary rate of the £1,222 15s., this special rate of half-pay to be continued on the officer in question ceasing to be a member of the Board of Admiralty, and after his retirement from the active list of His Majesty's Navy. The reply to the last part of the Question is in the negative, the authority given by the Order in Council being permissive.

  Drainage from Carnadoe Co-operative Creamery.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Board of Works have interfered to prevent the Carnadoe Co-operative Creamery from draining their establishment into a drain forming the boundary between their premises and the lands of Mr. John Kelly, and, if so, upon what
  854
  grounds; and whether any objection has been raised to the proposed drainage by Mr. Kelly or the Board of Works tenants in the vicinity.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) I am informed that the Board of Works as Shannon Commissioners have declined to allow the outflow from this creamery to be drained into Carnadoe Water, which flows into the Shannon. The outflow from creameries has a very strong and offensive odour; and in a previous case where such outflow was allowed to run into a tributary of the Shannon it rendered the water unfit for domestic use.

  Evicted Tenants—Application from Samuel Keys.
  MR. C. MACVEIGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application from Samuel Keys to be reinstated in his farm at Tammakeerey, County Tyrone, on the estate of the Duke of Abercorn, from which he was evicted four years ago for non-payment of rent; whether he is aware that the planter, Miss Crumley, now in occupation of the farm is willing to give it up if paid compensation; and whether he will direct the Estates Commissioners to send down an inspector to inquire into Keys' case and have him reinstated or compensated for the loss of his farm.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that the application in question was received after the date specified in the Evicted Tenants Act, and cannot be dealt with under that Act. The Commissioners are not aware that the present occupier of the farm is willing to surrender it on receiving compensation. The application will be considered if and when the lands are being dealt with under the Irish Land Act, 1903.

  Inspection of Untenanted Land on the Caldbeck Estate.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners will inform the hon. Member for Ossory when their

  855
  inspector, Mr. Boothe, will again visit Ballacolla, Queen's County, on official duty in connection with the untenanted land on the Caldbeck estate.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners are not in a position at present to say when their inspector may visit the property.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Speed of the New Destroyers.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what is to be the contract speed of the sixteen destroyers of this year's programme.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,): Twenty-seven knots.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why the change has been made from thirty-three knots to twenty-seven knots?
  MR. MCKENNA: No, Sir, not in answer to a Question.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it has been stated to Parliament that a speed of thirty-three knots was to be secured, and that no correction of that has been published?
  MR. MCKENNA: I do not think it has been definitely stated in that form.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Has it not been frequently stated that that speed would b3 maintained in future vessels?
  MR. MCKENNA: I am not aware of any statement being made that the destroyers would necessarily have a speed of thirty-three knots.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in another place on the 18th March, Lord Tweedmouth definitely stated that thirty-three knots would be the speed? That is reported in Hansard in a starred speech.
  MR. MCKENNA: I believe some statement was made in another place, but I do
  856
  not understand that the Admiralty committed itself to the view that the destroyers this year would necessarily have a speed of thirty-three knots.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: May I ask whether Lord Tweedmouth, the First Lord of the Admiralty, speaking in another place on behalf of the Government, did not definitely -state that it would be a speed of thirty-three knots, and was not the House of Commons justified in accepting that as a statement made on behalf of the Admiralty?
  MR. MCKENNA: My impression is that it was not a definite statement.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Did he not state that the speed would be thirty-three knots?
  MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members must give notice of these Questions; it is not fair to press them in this way.

  Defence of Esquimault.
  EARL WINTERTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state on what terms the fortress, defence works, and docks of Esquimault were handed over to the Government of the Dominion of Canada; whether the Dominion Government agreed to maintain the armament and defences in a proper and efficient manner; and, if so, what steps the Admiralty have taken to satisfy themselves that this is being done.
  MR. MCKENNA: It has been found that the transfer referred to by the noble Lord can only be effected by Act of Parliament, and the terms will be embodied in a Bill which it is hoped will be presented early next session.
  EARL WINTERTON: Are we to understand that during the past two years the fortress has not been maintained by England?
  MR. MCKENNA: It has been maintained by the Government of the Dominion of Canada. The transfer has not been made because we have been advised it can only be effected by Act of Parliament, and terms of the transfer will be embodied in the Bill.
  EARL WINTERTONpressed for an Answer to the latter part of the Question, as to the terms on which the Dominion of Canada had taken the fortress over.
  MR. MCKENNA: The terms will be embodied in the Bill, and the proper time for a statement will be on the introduction of the Bill.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Is it not the case that the Government of the Dominion has spent a larger sum on these defences in the last two years than was spent in the previous ten years?
  MR. MCKENNA: I must ask for notice of that Question.

  Rosyth.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will ascertain from the contractors what is the earliest date by which they would undertake to complete the various contracts at Rosyth, provided they were permitted to set to work at once and to use the utmost diligence; and what extra expenditure, if any, would be involved by such acceleration of the work.
  MR. MCKENNA: After full consideration of the best method of expediting the completion of the work, we came to the conclusion that the best course was to fix a reasonable time for the contract, and to offer a substantial bonus for earlier completion; and tenders have been invited on this basis. Work cannot be commenced until all tenders have been received and duly considered.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the portion of my Question in which I ask if he will ask the contractors what is the earliest date by which they would undertake to complete the various works, under the circumstances set forth in the Question.
  MR. MCKENNA: There are no contractors. Tenders have been invited, but have not yet been received.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Of course there are no contractors; perhaps I have been misunderstood. Will you ask the contractors when they send in their
  858
  tenders the Question I have put on the Paper?
  MR. MCKENNA: No, Sir; the Admiralty conceives that the best course would be to fix the time for the completion and then to offer the contractors a substantial bonus for hastening the work.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether between the date when the construction of a naval base at Rosyth was first accepted in principle and the present time, the imperial dockyard and Messrs. Krupp's shipbuilding works at Kiel have been completed, and the important works at Wilhelmshaven commenced and completed.
  MR. MCKENNA: The works now owned by Messrs. Krupp and Kiel dockyard have been in existence for many years past—since 1865 and 1878 respectively. Wilhelmshaven dockyard was begun in 1901, and it is understood that it is not yet completed.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is entirely misinformed upon both these points? Is it not a fact that these works were already commenced in 1902–03 and have been finished quite recently? I saw them myself; I am speaking of the great Krupp dockyard at Kiel and the new Government dockyard there.
  MR. MCKENNA: I think the information supplied to me which I have given in my answer is quite correct.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERrose to put a further Question—
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has given the best information he can and he cannot do more than that.

  London and Admiralty Contracts.
  MR. STEADMAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Dept-ford, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in the placing of work in connection with the year's shipbuilding programme, he will consider the advisability of so allocating the contracts as to ensure that they shall be spread over as large an area as possible, thereby

  859
  ensuring that the port of London, in common with other shipbuilding centres, may receive a share of such work and the stress of unemployment be reduced in as many districts as possible.
  MR. MCKENNA: I cannot undertake that any particular district shall have a contract for shipbuilding allotted to it. In the allocation of these contracts, regard must be had to considerations of price and comparative excellence of work. Subject to this understanding, the contracts will be spread over as large an area as possible.
  MR. STEADMAN: Do not the whole of the taxpayers of the country have to contribute towards both shipbuilding and repairing, and that being so, have we any right to shut out the thousands of starving men in the East End of London because their labour and material cost more than in the North?
  MR. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument.

  British and Foreign Naval Estimates.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the total aggregate amounts voted during the last ton years, 1897 to 1907, for the Naval Estimates of France, Russia, Germany, and the United Kingdom, respectively.
  MR. MCKENNA: I think my hon. friend will find all the information he requires in the Return, of which I have sent him a copy, moved for by my hon. friend the Member for Leicester.
  MR. MACKARNESS: But in view of the great public interest in naval expenditure outside this House cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the figures in the form of an Answer to a Question?
  MR. MCKENNA: It would be difficult to read them out.
  MR. BELLAIRS: And when they are circulated will the right hon. Gentleman also circulate the appendix showing the large deductions made from the British figures and which are not included in the Russian and Gorman estimates?
  MR. MCKENNA: I will consider that point.

  The New Destroyers.
  MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the sixteen new destroyers now building or about to be built for the Navy will only have a speed of twenty-seven knots; and whether coal is to be used instead of oil.
  MR. MCKENNA: Yes, Sir.
  MR. HUNT: Why are not the destroyers being built for a higher speed?
  MR. SPEAKER: Notice must be given of that Question.

  Dockyard Pay Concession.
  MR. MALLET: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, with a view to securing the earliest practicable financial benefit to the additional men to be employed this winter in the royal dockyards, he will consider the advisability of exempting these men from the ordinary rule whereby a week's wages is kept in hand by the cashier and paid on the termination of the period of employment; and whether special arrangements can be made to pay such men at least 75 per cent. of the wages earned during the first week of their employment.
  MR. MCKENNA: In making arrangements for the entry of the men in question, full consideration was given to the fact that many of them might be in straightened circumstances. With the object therefore of relieving such distress at the earliest possible moment, special arrangements have been made to waive, in their case, the ordinary dockyard rule requiring a work's wages to be kept in hand, and instructions given that these men were to be paid 75 per cent. of the amount earned during the first week of their employment.

  The Australian Squadron.
  EARL WINTERTON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the strong opinion recently expressed by the late Prime Minister of the Commonwealth, Mr. Deakin, by the Prime Minister of New Zealand, and by representative men throughout Australasia in

  861
  favour of the strengthening of the Australian squadron, and also having regard to to the alleged need for impressing the inhabitants of the various Pacific Islands with the greatness of English sea-power, he will consider the advisability of either permanently strengthening the present Australian squadron or else sending a strong fleet to visit Australian waters next year.
  MR. MCKENNA: It is not known to what recent expression of opinion the noble Lord refers, but the attitude of Mr. Deakin and Sir J. Ward was clearly explained at the time of the Colonial Conference last year, and Mr. Deakin's statements at the time were applicable more to the establishment of a local naval defence force than to an increase in the strength of the Australian squadron. There is no intention to send a large fleet to visit Australian waters next year, though it is probable that some of His Majesty's ships may be detailed to visit the Pacific Islands.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is it not a fact that the Commonwealth Government has formulated plans for the establishment of a local Navy, and have those plans met generally with the approval of the Admiralty at home?
  MR. MCKENNA: If the hon. Member refers to Mr. Deakin's scheme, I have already stated in the House that the Admiralty have advised on that scheme, and have done their best to turn it into a practical working arrangement.

  Naval Standards.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Prime Minister, having regard to the declaration of the Government that the naval strength of this country must be maintained at 10 per cent. above the combined strength of the next two strongest Powers, will he consider the wisdom, while still retaining that relative position, of making overtures to other naval Powers with a view to the reciprocal and proportionate reduction of the competitive expenditure on naval defence which is imposing such burdens on the taxpayers of this and other countries.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. As-QUITH,): The other naval
  862
  Powers are well aware of the views which His Majesty's Government have more than once expressed as to the unnecessary burdens which are imposed on taxpayers by competitive expenditure in shipbuilding.
  MR. BYLES: Is it not in the knowledge of my right hon. friend that a former Foreign Secretary, Lord Clarendon, with the full concurrence of the Prime Minister, Mr. Gladstone, did actually make overtures in this direction, and received substantial encouragemeat from some of the European Powers?
  MR. ASQUITH: I cannot for the moment charge my memory with that historical fact, but His Majesty's Government have not been wanting.
  MR. MACKARNESS: Does the declaration of the right hon. gentleman regarding the two next strongest Powers include a Power bound actually to us by a treaty of alliance, such as Japan?
  MR. ASQUITH: That does not arise out of the Question.

  Capital Ships.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that in order to maintain in His Majesty's Navy a preponderance of 10 per cent. over the combined strength in capital ships of the two next strongest Powers it is necessary that the construction of further capital ships should be entered upon without delay, he will state if it is the intention of the Government to lay down any capital ships beyond those already sanctioned before the conclusion of the present financial year.
  MR. ASQUITH: In the opinion of the Admiralty no such necessity exists as the hon. Member suggests, and the Government have no intention of altering the programme already sanctioned for the current financial year.

  War Office Purchases Abroad.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the total amount involved in the contracts for general stores and other manufactured articles secured by foreign firms during the last

  863
  two years; and if he will classify the goods in question and state what sum has been saved to the Exchequer by making those purchases abroad instead of in this country.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): The figures are too long to read out to the House, but I will have them printed with the Votes and Proceedings. I may point out that those for 1906–7 will be found in House of Commons Paper 327 of 1907. As regards the last part of the Question, it is not possible to state what the expenditure on the various items would have been if they had been obtained in some other way, most of them being foreign products or specialities.

  The Curragh—Officers' Quarters.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what arrangements are being made to provide proper accommodation during the winter for the officers of the Army Service Corps at the Curragh.
  MR. HALDANE: The Officers of the Army Service Corps are at present accommodated in huts at the Curragh, which are to be replaced by new buildings. As already stated, plans for these have been approved and the building will be proceeded with as soon as possible. Meanwhile the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Ireland, will take such steps as are necessary to ensure accommodation for these officers during the winter, in huts or in quarters, as is most suitable. Provision is made for the extra issue of fuel in Ireland, in unusually damp or cold weather.

  Carlow Barracks.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the barracks at Carlow, to which the 144th Battery Royal Field Artillery have been moved from Ballinrobe, are in a proper state of repair; and whether it is intended to keep this battery there during the winter.
  MR. HALDANE: The reply to both Questions is in the affirmative.
  MR. ASHLEY: Was it not stated in the Army List last week that the battery
  864
  was only temporarily stationed at Ballinrobe? My information is that the barracks are in a very unsatisfactory state. Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire further?
  MR. HALDANE: I have done so, and I have received a far more favourable account than the hon. Member appears to have done.

  One-Room Married Quarters.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many one-room married quarters are at present in occupation in the barracks of the United Kingdom.
  MR. HALDANE: The total number of single-room married soldiers' quarters which are at present available for occupation is 1,406—a number which I very much regret. Of this a considerable number are occupied by families who have more than one quarter allotted to them.

  The Irish Command.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is his intention to quarter a cavalry regiment in the 6th Division of the Irish command, in view of the fact that the command consists of two infantry brigades and divisional troops comprising three brigades of field artillery.
  MR. HALDANE: A cavalry regiment does not form part of a division in war, and there is no intention of allotting one to this or to any other division in peace.
  MR. ASHLEYwas understood to ask if it was not usual to have a cavalry regiment with a division.
  MR. HALDANE: A cavalry regiment does not form part of a division.

  Beresford Barracks, Curragh.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Beresford Barracks at the Curragh are correctly described in the Army Medical Department Report for the year 1907, which has been presented to Parliament, as rapidly decaying and getting beyond repair, the rooms being draughty, cheerless, and very cold in winter.
  MR. HALDANE: I have nothing to add to the reply which I have already given to the hon. Member on this subject. The Quartermaster-General does not consider that the barracks are in so bad a condition as suggested in the Question.
  MR. ASHLEY: Then will the right hon. Gentleman have the Report of 1907 corrected?
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Are these old Crimean huts—rotten old things?
  MR. HALDANE: We are removing them as fast as we can.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: But are they still actually occupied?
  MR. HALDANE: They have been very much changed since the Crimean War.
  LORD BALCARRES: Would not places like this be declared by civil authorities to be unfit for human habitation?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  War Office and Small Holdings.
  MR. ROGERS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that at an inquiry recently held at Durrington, by the Wiltshire Small Holdings Committee, to consider applications for land from persons resident in Bulford, Durrington, Figheldean, and Netheravon, all parishes situate on the War Office estate, the amount of land offered by the War Office for this purpose was 120 acres, whereas the acreage applied for was 1,500, thirty acres out of the 120 moreover being unsuitable and unreasonably rented; and whether, seeing that the War Office is the sole owner of land in these parishes, he will cause a larger supply of more suitable land to be placed at the disposal of the landholding associations formed there under the Act of 1907 to assist suitable applicants to obtain small holdings.
  MR. HALDANE: After a conference with the Wiltshire County Council in the early part of the year at which the whole question was very fully discussed, it
  866
  was decided that the 140 acres in question (not 120 as stated) were the only land which, consistently with military requirements, could be spared for small holdings. The War Department gave instructions that the rent should not be in excess of a fair agricultural rent and is willing to consider any representations on the particular case mentioned.
  MR. ROGERSasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would realise that, as the War Office owned all the land in the valley, any grant of land for small holdings must come from them.
  MR. HALDANE: That is very well, but I absolutely must have land for manœuvres, and you can no more have small holdings in the middle of a military area than you can have them in the middle of London.
  MR. ROGERS: But is it not the fact that there is a good deal of unlet land which would be suitable for small holdings?
  MR. HALDANEsaid the matter had been gone into with the utmost desire to find as much land as possible for small holdings. It had been gone into not only by generals, but by people who were as keen about small holdings as his hon. friend.

  Sedition in India—Kanai's Funeral.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India if the body of the murderer Kanai, who was hanged in Alipur gaol on the 10th instant, was allowed to be carried in a procession to the funeral pyre where it was burned with honour, and a funeral oration delivered amidst shouts of victory to Kanai; and, if so, if the Government will arrange that the bodies of those executed should be buried or burned within the precincts of the gaol as in England.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,): The body of Kanai Lal Dutt was made over to the relatives in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Bengal gaol code, but it was stipulated that the body must be cremated at the nearest burning ghat with no

  867
  public demonstration. This stipulation was not observed, but the accounts of what occurred appear to be much exaggerated, and there was no funeral oration delivered. The gaol code has been amended, and in future, bodies of executed criminals will not be delivered to their relatives if there is reason to apprehend demonstrations at the funeral.
  MR. FELL: Do the new regulations apply to the whole of India, or only to Bengal?
  MR. BUCHANAN: There are different gaol codes for the different provinces of India, but this emendation will apply to them all.
  MR. LUPTON: Will it meet with public approval in India?
  MR. BUCHANAN: It is already in operation in Bombay.

  Punjab Judgeship.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that a vacancy recently occurred in the Punjab chief Court, owing to the retiral of an Indian native Judge who had occupied the position for fifteen years; that the vacancy has been filled by a European member of the Civil Service; that in the appointment of a temporary additional Judge at the same Court the native leader of the bar, who had formerly held a temporary judgeship and is believed to have been again recommended by the chief Judge of the civil Court, was passed over; and whether he can explain on what grounds these appointments are made.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I understand that the place of the Indian Judge, who has retired from the bench of the Punjab chief Court has been filled by the confirmation of a civilian Judge who has been officiating in the Court for three years past. But an additional appointment of a Judge in the Court which has recently been sanctioned has been conferred upon an Indian gentleman who is a barrister. These appointments are made by the Government of India, not by the Secretary of State.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: But why not give the vacant post to a native?
  MR. BUCHANAN: It was a case of promotion all along the line.

  Indian Army Pensions.
  MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the proposals made last year by the Government of India to the effect that the previous commissioned service, out of India, of officers of the Indian Army up to a period of five years should be allowed to reckon as service towards Indian pension have been sanctioned.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The proposal of the Government of India has been referred to the War Office, because it involves a charge on British revenues, as indicated in the Secretary of State's Answer to the hon. Member's Question of 2nd April last. The reply of the Army Council has not yet been received. The Secretary of State has, however, separately sanctioned certain concessions, including a new pension for thirty years service, with the object of relieving the hardship entailed on certain officers of the Indian Army by the rule which limits non-Indian service counting for pension to two years.
  MR. SMEATON: May we hope for an early settlement of the question?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I hope to soon get a reply from the Army Council.

  Transvaal Civil Service.
  MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the number of Civil servants of British birth in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies who, while being retained in the employment of the Colonial Governments, have had their status or rank reduced since the grant of self-government to these Colonies, in order that other persons of Boer or Hollander birth, having a less period of service and experience, should be promoted over them.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,): I must

  869
  refer the hon. Member to Cd. 4,353, and to my reply to the hon. Member for Gravesend on the 12th instant.
  MR. CARLILE: Did those retrenched officials have their salaries reduced?
  COLONEL SEELY: Full information is given in the Cd. paper.

  Education of Indian Children in Natal.
  SIR C. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the reduction of the educational facilities hitherto afforded Indian children born in Natal; whether the new regulations will have the effect of summarily dismissing pupils over the age of fourteen who have been attending the higher-grade Indian schools; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Secretary of State has no information as to the regulations mentioned by my hon. friend, but inquiry is being made as to them, and as to any reduction of educational facilities afforded to Indians born in Natal. The amount provided for Indian education on the Estimates for this year is approximately the same as in previous years.

  White Labour in the Transvaal Mines.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if it is proposed to circulate the Minute of the 30th September last of the Transvaal Government relating to work on the mines formerly done by Chinese now being performed by white labour.
  COLONEL SEELY: Yes, Sir; it will be included in the next general Blue-book.

  Stalls in Station Road, Forest Gate.
  MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what authority the police have taken proceedings against several tradesmen in Station Road, Forest Gate, for placing stalls outside their premises, they having first obtained the quiescent approval of the West Ham Borough Council; and, as the road is suited for stalls and they would be a great advantage to the surrounding neighbourhood,
  870
  will he give instructions for the summons, which is returnable for the 17th, to be withdrawn.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): Seven persons have been summoned under the Highways Act for obstructing this narrow roadway with their stalls, two of them being tradesmen, and the remaining five costermongers from a distance. I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that stalls cannot stand in the Station Road without causing obstruction and annoyance; and it is not the case that the West Ham Borough Council have given any approval. The proceedings have been adjourned for a fortnight, in order that counsel may be instructed for the defence.

  The Aliens Act.
  MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary for the Home Department whether, in view of the poverty caused by the increasing want of employment, he could see his way to making more strict the administration of the Aliens Act.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am afraid the hon. Member's suggestion does not offer any effective remedy for the evils of unemployment in this country.
  MR. HUNT: Is it not the fact that the importation of these aliens deprives our people of work and makes their conditions of life much harder?
  MR. SPEAKER: That is am atter for argument.

  Factory Inspectorships.
  MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the sixteen new inspectorships for factories, promised in May, have now been appointed; and how many of these are promotions from the ranks of assistants.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Since the announcement which I made on the 27th February last in answer to a Question by my hon. friend the Member for Berwickshire, eight additional inspectors have been appointed, besides four to fill vacancies which have arisen. Of these

  871
  twelve appointments, two were promotions from the Assistant class. The eight remaining posts will be filled in the course of this winter.

  New Home Rule Campaign—Visit of Irish Americans.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Patrick Ford, who was declared by three of His Majesty's Judges to be a known advocate of crime and the use of dynamite, and O'Meagher Condon, who was sentenced to death for the murder of an English policeman, intend visiting this country; whether their licences permit them to do so; and, if not, what action the Executive propose to take in the matter.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I beg to answer this question on behalf of my right hon. friend. I am not aware of the intentions of these persons. Neither of them is the holder of a licence.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a public invitation has been given by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford to these persons to come over to this country to preach Home Rule, and will they be allowed to land?
  MR. GLADSTONE'Sreply was inaudible.
  EARL WINTERTON: May I ask whether these two men are not well-known criminals?
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I rise to a point of order. One of the persons mentioned in this Question is an official of the United States Government and is it to be permitted that an epithet such as that is to be applied to a high official in the service of the United States and one who has been so for twenty years?
  MR. SPEAKER: There are two statements with reference to these gentlemen in this Question, and I did not understand that they are contradicted.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Certainly they are contradicted.
  MR. SPEAKER: I did not understand that they were.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Most undoubtedly.
  MR. SPEAKER: If it is not true that one of these gentlemen was declared by His Majesty's Judges to have been an advocate of crime and that one was sentenced to death, of course these statements ought not to have appeared on the Paper.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Arising out of that I hold myself responsible for what has appeared in this Question, and I shall be very glad to give the hon. and learned Member sufficient proof to satisfy him that the facts are as stated.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Perhaps I had better, under the circumstances, say that Mr. Ford, so far as I know, has not been convicted of a criminal offence in this country, and as regards Mr. O'Meagher Condon, he received a pardon under the Great Seal as far back as 1878.

  International Copyright Conference.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what, if any, amendments to the British copyright law are being proposed to the International Conference now sitting at Berne; and will any amendments which may be agreed to by the British delegates be submitted for discussion to the House of Commons, or will the Government make use of an Order in Council for their ratification.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): Some of the proposed amendments to the Berne Convention would involve an alteration of British law and could not of course be adopted by His Majesty's Government until the necessary legislation had been passed. An Order in Council under the International Copyright Acts can only give foreign works the benefit of the existing law and cannot alter that law.
  MR. BYLES: Do I understand that some of these provisions will have to be the subject of legislation?
  MR. CHURCHILL: Any alteration of the law must be by legislation.

  Distress Committees.
  MR. MOND: I bog to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state what is the total present number of central bodies and distress committees appointed under the Unemployed Relief Act of 1905.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): The present numbers are as follows:—In London, one central body, and twenty-nine distress committees. Outside London, eighty-eight distress committees.
  MR. MOND: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state what is the number of borough or district councils, with a population of less than 50,000, who have applied for the appointment of a distress committee; and what is the number of cases in which the Local Government Board have given their consent to such applications.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Since the passing of the Unemployed (Workmen) Act, 1905, seventy-nine applications have been received for the establishment of distress committees in boroughs or urban districts with a population of less than 50,000. Orders setting up distress committees have been issued in fifteen of these cases, and in two more they have been promised and will be issued immediately.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked when the right hon. Gentleman proposed to circulate the list of committees which he promised should be circulated with the Parliamentary Papers.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I hope to circulate it and similar information in a few days.

  Central Bodies and the Unemployed Relief Act, 1905.
  MR. MOND: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state what is the number of
  874
  central bodies, county councils or borough councils, which have collected information respecting the condition of labour within their area, in accordance with the Unemployed Relief Act, 1905; and whether the information thus collected could be made available to Members of the House by means of a Return.
  I beg also to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state what is the number of central bodies, county boroughs, or county councils who have established and taken over, or are assisting, labour exchanges and unemployment registries, in accordance with the Unemployed Relief Act, 1905.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The latest complete Returns that I have received of the proceedings of distress committees in England and Wales, and of the Central (Unemployed) Body for Loudon under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, relate to the year ended March last. The Parliamentary Paper in which they are summarised is No. 173 of session 1908. In that Paper my hon. friend will find an account of the action taken as regards labour exchanges and unemployment registries, and descriptions of the conditions of labour during the year furnished by the local authorities of many towns.

  Married Couples and Old-age Pensions.
  MR. VERNEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, in the case of a married couple living together, the man being of a pensionable age and otherwise qualified for a full pension, and the woman being below the pensionable age, whether any, and, if so, what, part of the earnings of the woman gained by such means as taking in lodgers or washing would be reckoned as part of the mail's income for the purpose of deciding the amount payable to him as pension under the Old-Age Pensions Act, 1908.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The means of the husband would be calculated on the amount received or enjoyed by him individually, except that, under the proviso to Section 4 (2) of the Act, his means cannot be taken as less than half the joint means of himself and his wife.

  875
  It is only in this way that the earnings of the wife would have to be considered at all.

  Barrow-in-Furness Distress Committee.
  MR. C. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether an application, dated 20th August, 1908, asking for a grant from the fund provided by Parliament for the relief of distress, has been received from the clerk of the Barrow-in-Furness distress committee; whether a further letter, dated 9th November, has been received urging attention to this matter; whether he is aware that the mayor estimates that one-seventh of the whole population of 70,000 are dependent on charity for their very existence; whether any decision has yet been arrived at; and, if not, whether, in view of the serious nature of the present distress, a speedy and favourable decision may be anticipated.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have been in communication with the Barrow-in-Furness Distress Committee on this subject, and have already made a payment of £500 from the grant in respect of certain work in the public park. I am now sending a further sum of £500 in respect of the wages of the unemployed engaged on a road improvement which is being carried out by the town council.

  Afforestation Schemes.
  MR. LANE-FOX: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what other schemes of afforestation by the unemployed have been begun besides the Leeds scheme; whether they have been successful; and what reports as to the condition of the trees so planted have reached the Board.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The Leeds scheme is the only scheme of afforestation which has been carried out under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905.

  Old-Age Pensions and Poor Relief.
  MR. LANE-FOX: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can now state whether
  876
  an applicant for an old-age pension will be disqualified for his pension owing to having received relief from the guardians, when such relief has been repaid in full to them on his behalf.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have submitted a case on this subject to the Law Officers of the Crown, and I hope to receive their opinion in the course of a few days.

  Imported Meat.
  MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has seen the present regulations of the United States and of South America for preventing the importation of tuberculous meat into this country; whether he will have them issued to Members; and what means he has of knowing that they are carried out efficiently.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have seen the regulations concerning meat inspection which are now in force in the United States and which have been prescribed for the purpose of preventing the use in foreign commerce of meat and meat food-products which are unfit for human food. Immediately after the passing of the Act of Congress under which these regulations were made, the staff employed in the Federal Meat Inspection Service was considerably increased, and it appears that on 1st July, 1907, 2,290 persons were employed on this service as compared with 981 persons so employed on 1st July, 1906. I am not aware that it is necessary to lay the regulations on the Table, but I will show the hon. Member a circular issued by the United States Bureau of Animal Industry containing a description of the Federal Meat Inspection Service, if he so desires. As regards South America, the country principally concerned is Argentina. By a decree made in October, 1906, Argentina meat products are required to be submitted to a technical inspection before exportation, and the Cattle Department are empowered to make detailed regulations. I have not seen these regulations, or any statement as regards the inspecting staff. I am endeavouring to obtain information on the subject through the Foreign Office.
  MR. HUNT: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my Question?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: That ought not to affect the position of our inspectors with regard to foreign meat which may have been inspected prior to its despatch and which, prior to its arrival in England, may have deteriorated and become unfit for food.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Have the new regulations of the Local Government Board dealing with the importation of American meat been laid on the Table of the House?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Yes, and they will come into operation on 1st January.

  Postmen in E.G. District.
  MR. W. THORNE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that for the past six years forty-seven unestablished officers have been employed at the Eastern Central district office on regular and responsible delivery duties; whether he is aware that most of these men are in full outside employment; and whether, having in view the state of unemployment throughout the country, he can see his way clear to increase the established staff by means of the duties referred to.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): The unestablished officers in question are auxiliary postmen who attend for half a day's work daily in order to assist with the last delivery. I am afraid they cannot be replaced by established full-time postmen; to do so would involve considerable waste of force.

  Overtime at the General Post Office.
  MR. STEADMAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Deptford I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the amount of systematic overtime that the sorters and letter-carriers at the General Post Office (E.C.) are called upon to work; and, if so, whether he will
  878
  consider the desirability of creating a sufficient number of new established posts in order to reduce such overtime work to a minimum.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: This is a matter which receives constant attention. Unfortunately a certain amount of overtime has to be performed by sorters and postmen, due to the intermittent character of extra work arising from foreign and Colonial mail arrivals, heavy postings, etc. Every opportunity is taken to reduce overtime by the employment of additional established officers; and considerable improvements of this nature were made quite recently in the E.C. district.

  Medical Aid for M.P.'s.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is yet in a position to state what arrangements he has been able to make with a view to secure that the necessary medical and surgical appliances are available, and a medical doctor to apply them, in case of sudden illness occurring within the premises of the House.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. L. HARCOURT, Lancashire, Rossendale): A large medicine chest, replete with every drug and instrument which the ingenuity or necessities of man can require, has been generously presented to the House by a well-known firm of manufacturing chemists, who do not desire their name to be mentioned in the matter; but I am glad to take this opportunity of conveying to the anonymous donors the gratitude of those who may subsequently profit by these appliances. The contents of this chest were decided upon after the careful consideration and advice of specialists in these matters. There are four keys to it which are held by the Inspector of Police in the Lords and Commons, the Serjeant-at-Arms, and a representative of the Office of Works. I have no doubt that, if and when the necessity should arise, Members v, ill receive in the future, as they have done in the past, the immediate and careful attention of their medical colleagues in this House.

  The Galleries of the House.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether arrangements can be made, in view of the vacant space now in the Strangers' Gallery, to give more room for the representatives of the home and foreign Press to report the proceedings of the House.
  MR. L. HARCOURT: I have no power to admit any persons to the Galleries from which strangers are now excluded by Mr. Speaker's orders. If I had suddenly become the fountain of orders I should not feel myself safe even within the precincts of this House.

  The Serpentine.
  MR. B. S. STRAUS: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, owing to the amount of unemployment in London, he could arrange to have the cleansing of the Serpentine taken in hand with as little delay as possible.
  MR. L. HARCOURT: I regret that this is a suggestion which I am unable to adopt, but I am arranging to clean part of the lake in the Regent's Park.
  MR. B. S. STRAUS: Is there no possibility of cleaning the Serpentine before the spring so that bathing may safely take place then?
  MR. L. HARCOURT: I do not think bathers will be in any danger.

  Voluntary School Managers and Motor Warning Signs.
  EARL WINTERTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether his Department have issued any order or memorandum prohibiting county education committees from issuing motor warning signs to voluntary school managers.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. RUNCIMAN, Dews-bury): No, Sir.

  Control of the Feeble minded.
  SIR JOHN TUKE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state
  880
  what sum of money has been expended by the Royal Commission on the Care and Control of the Feeble-minded in procuring evidence, on the travelling expenses of members of the Commission, and in the preparation and printing of the evidence and Report.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,): It is not possible to state separately the amount expended by the Royal Commission for the purpose of procuring evidence. The expenditure included: Travelling expenses of members of the Commission, £3,025; sums paid to witnesses, £540; printing evidence and Report, £4,943; general expenses of the inquiry, mainly for obtaining and preparing evidence and materials for the Report, £11,159; making a total of, £19,667, which does not include the cost of accommodation.

  Parliament and the Fair Wage Resolution.
  MR. STEADMAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Deptford, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Inter-departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the manner in which the Fair Wage Resolution of the House is being observed has drafted its Report: and, if so, can he state when such Report will be issued and circulated to Members of the House.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I am informed that the Report will be signed in the course of two or three days. I cannot say when it will be presented to Parliament.

  Scottish School Grants.
  MR. MENZIES: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland what sum on the average will be received by the local authorities in Peeblesshire, Perthshire, Forfarshire, Dumfriesshire, and Lanarkshire, respectively, for each pupil in average attendance in board schools and other State-aided schools under his second scheme of allocation of the balance of £436,500; and what sum Would they each receive on the average if this balance were equally divided amongst the authorities with

  881
  sole regard to the pupils in average attendance.
  I beg also to ask the Secretary for Scotland, what total sum would be received by the combined local education authorities of Lanarkshire, providing they received the same sum for each pupil in average attendance as will be received respectively by the authorities in Peeblesshire, Perthshire, Forfarshire, and Dumfriesshire, respectively, under his second allocation of the balance of £436,500.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): In answer to these Questions, I have to point out that the information desired not only as regards the district he mentions but as regards any other district may be obtained by dividing the sum allocated to any particular district, as shown in the Return ordered to be printed 3rd June, 1908, by the average attendance at schools in that district as shown on page 134 of the Department's Return, Cd. 4003.
  MR. MENZIES: Why should the county of Peebles have a grant of 20s. 9d. for each pupil in average attendance, and the neighbouring and poorer county of Lanarkshire only receive 9s. 7d.?
  MR. SINCLAIR: The Answer is somewhat complicated, and could not be given in reply to a Question across the floor. It is rather a matter for discussion.
  MR. MENZIES: Is it fair that a large and rich county like Perthshire should get 8s. more per pupil than a poor one?
  MR. SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion.

  Scottish Paupers.
  MR. TIMOTHY DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will give the number of persons over sixty-five years of age in receipt of Poor Law relief in Scotland; and whether he will give the estimated number of such persons who are over seventy years of age.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The number of persons (exclusive of lunatics) over sixty-five years of age in receipt of Poor Law relief in Scotland at 15th May, 1908, was 24,429; I hope to be in a position a little later to give the number of such persons who are over seventy years of age.

  Black Scab in Ireland.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department or Agriculture (Ireland) whether he is now in a position to give an undertaking that in the case of every outbreak of black scab potato disease reported in Ireland all diseased tubers will be destroyed at once and that the growers will receive compensation from funds provided by the Treasury.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): The Department have already destroyed all potatoes discovered affected with black scab and they will continue to do so. It does not appear to be necessary to raise the question of compensation, there having been no further outbreak of the disease beyond the two cases dealt with.

  County Mayo Evicted Tenants.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the-Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the Report of the Estates Commissioners that of 513 applications from evicted tenants in the county of Mayo only eleven applicants have been reinstated or provided with holdings, and 337 were refused after inquiry, what was the nature of the inquiry referred to; were the applicants given an opportunity of being heard by the Commissioners or were they apprised of the reasons for which their applications were rejected; and whether, in view of this almost complete breakdown of the Evicted Tenants Acts in the county where harsh evictions have been most frequent, some steps will be taken to re open these cases, either by altering the regulations issued to the Estates Commissioners or by giving the applicants an appeal to the County Court Judge.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): I

  883
  would refer the hon. Member to the Special Report on Evicted Tenants prepared by the Estates Commissioners, and presented to Parliament in 1907 [Cd. Paper 3570], for a full statement of the practice adopted by the Commissioners and the principles on which they act in dealing with applications received from persons seeking reinstatement as evicted tenants. Before rejecting a case the Commissioners make local inquiries through their inspector, who interviews the applicant if it is practicable to do so. It is not the practice of the Commissioners to state the reasons which actuate them in the exercise of their discretion. They are acquiring untenanted land to provide holdings for evicted tenants who have been considered suitable. No further regulations on the subject appear to be necessary.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked how many cases in which inspectors made strong recommendations were rejected without appeal. Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of giving them a re-hearing?
  MR. BIRRELLpromised to inquire as to the number.

  Irish Land Purchase Acts.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of tenant farmers in Ireland who have purchased or agreed to purchase under all the Purchase Acts from 1870 up to the present date.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am informed by the Land Commission that the number of purchasers to whom advances had been made under the various Land Purchase Acts from 1870 up to 30th October last was 143,545; the number who had agreed to purchase but to whom advances had not been made was 149,501; making a total of 293,046 who had either purchased or agreed to purchase up to that date.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: How many bought under the Purchase Acts from 1870 to 1903, and how many since 1903?
  MR. BIRRELL: I cannot give the hon. Member those figures. The purchase money under all the Acts up to 1903 amounted to something like £21,000,000.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Are we then to understand that during five years under the Act of 1903 a considerably greater number bought than under all the previous Acts?
  MR. BIRRELL: Yes, undoubtedly.

  Land Transfer and Fishery Rights in Ireland.
  MR. GWYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has directed his attention to the case of net fishermen on the Shannon and other rivers whose means of livelihood may be endangered in the process of land transfer, where such transfer effects the ownership of fishery rights; and whether he will consider the advisability of inserting a clause in his amending Land Bill which would authorise the Estates Commissioners to purchase such rights and sell them to the fishermen who have previously leased them, the fishermen paying by instalments like agricultural tenants.
  MR. BIRRELL: It has not been in contemplation to make legislative proposals which would empower advances to be made to fishermen for the purchase of fishery rights under the Land Purchase Acts. It is very doubtful whether fishery rights could be held to afford the same good security for advances which agricultural holdings afford. The question, however, will be fully considered.

  Irish Constabulary Bill.
  MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state approximately what is the annual charge contemplated by the proposed Constabulary (Ireland) (Pay, etc.) Resolution standing in his name for Committee stage.
  MR. BIRRELL: The immediate annual increase in the Constabulary Vote would be about £15,000. The Bill,

  885
  however, contains provisions for raising the pensionable, age of the constabulary, and this will ultimately result in a substantial decrease in the cost of the constabulary as a whole, by reducing the charges upon the non-effective list.
  MR. MOONEY: How is it that the amount provided for in the Bill is in excess of that recommended by the Howard Vincent Committee?
  MR. BIRRELL: I cannot answer that without explaining the provisions of the Bill.

  Dursey Island.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when the purchase agreements between the tenants of Dursey Island and Mr. William Lee White have been lodged; whether the lands have been vested in the tenants; and, if not, what is the cause of delay.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the purchase agreements in this case were lodged in December, 1905. Until the case has been reached in its order of priority, and the advances sanctioned by the Commissioners, the holdings cannot be vested in the tenants.

  Castletown Bere Labourers' Cottages.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether an inquiry in connection, with the Labourers (Ireland) Acts was held at Castletown Bere on 9th April last; whether a scheme for the erection of labourers cottages has been passed; and, if not, can he state what provision is to be made for housing the labourers in the Castletown Bere union.
  MR. BIRRELL: An inquiry was held on the date mentioned into the refusal of the Castletown Bere Rural District Council to make a scheme under the Labourers Acts. Nearly all the applicants for cottages and allotments were found to be persons living in the town of Castletown Bere. With one or two exceptions they were not employed in agricultural work, while outside
  886
  the town there is practically no labouring class as distinguished from occupiers of small holdings. The rural district council have offered to supply cottages without allotments and the Local Government Board have reason to believe that, in the exceptional circumstances of Castletown Bere, this would be considered sufficient by the majority of the applicants. The Board will shortly communicate with the district council on the subject.
  MR. GILHOOLY: Is it not necessary that a man should work in agriculture in order to be qualified as an agricultural labourer and get a cottage?
  MR. BIRRELL: The object is to provide cottages for agricultural labourers.
  MR. GILHOOLY: And if the guardians fail to carry out their duty in this respect, will the Local Government Board send down inspectors?
  MR. BIRRELL: They are in communication on the subject.

  Doolin Constabulary Charge.
  MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he received a resolution from the Ennistymon Board of Guardians condemning the assault committed on the son of their chairman, Mr. Michael Consedine, county councillor, by the Royal Irish Constabulary, on 18th October, while sitting outside his father's house at Doolin, when forty of the fifty-two members of the Royal Irish Constabulary stationed at Doolin House, which was given to them by Mr. H. V. M'Namara, marched in a body through the public road and batoned every person whom they met; and whether he will have an inquiry made into the conduct of the police, and inform the House who was responsible for this conduct of the police.
  MR. BIRRELL: A force of fifty police is stationed at Doolin for the prevention of cattle-driving. On Sunday, 18th October, at about 5.30 in the evening, six of the constables, who were off duty, were returning to their station through the village of Roadford.

  887
  They were wheeling their bicycles at the time, and were not possessed of batons. A crowd of men outside a public-house closed in threateningly upon the police, stones were thrown at them, and the two rearmost constables were set upon. One of them was struck on the head with a stone, knocked down, and kicked. Other constables were also assaulted, and their bicycles were jumped upon and smashed with large stones. One of the men escaped to the station, half a mile distant, and Head Constable Gilliland, at once turned out with twelve men and proceeded to the village, where they were reinforced by several other constables. Stones were thrown at this party, and a constable struck. The head constable thereupon ordered his men to draw batons and disperse the crowd, and this was done; the batons being used with, it is admitted, considerable effect. It is quite possible that during the baton charge through the village one or more innocent persons may have suffered. It was dusk at the time, and the police—who belonged to the Reserve—were strangers to the locality. The police authorities have already fully investigated the entire matter, and I am not prepared to give any further inquiry. I regret to say that the constable who was kicked while on the ground, was ruptured, and has had to undergo an operation in hospital.
  MR. BELLOC: Whose evidence is the right hon. Gentleman quoting?
  MR. BIRRELL: The police.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Seeing that very contradictory accounts are given, and that the police version is strenuously denied by persons of responsibility, will not the right hon. Gentleman direct an inquiry so as to get at the real facts?
  MR. BIRRELL: I have no doubt whatever as to the truth of the statement I have given as to the commencement of the affair, and I see no need for an inquiry.

  Bodyke Evicted Tenants.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say what arrangements have been made to settle the claims of the evicted tenants on the estate of Colonel O'Callaghan-Westropp, Bodyke, County Clare.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners notified in the Dublin Gazette of 6th instant their intention of acquiring compulsorily under the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907, certain lands on the estate of Colonel O'Callaghan-Westropp from which tenants were evicted, but the tenants cannot be reinstated until the requirements of the statute have been complied with and the lands acquired.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman direct the special attention of the Estates Commissioners to the cases of the tenants who have been out of their holdings for a very long time?
  MR. BIRRELL: Yes, Sir.

  Connaught Winter Assizes.
  MR. GWYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can see his way to comply with the request formulated in a recent resolution of the Galway Urban District Council that the Connaught Winter Assizes should be held in Galway instead of in Limerick.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Order in Council has already been passed and published in the Dublin Gazette directing the Assizes to be held in the City of Limerick. Arrangements have also been definitely made consequent on this Order, and it would be too late now, even if it were expedient, to make any change, as the Assizes will open in the first week in December.
  MR. GWYNNasked if arrangements could not be made to hold the Assizes in Galway next year.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,)replied that the arrangements

  889
  were made each year when the proper time arrived.

  Wade Estate, Meath.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have purchased the estate of Craven H. C. Wade, county of Meath, including the untenanted land.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have not purchased Mr. Wade's estate, but proceedings for sale have been instituted before them and purchase agreements have been lodged. When dealing with the estate the Commissioners will consider the purchase of the untenanted land.

  Colonel Lyster Smythe's Estate.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland why the former holding of Francis Hopkins, on the estate of Colonel Lyster Smythe, cannot be acquired compulsorily, it being still untenanted land in the occupation of the landlord.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that Hopkins was evicted since the passing of the Act of 1903, and his case docs not therefore come within the provisions of the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907.

  Irish Land Purchase.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the effect of his announcement that the forthcoming Irish Land Bill contemplates a revision of the financial arrangements under the Purchase Act of 1903 as from 1st November last is not to suspend land purchase in Ireland until the Bill specifying the new arrangements becomes law; and has he yet been able to ascertain whether there is any reasonable probability of the Bill being passed into law this year.
  MR. ASQUITH: My right hon. friend the Chief Secretary informs me that since the 1st instant the rate at which purchase agreements have been lodged is still considerably above the normal
  890
  rate. So far, therefore, there has been no such result as the hon. Member seems to have anticipated. As regards the probability of the Bill becoming law this year, I am afraid that I cannot add anything to my former replies.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly tell us how negotiations are to be carried on for fresh purchases before either landlords or tenants know the new conditions of purchase; and whether or not it is the case that agreements made after 1st November will be subject to the same regulations as if entered into before the new conditions are published?
  MR. ASQUITH: My right hon. friend will make a full statement on the subject next Monday, and I will ask the hon. Gentleman to wait till then, when all the points he has raised will be adequately met.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Has any step been taken, such as has been taken on the education question, to see if there is any possibility of bringing about a friendly agreement on the subject?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am afraid I cannot answer that.

  Irish Constabulary Bill.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will arrange an early day on which to proceed with the Irish Constabulary Bill, in view of the extra strain placed on the force in coping with the increase of agrarian crime in many districts of the South and West.
  MR. ASQUITH: Having regard to the recommendations made, so far back as the year 1901, by the Committee presided over by Sir Howard Vincent, and to the undertakings given by the Government in the matter, it is intended to proceed with the financial Resolution in Committee upon the Constabulary (Ireland) Bill at the earliest possible date.

  Downpatrick Postal Arrangements.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware

  891
  of the inconvenience caused by the present arrangements of postal deliveries in Downpatrick, County Down; and whether he could authorise a delivery at about three o'clock in the afternoon, so as to enable business firms to execute on the same day orders contained in that mail; and can he state if the telephone service will be installed in Downpatrick and neighbourhood.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: There are already four deliveries by postmen at Downpatrick, in addition to a delivery to callers at the Post Office at 3 p.m. These arrangements are exceptionally liberal for a town of the size of Downpatrick, and I should not be justified in authorising any further extension. Subject to the approval of the Treasury, I shall be prepared to extend the telephone service to Downpatrick and other places in County Down under guarantee.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the complaint is not of the number of deliveries, but of the time at which they take place? Could he not take one off in the morning and put one on at three o'clock.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: If the hon. Member will write me on the subject I shall be glad to consider the matter of broadening the deliveries. I thought the complaint was as to the number.

  The Duration of the Session.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, for the convenience of those hon. Members whose homes are at a distance, he can state the date on which the House will rise this session.
  MR. ASQUITH: I am afraid that I cannot make any statement on this matter.

  English Education Bill.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister when the Government Amendments to the Education Bill will be placed on the Paper.
  MR. ASQUITH: Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat his Question tomorrow.

  Scottish Education Bill.
  MR. EUGENE WASON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he can state on what day the further consideration on the Report stage of the Scottish Education Bill will be taken.
  MR. ASQUITH: The 24th instant is the earliest possible afternoon which could be given to complete the Education (Scotland) Bill. I cannot, however, fix the date definitely, but I hope on Thursday to make a statement in regard to the business for next week.

  Curates and Convocation.
  MR. RADFORD: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether at the forthcoming election of a proctor for the diocese of London to the Canterbury House of Convocation, assistant stipendiary curates will be summoned to vote; whether the King's writ directs the archbishops to summon all the clergy; what the qualification for a vote for a proctor for Convocation is; and, if the omission to summon assistant stipendiary curates is due to any statutory limitation, will he take steps to amend the law so as to ensure that all those who are bound by the canons issued by Convocation shall be represented on that body.
  MR. ASQUITH: As a matter of fact assistant stipendiary curates have not in the past been summoned, and are not now summoned, to vote at the election of proctors for Convocation. The omission to summon assistant stipendiary curates is not due, so far as I am aware, to any statutory limitation, but to the sanction of ancient custom which has been held in questions with regard to the constitution of Convocation to have the force of the law.

  Licensing Bill—Sunday Opening.
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister when he proposes to move the re-committal of the Licensing Bill in order to carry out his undertaking to move the omission of subsection 2 of the new clause (Sale of intoxicating liquor with meals on Sundays, etc.).
  MR. ASQUITH: As I said on Friday, there is no intention of re-committing the Bill for this purpose, which can be accomplished elsewhere.
  MR. JAMES HOPE: Will it make any difference to the law whether the subsection is struck out or not?
  MR. ASQUITH: Well, I think not.

  Duties of Innkeepers.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will introduce a clause into the Licensing Bill stating whether it is, or is not, an indictable offence for a village innkeeper to keep his inn open after closing hours for the provision of non-alcoholic refreshment.
  MR. ASQUITH: The law on the subject of the duties of inn-keepers is of old standing and well settled, and does not require any statutory definition.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement and that of the Solicitor-General on Friday have caused great chaos among a great many people in the country? Will a man be allowed to stop after closing hours at night in a public-house in a village if he does not buy anything alcoholic?
  MR. ASQUITH: I do not know about chaos. The hon. Gentleman's Question referred to inn-keepers only, and my answer was confined to them.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to regulate the Registration of Nurses," [Nurses Registration Bill [Lords].]

  LICENSING BILL.
  As amended, further considered.
  MR. PATRICK WHITEin moving to omit Clause 3, said he would like to remind the Government of what they appeared to forget, that one of the Commandments said,
  894
  "Thou shalt not steal." By that Commandment it was forbidden to take what belonged to another, and in his opinion the third section of this Bill was an absolute violation of that Commandment. To rob a licensee of the licence for which he had paid in hard cash, to deprive investors in brewery companies of the money they had inverted, was an offence against the elementary principles of justice, and all the more odious when it was done in the name, and for the ostensible reason that it was for the well being, of the State and to promote the cause of temperance. The underlying principle of this clause—and this clause was the essence of the Bill—was that the Government of the day might take private property without compensating the individuals from whom they took it, and the doctrine was so pernicious in itself, and it might have such far-reaching effects upon the industrial community at large and upon industrial enterprise, that the Bill would do grave damage to the credit and to the honour of this country. The Government of the day could not lay predatory hands upon any great industry without inflicting a hardship upon all the allied trades, and sending a shudder throughout every industrial centre of the country. If they introduced this vicious principle into legislation, where and when did they propose to draw the line? If they attacked licensed property to-day, with the same show of justice they might attack every other vested interest in the country to-morrow. Exactly the same doctrine would serve their purpose. There was no class of property that was not subject to some duty to the State, and licensed property as well as every other investment owed a duty to the State, and the different relations which they bore to the State was only a difference of degree. An honourable understanding had prevailed in this country for the past century that a trader seeking renewal of his licence would obtain it provided he was of good conduct. That understanding had been respected up to the present, but the Government now ignored it, and that could not be done without seriously injuring the credit and the honour of the State. The second part of the Bill dealt with the cause of temperance. It was proposed to abolish

  895
  something like 30,000 licences; that might or might not promote the cause of temperance; but if the consumption of alcohol diminished in the same ratio that the licences diminished, all he could say was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have a very uneasy time of it. Let them assume for the sake of argument that this was a great temperance, measure, that it was going to be a monumental measure of temperance reform, for which the Government took credit. If the abolition of public-houses brought that about, who were entitled to take credit for it? Not the State. It was the surviving two-thirds of the licensees who during the next fourteen years would have to pay for the extinction of the 30,000 licences. They were the people who were entitled to the credit, and they ought to be entitled to the gratitude of the nation if they brought about a great measure of sobriety in the English people. But what did they propose to do with these gentlemen? At the end of the reduction period, they were to wipe out their property as if it were nothing. They did not take them into consideration; they allowed them to live in agony for fourteen years and then they would sweep away their property without a farthing of compensation. In his opinion, that was as monstrous an act of injustice as ever any House of Commons had attempted to perpetrate. He would now come to the specific question. Was the taking away of licences without compensation just and equitable? In order to consider that question they must go back a long way. According to some hon. Gentlemen opposite they dealt with this transaction as if it were a matter of yesterday. That was not so. They must have regard to the fact that these licences had been in existence for a great number of years. They could not ignore the fact that licences had changed hands for large sums of money, and with the sanction and authority of the State. They must not forget that people were induced to put their money into this investment, and that even solicitors would advise their clients, and trustees were permitted, to put money into breweries and brewery concerns. They had made it a security and had given the sanction of Parliament for it to be
  896
  dealt with as a continuing security. Could the House now, with any show of justice, say: "No, you have no security; it is not a continuing security, but only from year to year"? That was a proposal based on extreme injustice. If it was in his power to place this case before a jury of impartial men, of men sworn to do justice between man and man, of men unbiassed by political prejudices, unmoved by all political hatreds and political conflicts which had existed in the past over this question, he believed that any such jury would agree with him that this proposal was not just to the holders of licences. He would challenge right hon. Gentlemen opposite and their followers to find a jury of honest men in the country who would say they were acting rightly in this matter. He would go further and say that if they took twelve jurists from any country in the world and put the question to them: "Is this legislation which we are now proposing in keeping with the spirit of the legislation which this country has passed, and with the practice and custom which this country has observed in dealing with licences for the past half century?" they would say: "You have introduced a new and foreign clement into your policy." Hon. Gentlemen opposite based their case on the celebrated decision of Sharpe v. Wakefield. He had recently gone over that decision, which was simply a decision that in a particular case where sufficient reasons were given the magistrate could not be compelled to grant a renewal of the licence. But one law after another had stated that the magistrates were bound to act in their judicial capacity, that they could not act arbitrarily or from mere caprice, and that so long as there was no valid objection to the renewal of a licence the magistrates were bound to renew it. Anyone who proposed to object to the renewal had to give notice of objection, and that notice had to be served on the licence-holder. Did not that imply that the magistrates meant to renew it, unless there was a valid objection to it, as a matter of duty? He considered that the right hon. Gentlemen who occupied the Treasury Bench had taken up an extraordinary attitude on this question. He read the remarks in that morning's paper of the Chief Secretary

  897
  for Ireland, who spoke at Bristol on Saturday, where he laid down an extraordinary doctrine. Referring to the gentlemen who occupied another place, he said that if they came on this occasion and stood between the people and their passionate desire for sobriety and temperance, their blood would be upon their own heads. That was an extraordinary statement from a responsible Minister. It said in effect that the Government for the time being was above the Constitution. It might proceed with reckless and extravagant legislation, and if anyone, even the Constitution, attempted to block the way, then let their blood be upon their own heads. That was what it meant. He would have asked the right hon. Gentleman if he had been in his place whether the Government of the day, which was the mere outcome of one general election, had the power to cancel arrangements entered into by the State during the past fifty years. Was it not bound by what the State had done? Could it use the right arm of the State and place it at the disposal of one section, of its own party, to wreak vengeance on its opponents? Let them put sophistry on one side and ask themselves was this a real measure of temperance reform. Was that the real object aimed at? Every impartially-minded man would agree that it was not. What was really aimed at was to bring revenue to the Exchequer. Would that do as much good as the Chancellor of the Exchequer contemplated? He might inflict suffering and hardship on individuals, and while bringing money into the Exchequer which ought to be circulating in other directions he would be bringing about a new form of poverty and distress among people who, perhaps, never experienced it before, and he would not be adding a fraction to the national wealth of the country. It would remain the same, and the money taken from those who were entitled to it would be spread over a large multitude. It was said that in the next fourteen years the owners of licensed houses would recompense themselves. He did not think even hon. Gentlemen opposite would say that that was reasonable. In the first place, for the next fourteen years they imposed a new burden on them,
  898
  the burden of the compensation fund, which the Government themselves could not measure, and to which the licensees would have to contribute out of their hard-earned savings, and at the end of that time their licence was to be taken from them. They would be doing away not only with the licence but the goodwill which was sometimes as important as what was called the monopoly value. If they attempted to do that, they would strike a blow at one of the greatest incentives to industry, energy, and perseverance. He would ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to look at this not through jaundiced political eyes, but fairly as between man to man. He would ask them to imagine that they themselves had their money invested in licensed property. Ought they not to do as they would like to be done by? Was it just and fair that investments made under the sanction of Parliament for so long a period were now by one stroke of the Government pen to be wiped away for ever? It was unjust, and it must reflect upon the credit, the honour, and the dignity of this country. The authority of Mr. Gladstone had been claimed by gentlemen on both sides of the House, but Mr. Gladstone would never have dreamed of doing what the Government were now proposing. The small investors for the time being forgot to which party they belonged, and they were all united in looking to another place for a remedy for the wrong proposed in the Bill. No one regretted that more than he did, for he believed the action of the Government was going to give a long lease to the gentlemen on that side. He regretted that for his own country, but from the Government's action he believed it was inevitable. The Prime Minister at a former stage of the clause said that what they had to ask themselves was, was it wise, politic, or just that the time-limit should be attached to licences. His reply to that was that in his opinion it was unwise, impolitic, and unjust. He begged to move.
  MR. G. D. FABERsaid he found himself in a position of great difficulty on Friday last, and the Government found themselves in a position of great absurdity. To-day their difficulty

  899
  and the Government's absurdity were immeasurably increased, because Clause 3 as it would be amended, was absolutely different from the clause as they had been accustomed to know it in Committee. Clause 3 dealt with four topics—local option, monopoly value, the time-limit, and grocers' licences. In all these respects the clause was altered—in some respects fundamentally—as contrasted with the original position. Local option, as applied to Clause 2 for the purpose of new licences, had never been discussed at length—the principle had been, but not the machinery. The machinery had been incorporated for many purposes with Clause 3 which dealt with on-licences at the end of the reduction period. While local option was under discussion at an earlier period, there was room for doubt as to whether, when the end of the reduction period came, local option would ipso facto apply, as set up by Clause 2, to all old on-licenses, or whether it would require fresh legislation. Under the clause as amended to-day there was no longer any room for doubt upon the subject. The local option provisions under Clause 3 as they now saw it affected every on-licence in the country at the end of the reduction period. Nothing more need be done by Parliament. That was the first vital alteration. Hitherto there had been, and rightly, great doubt as to the meaning monopoly value. Now the Government defined it in Clause 24, which they would not reach until Thursday afternoon, yet they had to deal with the matter in this clause. That was new position No. 2. New position No. 3 was that the time-limit was extended, with all the restrictions that the extension involved, from fourteen to twenty-one years. Fourthly, and by no means least, they came to the extraordinary new position that the Government had taken up in the matter of grocers' licences. In fact the jack-in-the-box of Clause 3 had been the grocers' licences. He would trace the history of the Government action in regard to grocers' licences. Those licenses first came up for discussion on Clause 1. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University had moved on that clause to include the grocers' licences in the reduction period. It came to the vote, and Members
  900
  on that side of the House for the greater part voted for it, not because they had the smallest feeling or prejudice against the grocer or his licences, but because they had a right to demand that the Government, when they brought in what they called an all-round thorough-going temperance measure should not include on-licences and leave out off-licences. They could not shut one door and leave the other open. The great cohorts of the Government, of course, gained the day, and off-licences were not included. But between the closing days of July and the early days of October a change for the time being seemed to come over the scene and the spirit of their dream, and one fine day the First Commissioner of Works put down upon the Amendment Paper words which brought off-licences as well as on-licences within the purview of Clause 3. It was on the Paper one day and discussed the next. The Leader of the Opposition pointed out that under the clause as it then stood, local option would apply on the termination of the reduction period, not only to on-licences, but to off. The first Commissioner got up much fluttered and discomposed and said it had not been their intention to bring grocers' licences under the local option clause and if that was the effect they would put the matter right on Report. That raised a very interesting psychological question. He wondered what made the right hon. Gentleman so hurriedly alter his mind when he found that local option included off-licences as well as on. The right hon. Gentleman ran away from his own Amendment and the Government were running away to-day. Was it one of the many powers that seemed to stand behind the throne and pull the strings that made the right hon. Gentleman, after a sudden access of virtue under the influence of which he included off-licences, hurriedly withdraw them? At any rate, the position was vitally altered to-day. They were in this further difficulty, that Clause 5, into which a long new Amendment dealing with grocers' licences was inserted, came on for discussion, not now under this compartment of the guillotine but in the next compartment. There he found himself in a difficulty as he did not know how far he would be in order in discussing the

  901
  subject of grocers' licences now. They had been placed in an impossible position and had got in to a perfect slough of despond. The subject they were now dealing with contained some of the most vital topics of the whole measure, and yet they were obliged to piece together the Amendments to see how the matter stood. They had to look into Clause 2 which dealt with local option in order to see how far it extended to Clause 3, they had also to discover how far part of Clause 5 which dealt with grocers' licences would dovetail in with the proposal now under discussion. This was one of the most impossible measures ever introduced into Parliament, and yet on one of the closing days of the debate they were confronted with an entirely new position. He had done his best to apply himself to this new aspect of the case, and he had no hesitation in saying that the position created was an intolerable one. The way monopoly value and the time-limit were applied in this measure constituted an entirely new doctrine. A certain reduction period he could conceivably understand, although he was against it, but a reduction period plus the recovery of monopoly value by the State at the end of a time-limit outraged his common-sense and violated his sense of justice. Where did the Government find any warrant for this double-headed proposition? Did they find it in any of the judgments in the Law Courts or in any of the speeches of great statesmen? Did they find it in the practice adopted by the Executive when taxing licensed property for death duties and taxation generally? They found no warranty for that proposition anywhere, not even in the Minority Report of the Licensing Commission. There was nothing in that Report warranting this great act of spoliation and depredation. There was not a word in Sharpe v. Wakefield that afforded a scintilla of authority for this change in the law. No new law was laid down in that case, but simply a new interpretation of the law, and the Act of 1904 was necessitated because justices did not conform to but violated the decision in Sharpe v. Wakefield. Many benches of magistrates thought they could after that decision take away licences merely if they thought they were superfluous, but that decision did not
  902
  lay down anything of the kind. Sharpe v. Wakefield laid down that a discretion must be judicially exercised in every case, and there was no warranty whatever for any such doctrine as that which was laid down in this Bill, under which 30,000 licences were to be compulsorily extinguished in fourteen, years. What was a licence? A licence was a restricted privilege granted by the State renewed every year as a matter of form, and by the practice of centuries had been renewed every year except in cases of misconduct or proved superfluity. What did the Government propose to take by this new doctrine of recovery of monopoly value? They were going to take over everything that the money, the industry and ability of perhaps generations of traders had superimposed upon that bare permission to trade granted by the State. That permission was originally a mere skeleton which the holder of the licence had clothed with flesh and blood and made into a living business. The Government Were now proposing to take power to recover, not only that bare permission, but also the whole superstructure which had been reared upon it. Such a course was not warranted by anything which had been done in the past. What had been the practice of the State in the past in exacting toll on licensed property upon the death of the owner? Had the State attempted to split up the value of licensed property, dividing the bricks and mortar and ground from the monopoly value of the business? The State had never adopted that attitude. When the owner of licensed property died, the State always taxed the whole of the property upon its market value as the property of the owner, just in the same way as the business of a tailor, a butcher, or a baker was treated. The State had exacted millions out of the estimated market value of licensed property. Under the Death Duties Act of 1893, the value ordered to be taken was the market value, and it was monstrous to turn round now and declare that licences belonged to the State, and that the State was merely going to resume its own. The State could not play fast and loose like that with property if it wished to set an example of probity to the nation. In 1880, Mr. Gladstone said that if they were going to suppress licences they must pay for them. In

  903
  1890, after Sharpe v. Wakefield, Mr. Gladstone further stated that the licence-holder must be taken to be aware of the law as it stood, but not if the position was fundamentally altered. What was the new position? They were proposing to take away 30,000 or 40,000 licences in fourteen years under a cast - iron system of reduction, and the trade was being compelled to provide itself with a beggarly compensation. The State would not pay one farthing towards it, and yet at the end of the time-limit the State was proposing to appropriate, the monopoly value. A new position from top to bottom had been created, and he did not see how anyone who still had any respect for the rights of property could take any such course as that which was suggested in this Bill. He begged to second the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 15, to leave out Clause 3."—(Mr. Patrick White.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'and,' in page 3, line 18, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. BARNARDsaid the hon. Member for York had expressed his general indignation at, the proposals of the Government, but he had expected him to give the House the benefit of the great knowledge he possessed regarding the business portion of the Bill. For his own part, he wished to draw attention to the great difference between Clauses 2 and 3. Clause 2 dealt with new licences, and he did not think it mattered much whether local option applied to them or not. Under Clause 3 the idea was that, local option should apply to what had hitherto been known as on-licences. Great inconvenience arose on a previous stage of the Bill because they were unable to discuss how this would work out. On Clause 2 it was decided by an Amendment which the Government accepted that parishes were to be the areas for voting. When they came to the question of on-licences, they found that there were 800 parishes in the country containing a population of fifty each. He knew one parish where there was a population of only seven. He asked whether the Government intended
  904
  to leave the position as it now stood with reference to the voting for local option in tiny areas, or whether these areas would be grouped in some form or other as was done under the Local Government Act of 1894. He wished to put his next point in the form of a query to the Government. It had been said on many platforms, and also in the House, that the intention of the concession made by the Prime Minister when he extended the time-limit by giving a seven years free run beyond the fourteen years period was that something in the nature of priority should be given to the tenants. Would it not be well to put in the clause some words which would give to the sitting tenant, subject to good conduct and other favourable conditions, the first claim to consideration at the end of the period? He went a little bit further. He reminded the House that the Prime Minister in introducing the Bill stated that he would be prepared to consider reasonable Amendments, and since then another Cabinet Minister had said the same thing. He asked both Gentlemen, and also the House, to contemplate what would be the effect of the proposals as they had them now. Originally it was proposed that the time-limit should be fourteen years, and now there was to be in addition a seven years free run. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] He did not know what the proper expression was. It was seven years grace without charging the monopoly value. He thought the seven years would be calculated as an expectancy for the purposes of compensation, but he now found that the Government took the arbitrary figure of three years. He had never heard how they brought about that calculation, or why they had chosen the period of three years. He admitted that the concession of seven years without charging the monopoly value was a very great concession, but unfortunately it was deliberately clogged by subsection (2) (a) of the clause which said—
  "The foregoing provisions of this Act as to local option shall take effect as if a majority of two-thirds of the votes given were required for the carrying of a Resolution instead of a bare majority."
  Temperance reformers had said regretfully that the present state of public

  905
  opinion would not make the two-thirds majority effective, and he was equally certain from a totally different standpoint that the probabilities were that the two-thirds majority would not be secured. If, therefore, all sides were agreed that it was not likely to be got, why on earth could not the provision be dropped? The effect of the provision being in the Bill was most disorganising. It absolutely got rid of the security implied by the grant of the seven years extra run. By the clogging of that concession with the local option provision they absolutely took away the financial advantage from the point of view of insurers. He was against the time-limit altogether. He was certain that the evil effects produced by the Bill would be much more serious than had been generally stated in the House. He could state from his own knowledge that there were a great many small men engaged in the trade who had received notice to pay money which they were indebted. He would not debate the question whether the Bill was or was not likely to be thrown out in another place, but he wanted the House to remember that the financial effect up to the present had been to derange and upset altogether the monetary arrangements of a vast number of people in the trade. The Solicitor-General the other night, in a tone of pride, drew attention to the value of brewery shares. He ventured to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he had looked into the value of some of the guarantee society shares which had guaranteed brewery debentures. If he would turn his attention to that class of reading, he would be able to tell the House whether it coincided with the statement he had made as to the value of brewery shares. He hoped the Government would give the House some information on the two points he had raised.
  MR. HAZLETONsaid the mover of the Amendment quoted from a speech made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and charged him with attempting to set the Government above the Constitution. That would be a very great evil if it could be done. What did this Amendment propose? To his mind it proposed to put the licensed trade
  906
  above the Constitution, and that would be a very much greater evil. If the Constitution was to be over-ruled at all, he should prefer that it should be done by a responsible Government rather than by an irresponsible trade which had never considered anything but its own selfish interests. What was the position with regard to this matter? Temperance reformers had never for one moment been in doubt with regard to the tenure of licences by licence-holders, and, what was more, the law on the subject had never been in doubt. All that the Government proposed to do now was to put in force the law that ought to have been enforced years ago. The champions of the licensed trade occupied a somewhat curious position in this matter. For years they had denounced every practical temperance proposal that had been brought forward. They had talked time and again about confiscation and the insecurity of their position for the last half-century or more. What had the House heard to-day? They had heard of the security which the licensed trade had occupied during the last half-century as an argument for not disturbing it now. That only proved that the longer a reform was delayed the more difficult it was to carry it out. He, therefore, contented himself with expressing the hope that this reform would not be any longer delayed, and that the clause would be retained in the Bill.
  MR. C. B. HARMSWORTHexpressed the hope that the Government, while retaining Clause 3, would modify it in one or two particulars. Those who were not absolutely prejudiced in regard to this question were practically agreed that the time-limit was a desirable thing. He had listened with accustomed amazement to the speech of the hon. Member for York. That hon. Member seemed to adopt an attitude more common in the country than in the House; namely, that the property of the licence, whatever it was, approximated to that of freehold property. Surely that had been disproved in the House over and over again. It had been denied in set terms by the Leader of the Opposition and was not held in the House by anyone whose

  907
  opinion was really worthy of consideration.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is held by the Lord Chancellor.
  MR. C. B. HARMSWORTH: I was not aware of that. I am speaking of the Members of this House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Lord Chancellor said that the Act of 1904 conferred the freehold.
  MR. C. B. HARMSWORTH: I am not qualified to argue that with the right hon. Gentleman. May I point out one or two considerations which appeal to my mind. If the licence approximates to the value of the freehold, I should like to know why the right hon. Gentleman made the trade pay their own compensation.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Member appeals to me I will not apologise for interrupting him. I have always denied, both before and after the Act of 1904 was passed, that there was a freehold tenure in licences, but the present occupants of the Treasury Bench and the highest legal authority in the Government, namely, the Lord Chancellor held, contrary to my opinion, that the Act of 1904 did confer a right of freehold, and that therefore they now possess it by Act of Parliament.
  MR. C. B. HARMSWORTHsaid that he found himself in a greater difficulty. He would be sorry, indeed, to pit his judgment against the high opinion quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, but he thought to commonsense men these considerations did appeal; and he would ask if the licence was freehold why should it be taken away for misconduct? He had never heard of freehold property being taken away even for misconduct. Surely there was another consideration, one more apposite than any of the two previous considerations—and that was that the State might multiply the number of licences indefinitely, and thus deprive them of any monopoly value whatsoever. The State might do it, and the present Government might do it, but out of consideration
  908
  for the morals of the people no Government had ever contemplated doing it. In spite of what had been said by high authorities, he believed that a time-limit was feasible, just and necessary. The only further considerations which appealed to him were as to what conditions should prevail during the operation of the time-limit and what was to happen at the end of the time-limit. He should like to join with his hon. friend the Member for Kidderminster in an appeal to the Government, who had made so considerable a concession over and above the fourteen years provisionally arranged—to remove the operation of local option during the subsequent seven years. The seven years additional close season, as it might be called, was given by way of a great concession; and it was very highly appreciated in many quarters of the House. But he could not help thinking that the greater part of its virtue was taken away if local option were allowed to operate during that period. His own opinion was that the licence-holder was entitled to certainty and confidence during those very drastic operations. Nothing could be more harassing to a man engaged in any business or trade than not to know what was to happen in his business. Under the proposals of the Bill he had found nothing had been more objected to by the representatives of the trade than the uncertainty that attached to certain parts of them. The Government might make one other concession which he did not think world impair the value of their Bill. The concession he asked was that those who were licence-holders at the end of the time-limit should be given a preference when the new licences were granted. He believed that the Bill as amended would make enormously in the direction of temperance. Speaking for himself, he would not like to be responsible for any share in rejecting so valuable a measure.
  MR. GRETTONsaid that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had made what was in some respects a remarkable speech. It was a compound of fulsome praise of the Government and of a complaint against the provisions of the Bill. He understood

  909
  that the hon. Member's main contention why this clause ought to stand in the Bill was that it was not confiscation, properly speaking; that licences were not, in his opinion, freehold property; and that therefore they might be taken away and not regarded as property at all. He noticed that, as this controversy proceeded, there had been a great tendency on the part of other hon. Members to take a very similar point of view. They proceeded on the assumption that no property was real property unless it could be classed as freehold property. But those who had any knowledge of the different forms of property were aware that that was absurd. There were copyhold property, annuities, and many other kinds of property which were of undoubted value, which were all marketable, and in which the individual owner had an inalienable right. On the other hand, in relation to licensed property there were certain covenants which had to be fulfilled. He did not think that any responsible lawyer or responsible business man would say that, because a licence was not a freehold property, it was not real property and ought not to be treated as such. Of course, as in the case of all other kinds of property, the State had some rights over it. The State had always retained a right to tax property for the benefit of the community, and it had exercised that right very fully in the case of the levy of death duties and probate duty on licensed property. It was, therefore, rather late in the day for hon. Members to say that a licence was not real property. It was real property, and as such had existed for a great number of years. The hon. Member had argued that the value which attached to the licence might be very easily destroyed by an unlimited grant of new licences. Of course that was true. Many hon. Members knew that the State did by the Licensing Act of 1830 take that very course. Down to 1872 there was a very free issue of licences of that kind, but the result was that there was practically no monopoly value in a licence. The monopoly value was, however, recreated by the action of the State itself, and it was too late in the day for hon. Members opposite to claim that individuals had no right of property in the licence. The
  910
  State itself had taxed this property and had taken no action whatever to secure for itself the monopoly value during all these years. But the Government was now going to take away far more than the monopoly value. They were going to take the business goodwill and the personal goodwill in the business. The hon. Member had made an appeal that the licence-holder should have some preference at the end of the time-limit when the licences to be issued under this Bill were to be issued as new licences. Nobody seemed to notice the very curious inconsistency between this suggestion that there was a personal goodwill and a business goodwill attaching to a licence which should be considered at the end of the reduction period, and the fact that this business goodwill and personal goodwill were to receive no compensation whatever. The two lines of policy were absolutely inconsistent, and could not be reconciled. The Government had made what they called concessions. They said that there should be an extension for seven years at the end of the reduction period of fourteen years which they estimated would be worth three years additional compensation in the Case of licences to fall in at the end of fourteen years. He did not know on what basis they put that figure of three years. He spoke with a full sense of responsibility, and after consultation with those interested in the question. The concession, so-called, was no concession whatever. It did not meet the difficulties and necessities of the case, and there was no man in a responsible position in the licensing trade who would for one moment accept it. Let hon. Members consider the conditions to which licences would be subject during this seven years. The licences would, during that time, be subject to all the risks of the local veto and to all the onerous and restrictive conditions in the clauses of the Bill under which magistrates could issue licences. They would be subject to further optional reductions if the justices chose to take that course with the assent of the Licensing Commission. The only condition which would lapse during the seven years would be a further charge on the monopoly value. It was obvious to anyone who considered the conditions of the

  911
  seven years that it was no concession whatever. Many figures and estimates had been produced to the House, the outcome of the work of experts and competent authorities, but he would not trouble to repeat them; they were within the recollection of hon. Members who had taken part in the discussion, and they were not to be so lightly swept aside as of no value as the Under-Secretary seemed to think. The Government had at last committed themselves to a definite statement as to a reduction period of fourteen years and a further seven years. It was now possible to estimate the value of the reduction, the value of the seven years, and the result to the businesses which would be affected. The figures of those businesses which were in the possession of hon. Members remained unshaken or unaffected by what the Government had done by the Amendment they proposed to introduce. It had been shown over and over again that the majority of the brewery companies of the country would be absolutely ruined by the reduction period and the confiscation of licences at the end of it, and in nearly all cases the individual licence-holder would suffer ruin. The compensation if these licences were reduced during the fourteen years time-limit would not amount to half the value, and in the majority of cases it would be less than one-quarter. The value of the property was to be taken away. This was said to be a great temperance reform, based on the principle of reduction, but in his opinion, and he thought in that of experienced men, no such great reform could be expected. If it was to be based on such a principle of confiscation, in his opinion, that reform would be purchased too dearly, by the ruin of a vast number of individuals, who had been conducting a difficult and intricate trade under regulations which the State had laid down and strongly enforced. He believed it would be purchased too dearly by throwing out of employment a vast number of people, not only directly employed by the trade, but employed in innumerable other trades, which supplied materials and other wants of the licensing trade in many directions. He believed that if this reduction was to take place, it could
  912
  only take place under very different conditions from those embodied in the clause they were now considering. If the State desired in fourteen years to reduce the licences by one-third, or some similar proportion, it would have to forego the confiscation of the remaining licensed property at the end of that time. Nobody objected to the State taking the property in the public interest if it took means to see that that property was properly paid for. The Government had carefully avoided in this clause and in other clauses of the Bill taking that course, and he and other hon. Members on that side continued strenuously to oppose Clause 3, because they believed it was robbery, confiscation, and spoliation, and would not achieve the temperance reform which the Government expected from it.
  MR. CHARLES ROBERTS, who was indistinctly heard in the Press Gallery, was understood to say that the debate had travelled over very familiar ground, and he hardly thought it was worth while to go into the argument as to whether a licence was a freehold or whether it had been recognised by the law as a continuing interest. But there were a few points in regard to this clause on which he should like to say a few words. Mr. Gladstone's opinion had been quoted. It was possible to quote words of Mr. Gladstone that reduction of licences if it pretended to the honour of a remedy would be an imposture. But he had already quoted the real explanation, namely, that Mr. Gladstone believed reduction of licences would fail unless the monopoly value of licences was also dealt with. Mr. Gladstone called these monopoly values the most deadly enemies with which temperance reformers had to grapple, and they were grappling with these interests on that occasion. They had found out how pernicious and obstructive they were to temperance reform. Hon. Members could not quote Mr. Gladstone against Clause 3, because in his view Clause 1 would not be a real reform unless it was combined with Clause 3. They were asked where did the Government get this idea of the time-limit? They got the first part of Clause 3 from the forty-four Unionist Members who

  913
  voted with Sir William Houldsworth in favour of it, and the second part of Cause 3 from the Licensing Commission, and also from the Archbishop of Canterbury and Lord Peel, who voted for it in the House of Lords. If it was "wise and right" in the opinion of the Archbishop of Canterbury it was wise enough for a man of his political opinions. He would like to take up the interruption which was made by the Leader of the Opposition a moment before, when he said that the present Lord-Chancellor had stated in this House in 1904 that the Act of that year gave freehold tenure and that the Government were, therefore, bound by that argument which was put forward against the Bill of that year. But when that argument was put forward the right hon. Gentleman himself dismissed it and said it was a "gross fallacy," and he did more, he gave assurances that the Act of 1904, if passed into law should not obstruct in any way the progress of temperance reform. The present Leader of the Opposition then said—
  "I believe that the anxiety about the time-limit is due to a fear lest we are shutting the door on any kind of temperance reform in the future other than the present Bill. There is nothing I know in this Bill which is going to stand in the way of any future reform."
  Lord Lansdowne said it much more strongly in another place. He said—
  "It is wholly incorrect to say that there is anything whatever in the Bill to close the door against any larger scheme of reform, should it be hereafter the desire of the legislature that such a scheme should be passed. My noble friend Lord Grey, who may be regarded as knowing something of the scheme with which he is so honourably identified, told your Lordships that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the adoption of his scheme, and what he said is equally true of any wider, more extensive, and far-reaching measure that may hereafter be devised."
  These assurances were expressly taken note of by those who were Leaders of the Opposition then, and who were now Members of the Government. They accepted those assurances that the Bill did not create any new continuing interest, but merely recognised the continuing interest which had grown up before, and he thought it was largely due to those pledges that the Bill managed to get through at all. In the face of that, was it not fair to contend that the terms embodied in the Bill were fair? Indeed, was
  914
  not twenty-one years an extravagant price? How much more would they have even if it was freehold—and it was something less than freehold. Their view was that here the State had created a monopoly value or suffered it to grow up in the hands of individuals, retaining all the time the right to terminate it at annual intervals, and they claimed, therefore, that if the State gave twenty-one years during which the licence-holder could recoup, out of the high profits of the monopoly, the value of that monopoly, it was an ample term. He thought it was too long, and he guarded himself against being supposed to admit that twenty-one years was necessary, but the Government had granted it. Under this clause they had twenty-one years time-limit, subject to certain risks during the last seven years, but they had also a new definition of monopoly value, and although it was not in order to discuss it that definition was to be looked at and taken into account in considering the financial effect of this scheme. What did that new definition really do? It did two things. In the first place, it excluded the goodwill of the tenant. He was himself impressed by the view put forward by the hon. Member for Kingston, that if they had accepted the definition of monopoly value to be found in the Act of 1904, they might have taken away the goodwill of the tenant and the capitalised value of the retail profits of the trade, because if they looked at that definition it seemed to cover all the elements of value which could be held to be included in the licence. But the new definition was more guarded. The hon. Member was extremely indignant with the Government for proposing to take away all that the tenant put into his business, but what they were going to take away was the value which had passed into rental value, because the monopoly value was measured by the difference in rental value under Schedule A between the premises licensed and unlicensed. Therefore, this definition would not take a way the tenant's personal goodwill unless the owner had himself taken it in the form of rent. Therefore, the Government could not get it unless the brewer owner had confiscated the goodwill of the tenant to its full value. He believed further that this definition

  915
  of the monopoly value would allow the State to get hold of the value created by the monopoly but would leave to the brewer the normal profits which he would get if there were free trade in drink. What it came to was that in 1930 they were going to levy a high licence duty on brewers and licences. They could do that to-day. They could do it next year. Yet the Government had been accused of looking at the matter from the financial side. If they had done so, they would not have proceeded upon these lines of a time-limit. If they were thinking of getting only addition to the revenue another road was still open to them. As regarded the twenty-one years' time-limit, subject to the risk in the last seven years, the hon. Member who spoke last said the figures of trade experts still stood unaffected by the extension, but undoubtedly the seven years should make material difference in the figures. The figures of the prominent firm of Orgill, Marks, and Barley should be received with caution; they were not correct in some items of calculation, facts and elements. They had doubled the amount of money which was required to write down the value of licences in twenty-one years. Instead of taking it as a 5 per cent. sinking fund they had taken it as a 10 per cent. fund. Why, he did not understand, but if such games were played with figures, anything could be proved. On the basis of a twenty-one years standard, he had made an elaborate allowance for the amount of the capital value which it was required to write off. He believed that a very large amount, if not the whole, could be written off, and yet on the figures the owners could get 8 per cent. on their capital. As to the risk of magisterial
  916
  discretion and local option, he contended it was an insurable risk. The amount saved from the cessation the compensation levy would amply allow for the insurance of licences. He did not say that local option was not a risk, but it was an insurable one. £60,000,000 of licensed property was now actually insured. It had often been denied. It had been denied for debating purposes, but nevertheless all this property was insured against the risk of the loss of the licence; against misconduct mainly. But he knew from his own experience that there was insurance against the risk of non-renewal, and if the Licences' Insurance Corporation Guarantee Fund, Ltd., would hand over their business to Lloyd's, he was certain that the members of Lloyd's would in 1923 be very glad to insure these licences against restrictive conditions of magisterial discretion and local option. What was this risk? Would the risk, after 30,000 licences had been extinguished, be greater than in the year 1901, after the Royal Commission had reported that there must be a great and immediate reduction?
  MR. YOUNGER: But on payment of compensation.
  MR. CHARLES ROBERTSsaid that even subject to compensation there was the risk of a great change in the licensing law. The premium quoted then was 4s. for £100, and if the risk was that in 1901, he believed it would not be greater in 1923. If so, it would be three times covered by the amount of the compensation levy; that sum would avail to pay the risk three times over of local option and magisterial decisions. He trusted therefore that what was called a close-time for seven years after 1923 would not be given. He believed

  917
  all the facts went to prove that the greater the security of tenure given to the licensed trade the worse the conduct of the trade would be. He asked with all respect the right hon. Gentleman opposite to consider that point of view. The right hon. Gentleman had said he had always regarded the licensed trade as exactly the same as other trades, and if security of tenure was desirable in other trades it was desirable in this. He had passed the Act of 1904 to give security of tenure. Let him consider what happened in the period of free trade in drink between 1830 and 1870. It was clear during the whole of that period there had been a steady deterioration in the conduct of these houses. He felt that during the seven additional years which were given the conduct of the trade would steadily deteriorate. The trade required control, otherwise they might as well give free trade at once. One other point on which he wished to touch was as to the position of local option in the whole working out of this scheme. He did not wish to go into the question of local option on its merits. He was a firm and convinced believer in that system. The more he studied it the more he was convinced that, while reduction might be of great value and utility, the real remedy here as in our Colonies, the United States, Norway or Sweden, was to clear areas of public-houses wherever they could get public opinion behind them. ["Prohibition."] Prohibition, yes; and he would like hon. Members to make a reel mental effort and to distinguish between prohibition as it was established in Maine fifty-four years ago by one Act of the State, and permissive local option in small areas where they might get a partition of territory between licences and no licences. There was a very great difference between the two systems, and they were not proposing state prohibition to-day, but if he were challenged about Maine, he would point out that after thirty or forty years experience of prohibition the men who lived in the State of Maine, and knew the facts, were
  918
  in favour of the system, and in all except thirteen local government areas of the State, they had voted in support of it when a referendum on the question had been taken.
  EARL WINTERTON: Does the hon. Gentleman, speaking as a temperance reformer, say that prohibition has been a success?
  MR. CHARLES ROBERTSsaid that in the view of Maine itself—it was a democratic State—it was a success, and there was not a single State, Canadian province, or American state around Maine which had not adopted the plan of local option recommended in this Bill. In Massachusetts, where the urban conditions were similar to those in England, and where there was density of population equal to that of England, the system, in his judgment, was an unqualified success. He did not wish to argue the point further, but he believed that under this system in a no-licence area they would get rid of two-thirds of the drunkenness, and if they could diminish the evil to that extent they would be doing all that was hoped for by the Licensing Commission. Quite apart from its merits, he held that local option ought to be regarded as an integral part of the Bill. They were told that they must have a time-limit, and that it would not be fair to establish local option at once, but if they proposed it at the end of a time-limit they were then told that they could not bind future Parliaments. Bat there must be some date at which it was possible that a scheme should be enacted. He thought the evidence went to prove that where local option was proposed a time-limit was always demanded. A time - limit of five to eight years was demanded in New South Wales, and if anybody said it was impossible to legislate ten years in advance, he would refer to the Victorian Licensing Act of 1906, where they carried local option to come into force

  919
  ten years afterwards. If they waited until 1923, of course the trade would demand another ten years. What they wanted was local option now, and not merely on its merits; he would also put it on a wider, ground than that. Everybody must have felt that the expectation of the renewal of licences which had grown up within the last few years was a thing which they would have been glad to avoid. They had had a system of annual licences in which the State kept control over the licences, but the expectation of the renewal had grown up. It was not for want of a perfectly clear statement of law as in the Act of 1828, when the law said that the licence should be granted for one whole year and no longer; and in 1869 again it said exactly the same thing. But in spite of that, the expectation of renewal had grown up, and now they had, as the result of the Act of 1904, the doctrine established that as soon as the liquor trade expected anything though, it had no legal right to it, the State must pay cash down. They found a further illustration in this very Bill. When the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition introduced his new system as to new licences they were told that they were to have no compensation. In spite of that, however, the expectation had already grown up, and they had provided in this very Bill that if a new licence granted since 1904 was suppressed during the currency of the reduction period, they would have to pay compensation for a portion of the monopoly value. Therefore, there was real danger of a revival of the expectation. Why was it that they had not this doctrine of expectation in the Colonies and United States? Ought they not to take some additional precautions against this doctrine of expectation which grew up insidiously and impalpably, and against which the State really ought to guard? Directly the people themselves had the power to say they would not have licences in their midst, then the expectation of renewal, which might grow up under the apathy of the justices, and owing to the tendency to go along in the old rut, must cease. He thought the Government were wise and logical in making local option an integral and ssential part of the Bill.
  EARL WINTERTONsaid he had not intended to take part in the debate, but he could not allow the extraordinary statements of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down to go unchallenged. Might he say at the outset that no one recognised more strongly than he that the hon. Gentleman had always been a most whole-hearted adherent of the cause, but he thought the very strength of his belief and sincerity had led him away, and made him take a view of things which was not warranted by the facts. It was impossible for him, without trespassing too long on the time of the House, to go into all the arguments that the hon. Gentleman had used, but he would like to refer to one or two of them. The hon. Member had alluded, for instance, to prohibition in the State of Maine, and he had said, very rightly, that it was impossible for anyone to judge of the effects of the principle in that instance. The only comment he would make on that was that the quotations which they on that side of the House had made as to the effects of prohibition in the State of Maine were taken, not from any publication of their own, but from a book written by one of the hon. Member's colleagues, and, in other respects, a supporter of the Bill. Could anyone point to any documentary evidence bearing out the contention that prohibition had been a success? All the evidence available was to the effect that it had been a dismal failure all over the world. They could read the official documents of the War Office of the United States, Foreign Office Reports, Consular Reports sent home by our representatives in the States, and he did not believe there was a single word to be found which would support the idea that prohibition had been a success. It was impossible to understand fully what the position was in the State of Maine, but it was true that the greatest supporters of prohibition had been those interested in the sale of drink, because it was so much easier to sell drink in a prohibition area without licences than when the licences were in vogue. That was a well-known fact. He deprecated very strongly the veiled attack made by the hon. Gentleman upon the veracity of a certain firm of auditors, a well-known firm which had been constantly mentioned in the course of the debate.

  921
  The hon. Gentleman made a veiled, but nevertheless determined, attack upon their figures.
  MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: On their figures, yes, but not on their veracity. Hon. Members had swallowed the figures wholesale. But on investigation he was sure they would find that the figures must be discounted very largely.
  EARL WINTERTONsaid that if the figures the firm took were said not to be true, that was an attack on their veracity. The business of the firm was to vouch for the veracity of their figures at any rate. It hon. Members made an attack on their figures they were making the most serious attack which could be made on their business reputation. This question had been debated ad nauseam, and he thought they had shown, to the satisfaction of the public at any rate, that the financial proposals under this clause would be unjust, and that it was impossible to look at them in any other way. The hon. Member had referred to Mr. Gladstone's statement that monopoly value was a great bar in the way of temperance reform. No one denied that he said that, but Mr. Gladstone did not deny the existence of the monopoly value, and that was really the whole point. Mr. Gladstone admitted the existence of monopoly value, and he saw that the difficulty was to deal with it justly. But what had the Government done? According to the hon. Gentleman, they had improved upon the policy of their late leader, because they had found a way out of the difficulty, and they had found it by temporarily forgetting the meaning of the words mcum and tuum, by doing a thing that Mr. Gladstone never proposed and probably never would have done under any circumstances. They had taken a thing practically without making payment for it. That was the whole point of the Opposition's argument against the clause, and that was why they could not accept it as anything but unjust and unfair. The hon. Member for Droitwich, had illustrated in his speech the very imperfect knowledge that hon. Gentlemen opposite had of the terms and of the effect
  922
  of their own Bill, and incidentally the dilemma which both he and his Government were in over this matter. He began by attacking the hon. Member for York for having said that the licence was a freehold. His hon. friend denied having said so, but the hon. Member for Droitwich went on to say that the Leader of the Opposition had never laid down any such statement exactly, but the hon. Gentleman's own Government had said so, and that was the difficulty in which the Government had put themselves by their attitude or this Bill and by the wild statements which they made in 1904 and since. They accused the Opposition of having made a licence into a freehold; they had said it again and again, and he believed the Prime Minister himself had said so. The hon. Member for Droitwich showed in his speech that he was quite unaware that his own party had taken up that line. It only illustrated the muddle and the dilemma in which the Government and their supporters found themselves. The hon. Member said that nothing was more harassing than to have to conduct one's trade under feelings of uncertainty. He was delighted to think that the hon. Gentleman, a supporter of the Bill, had himself supplied the principal argument against it, and it would enable some of his friends below the gangway who had been somewhat slow to see the real point of the Bill to get a true insight into the clause, for that was why the Opposition considered the clause, however amended, to be essentially unjust and unfair. It was because they said that no trade could be legitimately conducted with the menacing shadow over its head that they were so opposed to the clause. The hon. Gentleman incidentally remarked, a propos of the question of freehold, that if a licence was a freehold it could not be taken away for misconduct. He did not know whether that was very relevant to the discussion, but as a matter of fact there were instances practically of a freehold being taken away for misconduct. In the case of insanitary property the local authority could order its demolition. He maintained that the hon. Gentleman had himself supplied the reason why this clause could not be accepted, and he appealed with confidence to the justice

  923
  of hon. Members opposite to support the Amendment to omit the clause.
  MR. MACLEANwho was indistinctly heard, said the position they took up was that any money compensation paid in respect of licences should not come from the State but from the trade itself, and that was quite distinct from the question whether licences as they now stood were anything approaching the nature of a freehold. It was most important to recollect that the principle was clearly established by the Leader of the Opposition in the Act of 1904, and he supported the principle underlying the clause on account not so much of the arguments addressed from that side of the House as of those from the right hon. Gentleman himself, who expressly on more than one occasion stated that he saw no objection to the principle of a time-limit dealing with the reduction of licences. That was a most important position for him to have taken up, and, indeed, the only logical and straightforward position that he could take up, and such a position, of course, that the whole House would expect him to take up. The principle of the time-limit was conceded by the right hon. Gentleman and by all who had gone into this matter from the point of view of the relation of the State to its own property. They heard a great deal about interference with property, but it was most important to ask whose property. They were dealing with the property of the State, and the Leader of the Opposition himself had said the principle of the time-limit was one which could be fairly applied in dealing with this class of investments. The sole question with which the House was concerned was this: Were the propositions of the Government, in relation to the time-limit, just and equitable, or were they not? It had been suggested that fourteen years was too short. To meet that the Government had extended it to twenty-one, and at the end of that time the State would resume its own property. He had been disposed to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite this question. Suppose the Government decided that the time-limit, instead of twenty-one years should be fifty? Surely they would have been able to accept that? It was simply a question of argument
  924
  between both sides, not as between freehold and otherwise, but how long the time-limit should be. The position immediately appeared to be clear if they said that a certain number of years might be fair and another was unfair. One clear point came out from all this discussion, that the people of the country were absolutely determined to get back into their own hands the licences which belonged to the State. They were determined to get their own property back into their own control. They were also determined that no State money should go by way of compensation in respect of these licences. The House was shut in by the whole process of legislation, especially during the past four or five years, and the only way out of the difficulty was the time-limit, and the compensation to be paid in respect of it must come from the trade itself; they were, therefore, face to face with the position, whether the time-limit was a reasonable or an unreasonable one. A good deal of the discussion that had taken place was beside the point in arguing whether a licence was a freehold or not. Surely the whole point of criticism was this. Was the twenty-one years suggested by the Government reasonable or was it not? He should prefer to see that other seven years quite unclogged by any condition other than that of the justices' discretion. As they had had to make concessions, it would be better to make a clear outright concession as to the other seven years so that the licensed trade might know where they were.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I confess I had hoped that before this hour was reached the Government would have given some explanation of the general policy embodied in this clause. Let it be observed, we have never had either an explanation or a justification of this clause as it now stands, because, as was pointed out by my hon. friend the Member for York, the clause is an entirely different one from that which was explained on the First Reading, defended on the Second Reading, and brought before the House on the Committee stage. It is a new clause, which in its new shape has never

  925
  been explained or justified by the Government. I shall come to one or two points on which I think we require further elucidation before I sit down, but on the general aspect of the question I am sure the whole House will agree with me, and I am surprised that the Government should allow two hours and a quarter to elapse without giving any explanation of their new proposal. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down and the hon. Gentleman who preceded him have done me the honour to quote, or rather to paraphrase, the opinions which I expressed in 1904. The opinions which I expressed then are precisely the opinions which I have expressed whenever this subject has come up for discussion since. I have never wavered, and have never seen any reason to alter them. They are perfectly clear, and perfectly consistent with the Parliamentary course which I have taken upon this Bill. I have never professed that the Act of 1904 gave a freehold tenure; I have never contended that before 1904 there was a freehold tenure; and my quarrel with the Government has never been that they are taking away a freehold tenure without compensation. My complaint is that they are taking away property without compensation, and I presume there is no hon. Gentleman in this House who needs to be told that there is property which does not amount to freehold but which requires compensation. We sometimes hear hon. Gentlemen talk as if they had forgotten this very elementary and obvious truth; but when reminded of it I presume that even the least impartial among them, if there are any who deserve that criticism, will admit that property of less than full freehold tenure is and ought to be as sacred in the opinion of this House, and has, indeed, received as full and serious consideration from this House in the past as property of the full freehold value. That has been my consistent opinion. What has been the consistent opinion of the occupants of the Treasury bench, or have they any consistent opinion? Their opinion, as far as I remember it, was that, before 1904, no man had properly in a licence at all, that a licence was the property of the State, that any value which it had was given by the State and might be taken away by the State
  926
  or by the magistrates, or, if Parliament so directed, by a majority of the ratepayers at anytime without compensation when the licence came up for consideration at the end of the year. That was their view up to 1904. That is not their view now, I understand, because that is not the way in which they are proposing to treat licences. What change has taken place since 1904? We were attacked day after day and continuously because we had given a freehold tenure to the owners of licences. If that freehold tenure was given in 1904 it was given by the supreme legislative authority of the State; and if it were given, rightly or wrongly—wrongly, if you please; I will not argue that point at the moment—if we did give a freehold tenure, as you said we did in 1904, as your Lord Chancellor said we did, as the lawyers then arguing from this side of the House said we did, by what vestige of right do you now come forward and take it away at the end of fourteen years? We have held a perfectly clear consistent view of this matter throughout. It is you who have changed, and in the very act of changing you have proved yourselves not only inconsistent in your views of property, but utterly unscrupulous in your method of dealing with it. I was amazed to hear the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down describe everything in the nature of what he called monopoly value as being, for that reason alone, the property of the State and not of the individual. I do not know how far he is going to press that view. I have no doubt he supported the Government three nights ago when they gave £23,500,000 for the docks of London avowedly not because the docks had a statutory right, but because they came to Parliament for authority and had spent a lot of money, and, whatever might be their actual commercial value at the moment, they had something which might properly be described as monopoly value which the State was proposing to acquire. I think other legislation might be quoted in which property has been dealt with in that way. You cannot deal in this airy fashion with something which you choose to say is monopoly value. Property which a man up to the present moment thinks he is the owner of, which he has bought and thinks he

  927
  may be able to sell, and, whether he may be able to sell it or not, is certainly taxable, you cannot regard as anybody's property but his. By whatever process it was created, whether by law or by custom, so long as it be property, so long can there be no right to deal with it in the extraordinary loose fashion in which hon. Gentlemen opposite are prepared to deal with the property of the licence-owner. Holding, as they did, that it was made into a freehold four years ago, it cannot now be taken away at the end of fourteen years without compensation. Any hon. Gentleman who thinks over the pledges given and the character of the criticisms indulged in by members of the present Government four years ago, and the general course which this House has always followed in dealing with property, cannot but believe that the owners of licences are to be most abominably treated by the procedure proposed in this Bill. I would just add, in order to safeguard myself, one further comment upon the arguments that were used in 1904. I think it was said that the Government of the day had no right to pass the Bill of that year; they might, indeed, have been in a temporary majority in the House of Commons, and in the House of Lords—
  AN HON. MEMBER: Not temporary in the House of Lords.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: They had the advantage, at all events, of being in a majority in both Houses; but although they had a majority of support in this House, it was said that they had not the moral approbation of the people behind them, and therefore their action was without validity. That argument was pressed again and again. I should hardly think it worth notice if it had not been pressed by very high authorities; but I mention it lest some hon. Gentleman following me in this debate may say that this freehold tenure, as the present Lord Chancellor defined it, was conferred by the Act of 1904 in a manner so grossly immoral that the legal action of Parliament carried with it no moral obligation on that Parliament's successors. I do not know whether anybody is bold enough to repeat that argument, which was then extremely familiar and popular.
  928
  I rather think they will not repeat it, because, after all, the argument only amounts to this, that if a majority appeals to the nation on a particular question before it, the electors would give a different verdict to that which a majority of the House of Commons was prepared to give. That is what the argument must mean, and that being so I do not think any hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House is likely to appeal to it on the present occasion. I am sure that even the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Lincoln does not so far blind him to the obvious facts of contemporary politics as to induce him to suppose that if he could appeal to the opinion of that part of the United Kingdom to which this Bill applies he would not find an overwhelming majority of the electors against him. I think I may leave both the legal argument of those who thought the Act of 1904 gave a freehold tenure and the ethico-political argument which said the Parliament of 1904 had no authority to pass the Act with the brief comments which I have passed upon them. I now should like to ask exactly what the Government think they gain or what temperance reform is going to gain by these additional seven years which they are giving as a boon to licence-holders, and how they justify their dealings with off-licences. As regards the first question, I should like to recall to the House the speech made a few minutes ago by the hon. Member for Lincoln. I have always been surprised that we have had held before us in so many speeches the happy moment when the nation will come again to its own and be able to deal unfettered and unhampered with all the problems of temperance. That period was coming at the end of fourteen years. It is now coming at the end of twenty-one years. I have always wished to know how those who think the millennium is then coming propose to use the freedom which is to be given by this Bill. I cannot be enthusiastic about a scheme of the nature of which I have not the smallest idea. Why should I believe that in the next fourteen years some panacea for our alcoholic excess is going to be discovered when none has been discovered in the past? Why should we legislate at the cost of enormous

  929
  public controversy, much bitterness of spirit, and, as I think, gross injustice, in order that at some future time a reform of which we have not had given us even the most shadowy outline is going to be brought into being? I admit that, as far as the hon. Member for Lincoln is concerned, that criticism does not apply to him. He has a perfectly clear idea of it. It is going to be produced by two methods. When we reach perfection we shall have total prohibition. In the intermediate stage which is to lead up to total prohibition we are going to keep the licence-holder in a position of the greatest uncertainty as to the terms upon which and the period during which he is to be allowed to carry on his trade. We are told by the hon. Member that, next to prohibition, control is the real remedy, and by control he means insecurity, or, at all events, one side of the method by which the hon. Member wants control, as he himself will admit, is absolute insecurity for the man carrying on the trade of a licensee. I think that I do not misrepresent the hon. Member for Lincoln when I say so.
  MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: That is exactly the system which the right hon. Gentleman devised for new licences in Clause 4 of the Act of 1904.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. He is under a great mistake. I believe that under the new system it is in their power to give a seven years term—security for seven years. What the hon. Gentleman wants is that a licence-holder should never know from year to year what is to happen. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] That is what he wants. The hon. Member for Lincoln is here and he can contradict me if I misrepresent him.
  MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: As the right hon. Gentleman appeals to me, all I have to say is that I am quite content with the application of his system as devised under Clause 4 of the Act of 1904, subject to local option.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Subject to local option. I think now the hon. Gentleman who interrupted will feel that his interruption is uncalled for. That is exactly
  930
  what the hon. Member for Lincoln wants. Under the provisions of the Act of 1904 a new licence was to be carried on with the securities which are essential to every kind of business, I do not care what it is. We were not so stupid as to provide that a man who was going to carry on business was to carry it on under conditions which made his whole trade and business in life absolutely insecure. Therefore, the hon. Member for Lincoln is not content with the provisions of the Act of 1904, but wishes them subject to local option, in other words that the community may by a two-thirds majority step in and take away from the licance holder the whole security under which he carries on his business. Therefore, that is temperance reform according to the hon. Member for Lincoln and those who think with him. They think that that is the condition of things we are to aim at until the time comes when we can have total prohibition. I am bound to say that with such an idea as that it surely was not worth while stirring up turmoil throughout the whole country and making vast classes believe that they are the subjects of the grossest injustice. How on earth are you going to improve the morals of the people in that way? The hon. Member said that every zealous temperance reformer throughout the world believes in total prohibition. [An HON. MEMBER: "Local option."] Well, local option which involves prohibition. That is the thing which he and other temperance reformers believes in. I am sure the temperance reformers are a most zealous body of men, and I am sure they are prepared to make immense sacrifices, partly at their own expense and partly at that of others to carry out the objects which they most sincerely desire to see accomplished, but I think we must have some better ground for our belief than this—some more authoritative dictum than the mere statement of a particular class of reformers. We are justified in asking what grounds they have for anticipating all those admirable results for their particular nostrum. We have had this Bill now before us many days, we have had discussions upon the principles which lie at the root of it, but never yet has one speaker got up and given us an argued ground for thinking either that insecurity in the preliminary stage or prohibition in the final stage is

  931
  going to do anything whatever to increase temperance in the community. The hon. Members stated that those who went to the State of Maine for a short time thought that prohibition was a bad thing, and that those who stayed there a long time thought it was a good thing. The people who think it is a bad thing are legion. He is the only one I have ever heard say that it is a good thing.
  MR. C. DUNCAN: A vote has been taken in several districts and has resulted in favour of prohibition.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never said that people would not vote for prohibition. I said they would not be more temperate after they had voted for it. I think it is extremely likely that as the result of these local option clauses you will have districts in the country which will vote for total prohibition. Are they going to be the most temperate districts? [MINISTERIAL cries of "Yes."]
  MR. LEIF JONES: I made a very long speech on the subject with which the right hon. Gentleman is dealing, and I did endeavour to justify the claim we confidently make that drinking and drunkenness are diminished in prohibition countries.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I regret that I was not in the House when the hon. Member made his speech. I am sure it was a very excellent speech and full of rich matter. Let us grant that most of us on both sides of the House approach this question through a mist of prejudice, but if you go outside those people who think it enough to have good intentions without showing how these good intentions are going to bear practical fruit, if you ask the opinion of those who simply look at the thing coldly and scientifically, and with an eye to discovering exactly the connection of cause and effect, so far as that difficult web can be disentangled in the social fabric, you will certainly not find unanimity for the contention of the hon. Gentleman. I do not think you will find a preponderance of opinion in favour of the hon. Gentleman. I greatly doubt whether you will find one man who takes the views of the hon. Member for Appleby and of the hon. Member for Lincoln. They, of course,
  932
  are sincere. Let them go to the scientific observer and ask what he thinks of total prohibition in the United States or elsewhere, and I am perfectly convinced that they will come to the conclusion that the idea of preventing countries like England, Scotland, and Ireland from consuming alcohol is simply grotesque. I think public opinion is moving in that direction. I am a believer in the growth of temperance, but I am not a believer in the theory that you can ever hasten that growth by prohibiting alcohol altogether, or that the principle of local option is one that can be carried out at all. I appeal to those who think it can be carried out, and I ask hon. Members opposite how they can give utterances to the eulogies of this Bill which I hear from their lips day after day when I see in the very clause itself that the Government are determined not to give local option or any control whatever over the amount of alcoholic liquor to be sold by the possessors of off-licences. They will acquit me of wishing to make any personal attack, when I question the sincerity of the arguments which they are ever giving us for preventing the holders of on-licences from selling. No sacrifice is too great, no popularity which is not worth breaking as long as you are dealing with on-licences. When you come to off-licences a totally different theory comes into play. Is the alcohol sold by a grocer, consumed with no control, taken round in carts with the utmost convenience to every house over large areas, brought into the cottage to be within the reach of the wives, daughters and children of every householder in the country—is that to go on absolutely unchecked by the people who come before us and say that prohibition, and prohibition alone, is the final solution of this question? Are we seriously to be approached by hon. Gentlemen opposite and told that they are supporters of some great moral propaganda when on the face of their Bill there is this gross and scandalous inconsistency? I quite agree as to the difficulty of applying local option to off-licences, but I certainly thought for a moment that the Government had felt the gravity and difficulty of their position, and the impossibility of maintaining this amazing distinction between the brewer and the on-license holder on the one side, and the spirit seller and the off-licence holder on the other. I thought they recognised that the position could

  933
  not be maintained when the First Commission of Works came down and proposed the Amendment embodied in the Bill we are discussing, but I discovered that he meant something quite different. He repudiated almost with horror that the Government were going to carry out this control with regard to off-licences. Therefore, I am again brought face to face with the two hon. Gentleman who interrupted me and who come before us, telling us that all temperance reformers throughout the world are in favour of prohibition, and believe in prohibition and restriction alone. I find them voting with enthusiasm for a clause which leaves the greatest of all evils absolutely untouched—drinking at home, drinking under circumstances where there is no control, and where, at all events, it is the source of some of the evils in connection with the intemperance among the women of the land which, I hope untruly, is said to be an increasing scourge in the community.
  MR. LEIF JONES: Although I shall vote for the clause without off-licences in it, I should vote much more willingly for it if it included off-licences. It is no fault of mine that they have been excluded.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Really I cannot accept the apology of the hon. Gentleman for the course he has taken on this occasion. He goes about saying that this is a great temperance reform, but I say that it is absurd to call it a temperance reform if you hold that the proper method is restriction first and prohibition afterwards, while in regard to the places where it should have its best and most salutary effect the Bill does not operate. I do not know that I have any other question to ask the Government; but I hope that they will state their general position with regard to property in licences, and that they will reconcile their statements about the Act of 1904 with the legislation they are now proposing. The second question which I ask is how they reconcile their belief in the policy of restriction and prohibition with the unrestricted scope which they are now giving to off-licences under this clause, and the position in which they have left the clubs in the latter part of the Bill. Many of the arguments I have used with regard to off-licences might be
  934
  used with regard to clubs, but I should be content now if they give a complete answer with regard to off-licences. Until they first answer the question of property, remembering what they themselves said, and what their highest legal authorities said three years ago, and how they reconcile their treatment of the off-licences with their treatment of the on-licences, I think, for the first time, some genuine justification should be given to the House of the extraordinary measure now before it.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL, Cleveland): The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by saying that no Member of the Government had risen to explain the purpose and meaning of this clause. This clause was discussed in Committee for no less than two days and a half, and all the Amendments now on the Paper in the name of the Government are the outcome of those discussions, and the results of pledges then given. There is nothing that is novel for the Government to explain. And if I may very respectfully say so, the right hon. Gentleman in his interesting speech has given us nothing that is novel to reply to. He did, however, make use of one argument that is new, an argument, indeed, of a very extraordinary character. He says that, although he himself holds the opinion, and has always held it, that licences are not freehold property, and although the Act of 1904, in his opinion, did not make them freehold property, yet that we, because we said in the discussions in 1904 that to accept that Bill would be practically to constitute them a freehold tenure, we forsooth are bound to regard them with all the respect due to a legally constituted freehold property. If we are bound by those discussions to anything at all, we are bound to repeal the essential principle of that Bill. The right hon. Gentleman says we may advance the argument that that Act is based on no sound basis, because it was passed without a mandate from the people, and without the sanction of the electorate; and he asserted very emphatically and confidently that if the present Bill were put to the judgment of any body of persons affected by it you would find an overwhelming majority condemning its principles. I have had the figures of the bye-elections

  935
  in England and Wales, excluding Scotland, very carefully examined since this Bill was introduced, and it would perhaps surprise the right hon. Gentleman to learn that there has been a majority of voters who have declared their opinion in support of this measure and that only a minority voted against it. The right hon. Gentleman forgets that all the Socialist and Labour candidates who have come before the country in recent bye-elections have been without a single exception supporters of the principle of the Bill. [An HON. MEMBER on the OPPOSITION benches: "A very valuable precedent."] And although it may be the case that owing to split candidatures some seats have been lost, the contention of the right hon. Gentleman that a very considerable majority would have been found voting against the Bill has been absolutely falsified by the facts. The main question which has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman and by other speakers turns on the question of the nature of the possession of the licence; what degree of ownership attaches to the person who holds a licence. The right hon. Gentleman admits that it is not equivalent to a freehold property, and that very fact falsifies the whole basis of the argument on which much of the opposition to this Bill rests—the argument which rests on the assumption that this Bill can be taken as a precedent for dealing with any other kind of property—that what you are doing to-day with regard to licences you may do to-morrow with regard to railways, land, or any other form of property. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that this form of property stands on a completely different footing from any other form of property. [OPPOSITION cries of "No, no."]
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I thought I emphasised the fact that a vast amount of property in this country is other than freehold. Similarly you have no more right to deal with this than with other kinds of property without giving compensation.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: What other kinds of property are there that rest on a basis of an annual licence from the State, which can be recalled by the public authority? The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that although
  936
  a licence was not in the nature of a freehold property, it is nevertheless property of a kind that is taxed, and which a man can buy and which a man can sell, and which consequently belongs to him. Surely, holding that doctrine, the corollary to be drawn from it and which has been drawn to-day by the hon. Member for York, is that if you want to suppress these licences as honest men you must pay for them. [OPPOSITION cheers.] Hon. Members opposite share that view. How then can they support or even acquiesce in the continuance of the Act of 1904 passed by the action of a Conservative Government holding that doctrine of property? Under it year by year hundreds of licences throughout the country are being suppressed.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: They are paying the market value.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: They are not paying a sixpence. The money is drawn from the pockets of the owners of the "property" to compensate them for the loss of the licence. Would the right hon. Gentleman or any of his supporters venture to say that they could for a moment in this House propose a similar action with regard to railways, land, or any other property; that they could tax the owners to form a special fund to compensate them for that which was taken away? That argument has been stated again and again by the Prime Minister and it has never been answered, because it is unanswerable. All that remains is the proof, conclusively given I admit today again and again, that there was an expectation of a renewal of the licence. That has never been denied. Speeches have been made showing that these men have received year by year their licences by a renewal which was little more than formal, and that they bought and sold these houses—all which goes to show that there had been an expectation of renewal, not a legal right. Licences were taken away by hundreds in 1903 and in previous years by the justices without a single sixpence of compensation being paid from any quarter. It was because the justices took away these licences by the hundred and for no other reason than that they were not wanted, without compensation, that

  937
  the licence-holders went to the right hon. Gentleman and asked him to pass the Act of 1904 in order that they might have a measure of security which they did not then enjoy. They have proved that there was an expectation of renewal. Of course, there was an expectation of renewal, and it is because of that that we allow this long time limit. If there were no expectation of renewal all those licences the reduction of these 30,000 licences could be effected to-day, and the monopoly value of the rest could be taken to-morrow. It is because of this modified and very limited form of possession that we allow this long period to elapse before we resume the monopoly value which we consider to be the just right of the State. Assuming, then, that there is nothing more than an expectation, that there is no freehold property in the licence, do hon. Gentlemen opposite declare that that expectation can never be terminated by a time-limit? If they assert that it can never be so terminated, then they reckon this form of property on a very different basis from that on which they admit it rests, and they establish it on the same footing as forms of freehold property. I would like to quote to the House a few words from a speech of the Leader of the Opposition in Committee stage, which stated very clearly his view of the possibility of a time-limit, and brings into clear relief and sharp contradiction the views which he held on this matter, and those held by the great majority of Members who sit behind him. The Prime Minister quoted the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on the First Reading in which he had assorted that a licence is not in the nature of a freehold property; and in reply to that the right hon. Gentleman used these words:—
  "Anybody who listened to the quotation the right hon. Gentleman read a few minutes ago will see that was my opinion on the First Reading of the Bill. It was my opinion then. It has been the same in the interval, and it remains my opinion now. We have to deal with a genuine form of property which is less than a freehold tenure. I am not here concerned to deny that if yon are dealing with a form of property which is less than a freehold tenure you may imagine a term of years, after which you may say to these people, 'Your rights, which are less than freehold, are now exhausted.' I do not deny that. What I deny is that you have the smallest right to compel these people to pay compensation during a period of years to those whose licences are withdrawn, and then at
  938
  the end of the term of years, after they had been paying this compensation steadily and patiently, allow their property to be taken away."
  Now let the House mark to what a narrow issue the controversy is contracted. The right hon. Gentleman agrees that a time-limit without a compensation levy may perhaps be right; he does not deny that such a time-limit unaccompanied with a compensation levy may be justifiable, but he says that a time-limit accompanied by a compensation levy must be wrong. That is the right hon. Gentleman's position clearly and definitely stated on the Committee stage. I think we have a right to assume that that is his position now. But why, if the time-limit may be right itself, should it necessarily be wrong to accompany it for some portion of the time or the whole time by a compensation levy? "We come here to the question of the comparative burden on the trader, and the question resolves itself into the length of the time-limit, and whether it shall be accompanied by a compensation levy, and, if so, during what period of the time-limit shall it be imposed. The right hon. Gentleman admits that a lime-limit of, say, fourteen years—though I do not tie him to that—may be right, but that a time-limit such as the Government proposes, twenty-one years, of which seven are to be free from compensation levy, must clearly be wrong. I am quite unable to follow that course of argument. I cannot see upon what kind of principle the right hon. Gentleman can argue for the rejection of the clause as a whole, and why he should not come to the House and say, extend to sufficient length the limit and the levy to a sufficiently few number of years, and there is no objection to the time-limit.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: You do not extend it—I do not want to interrupt or to go into details—the right hon. Gentleman does not give what he pretends he is giving; it is not seven years fixity of tenure.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Then let the right hon. Gentleman say, if he will—it is matter, no doubt, for discussion—if the sever years are extended to fourteen years with exemption from levy,

  939
  will he then withdraw his opposition to this clause.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course not.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: He says of course not.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course not, [Laughter.] This is a matter of argument, and, I presume to be treated seriously. My opinion is perfectly clear, and I have explainer it. You can imagine a time-limit—I do not say what limit—in which dealing with what is less than freehold tenure—I do not deny you might give a perfectly clear, untouched tenure for an explicit length of time, and that might be regarded as adequate compensation, but the idea that seven years is a sufficient period is unreasonable.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: What, then, becomes of all the arguments used by hon. Gentlemen on the other side to show it is "monstrous robbery" to put any term upon the existence of a licence, to fix any period, however brief or however long, at the end of which the monopoly value shall be taken? What becomes of the Ten Commandments argument?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never said that. [Cries of "Who said it?"]
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Every one of the hon. Gentlemen behind the right hon. Gentleman, almost every opponent of the Bill who has spoken against it on public platforms, has declared it is "monstrous robbery" to take away from men who have bought their licences out of their own pockets, who have been taxed upon their value for the death duties and the income-tax—to take away the licences at the end of a period, however long, without paying the full market value of those licences. The right hon. Gentleman does not hold that view, he holds that if the time-limit is sufficiently long and sufficiently free from burdens on the trade then it will not be a matter of injustice. The period of years must be a question of opinion, of difference perhaps according
  940
  to the standpoint from which the subject is approached. The Government believe the seven years proposed in the Minority Report of the Peel Commission is unduly rigorous, that fourteen years will be just, and that twenty-one years will be generous; and especially as it is now made clear that monopoly value is narrowly defined and does not include the publican's goodwill, and only includes what Members opposite have contended is small—the difference between Schedule A on the premises licensed and Schedule A on the premises not licensed. It is necessary for the State at the end of the time-limit to resume the monopoly value, and, as the hon. Member for Lincoln has shown, it is necessary that the expectation should not grow up again. It is necessary for that reason, alone, apart from financial reasons, to secure that the State shall resume this monopoly value. The right hon. Gentleman put a question as to off-licences. It is a question that was argued in Committee, and I was able then to quote the words of the late Solicitor-General stating the view of himself and his colleagues, that off-licences are on a completely different footing from on-licences. I adhere to that opinion, they are very different, different in their nature, different in the degree of temptation they offer, and they cannot be regarded as being on the same footing. That is the view of the Government. It was not intended, at any stage, as the First Commissioner of Works has said, to do more than at the end of the time-limit to take the monopoly value. That question will arise on Clause 5, and in order that it may be fully discussed the Government in the closure Resolution have placed Clause 5 first in the compartment that will be reached in forty minutes from now, and for that reason I will leave further discussion for the present. Two or three small points have been raised by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Kidderminster has dealt with the grouping of small parishes, and asked why, in regard to local option under this clause and also in regard to Clause 2, small parishes have not been grouped.
  MR. BARNARDsaid he did not object to Clause 2; he asked about Clause 3.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The question of small parishes arises under this clause, which applies the machinery of Clause 2. It has been carefully considered by the Government, and, on the whole, we think the better course will be not to attempt a system of grouping. The parishes often do not adjoin. The creating for local option of artificial areas made up of parishes from different parts of the county will not be practicable. If the small parish were attached to a larger parish adjoining the effect of the voting would not perhaps be in accordance with public opinion in the small parish.
  MR. BARNARD: Then you adhere to the parish?
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes; we adhere to the parish. The hon. Member referred to a parish with only seven inhabitants; he did not say how many public-houses there are in that parish, perhaps not one, and certainly there will not be an application for a new licence there.
  MR. BARNARDsaid in such a parish with local option one or two persons might have the power to prevent the issue of a licence or to get rid of one.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not think there is any question upon which it will be more fitting for even the smallest local governing area to express its opinion. If they are not consumers I do not see why they should be compelled to have a public-house in their midst. A further question has been raised by the hon. Member for Worcestershire of the postponement of the operation of local option to the end of twenty-one years. The Government are not disposed to adopt that course; it will be to defer means of reform, to which we attach considerable importance, and there ca mot be any objection to it from the thd right hon. Gentlemen opposite who says he cannot conceive a majority of two-thirds will ever be obtained to put the provision into force. Then the hon. Gentleman argued that preference should be given to existing licence-holders, but I think they can well trust their interests to the sense of fairness of the justices of the place, and there can be but little
  942
  doubt that where a licence is continued, under ordinary circumstances and in the absence of special reason to the contrary, it will be continued to the persons who now hold the public-house.
  The issue raised by the clause is clear, whether the just right of the State is to prevail over private interests not founded on law and which cannot be proved to be founded on justice. In this, as in other matters, there are fewer than there should be to support the public interest. Even among Members of Parliament, even among those who have had charge of national concerns and whose primary duty it should be to safeguard the interests of the State, private interests have many eager adherents, but it is the privilege of the Government to stand for the principle that the State has the right to resume the value it has itself created.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid the right hon. Gentleman concluded with a peroration which began, so far as he could recollect, somewhat in this way: "The question for this House is whether the just right of the State is to prevail," but when he was at school that would be known as an instance of the practice of question begging, the whole point they were there to discuss being whether or not the particular proposals which were engaging the attention of the House were just and right. He proposed once again to deal with that question, and to comment upon the amusing travesty of the opinions of his right hon. friend, which the right hon. Gentleman was never tired of presenting to this House. His right hon. friend said that he could conceive a period of years which might be so extended in character that if during that period the compensation levy were not to be made it might be unobjectionable. There was not a Member of the Opposition who did not assent to the view of his right hon. friend. If a sufficient period of years was given there could be no grievance. He knew not what the period of years might be. If a man who wished to put his licence on the market could say he was secured for forty years, and on an actual calculation that was equivalent to the market value, he held then there was nothing

  943
  to be said against. But by so much as it fell short of the market value it was confiscation pure and simple.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Does the hon. Member mean that even if no money was paid at the end of the period a licence might be taken away?
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid that if the licensee to-day had a licence and he was secure in the possession of it for a period, he had the market value. What it was he did not know. He had conducted many cases, but it was entirely a question for the actuaries as to the number of years. There was no difference of opinion between hon. Members on the abstract question of the time-limit. They were all in favour of a time-limit if it meant market value. What the Opposition objected to was this clumsy device. In dealing with compensation cases and the value of the ante-1869 licences and other licences, a clear distinction had always been recognised by expert valuers who had given evidence, by arbitrators, and by the Judges. When the Law Officers of the then Government were arguing the question of market value before Mr. Justice Kennedy, not only was it said that market value should be paid, but their own witnesses said so. But the Prime Minister had since alluded to the "fundamental vice of the judgment," though he did not say that the learned Judge had made a mistake. It was now said that the law which the learned Judge interpreted correctly was one which the Government did not admit. They thought it ought not to be the law. If to-day a licence was required by the London County Council for a municipal purpose, say, in the Strand, and they were going to suppress it, market value was paid; but if the House of Commons took away that same licence for a national purpose, they were not to allow the trade to compensate themselves for that market value. That was an inconsistency which both the House and the country had been very carefully regarding and the time was coming when an explanation would have to be given. The Under-Secretary for the Home Department had dealt with the distinction between off-licences and on-licences, so far as those proposals
  944
  were concerned, by saying that the Solicitor-General had covered the point in a previous speech. It had, however, hardly required so acute an observer as the Solicitor-General to place the great and obvious distinction before the House. Nobody had yet said what the difference was from the point of view of testing the adequacy and honesty of the Government's proposals. Nobody had been bold enough to get up in the House and say there was the slightest distinction between the sale of beer and the sale of spirits, so far as the mischievous consequences of undue facilities was concerned. If there was no difference between those facilities, why was not the Government giving the advantage of its reforming proposals to the off-licences. Statistics had been quoted, and much had been said as to the feeling in the country as shown by the bye-elections. He hoped that before very long the Government would be given an opportunity of testing the opinion of the country, not at bye-elections, but at a general election. If that opportunity was afforded—and there were many who hoped and believed that it would be afforded at an early date—the Government would be provided with statistics more general in their origin, and of more value than any they had put forward.
  MR. SIMONsaid that from the speech just made by the hon. and learned Member opposite he should judge that many of those who sat with the hon. Member must feel very glad that he was not in the House at the time of the passing of the 1904 Act. He had laid down a proposition which proved, if it proved anything, that the authors of the Act of 1904 had perpetrated a monstrous injustice in that measure. The view of the hon. Member was that the licence owner who had his house taken away in the public interest must always, so long as justice was justice, be compensated at its full market value by the community. He understood that the view of hon. Members opposite was that the Act of 1904 did not confer on the licence-holder any rights which he was not already entitled to; that that Act was not a favour to promote the interests of the licence holder, but was to do him full justice and to secure

  945
  him in the position he was entitled to hold. The Act provided that if a licence was to be taken away, by the discretion of the magistrates and for no fault of the holder, he was to be compensated. But he would point out that the right given was that the licence holder was to be compensated, not at the expense of the community, but at the expense of his fellow-sufferers, who in their turn were to have their licences extinguished, but from whom, in the meantime, the compensation was collected. He thought, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the late Government were cordially to be congratulated on the absence of the hon. and learned Member in the last Parliament for he could not possibly have supported their Act of 1904. There were two distinct questions connected with the time limit. Ought they, or ought they not, to admit the justice of a time-limit in principle, and ought they to agree that the particular time-limit proposed was a fair one which could be justified? He could not help thinking the hon. and learned Member opposite had confused the two parts of this inquiry. The Leader of the Opposition said it might be all right to suppress in a given number of years a licence, because it was not wanted, if there was no compensation levy, but it became all wrong if there was a compensation levy to pay as well. Did hon. Gentlemen opposite think that this Bill would be improved by a trifling change which some of them would not be unwilling to see? Let them stop compensation from that moment, and let them leave the lime-limit where it was. He did not imagine that that would satisfy hon. Gentlemen opposite. If he followed what had been advanced in the later stages of the debate, it was contended that it was adding insult to injury that they should both collect and distribute the compensation levy on the one hand, and suppress licences in a given number of years on the other. If there were two wrongs, both pressing hardly on this persecuted class, then let them get rid of one of them. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite knew very well that the whole scheme of compensation set up by the late Government was a scheme which was intended to inure to the advantage of publicans and brewers. But they must accept, at any
  946
  rate in some degree, that what was done, was done, and it might well be, the Act of 1904 once having been passed, oven though passed in defiance of public opinion, that the situation was not the same, and that the slate was not quite so clean as it was before the right hon. Gentleman opposite began to write on it: "Compensation to brewers." While that was so, they were entitled, not in any private interest, but in the national interest, to say that they could amend the existing law by the wise provisions of this Bill and could see that a time-limit was put upon a conflict which, after all, was a conflict between private interests and public interests. There was no part of the Bill which more clearly commended itself to those who were followers, and proud to call themselves followers, of the Government. There was no part of the Bill, he believed, which more clearly represented the opinions of independent people throughout the country. There was no part of the Bill which more clearly showed that the real conflict was between the claim of a select class on the one hand, who had got a great monopoly at the expense of the community to exploit the community, and the claim of the community itself on the other, to see that that which belonged to it was restored to it within a reasonable time.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken of a select class of people, but he would like to put a question which he had asked before, and which had not been answered. There had been discussions between clever lawyers raising nice points, but the question which he had to ask put the matter in the way in which the country would regard it. He had already mentioned, by way of illustration, the case of a man who had invested his savings in brewery shares. He was a small tradesman with whom he had been in communication, and he knew his statements to be correct. That man was getting about 6 per cent. on his investment. If he put by his dividends and invested them in a sinking fund at 3¼ per cent. he would at the end of fourteen years have just got back his money invested in the

  947
  brewery shares. But supposing, as he was entitled to do, he used his annual dividends, then, at the end of fourteen years, he would have lost every penny of his investment. The country would approach the matter from the point of view of this case. What answer could be given to it on the public platform? Tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of small people made these investments. It was not merely a case of the big brewers with which they were dealing. The case he had mentioned showed the line of argument which would be taken by the people at the general election, which he was afraid was not so near as some of his hon. friends thought, because the Government were afraid to put this question before the public. The country had made up its mind already. But
  the question would have to be answered why these investors of small sums, say of £200 or so in brewery shares, which, from what had gone before, they were led to believe were safe investments and recognised by the community as such were to be reduced to beggary. The only answer which had been given was that by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Spen Valley, who said that these investors ought to-have known that it was a precarious stock. These men had invested honestly earned savings, of which every penny, under this Bill, would disappear. He wanted a straightforward answer to his question.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 261; Noes, 103. (Division List No. 381.)

  AYES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Clough, William

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

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

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Agnew, George William

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Alden, Percy

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

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

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Harmsworth, R. L (Caithn'ss-sh

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Crooks, William

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Cross, Alexander

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Baker Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Crossley, William J.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Hazleton, Richard

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Barker, Sir John

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hemmerde, Kdward George

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

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

  Beale, W. P.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

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

  Beauchamp, E.

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Higham, John Sharp

  Bell, Richard

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Hodge, John

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Hooper, A. G.

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

  Erskine, David C.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Black, Arthur W.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Hudson, Walter

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Branch, James

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Jackson, H. S.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

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

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J. T. (Cheshire

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Jenkins, J.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Glover, Thomas

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Cameron, Robert

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Gulland, John W.

  Kelley, George D.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

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

  Summerbell, T.

  Lambert, George

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Lamont, Norman

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Lehmann, R. C.

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

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Radford, G. H.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Tomkinson, James

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Toulmin, George

  Lynch, H. B.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Verney, F. W.

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

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Maclean, Donald

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Walton, Joseph

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Wardle, George J.

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Robinson, S.

  Wiring, Walter

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

  Maddison, Frederick

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Wratt, Henry A.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launcetston

  Rose, Charles Day

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Rowlands, J.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Massie, J.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Wralter

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

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

  Menzies, Walter

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Sears, J. E.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Mond, A.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Seely, Colonel

  Williams Llewelyn (Carmarthen

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

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

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Williamson, A.

  Morse, L. L.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Murray, Capt. Hn A C. (Kincard)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Slyer, Horatio

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Napier, T. B.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Snowden, P.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Nicholls, George

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Paul, Herbert

  Steadman, W. C.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Ashley, W. W.

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

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn Sir H.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Balcarres, Lord

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hills, J. W.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Hogan, Michael

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Banner, John S, Harmood-

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Hunt, Rowland

  Barnard, E. B.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

  Keswick, William

  Bertram, Julius

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Fell, Arthur

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Forster, Henry William

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Gardner, Ernest

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

  Campbell, Rt, Hon. J. H. M.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Gretton, John

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Cave, George

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Halpin, J.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  950

  951

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Oddy, John James

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

  Winterton, Earl

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingtdn

  Stanier, Beville

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

  Percy, Earl

  Starkey, John R.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Young, Samuel

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Younger, George

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Thornton, Percy M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Walker, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Whitbread, Howard

  And, it being after half-past Seven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, in pursuance or the Order of the House of 17th July, to put forthwith the Questions on the Amendments moved by the Government, of which notice had been given., which were necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded at half-past Seven of the Clock this day, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 11th November.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 19, to leave out the words 'licence whether an.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
  Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 232; Noes, 134. (Division List No. 382.)

  AYES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Agnew, George William

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Alden, Percy

  Crooks, William

  Hazleton, Richard

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Crossley, William J.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Dalmeny, Lord

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

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Davics, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Barker, Sir John

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Hooper, A. G.

  Beale, W. P.

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Beauchamp, E.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Bell, Richard

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt)

  Erskine, David C.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Jackson, R. S.

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

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Ferens, T. R.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Branch, James

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  Kelley, George D.

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

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

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

  Glover, Thomas

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Lambert, George

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Lamont, Norman

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Byles, William Pollard

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Cameron, Robert

  Gulland, John W.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

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

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Lynch, H. B.

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

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Priestley W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Radford, G. H.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Tomkinson, James

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Toulmin, George

  Marnham, F. J.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Massie, J.

  Robinson, S.

  Verney, F. W.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Walker, H. de R. (Leicester)

  Menzies, Walter

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Walton, Joseph

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Rodgers, F. E. Newman

  Waring, Walter

  Mond, A.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Wason, Rt Hn. E. (Clackmannan

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Rowlands, J.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Morrell, Philip

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh

  Morse, L. L.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

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

  Murray, Capt Hn. A. C. (Kincard)

  Sears, J. E.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Myer, Horatio

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Napier, T. B.

  Seely, Colonel

  Wiles, Thomas

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

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

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Williams, Llewelyn (C'rmarth'n

  Nicholls, George

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Williamson, A.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Paul, Herbert

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Winfrey, R.

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

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  NOES.

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Hogan, Michael

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Cross, Alexander

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Hudson, Walter

  Baldwin, Stanley

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Jenkins, J.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Jowett, F. W.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Barnes, G. N.

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

  Keswick, William

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Fell, Arthur

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Bertram, Julius

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

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

  Bull, Sir William James

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Gretton, John

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Campbell, Rt, Hon. J. H. M.

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

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Halpin, J.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Cave, George

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Maclean, Donald

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Wore

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Clough, William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

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

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

  Hills, J. W.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hodge, John

  Oddy, John James

  954

  955

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wardle, George J.

  Percy, Earl

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Whitbread, Howard

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Snowden, P.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Stanier, Beville

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Starkey, John R.

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

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Winterton, Earl

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

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

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Summerbell, T.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Young, Samuel

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr Forster and Lord Balcarres.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Valentia, Viscount

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 19, to leave out the words, 'or an off-licence.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
  The House divided:—Ayes, 232; Noes, 134. (Division List No. 383.)

  AYES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Crossley, William J.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

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

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Hooper, A. G.

  Agnew, George William

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Alden, Percy

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Barker, Sir John

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea.

  Beale, W. P.

  Erskine, David C.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Beauchamp, E.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Bell, Richard

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Kelley, George D.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Ferens, T. R.

  King, Alfred John (Knutfsord)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Findlay, Alexander

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lambert, George

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

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Waldon)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Boulton, A. C. F.

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

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Glover, Thomas

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Branch, James

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lupton, Arnold

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Lynch, H. B.

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

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

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

  Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J. T. (Cheshire

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Gulland, John W.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hd. L. (Rossendale

  Maddison, Frederick

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Byles, William Pollard

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

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Cameron, Robert

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Massie, J.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Clough, William

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Menzies, Walter

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

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

  Mond, A.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Crooks, William

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Toulmin, George

  Morrell, Philip

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Morse, L. L.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Verney, F. W.

  Murray, Capt. Hn A. C. (Kincard

  Rowlands, J.

  Vivian, Henry

  Myer, Horatio

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Napier, T. B.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Walton, Joseph

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wardle, George J.

  Nicholls, George

  Sears, J. E.

  Waring, Walter

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Seely, Colonel

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Paul, Herbert

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

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh

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

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

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

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Williamson, A.

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Radford, G. H.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Summerbell, T.

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

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Winfrey, R.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

  Robinson, S.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Tomkinson, James

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kerry, Earl of

  Ashley, W. W.

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Keswick, William

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Balcarres, Lord

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Baldwin, Stanley

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

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fell, Arthur

  Lamont, Norman

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Forster, Henry William

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Gardner, Ernest

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

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Bennett, E. N.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Bertram, Julius

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

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Halpin, J.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Maclean, Donald

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Cave, George

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Oddy, John James

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc.

  Hills, J. W.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Hodge, John

  Percy, Earl

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Hogan, Michael

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Hudson, Walter

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Cross, Alexander

  Jenkins, J.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

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

  Jowett, F. W.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  958

  959

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

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

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Winterton, Earl

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Snowden, P.

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Young, Samuel

  Stanier, Beville

  Whitbread, Howard

  Starkey, John R.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Steadman, W. C.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 24, at the end, to insert the words 'Provided that until the expiration of seven years after the termination of the reduction period there shall be no power to attach to the re-grant of an old on-licence any condition
  for securing to the public the monopoly value of the licence.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
  Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 270; Noes, 29. (Division List No. 384.)

  AYES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Agnew, George William

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Alden, Percy

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

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Ashley, W. W.

  Cross, Alexander

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Crossley, William J.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Curran, Peter Francis

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

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Dalmeny, Lord

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

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Barker, Sir John

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Beale, W. P.

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Beauchamp, E.

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Bell, Richard

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Erskine, David C.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Bennett, E. N.

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jenkins, J.

  Bertram, Julius

  Fell, Arthur

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

  Ferens, T. R.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Kekewich, Sir George.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Kelley, George D.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Kerry, Earl of

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

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

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Branch, James

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Lambert, George

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Byles, William Pollard

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

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Cameron, Robert

  Gulland, John W.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Lynch, H. B.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Maclean, Donald

  Clive, Percy Archer

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

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  M'Crae, Sir George

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Tomkinson, James

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Toulmin, George

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Massie, J.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Verney, F. W.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Walker, H. de R. (Leicester)

  Menzies, Walter

  Rowlands, J.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Walton, Joseph

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wardle, George J.

  Mond, A.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Waring, Walter

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Morse, L. L.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Myer, Horatio

  Sears, J. E.

  Whitbread, Howard

  Napier, T. B.

  Seaverns, J. H.

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

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Seely, Colonel

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

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

  Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Nicholls, George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Paul, Herbert

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Williamson, A.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

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

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Soares, Ernest J.

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

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Stanier, Beville

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Stanley, Albert (Staff s, N. W.

  Winfrey, R.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

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

  Starkey, John R.

  Young, Samuel

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

  Radford, G. H.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Summerbell, T.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  NOES.

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hudson, Walter

  Snowden, P.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Clough, William

  Jowett, F. W.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Crooks, William

  Lamont, Norman

  Vivian, Henry

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

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Glover, Thomas

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hodge and Mr. Howard.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Robinson, S.

  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 26, at the end, to insert the words 'shall not be applicable to off-licences and.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
  Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 234; Noes, 123. (Division List No. 385.)

  AYES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Beale, W. P.

  Agnew, George William

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Alden, Percy

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Allen, A. Actland (Chrischurch)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Bell, Richard

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Barker, Sir John

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Ridsdale, E. A.

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

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Roberston, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Black, Arthur W.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Robinson, S.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Branch, James

  Jenkins, J.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Roe, Sir Thomas S.

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

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

  Rose, Charles Day

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Rowlands, J.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Cameron, Robert

  Kelley, George D.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Camley, Sir Frederick

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Sears, J. E.

  Clough, William

  Lambert, George

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Seely, Colonel

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

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

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Crooks, William

  Lynch, H. B.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Soares, Ernest J. Spicer.

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Spicer Sir, Albert

  Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Maddison, Frederick

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Sailsbury

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Mansfield H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Marnham, F. J.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Erskine, David C.

  Massie, J.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Venzies, Walter

  Tomkinson, James

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Toulmin, George

  Ferens, T. R.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Findlay, Alexander

  Mond, A.

  Verney, F. W.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Vivian, Henry

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Morrell, Philip

  Walton, Joseph

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Morse, L. L.

  Waring, Walter

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

  Horton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

  Glover, Thomas

  Hurray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Myer, Horatio

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Napier, T. B.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Nicholls, George

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

  Gulland, John W.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Paul, Herbert

  Wiles, Thomas

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

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

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

  Williamson, A.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

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

  Price, C. K. (Edinburhg, Central

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

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

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.

  Winfrey, R.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Higham, John Sharp

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford. E.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Radford, G. H.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  964

  965

  NOES.

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Baldwin, Stanley

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

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Oddy, John James

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Halpin, J.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Percy, Earl

  Barnard, E. B.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Powell, Sir Franics Sharp

  Barnes, G. N.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Roberst, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bertram, Julius

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hills, J. W.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hodge, John

  Snowden, P.

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Hogan, Michael

  Stanier, Beville

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Starkey, John R.

  Cave, George

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff sh.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Steadman, W. C.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hudson, Walter

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Summerbell, T.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Kerry, Earl of

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

  Keswick, William

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

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

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lamont, Norman

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Cross, Alexander

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Wardle, George J.

  Crossley, William J.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

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

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

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

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Winterton, Earl

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

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

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Young, Samuel

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Fell, Arthur

  Maclean, Donald

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Forster and Lord Balcarres.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 30, to leave out Paragraph (6) of subsection (2) of Clause 3.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
  Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 265; Noes, 99. (Division List No. 386.)

  AYES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Bell, Richard

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Agnew, George William

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Alden, Percy

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Byles, William Pollard

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Cameron, Robert

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Bertram, Julius

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Clough, William

  Baker, A. Joseph (Finsbury, E.)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

  Barker, Sir John

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

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

  Barnard, E. B.

  Branch, James

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Beale, W. P.

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

  Crooks, William

  Beauchamp, E.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Cross, Alexander

  Crossley, William J.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Rose, Charles Day

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Kelley, George D.

  Rowlands, J.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Lambert, George

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Lamont, Norman

  Sehwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Sears, J. E.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Seely, Colonel

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Erskine, David C.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

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

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Ferens, T. R.

  Maclean, Donald

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Steadman, W. C.

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Maddison, Frederick

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Summerbell, T.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Glover, Thomas

  Marnham, F. J.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Massie, J.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Menzies, Walter

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Gulland, John W.

  Mond, A.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Tomkinson, James

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Toulmin, George

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Morrell, Philip

  Verney, F. W.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Morse, L. L.

  Vivian, Henry

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Murray, Capt. Hn A. C. (Kincard.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Myer, Horatio

  Walters, John Tudor

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Napier, T. B.

  Walton, Joseph

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Wardle, George J.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Waring, Walter

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Nicholls, George

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Norton, Capt. Cecil Wiliam

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Waterlow, D. S.

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

  Paul, Herbert

  Watt, Henry A.

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

  Paulton, James Mellor

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

  Hobart, Sir Robert

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

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Hodge, John

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carraarth'n

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Hudson, Walter

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Radford, G. H.

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

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Sea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Winfrey, R.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Jenkins, J.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Johnso, John (Gateshead)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Robinson, S.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  968

  969

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gretton, John

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Balcarres, Lord

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

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Harris, Ferderick Leverton

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hills, J. W.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Snowden, P.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stanier, Beville

  Cave, George

  Kerry, Earl of

  Starkey, John R.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Keswick, William

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

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

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Lumbton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark

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

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingham

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

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

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lupton, Arnold

  Winterton, Earl

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Young, Samuel

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

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Younger, George

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Fell, Arthur

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Oddy, John James

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 15, to leave out the words 'Subject to the foregoing provision,' and to insert the words 'Except as provided by this section with respect to the limitation of optional reduction by the financial provisions of this Act
  The House divided:—Ayes, 263; Noes, 91. (Division List No. 387.)

  AYES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

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

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Agnew, George William

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Alden, Percy

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras W.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Boulton, A. C. F.

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

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Branch, James

  Crooks, William

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Crossley, William J.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

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

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Barker, Sir John

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Davies, Sir W. Howe (Bristol, S.

  Beale, W. P.

  Byles, William Pollard

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

  Beauchamp, E.

  Cameron, Robert

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Bell, Richard

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Clough, William

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Erskine, David C.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sears, J. E.

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lupton, Arnold

  Seely, Colonel

  Ferens, T. R.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Shackleton, David James

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lynch, H. B.

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

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

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

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Maclean, Donald

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Snowden, P.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Soares, Ernest J.

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

  Maddison, Frederick

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Glover, Thomas

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Stanley, Hon. A, Lyulph (Chesh.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Massie, J.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Gulland, John W.

  Menzies, Walter

  Summerbell, T.

  Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Harcourt, Rt Hn. L. (Rossendale)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Mond, A.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Montague, Hon. E. S.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

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

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Morse, L. L.

  Thorne, G. R. Wolverhampton)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Murray, Capt. Hn A. C. (Kincard.

  Tomkinson, James

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Myer, Horatio

  Toulmin, George

  Hazleton, Richard

  Napier, T. B.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Verney, F. W.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Vivian, Henry

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nicholls, George

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

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

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Walsh, Stephen

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Paul, Herbert

  Walton, Joseph

  Higham, John Sharp

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Wardle, George J.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Waring, Walter

  Hodge, John

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wason, Rt Hn. E. (Clackmannan

  Hooper, A. G.

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Hudson, Walter

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Hy e, Clarendon

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Radford, G. H.

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

  Jackson, R. S.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Jenkins, J.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Robinson, S.

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

  Jowett, F. W.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Kelley, George D.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Winfrey, R.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Wood, T. M. Kinnon

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rose, Charles Day

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Rowlands, J.

  Lambert, George

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

  Lamont, Norman

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  NOES.

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

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Ashley, W. W.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Banner, John S. Harmood.

  Bertram, Julius

  972

  973

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bull, Sir William James

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hills, J. W.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cave, George

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Kerry, Earl of

  Stanier, Beville

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

  Keswick, William

  Starkey, John R.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cross, Alexander

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

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

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Mason, James F. Windsor

  Winterton, Earl

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Young, Samuel

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Younger, George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Oddy, John James

  Gretton, John

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Forster and Lord Balcarres.

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Randles, Sir Joseph Scurrah

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  and the exclusion of appeal in the case of a licence extinguished in pursuance of a scheme for statutory reduction.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
  Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 17, to leave out the words 'an old on-licence,' and to insert the words 'all old on-licences.'"
  Question, "That the Amendment be made," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 4, line 18, to leave out the words 'have for the time being with respect to other
  on-licences,' and to insert the words 'had with respect to the renewal or transfer of alehouse licences before the passing of the Licensing Act, 1904."—(Sir S. Evans.)
  Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 251; Noes, 83. (Division List No. 388.)

  AYES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

  Agnew, George William

  Branch, James

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Alden, Percy

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

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

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

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

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Barker, Sir John

  Cameron, Robert

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Barnard, E. B.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Erskine, David C.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Beale, W. P.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Beauchamp, E.

  Clough, William

  Ferens, T. R.

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Clynes, J. R.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Bell, Richard

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Bennett, E. N.

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Fullerton, Hugh

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

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

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Gill, A. H.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  Black, Arthur W.

  Crooks, William

  Glover, Thomas

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Crossley, William J.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Gulland, John W.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Marnham, F. J.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Snowden, P.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Massie, J.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Menzies, Walter

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Mieklem, Nathaniel

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

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

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Mond, A.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Hazleton, Richard

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Morse, L. L.

  Summerbell, T.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

  Murray, Capt. Hn A. C. (Kincard.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Myer, Horatio

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Higham, John Sharp

  Napier, T. B.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hodge, John

  Nicholls, George

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Hooper, A. G.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Paul, Herbert

  Tomkinson, James

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Toulmin, George

  Hudson, Walter

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hyde, Clarendon

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

  Verney, F. W.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Vivian, Henry

  Jackson, R. S.

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

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

  Walsh, Stephen

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Jenkins, J.

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Walton, Joseph

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Radford, G. H.

  Wardle, George J.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Waring, Walter

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Wason, Rt. Hn E. (Clackmannan

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Kelley, George D.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Watt, Henry A.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

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

  Lambert, George

  Robinson, S.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Lamont, Norman

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rose, Charles Day

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Rowlands, J.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Lupton, Arnold

  Samuel, Herbert J. (Cleveland)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

  Lynch, H. B.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Winfrey, R.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Sears, J. E.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Maclean, Donald

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Seely, Colonel

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Shackleton, David James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

  M'Micking, Major G.

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

  Maddison, Frederick

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  NOES.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Balcarres, Lord

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Cave, George

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

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fell, Arthur

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Gardner, Ernest

  Bertram, Julius

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Cross, Alexander

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Gretton, John

  976

  977

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stanier, Beville

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

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Starkey, John R.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark

  Hills, J. W.

  Oddly, John James

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Warde, Col. C. K. (Kent, Mid)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Kerry, Earl of

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

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

  Keswick, William

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Winterton, Earl

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Young, Samuel

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Younger, George

  Lane, Fox, G. R.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

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

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. L. HARCOURT, Lancashire, Rossendale): I beg to move the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. and learned friend the Solicitor-General in order to make it clear what was the original intention of the Government with regard to "off-licences." The intention was unfortunately confused in the mind of the House owing to the error by which my Amendment was put down in Clause 3. They were in fact the wrong words in the wrong place, and for that I accept the entire responsibility, but I am happy to say that the minimum of inconvenience was caused either to the House or to the public outside, because I was able on the following day, owing to the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, to make an interruption in one of his speeches, and was able to explain at once what really the intention of the Government was. As Clause 5 originally stood, and as it stands to-day in this Bill, it secures that monopoly value shall be taken of all new oft-licences. I think it is obviously desirable that we should take the same monopoly value for old off-licences after the period of twenty-one years time-limit at the same time that we are dealing with monopoly value for old on-licences. I think it is admitted that off-licences have no monopoly value now. ["Yes."] The amount is so infinitesimal that it cannot really be disputed that there is practically no monopoly value now. But if a larger monopoly value is to be created by the operation of other sections of this Bill in the future, it is very desirable that we should give a warning at once to those people to whom
  978
  it might accrue that they will not in future be allowed to retain it. This Amendment will serve as a notice which will prevent the growth as regards off-licences in the future of any of those expectations which are less than a freehold but which are yet a "sacred right." I am sure that none of us wish to see the growth in the future of any of these sacred or profane rights. The late Government did their best to ensure that there should be no growth of an expectation on the part of off-licences, because in the Bill of 1904, although they were limiting the discretion of the justices in other directions, they left the licensing justices full powers to deal as they thought fit with off-licences. In spite of the fact that the magistrates' discretion was left unfettered the late Government did not think it necessary to provide any compensation for oft-licences that were removed, and, of course, no compensation levy was imposed upon them.
  Amendment proposod—
  "In page 4, line 36, at the end, to insert—(2) On the expiration of a period of seven years after the termination of the reduction period any powers under the Licensing Acts for the purpose of securing to the public the monopoly value of an off-licence may be exercised on the renewal of an off-licence in the same manner as they may be exercised on the grant of a new on-licence."—(Mr. L. Harcourt.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. LANE-FOXsaid the position of the Government with regard to off-licences was a distinctly curious one. He had no desire to quarrel with the proposal

  979
  now put forward, but merely wished to draw attention to the difference of the treatment accorded to off-licences and on-licences. Undoubtedly, on a previous occasion the House did distinctly vote that off-licences should be subject to the same conditions as on-licences, and yet now they were told that that was all a mistake on the part of the Government. This evening they had voted in exactly the opposite direction and the House had stultified itself, the only consistent Members being the Opposition and those few Members opposite who voted with them. They did not wish to penalise the grocer and say that he ought to be penalised as against other traders, but they did say that there ought to be equality of treatment dealt out as between one form of licence and another, and the result of this undue favouring of one particular class of the trade would be that drinking would be driven from the open light of day into the home. Nobody who cared for temperance could desire to see that.
  MR. CLAVELL SALTERdid not hesitate to say that while many potions of this Bill were rather difficult for the ordinary elector to follow, the point raised by this Amendment was one which was readily appreciated by the public. He had no hesitation in saying that the differential treatment between the publican and the grocer was a simple aspect of the Bill which was eagerly seized upon' by ordinary people and was made a test as to the sincerity of those who brought in the Bill. What he would like to know was why should there be any distinction made under the Bill or for the purposes of the Bill, between a man who sold drink for consumption on one side of the door, and another who sold it for consumption on the other side. They were both drink-sellers. The Government were challenged to put the grocer and the publican upon a level; they agreed to do so, and they introduced into Clause 3 an Amendment in the most pointed terms which struck out the word "on-licence" and substituted the words "licence, whether on or off." The Government had said that when they enacted that grocers' licences were on renewal after a certain
  980
  period to be deemed new licences in the same way as publicans' licences were to be deemed new licences they did not understand that the incidence of new licences would attach to grocers' licences. However profound might have been the ignorance of the Government on the main outstanding features of tie Bill, that ignorance was not shared by a large number of their followers who were authorities on the matter, and the Amendment in a very full House was carried nem. con. They deliberately voted that grocers and publicans should be placed upon a level. They were put into the prison-house together, and were in an equally hard case. But within forty-eight hours the Liberal Party were at the door of the prison-house, and, with every sign of agitation and contrition, had fetched out the grocer and left the publican where he was. What had happened in that short space of time? This was one of the dramatic occurrences which took place. The publican and the grocer had been put on an equality as regards the disqualification of new licences, and the restrictive conditions of local veto. But the Government had decided to relieve the grocer, and had made the most complete amend to him. They had provided that although the publican's licence was to become a new licence at the expiration of a certain time with all the disadvantages that that entailed, the grocer's licence was not. He asked the Government, if they stood by the two principles of the desirability of reduction of facilities and of local control, on what ground did they apply those things to the publican and not to the grocer? In regard to this particular Amendment, when they came to exact the monopoly value it was not much to do, since they were told that there was none; but it was a most notable thing that the grocer was not put on the same basis as the publican. In the case of the publican, under the Act of 1904 the justices had no discretion, but were expressly enjoined that they must exact the monopoly value. Why was the grocer to have a chance to escape when the publican had no chance? It was being said in the country that the Government had surrendered in this matter to members of a powerful liquor interest. Of course it

  981
  must not be forgotten that while there was a powerful liquor interest in the publican, there was also a powerful liquor interest in the grocer. It was being asked why, if the Government were sincere in these provisions, they were unwilling to apply to these sellers of drink who were sometimes said to be friendly to them the same scale and measure that they applied to those who were said to be their foes? What ground or principle was there for this differentiation between one drink seller and another, and especially what reason was there for this distinction between compelling justices to exact compensation in the one case and giving them a discretion in the other?
  MR. YOUNGERsaid he did not agree with one of his hon. friends behind him that there was no particular monopoly value in the case of these licences. He entirely agreed that that was practically the case at the present time, but this Amendment was intended to deal with the position as it would be on the expiry of the twenty-one years, which they had been dealing with under Clause 3. The First Commissioner of Works and the Solicitor-General knew perfectly well that by relieving the off-licence from the risks which the on-licence holder would have to face under local veto they must inevitably considerably add to whatever monopoly value was caused, and having created that monopoly value by that special exemption, they very naturally supposed that they should get a proper share of it. He would like to know the meaning of the addition to the clause of the words "may be exercised." His hon. and learned friend behind him had dealt with the peculiar fact that the word "may" was used in the clause and not the word "shall." No doubt the Solicitor-General would explain how these powers were to be permissive and not mandatory. But beyond and above all that there was another point which appeared to arise out of the general wording of the Amendment, in regard to the words "any powers under the Licensing Acts." What did that mean? Did it mean powers given under the Bill with which they were now dealing, or did it include powers given under Section 4 of the Act of 1904? If that
  982
  were so it opened the door also to differentiation in the manner of estimating the monopoly value as between the off-licence holder and the on-licence holder. In the case of the on-licence holder the monopoly value under the proposals of the Government differed very considerably, at all events, from that under the Act of 1904, which dealt with new licences only. They had not put any Amendment down, but they might bring one forward, because they thought the clause ought to be mandatory and not permissive.
  SIR S. EVANS: In reply to the hon. Member for Basingstoke I have to say that although we shall be able to show that there is a great difference between off-licences and on-licences, yet I think that it will not be in order here to go into detail on that question. I may, however, touch upon some of the differences which have been pointed out not only in this debate but in some of the debates of 1904. Off-licences were not dealt with specially in the Act of 1904, and it was pointed out that they could not be dealt with conveniently under that measure, on the ground that they were not subject to the compensation levy. It was pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University that these off-licences were put on a wholly different footing from the ordinary on-licences dealt with under the Act of 1904. On the 15th June the right hon. Gentleman said that the question of off-licences was absolutely different from that of on-licences. They differed in essential points. There had been various alterations of the law with regard to off-licences, but when the grocer's licence was put on a different footing no question of compensation was raised. The right hon. Gentleman added that, if he remembered rightly, there were various points of difference, such as that the licence for the sale of beer and spirits attached to the person and not to the premises. Again, in the debate which took place on the same Bill on 8th June, 1904, upon an Amendment moved by a supporter of the Government to strike out the word "on" so that the provision could apply to off-licences, the then Solicitor-General said it was evident to anyone who understood the law that the Government could not

  983
  accept the Amendment in that form. It included an immense number of off-licences, of which there were fourteen different kinds, and it would be impossible to apply the Bill to off-beer licences. I am not going into the history of these off-licences, but as the House is well aware the status of the off-beer licence up to 1882, to all intents and purposes, was freehold. With regard to other off-licences, that was also the status of wine and spirit off-licences, up to the year when Mr. Ritchie brought them under the full and absolute discretion of the justices, excepting with regard to persons then holding the licence. That being so, it did not appear to be right and fair that the bargain which was made in that way in 1902 should be brought under the local option clauses of this Bill. As I pointed out they could not be brought under the compensation clauses, and there is no reason why they should be brought under the local option clauses of this Bill during the existence of the present holders of the licence. What we have done is this. When we deal with the question of the monopoly value with regard to the new off-licences being entirely in the discretion of the justices to deal with, we think that the justices "may," which I think in this case means "shall," apply the same provision as to monopoly value in the case of the renewal of an off-licence as they apply to the granting of new on-licences. It follows that at the expiration of the reduction period, plus the seven years, that is to say twenty-one years, the provisions with reference to monopoly value shall be applicable to the renewal of off-licences just as they shall be applicable to the renewal of on-licences. That is shortly the general position of the Government with regard to this matter. Now I come to the questions put by the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs. I think the word "may," in the Amendment moved by my right hon. friend means "shall." Under the Act of 1904, Section 4, which deals with the various conditions which might be attached to the granting of a licence, it says that the justices in granting a licence may attach conditions as to payments to be made, suitability of the premises, management, and so on. That section gives them the power to attach
  984
  these conditions subject to the remaining part of the section as to the conditions under which they got the monopoly value.
  MR. YOUNGERasked whether the condition as to value was not altogether of a different kind.
  SIR S. EVANS: If the words had been "the powers in the Licensing Acts should apply to off-licences as well as on-licences," there would be no question at all on the matter but the intention is the same. If the hon. Member would like to insert "shall" instead of "may," I should accept it with pleasure, so as to make it perfectly clear. The intention is certainly to apply to these new off-licences the same provisions in regard to monopoly value as are applicable under Section 11 of the Act of 1904. That would make "may" mean "shall," but there ought to be no doubt about it. There is no question about the meaning, and it would make it clearer to substitute "shall" for "may." The hon. Member asked me what was the meaning of the words "any power under the Licensing Acts for the purpose." I do not know whether he remembers Clause 43 of this Bill which defines the expression "Licensing Acts" in this way—
  "The expression 'Licensing Acts' means the Licensing Acts 1826 to 1906 and this Act."
  Now the hon. Member says if that be so, is there not a difference between the section of the Act of 1904 with reference to the basis upon which the monopoly value is to be ascertained and the provisions of this Act. That is not so, because the basis of the monopoly value under Section 4 of the Act of 1904 is repealed by this Bill. From the words "monopoly value" down to the words "taken into consideration" is repealed. These are the words which are repealed—
  "which is represented by the difference between the value the premises will bear in the opinion of the justices when licensed and the value of the same premises if they were not licensed."
  It is perfectly clear, therefore, that the basis for the fixing of the monopoly value under Section 4 of the Act of 1904

  985
  will be the basis under this Bill, and that will be applicable in the same way to new off-licences, and to the renewal of off-licences in twenty-one years as in the case of a new on-licence.
  MR. YOUNGERasked how, if the definition of monopoly value in the Act of 1904 was repealed, the monopoly value of the new licence was to be defined in future. Was it to be under this Bill? And was the definition of monopoly value of a new licence to be granted under a new Bill to be the definition applying to old licences at the end of the period, because, if so, it was very different from the Act of 1904.
  SIR S. EVANS: The hon. Member will see that on page 37 of the Bill as amended in Committee, line 34, Section 4, from the words "which is represented "down to" taken into consideration" is repealed and the words are those which I read a short time ago.
  MR. GRETTONsaid he had handed in a manuscript Amendment for the very purpose of making clear the intention of the Government that the authorities should secure monopoly value, and that it should not be a matter left to their discretion. He thought these words were really entirely necessary, because of the remarkable variation which the Bill represented with this Amendment as now drafted and the other part of the Bill. There was no doubt whatsoever as to what was to be done in the case of the on-licences. The Act of 1904 was referred to in specific terms. But in the case of the off-licences, and in the case of this Amendment as it stood there was no such reference. The whole Amendment on the Paper in this particular was vague and open to argument and misunderstanding. Therefore it seemed to him that to carry out the intention which the hon. and learned Gentleman had just announced it was quite necessary that the word "shall" should be substituted for the word "may" in the second line of the Amendment, and that he understood the Government were willing to accept. He would like to call attention to the entirely different position which had been
  986
  created by the proposal of this Bill. The arguments for bringing off-licences under the Act of 1904 were by no means applicable to the present situation that the Bill had created. He could not help noticing when the hon. and learned Gentleman was speaking of the Act of 1902 he referred to what he termed the bargain then made by the off-licences according to which the present holders of these licences secured a freehold for their licences. But the Government and their supporters refused to recognise that there was any binding arrangement under the Act of 1904 as regarded on-licences. If the argument held good that there was a bargain as regarded the off-licences it appeared to be an irresistible conclusion that there was also an understanding by which the Legislature was bound as regarded on-licences. The Act of 1904 dealt only with the one question of reduction. There was a desire in the House and outside that licences should be reduced, but there was not at that time a demand that off-licences should be reduced. The Government in this Bill were taking a very different course, and going very much further, because they were not only reducing the number of licences, but introducing the principle of veto, and many more stringent and urgent conditions according to which on-licences should be granted and controlled in future. Therefore the new situation which the Bill was intended to produce in the case of on-licences would undoubtedly place the off-licences, if they were not brought under similar conditions, in a position of privilege as compared with other classes of licences. In one particular he had no doubt it had escaped the attention of the Government, but apparently under the clause as drafted no conditions could be imposed on existing off-licences until the twenty-one years period had elapsed. New ones could be granted to-morrow, and no one would be injured by the conditions for anyone taking a new off-licence would do so with his eyes open, knowing the conditions to which he would be subjected. He was dealing entirely with the case of old licences. They would be subject to conditions and to payment of monopoly value after twenty-one years. But the old on-licences were to be subject to all

  987
  the conditions—local veto and all the other disabilities—which, either separately or together, must result in reducing their value to their holders. They were to be subject to those conditions at the end of fourteen years. Therefore, off-licences would have a further privileged period, a seven years run, competing with the on-licences, whose trade was to be reduced, whose business was to be subject to new conditions, and in some cases swept away by the operation of the Act and by local veto. They would continue in an unassailable and privileged position so that they could establish themselves in the trade which was being lost to the on-licences which were subject to all these limitations. He was not complaining or trying to make the case in any way disadvantageous to off-licence-holders. He was not one of those who thought that because a wrong was done a second wrong must be done to keep pace with it. He held that the off-licences merited tender and careful treatment, but it was remarkable that the Government should make all these exceptions in favour of, and show all this tenderness to, the present holders of off-licences, and that the whole weight of their vengeance should fall on the holders of on-licences alone, and those connected with them. This was a fact which everyone could grasp and which the Government in this clause had brought prominently and unmistakeably before the eyes of the country. On what principle did the Government intend to do away with on-licences and allow off-licences to escape the weight of their vengeance altogether?
  MR. YOUNGERseconded the Amendment. He pointed out that under the Government Amendment the new off-licences granted under the Bill would be charged only monopoly value on the basis of the new definition in the Bill and not that in the 1904 Act which of course was entirely different. It therefore placed the off-licence holder in an infinitely better position to get a new licence than the on-licence-holder. If that was intended he would like to know why. Possibly the Solicitor-General had only just found it out.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "In line 3, to leave out the word 'may,' and to insert the word 'shall.'"—(Mr. Gretton.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'may' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to consequential Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment, as amended, agree to.
  MR. DICKINSON*MR. DICKINSON (St. Pancras, N.) moved to add at the end of the sub-sect on the words: "Provided that the conditions to be attached to the granting of new off-licences shall include such conditions as the justices think best adapted for ensuring that the sale of intoxicating liquors shall be carried on separately from the sale of other commodities and that such liquors separately charged and paid for." This Amendment was one which he put down a long time ago for consideration on the Committee stage but unfortunately, owing to the guillotine, this clause was not discussed at all, and consequently no Amendments were possible. It was a matter for regret that, owing to the procedure which had been adopted, they were unable to discuss the important questions of the conditions upon which off-licences should be carried on under the Bill. As the House was well aware this was a matter which had created a great deal of interest in past years, and was demanding much attention to-day. The subject was considered of great importance by both sides of the House and by all parties, and it was one which ought to have been dealt with in any measure purporting to be an Amendment of the licensing laws. This clause afforded a very good opportunity to discuss the question. They knew that the provisions of Section 4 of the Act of 1904 were to apply to new off-licences as they had hitherto applied to new on-licences, and new off-licences would in the future come before the magistrates in the same way as on-licences, and

  989
  would have to receive consideration at the hands of the magistrates who would be able to impose conditions which in the past they had not had the power to impose. It was the nature of some of those conditions which he asked the Government to consider on this occasion. One of the conditions which would have to be imposed on a new off-licence would be one to secure to the public the monopoly value. The right hon. Gentleman said just now that he did not think there would be any considerable monopoly value attached to off-licences, but he did not hold that view. The Licensing bench upon which he sat had refraine from granting new off-licences and there was no doubt that in that district the existing off-licences had a monopoly value, and they would possess a far greater monopoly value when the number of public-houses in the district was reduced. By the new definition of monopoly value contained in the new section, and also the old section of the Act of 1904, a grocer's licence would have to be looked upon as possessing a duplicate character, that portion of it which had to do with the sale of intoxicating liquors being assessed as having a monopoly value, whilst the other portion would be excluded from that assessment. Therefore, from that point of view alone, he submitted that it was of importance that the business arrangements in those shops where other trades besides the sale of intoxicating liquor were carried on should be kept separate. But apart from that practical reason which he urged in support of his Amendment there was also the moral reason. Grocers' licences had existed for many years, and he believed it was recognised on all sides and by all parties that, however much they conduced to the convenience of a certain section of the community, they were open to very great abuses and had brought about some very serious evils. It was with a view to remedying to a certain extent some of those evils that he had ventured to make the suggestion he was now putting forward. With reference to this matter he would draw attention to the action taken by the House as long ago as 1872, when the Licensing Act of that year was passed. The question before them was discussed at that time upon an Amendment moved by Sir Henry
  990
  Selwyn-Ibbetson. It was resisted by the then Liberal Government, but it was carried not with standing that opposition. The object of that Amendment was to place the grocers on the same footing as other people who dealt in intoxicating liquor. In the year 1878 a Royal Commission was appointed to consider the question of grocers' licences in Scotland, and that Commission reported that the combination of the liquor dealer with the grocer was fraught with great danger, and had been productive of great evil. The Commission were inclined to believe that the only solution of the difficulty in order to remedy the evils complained of would be the entire separation of the two trades. But they felt that they could not recommend such a separation because of certain difficulties, mostly of a local character. In view of the difficulties which existed that Commission were of the opinion that other measures could be more speedily taken to reduce the evil, although they were very much impressed by the serious evils which this system of grocers' licences had brought about. The subject was again considered by Lord Peel's Royal Commission in 1899. Even the Majority Report recommended that grocers' licences should be brought into the same category as the on-licences and should come under the purview of the justices, while the Minority Report contained a striking passage in which they stated that remarkable facts had been placed before them by various individuals who had given evidence of a remarkable character on this subject. He did not need to trouble the House with those facts beyond stating that they tended to show that the mixture of the two trades of supplying groceries and intoxicating liquor provided great opportunities for secret drinking and great temptations to persons who might otherwise be saved from falling victims to drink. He did not need to weary the House with an account of the instances quoted before the Royal Commission, because they were all aware of the evils which could be seen at the present day. He was told only the other day of the case of an assistant in a large grocery establishment who had sold a bottle of whisky to a customer, and that customer insisted that it should be put down as

  991
  groceries. Unfortunately that assistant was provided with too stringent a conscience and he refused to do so. The customer complained to the head of the firm with the result that the assistant was dismissed. Cases of that kind were by no means rare, and it would be a great protection to grocers and dealers if they were compelled to conduct the two trades on a distinct footing.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERasked if the hon. Member meant to suggest by his Amendment that there should be a separate room in the same building or a separate compartment in the same room?
  MR. DICKINSONsaid he was just going to deal with that point. The Minority Report of the Peel Commission made a definite recommendation in favour of a separation of the trades so complete that there should be no sale within the same premises of intoxicants and groceries or other articles. That was their recommendation, but they pointed out that that might be hard upon the existing interests and they suggested that five years should be allowed during which the restriction should not apply to premises now holding a licence, but after that period they proposed that the grocery and the intoxicating liquor parts of the premises should be structurally separated. His Amendment did not go to that extent because he fully recognised the difficulties there would be in laying down a definite rule that in all grocery establishments where wine and beer were sold there should be an absolute structural separation of the premises. The Amendment contemplated that the justices would have to do their best to ensure that the sale of intoxicating liquors should be carried on separately from the sale of other commodities. The proposal was one which could not have any very immediate or harsh effect upon any existngi interest. In the first place, it only applied to new licences. He confessed that when he drafted the Amendment he had hoped that grocers' licenses would in all respects come under the same category as on-licences. He had hoped that at the end of the fourteen
  992
  years period existing grocers' licenses would have become new licences, and that then the magistrates would have insisted on some kind of separation between the two kinds of business. That was before the Solicitor-General's Amendment was carried. He could see that the result of the Amendment just now carried would be to prevent that coming into operation. At the same time it would be of great value if justices would attach that condition to new licences. The justices would not insist on structural separation. He knew from experience that they were fully alive to the importance of dealing with grocers licences. They would be able to make ordinary commonsense arrangements which could be varied according to the requirements of different cases. If possible there should be separate departments of the premises, or, at any rate a separate cupboard or counter. At present in large grocery establishments there was a separate department, and in most grocers' shops where intoxicating liquors were sold the liquors were kept separate. He was fully persuaded that the magistrates could without difficulty or hardship devise proper means to bring about this result. At any rate, they could always do what would be of very great importance—they could insist that the taking of the orders and the charging for the same should be carried out separately from the orders for other commodities. The change he had indicated would be very gradual, but none the less it would be of great value. He was sure the justices would try to carry out the principle to the utmost of their power, and gradually there would be brought about a system whereby the conjunction of the two kinds of traffic would be remedied. The present system had been disapproved of and discountenanced by every Commission that had inquired into the matter. He thought it was generally felt by those who had taken an interest in the social condition of the people that there was a real abuse in connection with grocers' licences. He believed that that could be remedied without much difficulty. What he proposed would make the dealers themselves more careful how they carried on their business, and no doubt by this somewhat minor change in

  993
  the law an improvement in the practice would be effected which would very likely result in saving many persons and homes from the degradation of drink. He begged to move.
  MR. LUTTRELLseconded the Amendment. It appeared to him to be a very useful Amendment, and not antagonistic to the desires of the Government as expressed in the Bill. One of the great objections to grocers' licences was that they had led to a large amount of secret drinking. He was one of those who held that it would be very much better if grocers' licences were treated in the same way as other licences under the Bill, but as that had not been done there was no reason why this Amendment should not be made. It would have the effect of preventing a certain amount of the great evil of secret drinking. The Amendment had the assent of a large body of public opinion. It seemed to him that the House would be very wise in accepting it. Of course, it might be said that the justices had already the power to administer the law, but they were not forced to make any conditions, although, if they chose, they could do so. The Amendment would compel them to make conditions, but, while compelling them, it left to their discretion what the conditions should be. It was a reasonable Amendment which the Government might very well accept.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 30, after the words last inserted to insert the words 'Provided that the conditions to be attached to the granting of new off-licences shall include such conditions as the justices think best adapted for ensuring that the sale of intoxicating liquors shall be carried on separately from the sale of
  994
  other commodities, and that such liquors be separately charged and paid for.'"—(Mr. Dickinson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR S. EVANSsaid the mover of the Amendment had made a very interesting speech in regard to grocers' licences generally. Although these licences had often been called grocers' licences, they were not restricted to grocers at all; they were off-licences. He could not at this stage of the Bill go very largely into the discussion of that question. He had heard a great deal in regard to the mode in which these off-licences should be dealt with. He had read both sides of the question, and he had still an open mind upon it. He was not at all sure that the evil complained of as appertaining to grocers' licences was as great as some people imagined. No doubt there were cases where the evil existed, but he was not at all sure that the instances were not exaggerated so far as their number was concerned. He was also aware that on this particular topic there was no desire on the part of those who sold intoxicating liquors under on-licences to minimise the evil which did exist. However, that was a matter which was open to discussion and a great deal of argument on one side and the other, and, nearing as they were the end of the Report stage of the Bill, he did not think they could argue it further now. The alteration which would be made by the Amendment was extremely slight. The hon. Member sought to apply it to new off-licences only. They would be few in number. At present there existed of these licences 25,000, and there was a provision which enabled the justices to impose conditions, and

  995
  even to refuse licences. He was not at all sure that even in the limited number of cases to which the Amendment would apply it would have the force and virtue which the hon. Member thought would attend it if carried. He did not know from the terms of the Amendment whether the hon. Member proposed that there should be a restriction as to the room in which these liquors were sold. As the Amendment stood there was nothing to prevent a grocer from selling liquors on any part of the premises on which he liked to sell them. The Amendment required the justices to make conditions for ensuring that the sale of intoxicating liquors should be carried on separately from the sale of other commodities, and that such liquors should be separately charged and paid for. What difference would there be if the grocer or other tradesman did that? Anyone could go and ask for tea and sugar at one counter and far a bottle of wine at another counter, and the tradesman would have the greatest pleasure in putting the articles on separate bills. The Amendment would not be of the slightest use in that matter. The hon. Member had suggested that there should be a separate department, cupboard, or counter. It was quite obvious that in the Amendment there was no provision for anything of the kind. These words would have very little effect indeed. The main answer which the Government made to the Amendment was that the justices had now the power to do all that the Amendment would make them do, if they wished to do it. He would remind the House of the provisions of the Act of 1902 which, if put in force, would have a great deal of effect in checking the evils dealt with by the hon. Member. It was provided by
  996
  that Act than an off-licence possessed by a person at a certain date should not be taken away from him unless for misconduct. By Section 10, subsection 4 of that Act, the justices were empowered, on proof of misconduct such as surreptitiously selling spirits and booking them as tea, to take away the licence. He hoped that he had satisfied the House and his hon. friend that the Amendment ought not to be adopted in the form in which it was moved, and than even, if it were adopted, the value of it would be very small indeed.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS, in moving to omit Clause 6, [said that this was an important provision to carry out the scheme of reduction. It made it obligatory on the licensing justices, before April 1st next or such later date as should be allowed by the Licensing Commission, to prepare a scheme for carrying out in their district the statutory reduction of licences required by the Act. The scheme had to show as respects each rural parish and urban area in the district, the effect as regards the number of licences of the Schedule scale as applied to the parish or area, giving particulars of any modification made in the strict application of the scale. The scheme had also to provide for the statutory reduction being distributed reasonably over the reduction period having regard to the circumstances of the district. What he wanted to ask was the meaning of the phrase "the licensing justices." He would suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that there were no such persons as "licensing justices," for the reason that each year the justices of each district

  997
  had to assemble at the general annual licensing meeting. At that meeting they fixed dates for adjourned meetings, and days for the transfer of licences were appointed. But apart from that annual meeting there were no licensing justices. The justices who happened to be at that meeting were certainly licensing justices having the jurisdiction of licensing magistrates, but apart from that they were not licensing justices. If the Government meant the justices of the district apart from the justices assembled at the annual licensing meeting the Bill ought to say so, and to give directions as to their meetings. In boroughs, as the House was aware, the licensing committee was appointed at a meeting of the justices of the borough a fortnight before the general annual meeting. But that committee had no more power than the annual licensing meeting in a country district. His point was that the Bill did not say who were the licensing justices who were to be served with a writ of mandamus. The clause made it obligatory on the licensing justices to prepare a scheme and submit it as soon as possible to the Licensing Commission. They had no option; they must do it whether they liked it or not. Whether or not under the present law they were reducing the number of licences sufficiently, and acting to the satisfaction of the public generally, they must prepare a scheme. He had the honour to represent a large borough where the licences were being reduced most satisfactorily without any scheme at all, especially in the centre part of the borough, where the population was dense, and the licences were superabundant. But they had no details by which they could judge the ratio between licences and the density of population.
  998
  His hon. friend asked whether the Government would not institute some inquiry in order to give them this necessary information, and the reply of the Government was that it would entail too much labour. How were the justices to prepare a scheme satisfactorily without that detailed information? But going back to what he was saying with regard to his own city, the acreage of the borough with the present population would give an average ratio of nineteen persons to the acre. According to the Schedule in the Bill, one licence was to be given for every 500 persons. That would provide a statutory reduction under the Bill in the course of fourteen years of 258 on-licences. What was going on at the present moment? The on-licences were being reduced with compensation at the rate of twenty per annum, and ten in addition without compensation, or thirty in all; but he would only put it at twenty-five, which in fourteen years would reduce the licences by 350, instead of 258.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that the hon. Member must not multiply by fourteen because there was no guarantee that the rate of reduction would be maintained.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid that the licences which were predominant, and which would be reduced in the same way as they were now, were old ante-1869 beerhouse licences. These old licences were created perhaps on a wrong principle, but they were being taken away under the operation of the present law. He must multiply by fourteen, and that gave him, as he said, 350 on-licences reduced in the course of the fourteen years period, or ninety-two licences more than would be

  999
  reduced under the Government scheme. His argument was that the justices were at their own discretion reducing licences more in proportion than would be done under the scheme of the Bill. Coming back to the clause, the scheme was to be prepared, and the effect of it shown with the modifications mentioned in the Schedule. Those modifications were very important. They made provision for areas where there was a large influx of population during the day, such as in London, and for seaside places where the population varied according to the period of the year. In the Bill, there was no provision whatever for any of the parties interested in the premises being consulted, or represented before the justices, or the Licensing Commission. There was no consultation at all. The licensing justices of their own free will were to make a scheme, and there was no provision for the parties interested being represented either before the licensing justice or the Licensing Commission. They entirely objected to that. Under sub-clause (b) the scheme provided that the statutory reduction should be distributed "reasonably" over the period, and might he ask the hon. and learned Gentleman how he interpreted the word. Would it be reasonable for the justices to say to the Licensing Commission: "We think that it would be better, on the whole, to postpone this reduction until the end of the reduction period. You, the Licensing Commissioners, want the money for other districts, postpone it in this; we think the population is increasing in our district and that matter will settle it." The Licensing Commissioners would say: "Oh, wise justices, we will postpone it, take the surplus which you are good enough to send us and apply it in other directions,
  1000
  in Wales or elsewhere." But supposing the justices were to say: "We think that speedy reduction is better; we do not want to postpone it till the end of the period; we do not know what will happen to this population; let us take it at once; let us be sure of our ground." The Licensing Commission would say "Yes, perhaps on the whole it is reasonable," and who could say it was not reasonable? As he had said at the start, this was a clause which took it out of the discretion of the local justices, and that was their great objection to it. Their case was that under the present law the local justices were doing their duty, and doing it well, plus the justices in Quarter Sessions. Why interfere with the present law and make the Commissioners arbiters for every district, parish, urban area, ward and borough, throughout England and Wales? In opposing the Bill of his party in 1904 Ministerialists said that the then Government would not trust the licensing justices; but now it was they themselves who would not do so. He might point out that the justices could reduce without any scheme at all if the Government would leave it to them. For the reasons he had given he hoped, though perhaps it might be a rather distant hope, that the Government would see their way at all events to modify the plan of the Bill. He begged to move the omission of Clause 6.
  MR. RAWLINSON, in seconding, said that, as he understood the procedure of this clause, the suggested method was that the licensing justices, whoever they were, should meet together and draw up a scheme, and in drawing up that scheme they would

  1001
  have considerable and important powers, the exercise of which would entail very large financial considerations for a large number of people. As he understood it, none of these people would have any opportunity of being heard before the licensing justices at all. Supposing the licensing bench were divided in opinion upon the drawing up of the scheme. The majority might take a very strong temperance view and want to reduce the licences in accordance with the statute, while the minority were in favour of granting licences to a larger number of places. The majority would carry the day, and the scheme would be sent to the Licensing Commission, who, after giving the licensing justices an opportunity of consulting with them, might make such alterations as they wished. The minority would be anxious to have the scheme altered. Were they alone to be heard, or were the majority alone to be heard? Was this consultation, moreover, to be in public, or were the public not to know what went on between the justices and the Commission? Before the Licensing Commission there would be thousands of pounds at stake, and nobody would be allowed to appear. The proprietor of a large seaside hotel would have no opportunity of appearing before either the justices or the Commission when the report of the majority of the justices came before them. What did the Government mean the procedure was to be in regard to the consultation between the justices and the Commission? Was it to be in public or not; were the parties to have any locus standi before either body at all, or could they send their views to the Commissioners? He thought the Solicitor-General would agree with him that this was somewhat a new departure from anything we had in English law
  1002
  at the present time. He considered that the public ought to be informed of the procedure which the Government proposed to establish.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 5, line 2, to leave out Clause 6."—(Mr. Samuel Roberts.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'first' in page 5, line 3, stand part of the Bill."
  SIR S. EVANS: I venture humbly to congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield on having moved an Amendment and made a speech without referring to the three gentlemen or the trio in London. It is quite clear who the licensing justices are. They have been actually defined ever since the year 1872, by Section 74 of the Act of that year, as the justices having jurisdiction in respect of the grant of new licences in the licensing districts as laid down in a previous Act, and amended by that Act. The hon. Member will find that provision throughout licensing legislation, and in the Acts of 1902 and 1904, the phrase "the licensing justices" is constantly used. The licensing justices who will have to prepare the schemes under Clause 6 when the Act comes into operation will be the licensing justices in the licensing districts. The word "reasonably" is a term importing a question of fact, and not a question of law, and I desire at the outset once and for all to say that I cannot give a legal definition of a particular word when that particular word is not capable of a definition. Everybody knows that the word "reasonably" is a question of fact, and is not capable of legal definition. I have no doubt the justices will act "reasonably" in making a scheme to extend over fourteen years. The great part of the

  1003
  speech of the hon. Member was really directed towards Clause 1, which compels the justices to make the reduction in accordance with the scale of the schedule, and Clause 6 is machinery to enable them to do it.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid there need not be a scale at all.
  SIR S. EVANS: But they are bound to reduce according to some scale, and if there is to be anybody who is to have control over the justices it is obvious that there must be some such machinery as this. As to the question of the hon. Member for Cambridge University, we have purposely left the procedure, as between the licensing justices acting locally on the one hand, and the Licensing Commission acting in London, or locally through themselves or their representatives, elastic. It is not a legal proceeding at all. ["Hear, hear."] I do not mean that it is an unlawful proceeding as the hon. and learned Member would rather indicate by his cheer, but it is a piece of administrative work. While the justices have locally to prepare a scheme the Licensing Commission in London must take all the circumstances into consideration, and there will be the fullest opportunity for the justices to communicate with the Commission and
  for the Commission to communicate with the justices. I have no doubt that the Commission will avail themselves of the opportunity they have of sending representatives down to the localities in order to see if the scheme ought to be modified or passed in its entirety. There will also be an opportunity for the minority to place their views before the Licensing Commission, and even a single justice will be able to communicate with that body. He will have the fullest right to lay his views before the Commission, and those views will be listened to and given such weight to as they deserve. We purposely have not made rules, is if this was a legal proceeding, and the proceedings will be of the most elastic kind. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will put us to the trouble of dividing on this particular clause. We must have machinery of this kind, and so far as the criticism to-night has gone it is not directed to this particular clause.
  MR. YOUNGERsaid they were obliged to divide against the clause, because they objected to subsection (4).
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 271; Noes, 91. (Division List No. 389.)

  AYES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Agnew, George William

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Cameron, Robert

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Barker, Sir John

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Clough, William

  Barnes, G. N.

  Branch, James

  Clynes, J. R.

  Beale, W. P.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Beauchamp, E.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Bell, Richard

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

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

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

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Jenkins, J.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

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

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Robinson, S.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Crooks, William

  Jowett, F. W.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Crossley, William J.

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Rose, Charles Day

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Kelley, George D.

  Rowlands, J.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Samuel S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

  Lambert, George

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Lamont, Norman

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Lehmann, R. C.

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

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sears, J. E.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Seddon, J.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Seely, Colonel

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Shackleton, David James

  Erskine, David C.

  Lynch, H. B.

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

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

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

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Ferens, T. R.

  Maclean, Donald

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Findlay, Alexander

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Snowden, P.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Maddison, Frederick

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Gill, A. H.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Marnham, F. J.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Glover, Thomas

  Massie, J.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Menzies, Walter

  Summerbell, T.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Mond, A.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Gulland, John W.

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Morgan, G. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

  Morrell, Philip

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morse, L. L.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Murray, Capt Hn. A. C. (Kincard.)

  Tomkinson, James

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

  Myer, Horatio

  Toulmin, George

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh

  Napier, T. B.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Verney, F. W.

  Harwood, George

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Vivian, Henry

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Nicholls, George

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Walsh, Stephen

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Walters, John Tudor

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Nuttall, Harry

  Walton, Joseph

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wardle, George G.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Waring, Walter

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pearce, Robet (Staffs, Leek)

  Wason, Rt Hn. E. (Clackmannan

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Hodge, John

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

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

  Hudson, Walter

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Radford, G. H.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Jackson, R. S.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Williamson, A.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  1006

  1007

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Winfrey, R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

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

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gretton, John

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

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

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hill, Sir Clement

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

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hills, J. W.

  Stanier, Beville

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Starkey John R.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Cave, George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Kerry, Earl of

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire

  Clive, Percy Archer

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

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

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  White, Patrick (Meath North)

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

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Courthope, G. Loyd

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

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Winterton, Earl

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Young, Samuel

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Younger, George

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

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

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Fell, Arthur

  Oddy, John James

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Forster, Henry William

  Percy, Earl

  Motion made, and Question, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned,"—(Mr. L. Harcourt,)—put, and agreed to.

  And, it being after half-past Ten of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 17th July, to put forthwith the Questions on the Amendments moved by the Government, of which Notice had been given, which were necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded at half-past Ten of the clock this day, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 11th November.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 5, line 34, after the word 'licences,' to insert the word 'proposed.'"
  "In page 5, line 36, to leave out the first word 'the,' and to insert the words 'any such.'"
  "In page 5, line 30, after the word 'licence,' to insert the words 'which they decide to extinguish.'"
  1008
  "In page 5, line 37, to leave out the words '1828 to 1906.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Bill, as amended to be further considered To-morrow.
  Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 31st July, adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at Eighteen minutes before Eleven o'clock.