Commons Sitting of 19 November 1908

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PETITIONS.
  ENFRANCHISEMENT OF WOMEN.
  Petition from Leytonstone, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND, 1907–8.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 18th November; Mr. Hobhouse]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 332.]
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Copy presented, of Annual Report of the Intelligence Division, Part II. Proceedings under the Destructive Insects and Pests Acts, 1877 and 1907, and Section 2, Subsection 3, of The Board of Agriculture Act, 1889, for the year 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CENSUS OF PRODUCTION ACT, 1906.
  Copy presented, of Rules made by the Board of Trade under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (CONTRACTS).
  Return ordered, "of all Contracts made in the United Kingdom for manufactured articles by the several Government Departments in the year ending

  1363
  the 31st day of March, 1908, either with contractors outside the United Kingdom or with contractors or agents who obtain the articles from Abroad (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 327, of Session 1907)."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Salaries of Minor Staff Officers of Income Tax Repayments Branch.
  MR. E. H. LAMB: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the minor stall officers serving in the Income-Tax Repayments Branch of the Inland Revenue Department, on a scale of £200 to £300 per annum, are receiving, as a result of promotion, less salary than if they had remained Second Division clerks under the new scale of pay established by the Order in Council of 21st December, 1907; and whether, in view of the fact that they must serve further periods, varying from ten to sixteen years, before they receive any benefit from their promotion, as compared with, the salary they would have received as Second Division clerks, he will take steps to arrange that these officers be given the salary they would have received if the scale for their posts had been £250 to £350.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative as regards the majority of these officers at any rate. The object of the Order in Council was to allow members of the Second Division the option of a present benefit in place of a future benefit, and those who took advantage of that option must necessarily appear to be placed in a better relative position than others to whom the Order in Council does not apply, when their immediate emoluments only are compared. The reasons for allowing this option did not apply in the case of the officers in question, but the maximum of their scale has recently been increased from £300 to £350. I am not prepared to make any further concession in their case.

  Irish Public-Houses under £5 Valuation.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Secretary to
  1364
  the Treasure if he can stare how many licensed public-houses in Ireland are valued at less than £1 and £3 respectively for the Poor Law valuation.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) I have not got this information and I do not think the considerable expenditure of labour and money which its preparation would involve would be justified.

  Recruiting of Post Office Telephone Staff.
  MR. SEDDON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the question of recruiting the telephone staffs by open competition, in the same manner as the telegraph department.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Burton.) The question of recruiting telephonists by means of open competitions has been fully considered. Candidates for such employment, besides having the prescribed educational knowledge, must possess certain qualifications, such as pitch of voice and clearness of enunciation, which cannot be tested except by personal examination; and the substitution of open competition for the present method of appointment by selection and nomination would not appear to be satisfactory.

  Extra Police in County Galway.
  MR. HAZLETON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of the extra police in County Galway and the amount charged for them against the county council; the number transferred from other counties and what counties they have been transferred from, as well as the number sent from the depot in Dublin; what is the legal quota allowed for the county and when if was filled up: whether any of the cost of the men required to fill it has been charged to the comity council; and whether any expenses for extra police were incurred by the county council be ore the quota was filled up.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The extra force in County Galway consists of one head constable and 345 sergeants and constables, and they are charged for at the following rates, viz.: Head constables

  1365
  £43 6s. per man per annum; sergeants and constables, £34 9s. 3d. per man per annum. The amount payable and due by the county council for extra police in respect of the year ended 30th September. 1908 is £8,055 10s. 9d. When the county

  Head Constables.

  Sergeants and Constables.

  From Reserve at Depot

  1

  57

  From County of Limerick

  —

  10

  From County of Kerry

  —

  10

  From County of Kildare

  —

  5

  From County of Wexford

  —

  4

  From County of Kilkenny

  —

  1

  From County of Wicklow

  —

  5

  1

  92

  By warrants issued subsequently that additional police establishment was in-

  Head Constables.

  Sergeants and Constables.

  From County of Antrim

  —

  15

  From County of Armagh

  —

  5

  From County of Cork, East Riding

  —

  10

  From County of Cork, West Riding

  —

  9

  From County of Donegal

  —

  13

  From County of Down

  —

  5

  From County of Dublin

  —

  10

  From County of Kerry

  —

  23

  From County of Kilkenny

  —

  29

  From County of Louth

  —

  2

  From County of Londonderry

  —

  5

  From County of Mayo

  —

  16

  From County of Monaghan

  —

  3

  From County of Queen's

  —

  7

  From County of Tipperary, South Riding

  —

  1

  From County of Tyrone

  —

  12

  From County of Waterford

  —

  8

  From County of Wexford

  —

  5

  From County of Wicklow

  —

  8

  From County of From Depot (Recruits)

  —

  67

  —

  253

  Already in County

  1

  92

  Grand Total

  1

  345

  The free quota of the county is 616 sergeants and constables, and has been
  was proclaimed in August 1907 the following detachments, which were then serving in it, became, by virtue of the proclamation and warrant under 6 Will. IV., c. 13, s. 13, an additional police establishment under that Act, viz.—
  creased by permanent transfers at various times, as follows—
  practically full since the redistribution of 1906. County councils are never

  1367
  charged for men required to fill deficiencies in the free force, any claims which are made being for men in excess of that force.

  Cookstown Creamery Instructor.
  MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) by whom was Mr. Carroll appointed as creamery instructor for the Cookstown district, and on whose recommendation; whether he underwent an examination for the position, and, if so, who were the examiners; whether, notwithstanding the dissatisfaction created among creamery owners and managers by this appointment, as evidenced by the fact that over three-fourths of the creameries withdrew from the 1907 summer surprise competitions, the Department has renewed the appointment in 1908; and whether, with a view to restoring the confidence of the trade in this portion of the Department's work, he will consider the advisability of having such appointments made in the future from among qualified creamery managers and by competitive examination.
  (Answered by Mr. T. W. Russell.) Mr. Carroll, after having been examined and recommended by the responsible officers of the Department, was appointed by Sir Horace Plunkett as instructor in dairying and was assigned by the Department to a northern district, with head-quarters at Cookstown, a position which he still holds. In reply to the concluding portion of the Question, I have merely to repeat the statement which I made in response to previous Questions of a like character, viz., that the Department are not prepared to confine the appointment of instructor in dairying to creamery managers, nor are they of opinion that appointment by competitive examination would secure the best men.

  Christmas Employment in the Post Office.
  MR. JOWETT: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to notices issued in provincial offices asking the staffs to recommend respectable men for temporary employment for Christmas
  1368
  pressure, and in which it is stated that men over fifty years of age should not be recommended; whether he will state why these men are barred from the Post Office portion of the proposals for the relief of unemployment; and whether he will take steps to have this proviso withdrawn.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) My attention has not previously been called to the notices referred to. But, in view of the exacting nature of the work at Christmas, I do not think the employment in the provinces of temporary men over fifty years of age is, as a general rule, desirable. It is a question, indeed, whether at the larger provincial offices the limit of age should not be fixed at forty-five, as in London.

  Penny Postage in America.
  MR. KING: To ask the Postmaster-General if he can give any figures showing the extent to which correspondence between this country and the United States of America has increased since the introduction of the penny postage between the two countries.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The Returns in the case of the homeward mails are not sufficiently complete for an estimate to be made of the increase in the American postings. With regard to the mails sent from this country, the net weight of letters and postcards for the first four weeks of September last was 35,600 pounds and for the first four weeks of October it was 45,340 pounds.

  The Unemployed and Christmas Work in the Post Office.
  SIR G. KEKEWICH: To ask the Postmaster General whether in the engagement of the extra stall for Christmas work, preference has been and will be given to men who are genuinely out of employment over those who are taking their holidays at that time or who are in receipt of a pension, seeing that many such persons have been employed in previous years.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The instructions issued provide that

  1369
  preference should be given to men who are genuinely unemployed; a man on holiday would not be regarded as eligible. A small number of places in London are allotted to ex-Army men who are supplied by the chief recruiting staff officer; and inquiry is not made whether any of these men are in receipt of pensions or on furlough preparatory to leaving the Colours.

  Bastardy Laws.
  MR. ROWLANDS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will consider the advisability of introducing a Bill to amend the Bastardy Laws, empowering boards of guardians, on paternity being proved, to obtain an order against the putative father of any bastard child born in the workhouse, charging such putative father with the cost incurred by the ratepayers for the maintenance both of the child and of the mother during the whole period of her residence in the house, such cost being limited to 5s. per week as in the case of ordinary bastardy orders.
  (Answered fry Mr. John Burns.) I am aware of the point raised in the Question. It is one that will, I have no doubt, be touched upon in the Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws, and pending their Report I do not consider that I could properly deal with it.

  Yacht Lake on Hackney Marshes.
  MR. BROOKE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received a communication from the Central (Unemployed) Body asking him to sanction a scheme for the establishment of a model yacht lake in Hackney Marshes; and, if so, whether he has been able to consider favourably this application.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The reply to the first part of the Question is in the negative. In the circumstances the second part of the Question does not arise.

  Croydon Distress Committee.
  MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: To ask the President of the Local Govern-
  1370
  ment Board whether he has received an application for a grant from the Croydon Distress Committee; whether he is aware that the financial resources of this committee are nearly exhausted, and that, consequently, it is only finding employment for a small number of men; and whether his Board will sanction the grant asked for without further delay.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have received an application in this case, and I informed the town council on the 4th instant that if they would carry out a proposed improvement scheme at Addiscombe Road I should be prepared to give £1,000 to the distress committee towards the cost of unskilled labour to be supplied by the committee. I am ready to make the payment at once on hearing from the town council.

  Local Government Loans.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will furnish the House with particulars as to the loans sanctioned by his Board up to date, in continuation of the White Paper recently published.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I will send my hon. friend particulars on this subject. I do not think another Parliamentary Paper need at present be issued with regard to it.

  Emigration of the Unemployed.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can give the number of emigrants, with their dependants, sent out by the Central (Unemployed) Body for London and by the provincial distress committees for the complete year 1907, together with the cost to the Central Body and the provincial committees, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The Returns which I have received are for the half year ending 30th September, 1907, and 31st March, 1908. The total number of persons assisted to emigrate during the year ended 31st March, 1908, by the Central (Unemployed) Body for London was 4,397, including 3,076 dependants, and by provincial distress

  1371
  committees 1,669, including 1,232 dependants. The cost incurred in the emigration of these persons by the Central (Unemployed) Body was £30,996 and by the provincial committees £11,784.

  Special Committees of Relief.
  MR. CLYNES: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state how many special committees have been, set up in accordance with the Unemployed Workmen Act in those counties and county boroughs where no distress committees have been created; and if he will state in how many, and what, counties and county boroughs this provision of the Act has not been complied with.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) Returns have not been received as to these cases. I regret, therefore, that I am not in a position to give my hon. friend the particulars for which he asks.

  Unemployed Women in Manchester.
  MR. CLYNES: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received communications respecting the extent of distress amongst unemployed women in Manchester; whether he is aware that no work has been found for the majority of the registered women; and whether he can, by a grant of money or by other means, assist in meeting the urgent necessities of the unemployed women.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I received a communication on this subject from the town clerk of Manchester in April last, but at that time there was no Parliamentary grant available for the purposes of the Unemployed Workmen. Act. I do not find that I have since received any communication, with regard to the matter, and hence I am unable to express any opinion, with regard to it. If any application is made to me by the distress committee it will receive my consideration.

  Runcorn Vaccination Case.
  MR. LUPTON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if the nine weeks old female child of Mr. Edward Johnson, of 14, Albert Street, Runcorn, was vaccinated
  1372
  on 29th September last when the mother was suffering from an abscess on the breast, which led to the death of the child within about sixteen, days of vaccination; and if he will institute an inquiry with a view to the prosecution of the medical man for negligence and breach of Section 4, Clause 1 of the Vaccination Act, 1898.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The mother appears to have been suffering from an abscess when the child was vaccinated, but the public vaccinator informs me that he was not aware of this. In any case, Section 1 (4) of the Act of 1898 does not apply in this instance. That subsection only deals with cases where the child cannot safely be vaccinated owing to the condition of the house in which the child resides, or to the recent prevalence of infectious disease in the district.

  Customs Statistical Department Staff.
  MR. T. E. RICHARDS: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is prepared to tike steps whereby the senior abstractors of the Statistical Department of His Majesty's Customs may be able to count the whole of their unestablished service in qualifying for pensions.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) I must refer the hon. Member to the replies given by my predecessors to Questions on this subject.

  Factory Inspectors.
  MR. KING: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present number of factory inspectors of all classes; and what are the corresponding numbers for the year 1905.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The total authorised strength, of the factory inspectorate is now 200. In 1905 it was 154.

  Motor Traffic on the Embankment.
  MR. BOULTON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the danger to the public arising from the fast motor

  1373
  traffic, on the Embankment and to the apparent futility of appeals to Government Departments to cheek the excessive speed of cars; and if he will give the necessary instructions to have policemen stationed on point duty at intervals along the roadway to insure that at such points at any rate pedestrians can make the attempt to cross the Embankment under the protection of a constable.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The Commissioner of Police is endeavouring to secure the provision of more refuges on the Embankment, but he docs not think the volume of traffic there is so heavy as to justify the stationing of a number of constables for the purpose suggested. I am having inquiry made, and will inform my hon. friend if I find any further steps are necessary and practicable.

  Home Office Orders.
  MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, previous to issuing Orders Nos. 806, 807, 808, and 809, relating to florists' workshops and Scottish hospital laundries, he consulted the employees engaged in the trades.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Before making the Orders I had received

  Council Schools.

  Voluntary Schools.

  Number

  1,066

  720

  Average number of Registers

  324,607

  102,857

  Meals for School Children.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether his Department has advised local education authorities that they themselves must attempt to raise voluntary funds for the provision of meals before applying for authority to put the provisions of Clause 3 of the Provision of Meals Act into operation.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I beg to refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave to a similar Question on 22nd October.
  a petition signed by a considerable number of those employed in the florist trade, and I had sent copies of all four Orders, while in draft, to the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress, in accordance with the arrangement existing between that committee and the Home Office, for communication to the unions or organsiations concerned.

  Single School Areas in Wales.
  MR. WALTER ROCH: To ask the President of the Board of Education if he can give the number of single voluntary school areas in Wales for the year 1907–8.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The number was 307 on 31st March last.

  Schools and Scholars in Wales.
  MR. WALTER ROCH: To ask the President of the Board of Education if he can give the number of council and voluntary public elementary schools, respectively, in Wales; and the number of scholars on the school registers attending at such schools, respectively, for the year 1907–8.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The figures for 1907–8 are not yet available. Those for 1906–7 are as follows—

  Education Proposals.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether his statement that the Government is determined, in any arrangement agreed to by them for a settlement of the education question, that passive resistors' grievances must be finally wiped out, is to be taken as meaning that the Government propose that in future no public money derived either from rates or taxes shall be used for denominational teaching in elemental schools.

  1375
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I must ask my hon. friend to await the publication of the proposals of the Government on the education question.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: To ask the President of the Board of Education if, in view of the public interest taken in his proposals for a settlement of the education controversy, and the conflicting reports of the tenour of the arguments used by him in his address to Nonconformist Members of this House, he will now publish the official note taken during the delivery of the speech.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) No, Sir. The address referred to was given at a private meeting, and it is not proposed to publish the report.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: To ask the President of the Board of Education if, in his efforts to arrive at a settlement of the education controversy, he proposes to concede what is known as the right of entry within school hours subject to certain reservations, including a provision that the cost of giving sectarian teaching shall not fall on public funds; and, if so, whether he proposes to include in such cost a due proportion of the expenditure on the school building and of the general maintenance and administrative charges.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I must ask my hon. friend to await the publication of the proposals of the Government on the education question.

  Distribution of Education Fund.
  MR. WILKIE: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the statement issued by the representatives of the authorities in the educational areas adversely affected by the substituted scheme of distribution of the balance of the education fund; if so, in view of the statement of the Government as to the education fund being distributed according to the educational necessities of the districts, can he see his way to re-arrange or modify the distribution of the education fund on the prin-
  1376
  ciples laid down in the statement referred to.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I am fully acquainted with the views of the authorities in question, as these have been presented to me by two successive deputations. I am also aware that these views are strongly opposed to those of the representatives of a greater number of districts. The distribution of the fund, as shown in the Return ordered to be printed on 3rd June, conforms to the instructions of Clause 15 (2) of the Bill, and I do not see my way at present to propose any other mode of distribution.

  Lanarkshire Education Grant.
  MR. MENZIES: To ask the Secretary for Scotland what will be the average increase in the amount of Government grants to elementary schools in Scotland after the second scheme of allocation is effected; and what will be the increase in particular to Lanarkshire.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) While it is confidently anticipated that there will be a substantial increase in the amount of grant to elementary schools generally under the provisions of the Bill, it is not possible at present to estimate the amount of increase with any exactness, and it is inexpedient to give figures which might possibly be misleading.

  New Law Courts.
  MR. BOWLES: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can say why it has become necessary to destroy the open space at the western side of the Law Courts by erecting additional Law Courts upon it; and what will be the estimated cost of these proposed erections.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) To open space on the western side of the present Law Courts has always been reserved for the purpose of erecting additional ones. These being now required, the work has been put in hand at an estimated total cost of £95,000, of which £5,000 was voted in the Office of Works Estimates in this House on 2nd April this year.

  Pension Officers.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the list of successful applicants under the Old-Age Pensions Act in the Carnarvon pension officer's district and the Swaffham pension officer's district, published in the Carnarvon Herald and the Eastern Daily Press; and whether the Government are prepared to take any steps to prevent the publication in future of the names of successful applicants in the Press.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have no knowledge of the source of the information published in the cases referred to. So far as the pension officers are concerned, the Board of Inland Revenue have issued a circular directing that, except as laid down in their instructions to pension officers, no officer in their service shall communicate any information or statistics relating to old-age pensions otherwise than to his official superiors or to the pension committee with which he is connected. There is, however, no statutory obligation to secrecy upon the local pension committee, and it is within the discretion of that committee to publish a list of the pensions awarded, if they think proper to do so. I do not think it is at all desirable that the names of successful applicants should be made public, and I hope that the pension committees will, as a rule, abstain from issuing them to the Press.

  Wellington (Somerset) Pensions Officials.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the intention of the Government that the administration of the Old-Age Pensions Act was to be dissociated directly and indirectly from the administration of the Poor Law, whether his attention has been called to the administration of the Act in the urban district of Wellington, Somerset, where the pensions subcommittee holds its meetings at the union workhouse, the clerk to the committee is clerk to the guardians, and six members of the sub-committee are guardians; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any steps to secure that the intention of the Government shall be carried out.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I agree with the hon. Member that it is highly undesirable that a pensions sub-committee should hold its meetings at a union workhouse, but there are no provisions in the Act which would prevent them doing so if they think fit. I hope, however, that this practice will not become general. The members of sub-committees are appointed, under subsection 2 of Section 8 of the Act, by the local pension committee, and I have no power to interfere in the matter.

  Check on Pension Officers' Work.
  MR. SMEATON: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether supervisors have been appointed to verify and check the reports and proceedings of pension officers in pursuance of the instructions issued by the Board of Inland Revenue in September last; and, if so, how is it that no mention is made of these supervisors in the regulations recently issued.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) All supervisors and officers of excise have been appointed by the Treasury to be pension officers under Section 10 of the Old-Age Pensions. Act. The term "pension officer" in the regulations, therefore, includes the supervisor. All pension officers of a rank below that of supervisor are required by Departmental instructions to submit their reports to the supervisor for approval before they are forwarded to the pension committee.

  Poor Relief and Old-Age Pensions.
  MR. ROGERS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have decided that Poor Law relief granted to a husband for the use of his wife disqualifies the husband but not the wife for receipt of an old-age pension; whether the effect of this decision is to annul the pauper disqualification in the case of all married women, seeing that Poor Law relief is always granted to the husband, whether for his use, for the use of his wife, or for the use of both; and whether, in view of the importance of this decision, he will take immediate steps to instruct the Commissioners to bring it to the notice of

  1379
  pension officers and local pension committees.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The question is one of law, upon which no authoritative decision can be arrived at until it has been settled by the Local Government Board upon an appeal. In cases in which pension officers have sought legal advice through the Board of Inland Revenue they have been advised in the sense indicated in the Question. But I do not think it would be desirable to issue any general instructions until the question has been decided upon appeal.

  Instructions to Pension Officers.
  LORD R. CECIL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the instructions issued to pension officers on 1st September last purported to be issued under the authority of the old-age pensions regulations; and whether there was anything on the instructions to show that they were confidential.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Article 34 of the old-age pension regulations requires pension officers in the execution of their office to observe and follow the orders, instructions, and directions of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. The instructions given from time to time to pension officers by the Board of Inland Revenue are issued through the ordinary departmental channels under the general powers possessed by the Board, in common with other public Departments, to give directions to officers under their Departmental control. Officers are required by the ordinary rules of the public service to treat all instructions so issued as confidential in character, and it is not regarded as necessary, nor is it usual, that the communication in which the instruction is given should be specially so marked.

  Professor Marshall's Memorandum on the Fiscal Question.
  MR. FELL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the object of the publication at the present time by His Majesty's Treasury of the Memorandum by Processor Marshall on the fiscal question; that was the cost of it; under which
  1380
  Vote will it be included; and will the Treasury publish and circulate in the same way a reply to it and to the arguments and disputed statements contained in it.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Professor Marshall's Memorandum on the Fiscal Policy of International Trade, which was prepared for the late Government, has been published now in consequence of a pledge given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Dulwich on 2nd June last in the course of the debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. The hon. Member had challenged certain figures which I had quoted in regard to the cost of living in Germany, and, in accordance with the invariable custom of this House, we immediately agreed to lay upon the Table the document from which they had been extracted. The cost of printing the Memorandum is £12, which will be included under the Stationery Office Vote. The same reasons would not apply for incurring the cost of publishing further Memoranda on the same subject.

  Pension Funds and Income Tax.
  MR. VIVIAN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if sums of money contributed out of annual profits by employers of labour and handed over to trustees to be invested and used for the purpose of pensions for their old and disabled workpeople are liable to income-tax duty.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) It is not the practice to charge with income-tax sums of money contributed by employers and handed over to trustees for the purpose of providing pensions for their old and disabled workpeople.

  Income Tax and Death Duty Returns.
  MR. ELLIS DAVIES: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can see his way to arrange that in future the figures relating to income-lax and death duties issued by his Department shall be given for Wales and Monmouth separately from England.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) It is not possible under existing arrangements to separate the figures relating

  1381
  to income-tax and death-duties for Wales and Monmouth and for England respectively. Several of the collecting areas, such as Chester, Hereford, and Shrewsbury, include districts on both sides of the border, and, moreover, the duties are not necessarily paid locally, but are in many cases collected in London.

  Scottish Volunteer Ranges.
  MR. WATT: To ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the fact that many volunteer shooting ranges in Scotland are put in charge of well-paid artisans, while many Army pensioners in the neighbourhood are quite competent and willing to fill these positions; and if he will by circular or otherwise bring pressure to bear on the authorities so that a preference may be given to those who are not in receipt of an artisan's wage.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The War Office has received no representations on this subject. This is entirely a question for the County Associations, and it is not considered desirable to interfere with their discretion in the matter.

  Emigrated Reservists.
  MAJOR RENTON: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of emigrated reservists up to 1st November last, and how many of these belong to the Royal Engineers, Royal Artillery, cavalry, and infantry, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) On 1st November 5,948 Army Reservists had permission to reside abroad, including over 1,000 who were at sea. Of this number there were 327 Royal Engineers, 642 Royal Horse Artillery and Royal Field Artillery, 506 Royal Garrison Artillery, 548 cavalry, and 3,407 infantry, including Foot Guards.

  Cheap Ammunition for Rifle Clubs.
  MR. GIBBS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to lay upon the Table a statement showing the conditions under which ammunition will be supplied to rifle clubs at reduced rates.
  1382
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The question is still under consideration.

  Clonelly Evicted Tenants.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have acquired any land for restoration of evicted tenants near Clonelly, County Fermanagh, in connection with which they could consider the claim for restoration of Mr. John Graham, of Banagh, Clonelly, an evicted tenant whose claim has been favourably noted by the Commissioners; and can he state how many (if any) evicted tenants in County Fermanagh have been restored under the Evicted Tenants Act and otherwise, respectively, through the intervention of the Estates Commissioners.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners do not appear to have acquired any land near Clonelly for the restoration of evicted tenants. They have noted John Graham's name for consideration in the allotment of such untenanted land as they may acquire. Up to the present, twenty-nine evicted tenants or their representatives have been reinstated or provided with holdings in County Fermanagh.

  Marquess of Ely's Fermanagh Lands.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have acquired or agreed to purchase any untenanted lands on the estate of the Marquis of Ely in Fermanagh; and, if so, what is the acreage thereof; and will the Estates Commissioners, in dealing with the untenanted lands, consider the claims of evicted tenants of the county, inasmuch as there is very little land in the county that could be acquired under the Evicted Tenants Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Proceedings have been instituted under the Irish Land Act, 1903, for the sale of over 700 acres of untenanted land on this estate to the Estates Commissioners, but the Commissioners are not yet in a position to enter into a formal agreement to

  1383
  purchase. If the Commissioners acquire the land, they will consider in its allotment the applications of the evicted tenants in County Fermanagh who have been noted as suitable.

  Ely Estate Evicted Tenant.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application for restoration, under the Evicted Tenants Act, from William M'Cullagh, of Drumcose, on the Ely Estate, whose grandfather was evicted from the lands of Corsicon on that estate in 1876; and if, as appears, the applicant is not within the benefit of that Act, the Commissioners will, in the pending sale of Lord Ely's estate, provide a holding for the applicant under Section 2 of the Purchase Act, 1903, as the son of a tenant of a holding on the estate, on which basis he appears to be qualified to receive an advance.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) M'Cullagh's application as the representative of an evicted tenant does not come within the provisions either of the Evicted Tenants Act or of the Irish Land Act, 1903. His application for an allotment under Section 2 of the latter Act, as the son of a tenant on the Ely estate, will be considered by the Estates Commissioners when the estate is being dealt with in its order of priority.

  Kilburryhut Evicted Tenant.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether an alternative holding has yet been found for Mrs. Maher, evicted tenant, Kilburryhut, County Tipperary; and if so, how soon is she likely to be placed in possession.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners report that they have not yet been able to provide a holding for Mrs. Margaret Maher, but her case is at present in the hands of an inspector with this object.

  Boscrea Labourers Cottage Scheme.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Local Government
  1384
  Board for Ireland issued an Order, entitled the Roscrea (No. 1) Rural District Labourers (Unopposed) Order, 1907, which authorised the building of thirty-nine labourers' cottages under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1906; that the council of the Roscrea (No. 1) Rural District, on 14th October last, decided to apply to, and did subsequently apply to, the Local Government Board for sanction to a loan of £7,430 to acquire the necessary land and build the thirty-nine cottages authorised by the Order mentioned, the loan being at the rate of £190 10s. 3d. per cottage and plot; and, seeing that the loan is based on prices for building, fencing, and other expenses approved by the Local Government Board, and for land at prices fixed by the arbitrator appointed by the said Board, will he explain why the Local Government Board have written to the said rural district council sanctioning a loan of £6,825 only, being at the rate of £175 per cottage; is he aware that this decision of the Board practically blocks the working of the Labourers Acts in this rural district, where the labourers are living in houses condemned as unfit for human habitation, and are living in misery waiting the provision of suitable and sanitary dwellings under the Labourers Acts; and, under these circumstances, will he arrange that the necessary sanction will be given to the full amount of the loan, which is the lowest possible sum at which these cottages and plots can be provided.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The facts are as stated in the Question. The loan which the Local Government Board have sanctioned is £5 per cottage above the usual amount. Should it prove insufficient, the Board will consider the propriety of authorising the district council to obtain a supplemental loan in the open market. The Board are anxious to provide as many cottages and plots as possible out of the limited fund available for the purpose and cannot, therefore, sanction loans at high rates to some district councils to the prejudice of others having equal claims.

  Small Holdings in Derbyshire.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the hon. Member for

  1385
  South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether 153 applications for 2,284 acres have been sent in to the county council of Derbyshire under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act; why no information is forthcoming as to the steps taken to meet these applications; and whether the Board of Agriculture can do anything to assist the county council to satisfy the applicants.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The county council have not quite completed their inquiries into the applications received, but so far as they have gone it appears that the majority of the applicants are suitable and the county council are endeavouring to obtain land. One of our inspectors has recently conferred with the council, and we hope to receive several schemes in the near future.

  University College Grants.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the Report of the Permanent Advisory Committee on University College Grants was received by the Treasury, and when it will be published.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The Report was received by the Treasury on 25th July last. The Committee's' recommendations affect the Board of Education as well as the Treasury, and are still under consideration by the former Department. It is not proposed to publish the Report until decisions have been arrived at upon the various recommendations contained therein. It is not yet possible to say definitely how soon that will be.

  Hammersmith Guardians' Loan.
  MR. CLYNES: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether a loan was sanctioned for the purchase of the land behind the Hammersmith guardians' office;" and whether, when the land was obtained, there was any stipulation that it should not be used for sand extraction or in a manner to depreciate the land as a building site.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) A loan was sanctioned for the purchase of
  1386
  a piece of land which includes that referred to in the Question. The land, which is freehold, was conveyed to the guardians free from any restrictive covenants whatsoever.

  Recouped Poor Relief and Old Age Pensions.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether a person who is in receipt of Poor Law relief from the guardians, the amount of which relief is entirely recouped to the guardians by the relatives of such person, is, on the ground of the receipt of poor relief, disqualified under Section 3 of the Old-Age Pensions Act, 1908, for receiving an old-age pension; whether, in calculating the means of married couples under subsection (2) of Section 4 of the Act, the pension officers are entitled, in those cases where the wife possesses no means whatsoever, to bring in half the amount of the weekly wage earned by the husband for the purpose of calculating the means of the wife; whether the course adopted by the pension officers is correct when they take the full wage of a workman for the purpose of depriving him of his right to a pension and then take half of the same wage for the purpose of reducing the wife's claim for a pension; and, if the view adopted by the pension officer is correct, whether the Government will forthwith take steps to sweep away this anomaly.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The first part of the Question is among the points upon which I am awaiting the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. The procedure in cases to which the second and third parts of the Question relate is governed by subsections (1) and (2) of Section 4 of the Old-Age Pensions Act, 1908. The effect of these enactments is that the means of a person being one of a married couple living together in the same house are calculated in precisely the same way as the means of a person who is not married, viz., at the amount received or enjoyed by him or her individually, with this exception, that the means of such a person cannot be taken as being less than half the joint means of the couple. Thus if the means

  1387
  of a husband are £50 a year and the means of the wife are nil, the husband's means are to be taken at £50 a year and the wife's at not less than £25 a year. The Government are not proposing to amend this provision.

  Widows of Foreigners and Old-Age Pensions.
  MR. B. S. STRAUS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a widow of a foreign subject, although she has never been out of this country, is disqualified for receiving an old-age pension.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Answer is in the affirmative, unless the claimant has subsequently recovered her British nationality by naturalisation and resided in the United Kingdom for at least twenty years since such naturalisation.

  Territorial Target Practice.
  COLONEL LONG: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to give prizes or other rewards for efficiency in shooting to members of the national Territorial Forces, or in any way to encourage target practice by the rank and file of these forces.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The grants to associations are calculated to allow of expenditure in giving prizes for rifle shooting, in the same way as expenditure was permissible under the Vounteer conditions.

  Territorial Officers' Medals.
  SIR FRANCIS LAYLAND-BARRATT: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether officers of the Territorial Forces are eligible for the grant of the Territorial Force efficiency medal; if so, whether a Territorial officer is entitled to reckon half the time he has served in the ranks as qualifying service for the award of such efficiency medal; and whether, if an officer of the Territorial Forces has received the Territorial efficiency medal, he is thereby debarred from receiving in the future the long-service medal.
  1388
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) A Territorial officer if awarded a decoration, not a medal, for long and meritorious service; and service in the ranks reckons towards the qualifying service at the rate of half the time so served. The conditions for the grant of this decoration were published in Army Order 268 of this month.

  Poona Officers' Houses.
  CAPTAIN FABER: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state whether officers in native regiments at Poona, in India, have been inhabiting houses where rats had died of plague; whether these houses were vacated in order to have the flooring repaired; and whether, when the officers returned from camp, they found the flooring in exactly the same state as before, although they pay over £40 a year rent for the lodging; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) The Secretary of State has not received any information from India regarding the condition of the houses occupied by officers of the native regiments at Poona. These are private houses rented by officers, and if there is any complaint of their being in an insanitary condition it would be dealt with by the cantonment authority under the Cantonments Act.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  H.M.S. "Diadem"—Shipwright's Death from Enteric Fever.
  MR. JENKINS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now state what reply is to be given to the application for compassionate allowance made by the widow of the shipwright who was engaged on H.M.S. "Diadem" at Chatham Dockyard, and died from enteric fever.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,): A compassionate grant of £10 will be made.
  MR. JENKINS: In consideration of the fact that this workman contracted the disease which caused his death while

  1389
  working in a very unhealthy confined space on this ship, cannot the right hon. Gentleman see his way to give a greater compassionate allowance?
  MR. MCKENNA: The Board of Admiralty do not admit the facts stated by the hon. Member.
  MR. JENKINS: But did not the inquiry prove the case to a certain extent?
  MR. MCKENNA: I do not admit that was the result of the inquiry.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Is it not the case that on the morning of the inquiry special workmen were employed in cleaning out the ship prior to the arrival of the inspectors?
  MR. MCKENNA: There is no evidence at all that the disease was contracted by this man on board this ship.

  Portland Naval Recreation Ground.
  MR. BOWERMAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for South West Ham, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that a number of sailors were sent ashore recently at Portland to do labourers' work on the naval recreation ground, which has usually been done by ordinary general labourers; and, in consequence of hundreds of men being out of employment there, whether he is prepared to stop such work being done by sailors.
  MR. MCKENNA: The recreation ground has been largely made by the employment of fleet labour over a long period, and no sufficient provision has been made in the Estimates to permit of the work being done otherwise. It is not proposed to make any change in the practice in such cases.

  Naval Building Contracts.
  MR. WILKIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can now state the number of vessels of the different types that have been placed in the hands of the builders, specifying the names of the firms; and, in view of the numbers of workers unemployed, will he use his influence with the firms to expedite the work on hand.
  MR. MCKENNA: The whole of the orders have not yet been placed, although it is expected that the remaining vessels will be ordered very shortly. In view of this fact, it is not desirable at present to give the names of the firms. I understand that the firms will expedite the work as much as possible, in view of their anxiety to give employment to their men.
  MR. WILKIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us a definition of the word "shortly"?
  MR. MCKENNA: I hope to-morrow.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: Will the firms be allowed to expedite those vessels to any extent they wish?
  MR. MCKENNA: We are willing to take the vessels as soon as the firms are ready to hand them over to us. We do not pay extra on that account.
  MR. GRETTON: Has work been commenced on any of the contract vessels mentioned in the Question?
  MR. MCKENNA: I should like notice of that Question.

  Dundee as a Naval Base.
  MR. WILKIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can now state whether he has received the Report of his officials who have visited Dundee with regard to the suitability of Dundee as a base for submarines; if so, whether the report is favourable to the adoption of Dundee for such a purpose; and, in view of the prevailing unemployment, whether he will consider the advisability of making an early commencement with the necessary work connected therewith.
  MR. MCKENNA: The report in question has been received and is under consideration, and a decision will be reached at the earliest possible date. It cannot be said that the utilisation of a dock or basin at Dundee by vessels that might happen to be there can materially reduce the present unemployment, as no works are contemplated by the Admiralty at Dundee.

  Dockyard Establishments.
  MR. JENKINS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the number of workmen employed in His Majesty's dockyards at the end of 1906, and the number employed at the present time.
  MR. MCKENNA: The numbers borne at the end of 1906 were, 27,346. The numbers borne on the 7th November, 1908, were 32,984.

  Dockyard Employees' Petitions.
  MR. JENKINS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state when the replies will be given to the petitions which were presented in June last by the various grades and trades of workmen employed in His Majesty's dockyards.
  MR. MCKENNA: It is anticipated that it will be possible to announce the replies to the large number of petitions which have been presented this year by the various classes of dockyard employees some time in February next.

  Greenock Torpedo Factory.
  MR. BOWERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that, at the Government Torpedo Factory, Greenock, about forty masons have been suspended from work for an indefinite period; and whether he will inquire into the matter, with a view to reinstating these men, and so to that extent relieving the state of unemployment now prevailing in Greenock.
  MR. MCKENNA: The Admiralty have let this work to contract. Unless we are of opinion that the contractor will fail to carry out his obligations, for which we have at present no grounds, we are not in a position to interfere with the contractor's discretion.

  Peterhead Harbour of Refuge.
  MR. CURRAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that at the Admiralty works in connection with the National Harbour of Refuge, Peterhead, several batches of workmen have been dismissed; whether he will state the reason for these dismissals; and whether he will have the
  1392
  discharged workmen reinstated and also have as many men employed on the works as possible in view of the present state of unemployment.
  MR. MCKENNA: It is the invariable custom at Peterhead Harbour Works to discharge workmen when the weather conditions prevent certain work being continued. I am glad to say, however, that the discharges this year have been fewer than usual. The work is intended chiefly to be carried out by convict labour. It is not feasible to employ more free labour at this time of year.
  MR. CURRAN: Why is convict labour used at this time of unemployment to the disadvadvantage of the honest industrial artisan?
  MR. MCKENNA: Convict labour is employed because it is very desirable to give the convicts something to do.

  Reform of Indian Administration.
  SIR H. COTTON; I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to state whether any announcement of the measures of reform in India which are foreshadowed in His Majesty's gracious proclamation will be made to the House during the present session.
  THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,): The Secretary of State expects to be in a position to make a statement before the end of the session.
  SIR H. COTTON: Cannot the hon. Gentleman give me a more definite Answer?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I have answered the Question on the Paper.

  Alleged Police Corruption in India.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the revelations of police corruption and perjury at Midnapur and elsewhere in India, and of the effect of this in bringing Courts of law into contempt amongst the natives, it is proposed to cause a searching inquiry to be made into this and similar cases.

  1393
  I beg also to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can communicate to the House the facts concerning the collapse of the conspiracy case at Midnapur; whether the chief witness in the prosecution stated in the Court that his former evidence had been a concoction given at the instigation of the police; whether the charge against the accused was thereupon withdrawn; whether the Rajah of Narajole and twenty-three others, many of them leading citizens of Midnapur, were discharged; whether he can say how long these men had been kept in prison on a false charge; and what compensation it is proposed to pay them.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I will answer the hon. Member's two Questions on this subject together. On the 9th November twenty-two of the accused in the Midnapur conspiracy case were released after periods of detention averaging about a month. The informer who was the principal witness against them retracted his former statements, which he said had been elicited by threats and promises on the part of the police. There are three prisoners still under trial. When the judicial proceedings are concluded full inquiry will, no doubt, be made by the local Government into this case. It is not proposed to pay compensation to the accused who have been discharged. I may add that there was a comprehensive review of police administration in 1902.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Were these accused arrested on the strength of the concocted evidence of these so-called informers, and does not a claim for compensation therefore arise?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I do not quite understand the word "claim," but I gather from the newspapers that one or more of these men who were prisoners will raise an action in the Courts.
  MR. REES: May I ask whether the police who were guilty of corruption and perjury in this case were Europeans or natives of India; and, if the latter, whether admiration for native methods of administration can logically stop short of approval of native police methods?
  SIR H. COTTON: Are these three prisoners still on trial the three men who were informers in the first instance?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I am not aware; I should like notice of that.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Will the hon. Gentleman cause a searching inquiry to be made into this and similar cases?
  MR. BUCHANAN: The hon. Gentleman assumes guilt in a large number of cases which are not yet proved. With regard to the general investigation as to the conduct of the police, such an investigation was held a very few years ago, and the Secretary of State does not propose to institute another general inquiry.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the last twelve months there have been four cases almost identical with the one here referred to, and does not that justify an inquiry of some kind?
  MR. BUCHANAN: The hon. Member must not assume that in this particular case the allegations are proved.
  MR. REES: Were the police concerned Europeans or natives of India?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I think they were natives of India.
  SIR H. COTTON: Is it the fact that the principal informer in this case who retracted his confession said he did so under the influence of torture by the police?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I am not aware of that.

  Indian Railway Contracts with Belgium.
  MR. JAMES HOPE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India if he can inform the House whither any bounty or bonus was offered by the Belgian authorities to the firm which recently secured a contract for screws required for the Government railways of India.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of Sate has no knowledge whether the Belgian firm referred to is in the receipt of any bounties from the Belgian Government.

  Sedition in Bengal.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the sedition which prevails in Bengal, the Government will postpone the announcement of measures of reform in India till after the conclusion of the present session.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Answer that I have just given to the hon. Member for East Nottingham is, I think, at the same time a sufficient answer to this Question.

  Indian Government and the Suppression of Sedition.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India proposes to take any steps in order to strengthen its own hands for the suppression of sedition and the punishment of crime.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The question is under the consideration of the Government of India. The Secretary of State is unable at present to make any statement on the subject.

  Treatment of Indian Geological Students.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that a number of students of geology from the Presidency College, Calcutta, went for practical training to the Singhbhum district under Professor Das Gupta, and at Chaibasa were taken by Mr. Carey, the district magistrate, for a band of Anarchists, and, despite the explanation of the professor as to the purpose of the students, a cordon of police was placed round the Zilla school, and the names, addresses and thumb prints of the students demanded; and whether, in view of the fact that every year these students makes a short tour during the Poojah recess for practical training at the expense of the Government, he will suggest to the Government the necessity of the district magistrates in particular being informed of the practice of the Presidency College
  1396
  respecting its students, so that such annoyance and disgrace may not again be perpetrated.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State has no knowledge of the incident referred to. If the facts are as stated, the college authorities will no doubt, take whatever action is necessary.

  Naval Visits to the Colonies.
  SIR JOHN RANDLES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial Office has been made aware of the gratification consequent on the visit of a portion of the Fleet to South Africa; is the advantage of visits to British Dominions over the sea of ships of His Majesty's Navy being considered by the Colonial Office; and, if not, will they endeavour to arrange with the Admiralty for such visits from time to time as may be deemed desirable in the interest of the Empire.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,): The Secretary of State is well aware of the gratification with which the visit of the second cruiser squadron to Durban has been received in South Africa, and he fully appreciates the advantages of periodical visits to the Dominions of ships of His Majesty's Navy. The Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty share his views on the matter but the visits must necessarily be subject to the exigencies of the service.

  Alleged Flogging of Zulus.
  MR. LEHMANN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government have any information respecting the progress of the investigation which, on 18th September last, Sir M. Nathan reported to be then proceeding into the allegations that had been made by Miss Colenso as to the flogging of Zulus; and has the attention of the Secretary of State been called to the letters which were addressed by her to the Natal officials on this subject, dated 3rd September, 3rd, 5th, and 20th ultimo, in the last of which she represents I its urgency to the Attorney-General of

  1397
  Natal, on the ground that the recent thrashings and threatenings of Zulus under martial law have a vital bearing on much of the alleged evidence against Dinizulu.
  COLONEL SEELY: No, Sir. I regret that I am not at present in a position to add anything to the information given in the last Blue-book, Cd. 4328, but further inquiry shall be made of the Governor by cable.

  Protection of Indian Subjects in Natal.
  MR. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the case of an employer of Indian indentured labour in Natal, named Armitage, who last month was convicted of knocking down one of his coolies, jumping upon him, and deliberately cutting off the lobe of his right ear with a penknife; whether he is aware that the defendant justified his action by pleading that the Government allowed the cutting of sheep's ears, and that the penalty imposed was a fine of £20; and what steps His Majesty's Ministers propose to take to secure a more efficient protection of His Majesty's Indian subjects domiciled in Natal but unrepresented in the Parliament of that Colony.
  COLONEL SEELY: I have seen a short account of this case in the Press, which does not give all the details contained in the Question, but I have no official information as to its accuracy. The Secretary of State has, of course, no power to interfere with the sentences of the Courts, but as it is alleged that the prisoner was an employer of indentured labour, he is making inquiry of the Natal. Government with regard to the case.

  Southern Nigerian Imports of Spirits.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if spirits are imported into Southern Nigeria from the United Kingdom and from Germany on the same terms of payment of duty; and if they can be imported into German East Africa and into the Cameroons on the same equal terms.
  COLONEL SEELY: The answer to both parts of the Question is in the affirmative.

  Straits Settlements Opium Commission.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLOR: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Report of the Opium Commission of the Straits Settlements has yet been received at the Colonial Office; and if he is prepared to make it public.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Report has not yet been received.

  Opium Traffic in Hong Kong.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLOR: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received from the Governor of Hong Kong his proposals for dealing with the opium traffic there; and whether anything has yet been actually done by way of suppressing the opium dens there, as called for by His Majesty's Government in their telegram of May last.
  COLONEL SEELY: Further investigation has led the Governor to modify his proposals, and I understand that his final recommendations are now on their way. Meanwhile it has not been possible to take action.

  Hong Kong Budget.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLOR: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the Annual Budget of Hong-Kong for the coming year, introduced in September last, any provision whatever was made to take the place of revenue hitherto coming from the opium dens there.
  COLONEL SEELY: No, Sir; the Colonial Government could hardly be expected to take the action suggested pending the consideration of the Governor's proposals, which are, as I have explained already, on their way.

  Trial by Jury in Rhodesia.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that an attempt

  1399
  was made in the last session of the Legislative Council of Rhodesia to abolish trial by jury and that a further attempt is to be made in the next session; and whether he can and will take action to prevent such an infringement of the rights of British subjects.
  COLONEL SEELY: Owing to a very disgraceful failure of justice in a case in which a white farmer in Southern Rhodesia was charged with the murder of a native, it was found necessary to amend the jury law by substituting the principle of a majority verdict for that of a unanimous verdict. I am aware that doubts were expressed in the Council with regard to the possibility of retaining the jury system at all, but this amendment providing for a majority verdict met with general acceptance and I am not aware that it is proposed further to amend the new Ordinance which is now in operation.
  LORD R. CECIL: May we hope that this is a precedent for what will shortly be done in Ireland?
  COLONEL SEELY: The noble Lord is, no doubt, quite aware that this precedent has already been created in Scotland.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: Then you might try it in Oxford University.

  Emigrants' Information Office.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the amount of the yearly grant to the Emigrants' Information Office; whether, in addition to such grant, free postage and free printing are given; and what is the estimated money value of such addition.
  COLONEL SEELY: The grant is £1,700 per annum, to which figure it was raised from £1,500 per annum on 1st April last. The office enjoys free postage and free printing. The money value of these privileges cannot be ascertained exactly without further inquiry, which will be made if the right hon. Gentleman desires it; but, on the basis of the present volume of work, it
  1400
  is estimated, roughly, that the value of the free postage is about £200 per annum, and the net value (that is, deducting the returns from the sale of handbooks) of the free printing and the free supply of stationery is about £1,550 per annum.

  The Arrest of Mr. Luxenburg.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received a reply from the Russian Government to his application for compensation to Mr. Luxenburg for wrongful arrest and imprisonment; and whether, in view of the serious harm occasioned Mr. Luxenburg, he will respectfully press for a satisfactory settlement of his claim.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. MCKINNON WOOD,): The reply of the Russian Government has been received. They admit no responsibility as of right, but intimate that some compensation may be accorded in an unofficial manner, and as an act of grace. Mr. Luxenburg is being communicated with on the subject.

  Belgium and the Congo State.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can inform the House when it is likely that he will be able to present to Parliament the despatch lately sent by His Majesty's Government to Belgium in reference to the transfer of the territory of the Congo State to that Power.
  MR. MCKINNON WOOD: It is proposed to lay the despatch on the 23rd instant.

  Shipping Claim against the Uruguayan Government.
  MR ELLIS DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the claim of the owners of the "Agnes Donohoe" against the Uruguayan Government, arising out of the illegal detention of the ship in February, 1904, has yet been met; and, if not, what steps, if any, have been taken by His Majesty's Government in the matter.
  MR. MCKINNON WOOD: The claim for compensation which His Majesty's Government presented to the Uruguayan Government on behalf of the owners of the "Agnes Donohoe" was rejected by the former in May, 1907. As the "Agnes Donohoe" is a Canadian vessel, His Majesty's Government have throughout consulted the Canadian Government in dealing with the question, and they are at present awaiting the views of the Dominion Government on the situation created by the Uruguayan Government in refusing to entertain a claim for compensation. His Majesty's Government do not propose to take any further action in the matter without the concurrence of the Dominion.

  International Commission on Opium.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the terms of Reference of the International Commission on Opium which is to meet in Shanghai in January next; and whether the inquiry will cover the use of morphia and cocaine.
  MR. MCKINNON WOOD: The terms of reference are still under consideration, but they will be communicated as promised to the hon. Member as soon as they have been definitely settled.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is intended to invite to join the International Commission on Opium any other Powers besides Great Britain, the United States, France, Germany, Holland, Portugal, China, and Japan.
  MR. MCKINNON WOOD: Besides the Powers mentioned by the hon. Member, Russia, Turkey, Persia, and Siam have been invited to join the Commission.

  Weekly Rest Days.
  MR. C. E. PRICE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any inquiry has been made, in accordance with an undertaking given by Earl Beauchamp on 23rd June, as to what legislation in other countries has taken place on Sunday labour or a weekly day of rest; and, if
  1402
  so, will he make known the result of the inquiry by either publishing the correspondence or making a Report to the House.
  MR. MCKINNON WOOD: His Majesty's representatives in certain foreign countries were instructed last July to report on the subject. The correspondence will be published as soon as all the information asked for has been received.
  MR. C. E. PRICE: When may we expect it?
  MR. MCKINNON WOOD: We are only waiting for the reply from the United States.

  Venezuela.
  MR. SUMMERBELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as to the losses sustained by the British community at Trinidad through the closing of the Venezuelan ports.
  MR. MCKINNON WOOD: The unsatisfactory position of commercial relations with Venezuela has for some time past occupied the attention of His Majesty's Government and of His Majesty's Minister in Caracas, and the latter has adopted, and may be relied on to adopt, any practicable measures to improve matters. We cannot, however, hold out much hope that these efforts will be immediately successful.

  Licensing Commissioners.
  MR. G. D. FABER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the pledge given on behalf of His Majesty's Government during the Committee stage of the Licensing Bill that the names of the three Licensing Commissioners proposed to be appointed should be announced on the Report stage of the Bill, he will now make the announcement.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I beg to answer this Question on behalf of my right hon. friend. The following are the names approved by His Majesty: The Right

  1403
  Hon. Henry Hobhouse, to be Chairman of the Commission, and Mr. Arthur W. Chapman, J. P., and Mr. F. H. Mellor, K.C., to be members.

  Small Holdings in Dorsetshire.
  MR. WILLS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that the Dorset County Council have decided that as regards obtaining land for small local holdings they will negotiate to meet such needs by voluntary agreement, but are not prepared to apply for compulsory powers (except in exceptional cases) where in their opinion the sub-division of land would seriously damage the value of existing holdings; and whether, in view of the demand in Dorset for land in the neighbourhood of the applicants' residences, and the fact that this demand cannot be satisfied without interfering with existing holdings, the Board of Agriculture will take any steps to prevent the failure of the Act in that county.
  THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY, Somersetshire, S.): The Board are informed that the policy of the county council is substantially as stated. The council expect, however, to obtain sufficient land by voluntary agreement to satisfy the demands of all suitable applicants, and I can assure my hon. friend that the Board will not fail to take any necessary action if there is any undue delay on the part of the county council.
  MR. WILLS: Are not this county council now refusing many applications on the sole ground that there is no vacant land?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I am not aware of that.
  MR. MORRELL: If the Board are satisfied that the county council are not doing their duty, will it take steps to compel them to do so?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Yes, Sir.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: Arising out of that reply, whatever it
  1404
  was, will the Government consider the propriety of furnishing the Treasury bench with a megaphone?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Dorset Co-operative Small Holdings Associations.
  MR. WILLS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that at Sturminster Newton and Marnhull, in Dorset, co-operative small holdings associations have been formed upon the financial basis and under the rules approved by the Board of Agriculture, and that these associations have applied for land to the Dorset County Council repeatedly without response, the last application being dated 17th August, although suitable vacant land exists or has existed in the neighbourhood of each place during the period covered by the said applications; and whether the Board of Agriculture propose to take any steps in the matter.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: We have been in communication with the county council, and we are informed that they are now negotiating for the acquisition of a farm of 235 acres at Sturminster Newton with a view to sub-letting it to the Sturminster Newton Association. With regard to the Marnhull Association, the county council are in communication with the association with reference to its financial position.
  MR. WILLS: Have the county council left unanswered the application of the association for over three months, and are they not repeating questions which the association has already answered, so far as it can be expected to do so?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The information that I have is that the association has not up till now satisfied the county council as to its financial position.
  MR. JOHN WARD: Have the county council given any indication when it is likely its inquiry will come to a definite conclusion?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: They inform me they will act as soon as they are satisfied with the result of the inquiry.
  MR. JOHN WARD: And they have been saying that ever since the Act was passed.
  MR. WILLS: Has not the application of this association been before the county council for over three months, and have not the questions now being asked already been answered, so far as such an association can reasonably be expected to answer them? Is there any definite complaint as to any portion of the answers?
  MR. SPEAKER: I think notice should be given of some of these Questions.
  MR. HERBERT: Will the Board of Agriculture call upon the county council to furnish it with a copy of the correspondence with the association so that it may judge if the county council is attempting to do its duty?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Certainly.
  MR. ROWLANDS: Will the Board recommend to the authority the advisability of putting into force the compulsory powers of the Act?
  MR. SPEAKER: That Question has: already been answered.

  Black Scab Potato Disease.
  MR. R. HARCOURT: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the black scab potato disease can be introduced into a district by the purchase of affected seed; and, if so, what steps are being taken by the Board to warn growers accordingly.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The Board are doing all they can by the issue of a leaflet and by visits of inspectors, to bring to the notice of growers the danger of purchasing affected seed.
  MR. R. HARCOURT: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, in what counties in England and Scotland the black scab potato disease is known to exist; what steps have been taken by the Board, since the order of 18th June last making the disease a notifiable one, for the purpose either of lessening the area of infection or of checking its spread.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The wart diseases of potatoes is known to exist in the following counties of England and Scotland: Berkshire, Cheshire, Cumberland, Derbyshire, Lancashire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, Salop, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, Worcestershire, Yorkshire, Ayr, Clackmannan, Dumfries, Dumbarton, Fife, Perth, Stirling. The Board have sent their leaflet on the disease to those concerned. The leaflet explains the causes of infection and the preventive and remedial measures to be adopted. Their inspectors have also visited the affected districts and have taken all possible steps to bring to the notice of growers the nature of the disease and warned them of the results of neglecting the remedial and preventive measures recommended by the Board.

  American Gooseberry Mildew.
  MR. ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether nurserymen and growers who have gooseberry bushes affected with the American gooseberry mildew have recently been allowed to move or sell such bushes after they have been pruned but have received no other treatment; if so, in how many cases and in what counties this has been permitted; and whether any Memorandum has been issued by the Board on the subject of the conditions under which diseased bushes may be moved or sold.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Gooseberry bushes that have been affected with the disease mentioned can only be removed on a licence of an inspector who has examined and declared them free from disease. In no case has such a licence been granted for removal to

  1407
  premises outside an infected area. No Memorandum on this subject has been issued, but full information is supplied to any one asking permission to remove bushes. Only a few such licences have been issued at present in the Isle of Ely and Kent.

  Horse Poisoning at Wellington, Salop.
  MR. STANIER: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if the Board can now give a report as to the cause of death of the seven horses, the property of Mr. John Parton, of Bennett's Bank, Wellington, Salop, in July last; and, if so, will he supply the report.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: From inquiry made there seems no doubt that the horses died from poisoning, but it has not been ascertained how they came in contact with the poisonous substance. I shall be happy to show the hon. Member a copy of our inspector's Report on the matter.

  Contagious Mammitis at Wirral.
  MR. STANIER: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to the recent outbreak of contagious mammitis at Wirral, in Cheshire; and whether the Board are going to schedule the disease under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, as the outbreak has created much alarm in the district.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Board made full inquiry into this outbreak, but on the information available they are not prepared to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member.
  MR. STANIER: Seeing that thirty horses died, is there no grave danger for the whole district and ought not the Board of Agriculture to take immediate action?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I am informed by our experts that there is not the danger which, the hon. Member appears to fear.

  Black Scab in England.
  MR. STANIER: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if his attention has been called to the way in which the Irish Board of Agriculture are now dealing with the outbreaks of black scab in Ireland; and, seeing that this disease is worse in Great Britain, if similar action can be undertaken in Great Britain.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Board have so far only seen newspaper reports as to the methods adopted in Ireland, but they are obtaining official information on the subject, and will then consider whether action on similar lines would be practicable in Great Britain.
  MR. STANIER: Cannot the hon. Gentleman see and read the Irish Order, and cannot he realise that if with only two cases in Ireland they are thus able to tackle the disease in a most effective manner, the example is one he should follow?
  MR. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument.

  Tuberculous Milk in London.
  MR. ELLIS DAVIES: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been drawn to the tact that out of ninety-two samples of milk sampled by the officials of the London County Council last week, 23·9 per cent. were found to be tuberculous; and what steps, if any, the Government propose to take to deal with the disease.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Board have seen a copy of the Report of the public health committee of the London County Council to which my hon. friend is perhaps referring. It would appear that the samples examined were taken at various times during the last quarter. The Board are carefully considering whether they can take any action to deal with the matter.

  Small Holdings in Shropshire.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he is aware that the Shropshire County Council have decided to hire certain land on lease for the purpose of small holdings and to borrow and spend £500 for providing buildings, dairies, etc.; if he will state in what number of years the loan must be repaid; if the interest on such loan and the sinking fund for the repayment thereof are included in the rent to be paid by the small holders; and to whom the buildings will belong when the land reverts to the owner.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Shropshire County Council have agreed to rent 160 acres for thirty five years and propose to spend £350 on alteration of existing buildings. The term of the loan will be fixed by the Local Government Board, but no doubt they will have regard to the life of the improvement. The rent must be fixed to cover all expenses. The buildings will belong to the owner when the land reverts to him.

  Small Holding Co-operative Societies.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will state the names of the four small holdings co-operative societies which have been formed; in what localities they exist; whether they are formed for the joint cultivation of the land by the members themselves or are syndicates founded for the purpose of acquiring land by sale or hire from county councils and sub-letting the same to small holders; and, if the latter, whether he will state the rules of such societies as regards capital, shares, profits, etc., and whether such rules have been approved by the Board of Agriculture.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The four co-operative societies to whom land has been let are those at Mere in Wiltshire, Biggleswade in Bedfordshire, and Clipston and Rushden in Northamptonshire. The rules of the societies have been approved by the Board. The nominal capital of
  1410
  the associations is equal to three years rent of the land let to them. The societies are formed for the purpose of acquiring land from county councils and letting it to their members in small holdings. I shall be happy to send the right hon. Member a copy of the model form of rules approved by the Board.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Is there any limit to the profit which these middlemen may make out of these holdings by charging extra rent?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Yes, it is limited to 5 per cent.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Which the tenants have to pay.

  Small Holdings in Gloucestershire.
  MR. HICKS BEACH: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the attention of the Board of Agriculture has been drawn to the fact that in the Return of Holdings [Cd. 3408] issued by the Board in 1907 the number of small holdings therein stated to be existing in Gloucestershire is 6,585, whereas in a Return issued by the Gloucestershire County Council in December, 1907, the number of existing small holdings in the county is stated to be 12,363; whether the Board are aware that the county council Return has been carefully checked by independent persons; and whether he can state what steps the Board are taking to rectify such a gross error in their Return respecting this particular county, and similar errors that presumably exist in the Returns relating to other counties.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The basis of the two Returns is entirely different. The Board's Return represents holdings of agricultural land in one occupation whereas in the county council's Return a holding is a "separate assessment of land." Careful inquiry into the matter at the request of the Board has been made by the Inland Revenue Commissioners with the result that there is no reason to question the accuracy of the official Returns.

  Foot and Mouth Disease in Pennsylvania.
  MR. KETTLEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he had received reports of a serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Pennsylvania, and whether he proposed to take any action with regard to imports of hay and straw into Ireland.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): Yes, Sir. The intelligence of this outbreak was communicated to me by telegram to-day, and I have authorised the issue of an order to take effect on the 21st inst., prohibiting the importation of hay, straw, or fodder into Ireland from the United States.
  MR. HICKS BEACHinquired whether the English Board of Agriculture had received the same information, and whether they proposed to take similar steps.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Board of Agriculture received information on Monday that there was an outbreak in Pennsylvania, ninety head of cattle being affected, and a subsequent telegram on the same day, saying the outbreak was on fourteen farms in four counties, affecting 230 animals, of which number, 200 had been destroyed. The Board took immediate steps, and issued an Order on the 18th inst. The effect of that Order was to prohibit the landing in Great Britain of animals, or of hay and straw if used as fodder or litter, brought from Pennsylvania as from the 21st inst., and special steps will be taken to deal with the cargoes of animals already on the high seas.

  Timber Denudation of Ireland.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he is aware that during the last six months the railway stations at Hollymount and Ballinrobe have been crowded with timber from the estates of Colonel Knox and Mr. Fitzpatrick, and that last year thousands of tons of wood were despatched from Claremorris station from the estate of Lord Oranmore; and
  1412
  whether the Department will take any steps by legislation or otherwise to prevent the West of Ireland from being denuded of timber in this way.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The facts are substantially as stated in the Question. The Department has neither legislative powers nor other means of dealing with the difficulty.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked if the Government would not take steps to prevent landlords cutting down the timber in this year?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Representations on the subject are receiving attention.

  Black Scab in Irish Potatoes.
  MR. STANIER: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he will give the names of the places where black scab in potatoes has broken out in Ireland.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The only places in Ireland where black scab in potatoes has been found are Kilkeel on the south coast of County Down, two cases, and the southern end of the Ards Peninsula on the east of the same county, one case.
  MR. STANIERinquired if seed potatoes were sent from these places to England.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I do not think any come from County Down. There is a seed potato trade between Derry and Armagh.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: Is it not the fact that the crops in which this disease has been found are very small crops, and that this year's Irish potato crop is the best for ten years past?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Yes. The disease was found in one plot owned by the Coastguard, and in another it was found in a garden.

  Liscannor Harbour.
  MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is

  1413
  aware that the Harbour of Liscannor is still unfinished and is filling with up silt, etc., thereby preventing ships of large size entering; will he get the Board of Works to keep their promise of February last, viz. to get the works completed as soon as possible; and whether he is aware that an engineer has been at Liscannor for the past two years without doing work for the benefit of the harbour.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to Questions for him to-day. I am informed by the Board of Works that the harbour at Liscannor is not yet finished, but the Board have just completed negotiations with the representatives of the contractor, and are now prepared to commence operations themselves. A clerk of works was necessarily resident at the harbour pending the completion of the negotiations. The harbour has a tendency to fill with silt, and will have to be kept clear by manual labour. There have been difficulties with the contractor who failed to complete the necessary works in accordance with his contract, but the silting has not been affected by the failure of the contractor to complete his work.

  Intimidation at Riverstown.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Riverstown branch of the United Irish League has instituted a reign of terror, intimidation, and boycotting, directed against the Protestant minority in that neighbourhood; that they are refused the bare necessaries of life, their horses cannot be shod, their milk cannot be conveyed to the creameries, they cannot obtain labourers to work the land or herds to guard their cattle; and whether, seeing that appeals made to the Executive for protection have proved futile, he will say what steps he proposes to take to safeguard the lives and property of the law-abiding Protestant minority in the Riverstown district.
  MR. CHERRY: The statements in the Question are a somewhat exaggerated account of the boycotting which, according to my information, recently prevailed
  1414
  in the neighbourhood referred to. A prosecution has been instituted, and I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by my right hon. frend the Chief Secretary to a similar Question asked yesterday by the hon. Member for Mid Armagh.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: At whose suit was the prosecution instituted?
  MR. CHERRY: At the suit of the Government, on my direction.

  United Irish League and Evicted Tenants.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give particulars of dissatisfaction among local evicted tenants in cases where the Estates Commissioners have allocated farms to transplanted evicted tenants; how many such instances have occurred; and whether he will take steps to secure that persons nominated by the United Irish League shall not receive preferential treatment in being reinstated.
  MR. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners are not in a position to give the information asked for in the first part of the Question. There is no ground for the suggestion that persons nominated by the United Irish League receive preferential treatment.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Can the right hon. Gentleman cite a single instance in which any one not nominated by the United Irish League got a farm?
  MR. CHERRY: I do not know anybody who received a farm anywhere.

  Riverstown Riot.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state with how many rifles and rifle cartridges were the police at Riverstown armed on the night they shot John Stenson dead; how many rifle shots and how many other shots did they fire at the people on that occasion; who gave the order to fire; was any public notice given in advance to the people that if they attempted to scatter the cattle off Mr. Phibbs's ranch they would be shot down

  1415
  with rifle bullets; was the Riot Act read aloud to the people before the police began to fire; if it is in accordance with the rules of the Royal Irish Constabulary to lie in ambush and fire with rifles upon trespassers on a ranch, killing one of them, without having given any previous notice or read the Riot Act; and what law do the police rely upon to justify this action.
  The following Questions also on the same subject appeared on the Paper in the hon. Gentleman's name.
  To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether there is any evidence, beyond the uncorroborated assertions of the police, that the people at Riverstown, County Sligo, used firearms on 29th October last; and whether, for instance, any policeman has sustained a shot wound.
  To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the sergeant of police at Riverstown boasted repeatedly during the week preceding the shooting of John Stenson that the police had orders to shoot cattle-drivers on sight, without reading the Riot Act, and that he would pump lead into the people; and, if this conduct is not in accordance with the discipline of the force and the wishes of the Government, what action is to be taken in the matter.
  To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that the fact of the police having taken a human life at Riverstown, County Sligo, on 29th October last is the only undisputed statement in the police report of that occurrence, and that the police are therefore interested parties and the only persons opposed to an exhaustive inquiry, the Government will institute such an inquiry forthwith.
  To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if any post-mortem examination of the body of John Stenson was made before the inquest; if so, by whom was it made, and what are his qualifications; was it ascertained or given in evidence whether or not death is instantaneous when a rifle bullet enters the back of the head, passes
  1416
  through the head, and emerges through one of the eyes; and what verdict was returned at the inquest.
  To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it was with the sanction of the Irish Government that the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary, on learning on 29th October last that the police at Riverstown, County Sligo, had shot a man dead, telegraphed to the district inspector at Ballymote to inform Head Constable Donovan and the men who, under his charge, repelled the attack on the police of an armed party of cattle-drivers on the morning of 29th instant, and added that he was grateful to learn how well they upheld the traditions of the force on that occasion; and, seeing that this telegram from the head of the force is, and until countermanded will be, an incentive to all policemen to act similarly, whether the Government will immediately convey to the police disapproval of the telegram in question and of the spilling of human blood by peace officers.
  MR. CHERRY: As regards the principal matters referred to in this and the five following Questions, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary to the Questions asked by the hon. Members for North Sligo and Mid Armagh on the 5th instant. That reply was as follows: "On the occasion in question, shortly after midnight, a force of ten police under a head constable, was on certain lands from which the cattle had twice been driven. A body of over 100 men entered the field and approached the cattle. They refused to retire when called on to do so, and attacked the police with stones. The head constable in charge of the party was struck on the head with a stone and knocked down, and other constables were also injured. A shot was fired from the crowd, and the police were driven back by volleys of stones. The crowd rapidly closed on the police, and the head constable, believing the lives of his men to be in imminent danger, ordered them to fire. The crowd repeatedly fired at the police with revolvers, and did not retire until the police had fired a second and third time. The dead body of a young man, named

  1417
  John Stenson, was subsequently found in the field with a bullet wound in the head. These facts speak for themselves. An inquest has been held, and it is not intended to hold any further inquiry." Eighteen carbine shots and five revolver shots were fired by the police in self-defence. The police are not empowered to read the Riot Act; that is the duty in proper cases of a magistrate. The statement of the police as to the circumstances in which they fired was given on oath at the inquest, and no one came forward to contradict it. So far as I am aware, no one was present on the occasion except the police and the rioters, and it is, therefore, impossible to secure any independent evidence, but that of the police themselves. The necessary medical evidence was given by the local dispensary doctor, who is fully qualified. The verdict was to the effect that death was caused by a bullet wound. The telegram sent by the Inspector-General was a personal message to a head constable injured in the discharge of his duty, and did not require the sanction of the Government. I cannot say whether the hon. Member's account of its contents is accurate or not, but the Government have no reason to think that it will have a bad effect, and have no intention of expressing disapproval of the action of the Inspector-General in sending it. The police authorities inform me that there is no foundation for the charge made against the sergeant at Riverstown.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: A state of war!
  MR. BELLOC: May I ask whether it is impossible to get any evidence independent of that of the police?
  MR. CHERRY: Yes, Sir, it is really impossible, so far as we know. It was the middle of the night, and nobody was present except the police and the rioters.
  MR. LONSDALE: Is there the slightest ground for doubting the evidence of the police?
  MR. CHERRY: I see none.
  MR. GINNELL: Is it not a fact that a branch of the United Irish League has existed in the district of Riverstown for years, and that the district has been perfectly peaceful until last summer, when a branch of an aggressive Protestant organisation was formed there?
  MR. CHERRY: I believe a branch of the League has existed in Riverstown, but I do not think you could describe the condition of the locality as peaceful.

  Riverstown Grass Ranch.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Phibbs's grass ranch extends to the walls of the village of Riverstown, County Sligo; that Mr. Phibbs is an absentee and gives no employment upon that land; that some of the villagers have no land and some mere gardens; that they are willing, on the ranch being distributed among them, to pay its full value as ascertained by the Land Commission; and whether, in all the circumstances and in the interest of peace in the district, the Government will purchase and distribute that ranch.
  MR. CHERRY: I understand that this farm is situated as described. It is in grass and affords no employment. The owner lives about eight miles away. Up to the present he does not appear to have instituted proceedings for sale, but the Estates Commissioners will make inquiries.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the gentleman mentioned in this Question has acted most generously by his neighbours since he succeeded to the property; that he has apportioned grass plots to them on the ordinary local terms from year to year, and that there is no foundation, therefore, for the insinuation in the Question?
  MR. CHERRY: I know nothing whatever about Mr. Phibbs. I never heard of him.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Is it a proper Question in which intimidatory language

  1419
  is used to compel the Government to purchase and distribute a ranch?
  MR. CHERRY: That is a matter for Mr. Speaker.

  Glencar Evicted Tenants.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, although applications were lodged with the Estates Commissioners last June for the reinstatement of the six tenants who were evicted from their farms on the M'Gillicuddy Eager Estate, Glencar, County Kerry, no action has yet been taken by the Commissioners; and whether, with a view to bringing about a settlement, they will now use their influence with the owners and agent to secure the reinstatement of these tenants.
  MR. CHERRY: The six tenants referred to were evicted since the passing of the Irish Land Act, 1903, and their applications were not received by the Estates Commissioners until 9th September last. Their applications do not, therefore, come within the provisions of the Evicted Tenants Act, but will be inquired into when the estate is being dealt with under the Irish Land Act, 1903.

  Irish University Charters.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the reason for the delay in issuing the University and College Charters for the new Universities in Ireland.
  MR. CHERRY: The Charters are now substantially ready, and will, I hope, be issued very shortly.

  Style Park, Limerick.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. John Coleman, a member of the Limerick County Council, has obtained from the Estates Commissioners, or has applied for, a portion of the untenanted lands acquired by them, together with the mansion of Style Park; will he state what is the amount of land already in
  1420
  Mr. Coleman's possession as tenant or hired by him for grazing under the eleven-months system; and, seeing that the transfer to such a tenant of untenanted lands which are required for evicted tenants, labourers, and small holders in the neighbourhood would be a violation of Clause 2 of the Purchase Act of 1903, will he state what action he proposes to take.
  MR. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners have received an application from John Coleman to be allotted portion of the untenanted land on the Style Park estate of Major Wise, County Limerick. The Commissioners do not know what lands Coleman has in his possession for grazing or otherwise, but will make inquiries before making any allotment of the lands.

  Warning to Irish Nationalist Newspaper Proprietors.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the newspapers whose proprietors were recently warned against publishing intimidatory resolutions of United Irish League branches have given an undertaking not to publish such resolutions, or whether they have, in fact, ceased to publish them; and whether any case has yet arisen calling for proceedings to be taken.
  MR. CHERRY: The newspapers referred to in the Question were warned, not asked for an undertaking. It is too soon to say what the result of the warning may be.

  Fort Fergus Cattle-Drive.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant I of Ireland whether he has received particulars of an extensive cattle-drive at Fort Fergus, County Clare, on Friday the 13th instant; whether the cattle driven off the lands have been recovered; and whether any persons were arrested or proceeded against in connection with the occurrence.
  MR. CHERRY: The Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary informs me that 140 cattle, fifty-seven sheep,

  1421
  and three horses, were driven off on this occasion.
  MR. LONSDALE: Were any persons arrested?
  MR. CHERRY: No. No one saw the drive.
  MR. LONSDALE: Have any cattle been recovered?
  MR. CHERRY: I hope they will be, but if not, the owner will get compensation for them.

  Marlborough Street Training College.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has recommended, or will recommend, the Treasury to make an additional grant for the erection of a residence for women students in connection with the Marlborough Street Training College, Dublin.
  MR. CHERRY: The Commissioners of National Education have already received a free grant of £50,000 for the erection of residential quarters at Glasnevin for male and female King's scholars in connection with the Marlborough Street Training College. While regretting that the Commissioners have not been able to provide a residence for the female scholars out of that sum, my right hon. friend is unable to hold out any hope that an additional grant will be made to them for the purpose.

  Theft of Cattle in County Clare.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the cattle driven off the lands of Michael Hogan, and for which he obtained a decree of £40 at the Ennis Quarter Sessions, have yet been recovered; and, if not, whether the persons who stole these beasts have been brought to justice.
  MR. CHERRY: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary to a Question on the same subject asked by the hon. Member on 29th October.
  MR. LONSDALE: If any person is found who was engaged in stealing these cattle, will he be prosecuted?
  MR. CHERRY: Of course; if they are found.
  MR. LONSDALE: Have they not been found?
  MR. CHERRY: Not that I am aware of. They may have been found without my knowledge.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Is it the intention of the Executive to take any action against the leaders of the movement in favour of cattle-driving—whether they be Members of the House or not?
  MR. CHERRY: Does the hon. Member seriously suggest that because cattle are stolen in Clare, I should take proceedings against a Member of this House?
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: But is it not the fact that Members of this House do recommend cattle-driving?
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Order, order. I never stole a cow in my life.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: The hon. Member recommends it, but is afraid to do it himself.
  MR. CHERRY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman does not appear to understand that this is a case of cattle-stealing—not cattle-driving.

  Traffic in Firearms in Ireland.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the increase in the number of outrages with firearms reported since the expiry of the Peace Preservation Act, he will cause special inquiries to be made by the police with regard to the extensive traffic in firearms now being carried on in Ireland, and especially with regard to the sale of such weapons upon the instalment plan.
  MR. CHERRY: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary to a

  1423
  Question on the same subject asked by the hon. Member on the 5th instant.

  Sir George Colthurst's Cork Estate.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received a claim from Jeremiah Creedon, an evicted tenant on the estate of Sir George Colthurst, situate in Millstreet rural district, County Cork; has the landlord offered to sell this portion of his estate direct to the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, will the claim of the evicted tenant mentioned, and other evicted tenants, be considered in the settlement of the estate by the Commissioners.
  MR. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners have received an application from Jeremiah Creedon, who appears to have been a sub-tenant, and have decided to take no action in the matter. The portion of the Colthurst estate referred to in the Question does not appear to be pending for sale before the Commissioners. When it comes before them they will consider the applications of all evicted tenants who have been noted as suitable.

  O'Leary Estate, County Cork.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a statement of claim has been received by the Estates Commissioners from Bridget Maynehan, Patrick Colter, and John J. Riordan, sub-tenants on the McCarthy O'Leary estate, at Coomlegane, Millstreet, County Cork; has the town and agricultural portion of this estate been already sold to the tenants, and agreements filed with the Commissioners in respect thereof; hive the sub-tenants named offered to purchase on similar terms to other purchasing tenants; and will he state what steps will be taken to secure to them equal rights with all the other tenants on the estate.
  MR. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners have received a statement from the persons named. Purchase agreements comprising the agricultural holdings on the O'Leary estate, County Cork, and a number of town plots in
  1424
  Millstreet, were lodged with the Commissioners in 1907. When the estate is being dealt with in its order of priority the Commissioners will consider whether, having regard to the provisions of Section 15 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, they will, for the purposes of sale, declare the sub-tenants to be tenants of the land in their exclusive possession.

  Riverstown Cattle Drive.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say whether, in the cattle-drives made off Mr. Phibbs's ranch at Riverstown, County Sligo, before the shooting of John Stenson by the police, any cattle were injured; whether any compensation was obtained or even claimed; and whether any life has been lost in connection with that ranch except the life of John Stenson taken by the police.
  MR. CHERRY: The Answer to this Question is in the negative.

  Wallis Estate, Cork County.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will make further inquiry into the case of Thomas J. O'Keeffe, an evicted tenant on the Wallis estate, County Cork, which possesses features of peculiar hardship, and the circumstances connected therewith having altered materially since the Estates Commissioners decided to take no action in the matter, and seeing also that the planter in occupation of the holding would be willing to surrender it to the Commissioners upon getting reasonable compensation.
  MR. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners cannot see their way to depart from their decision not to take any action in reference to Thomas J. O'Keeffe's application.

  Irish Railway Commission.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many sittings of the Vice-Regal Commission on Irish Railways have been held and when they were held; when is

  1425
  it expected that this Commission's sittings will conclude and when will its Report be available; is he aware that some of the Irish railways, whether in consequence of this Commission being set up or otherwise, have seriously reduced passenger traffic facilities; and is it intended to propose legislation founded on the Report of this Commission.
  MR. CHERRY: I am informed by the Secretary to the Commission that eighty-seven public sittings of the Commission have been held between October, 1906, and the present month. It is anticipated that the oral evidence yet to be taken will be completed early next year, after which the Commissioners will proceed with the consideration of their Report. I understand that the Commission have had some evidence relative to reduced passenger facilities on a few Irish railways, and have also heard the explanations of the companies concerned. Until the Commission have made their Report it is obviously impossible to say what action the Government may take on it.

  Galway Extra Police Force.
  MR. HAZLETON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the estimated saving in the cost of the police force in those counties from which police have been withdrawn in order to serve as extra police in the County of Galway.
  MR. CHERRY: There has been no saving to the State arising from the despatch to Galway of the extra police appointed thereto under the Constabulary Act of 1836. No detachments belonging to other counties are now serving in Galway. As regards the past, it is impossible to ascertain what saving, if any, to the public purse was effected by the temporal absences of detachments of police from their proper counties, but the charge on the counties is often very much less than the expenses actually incurred by the State in transferring the men.

  Treatment of Irish Surety Prisoners.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether men charged with
  1426
  cattle-driving and committed to gaol in default of entering into sureties to be of good behaviour are treated as unconvicted prisoners; and whether he will state in what respect their treatment in prison differs from that accorded to the women suffragists now incarcerated in England.
  MR. CHERRY: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The treatment of prisoners committed to gaol in Ireland in default of entering into sureties to be of good behaviour differs in so many points from that of prisoners of the second division in England that it is not possible to institute a comparison within the limits of an oral reply.
  MR. LONSDALE: Are these men compelled to eat prison food and to wear prison clothing?
  MR. CHERRY: They may procure their own food and I think wear their own clothes.
  MR. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that woman suffragists in England, guilty of similar offences—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Galway Extra Police.
  MR. HAZELTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will state the number of the extra police in County Galway and the amount charged for them against the county council; the number transferred from other counties and what counties they have been transferred from, as well as the number sent from the depot in Dublin; what is the legal quota allowed for the county and when it was filled up; whether any of the cost of the men required to fill it has been charged to the county council, and whether any expenses for extra police were incurred by the county council before the quota was filled up.
  MR. CHERRY: I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate with to-night's Votes a statement giving the particulars which he requires.

  Enniscorthy Vaccination Defaulters.
  MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Local Government Board have ordered the prosecution of 238 vaccination defaulters in the Poor Law Union of Enniscorthy; and if, considering the increase of cancer in Ireland since the adoption of the present system of vaccination with calf lymph, he will instruct the Local Government Board not to press for the vaccination of those who object to the process.
  MR. CHERRY: The number of vaccination defaulters in the Enniscorthy Union is correctly stated in the Question, and the local Government Board have called the attention of the guardians to the matter, with a view to legal proceedings being instituted against such of the defaulters as have been previously notified and have failed to comply with the law. There is no power to grant exemptions in Ireland from compliance with the vaccination law. My right hon. friend the Chief Secretary has already stated more than once in reply to the hon. Member that nothing, so far as the Local Government Board are aware, has been advanced to show that there is any connection whatever between calf lymph vaccination and cancer.
  MR. LUPTON: Is there not an intimate relationship between cancer and vaccination as shown in the Report of one of the medical officers of the Local Government Board?
  MR. CHERRY: I have no information.

  Tullaroan Disturbance.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary fo the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the circumstances connected with the resistance offered to an inspector of the Estates Commissioners, at Tullaroan, county Kilkenny, on the 10th instant, when a mob prevented the reinstatement of evicted tenants on lands provided for them; whether he has any information as to the persons who organised this demonstration; and what action is to be taken by the Estates Commissioners in reference to the matter.
  MR. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners inform me that their inspector attended, not for the purpose of reinstating evicted tenants, but in order to give possession to persons selected to occupy parcels of untenanted land acquired under the Irish Land Act, 1903, in accordance with a scheme settled by the Commissioners. The majority of the persons so selected were placed in possession, but, owing to opposition, possession of certain parcels was not given on the date referred to, but the Commissioners have now made arrangements for giving possession in these cases.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Were the people who eventually got possession those who were named in the original scheme?
  MR. CHERRY: Yes, Sir.

  Mayo County Council and Old-Age Pensions.
  DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resolution recently passed by the Mayo County Council showing the difficulty experienced by applicants for pensions under the Old-Age Pensions Act, and the expense they are put to in order to prove their age, seeing that the Compulsory Registration Act was not put in force in Ireland until the year 1864, and that there are scarcely any means of proving the ages except through the Census Returns for 1841 and 1851, the original manuscripts of which are in the office of the Deputy-Keeper of Records in Dublin; and whether, to facilitate matters and save the poor people unnecessary expense, he will cause printed copies of such manuscripts to be supplied to the different county councils in Ireland.
  MR. CHERRY: My attention has been drawn to the resolution of the Mayo County Council. The Census Returns in question comprise about 3,000,000 separate documents, and the suggestion that they should be printed and issued for the purpose of the Old-Age Pension Act is wholly impracticable. Where it becomes necessary to search the Census Returns for proof of age no expense need be incurred by a claimant, arrangements

  1429
  having been made for the work to be done by Inland Revenue officers; and I am confident that every effort will be made by the officials to assist claimants in obtaining proof of their age. At all events, I can promise that no difficulties will be thrown in their way by the Irish Government.

  Coachford (Cork) Tenant's Grievance.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Land Commission has received an application for reinstatement from Mr. John M'Sweeney, an evicted tenant on the Fitzpatrick estate, at Rvlane, Coachford, county Cork; and will he state whether it is the intention of this body to accept the offer of the evicted tenant, and immediately to reinstate him at an annuity which the holding can afford to bear.
  MR. CHERRY: I understand that Mr. John M'Sweeney referred to in the Question is not an evicted tenant, but was ejected for non-payment of the purchase annuity due in respect of an advance of £647 made to him in 1902. The Land Commission cannot reinstate him unless what is due for debt and expenses is paid.

  Trawling Prevention Bill.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he can now state when the Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention Bill will be pressed.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): I propose to make a statement to-day in regard to the business to be taken next week, and I cannot at present state when progress will be made with (other) Bills not included in that statement.

  Professor Marshall's Memorandum.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he will give an opportunity at an early date for the discussion of the Memorandum by Professor Marshall on the fiscal question, just published by the Treasury.
  MR. ASQUITH: The Answer is in the negative.
  MR. FELL: May I ask with what object this manifesto was published if it is not to be discussed?
  MR. ASQUITH: I think it was presented to Parliament in compliance with a pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a long time ago.

  Hop Substitutes.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he can state whether the North Eastern Agricultural Federation have forwarded a resolution to the effect that, in the interests of the public, the use of malt and hop substitutes in the making of beer should be prohibited; and, if so, what action, if any, it is proposed to take in regard to the matter.
  MR. ASQUITH: I understand that my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will shortly introduce a Bill to prohibit the use of hop substitutes in the manufacture of beer.

  Maintenance of Main Roads.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if representations have been made to him by the North Eastern Agricultural Federation to the effect that the Government should make the cost of the maintenance of all main and county roads a national charge, make a grant in aid of district roads, and take steps so to regulate motor traffic that the general public may use the roads with safety; and, if so, can he state what action, if any, the Government intend to take in regard to the several matters named.
  MR. ASQUITH: I have received numerous resolutions on this matter. The Government are fully alive as to its importance, but I am not, at the moment, in a position to state what action may eventually be decided upon.

  Cost of Preparedness for War.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he has observed that, in presenting his Report on the Army Budget to the French Chamber of Deputies last week, Monsieur Gervais showed that Russia, Germany, France, Austria, Italy, the United States,

  1431
  and Japan, spend every year £207,000,000 on preparations for war; and can he give the equivalent figure for Great Britain.
  MR. ASQUITH: I have no information as to the data on which the Estimate referred to by my hon. friend was based. As he is, no doubt, aware the absence of a common standard of calculation tends to vitiate comparisons drawn between the warlike expenditure of one country and another, and any Estimate that purported to give the equivalent figure of the expenditure on armaments undertaken by this country would, for this reason, be misleading.

  Liability of Innkeepers.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister in view of the fact that it is an offence, indictable at common law, for an innkeeper to refuse to allow persons to enter or remain on his licensed premises after the closing hours for the purpose of obtaining nonalcoholic refreshment, whether he will take immediate steps to inform justices of the peace of the correct interpretation of the law.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: At the same time may I ask the Prime Minister in view of the fact that it constitutes an indictable offence for any innkeeper to refuse to accommodate any person and provide him with nonalcoholic refreshments after closing hours, whether he will take steps to indemnify those individuals who have in the past suffered penalties for allowing persons to be on licensed premises after closing hours owing to the misapprehension of the existing law by those responsible for its administration.
  MR. ASQUITH: I am not aware that; there is any misapprehension among magistrates or police as to the obligations of an innkeeper at all times to receive and supply food to travellers, or that any innkeeper has suffered any penalty for carrying out that obligation; and I see no reason for any steps on my part in the matter.
  MR. LANE-FOX: Will not the Government use their opportunities in another
  1432
  place to define the meaning of the word "meal"?
  MR. ASQUITH: I hope not.
  MR. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Is it not a fact that innkeepers have been punished for having people on their premises during prohibited hours?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am not aware of that.

  Irish Land Purchase.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Treasury have taken steps to ascertain the amount of the unexpended balance of the Land Purchase Aid Fund and the claims yet to be made upon it under the Irish Land Act, 1903; whether notice has yet been given of any proposed revision of the percentage as provided for under subsection (3) of Section 48 of that Act; and whether it is proposed by the new Land Bill to make the revision of the percentage retrospective.
  MR. ASQUITH: I understand from my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. No notice has yet been given of any proposal to revise the rate of the bonus as provided for under subsection (3) of Section 48 of the Irish Land Act, 1903. The provisions of the new Land Bill will be fully explained by the Chief Secretary on Monday.
  MR. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to say whether purchase agreements made since 1st November will be liable to revision?
  MR. ASQUITH: I think the hon. Gentleman had better wait until he hears the Chief Secretary's statement.

  Education Bill—Negotiations.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is able to make the promised statement with regard to the Education Bill and any Amendments which the Government proposed to make in it.
  MR. ASQUITH: The Government, after much consideration, have come to the conclusion that the proposals which they are about to submit to the House on the subject of education should not take the form of Amendments to the Bill which has already been read a second time, but should be presented in order that the House may have an opportunity of reviewing them as a whole as a new Bill. These proposals are the outcome of prolonged communications in various quarters, and they will be put forward by the Government, not as the plan which we regard as ideally the best, but as one which all parties who are really anxious for a settlement of a vexed and long-standing controversy may, without any sacrifice of principle on one side or the other, concur in accepting. I have strong grounds for believing that those with whom, on behalf of our Nonconformist friends, we have been conferring, and, on the other hand, the Archbishop of Canterbury, are prepared, in order to obtain a settlement—and if there is solid reason to hope that a settlement may be so obtained—to support our proposals. Both have made it clear in their communications with us that they claim no authority to bind either the members of the Church of England or the Nonconformist bodies as a whole. Both have given us the assurance that, so far as their authority and influence go, they will ex animo acquiesce in the settlement embodied in the Bill and give their support to its being brought into effect. This is, of course, without prejudice to some not unimportant points of detail which may well deserve further consideration. The Bill will, if possible, if the rules of the House allow, be presented tomorrow, but in any case its provisions will be in the hands of Members to-morrow afternoon, or at latest on Saturday morning. I should hope, sufficient time having elapsed to consider our proposals, to take the Second Reading of the new Education Bill on Wednesday and Thursday of next week.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I think I ought at once to say that, as far as we are concerned, we think it is a very short time, if an entirely new Bill is not to reach us till Saturday, that it should
  1434
  be taken for consideration so early as Wednesday.
  MR. ASQUITH: I hope the right hon. Gentleman and his friends will suspend their judgment on that point until they have seen the Bill. I can assure him that there is no intention on our part unduly to press it forward.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman says that the Bill is the result of prolonged communications with representatives of the Church of England and the Nonconformists, and that the Bill will, in effect, embody something in the nature of an agreement. May I ask him whether communications of a similar character have taken place between the Government and the representatives of the 2,000,000 of Catholics in this country?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am sorry to say that for some time there was an indisposition on the part of the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church to enter into communications on the subject, but such communication have taken place recently.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I ask when these communications were entered into with the authorities of the Catholic Church in this country, inasmuch as I have in my possession, received to-day, a document from the highest authority representing Catholics in England, saying that no such communications have taken place up to to-day?
  MR. ASQUITH: The hon. Gentleman is, I think, misinformed. There were prolonged communications on the subject in the summer. They were suspended for a time during the autumn, but my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Education as late as yesterday was in communication with the Roman Catholic authorities.
  MR. JOYNSON-HICKS: Has the Prime Minister had any communication with regard to this proposed compromise with any representatives of lay opinion in the Church of England?
  MR. FORSTER: Should it prove impossible to present the Bill to the House to-morrow, what steps does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take to make us acquainted with its provisions?
  MR. ASQUITH: If it is found that the rules of the House do not allow it to be taken to-morrow, it will be circulated on Saturday or to-morrow afternoon, together with an explanatory Memorandum.
  LORD R. CECIL: Is the House to understand that there is or is not any agreement with the Roman Catholic communion?
  MR. ASQUITH: I think the noble Lord had better give me notice of that Question.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: If the Bill appears as a Parliamentary Paper on Saturday and is to be read a second time on Wednesday, when does the right hon. Gentleman propose to introduce it and take the First Reading?
  MR. ASQUITH: In that case it would simply be presented on Monday in the ordinary way.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASasked as to the general business for next week.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid the Government proposed to take on Monday the statement of the Chief Secretary, and the introduction and First Reading of the Irish Land Bill. On Tuesday, in accordance with an arrangement entered into between both sides of the House, the Education (Scotland) Bill would be taken up to 8.15 on Report and Third Reading. He hoped his hon. friends who represented Scotland would be disposed to come into that agreement. From 8.15 the Prevention of Crime Bill would be considered on Report, and, he hoped, on Third Reading also. Wednesday and Thursday as already stated would be devoted to the Education Bill. He would be able on Monday or Tuesday
  1436
  to make a statement as to the business on Friday.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEinquired whether any day had yet been fixed for taking the Report stage of the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Bill.
  MR. ASQUITH: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that.
  MR. ROWLANDSinquired when the Port of London Bill would be taken.
  MR. ASQUITH: Well, we cannot take it next week, I am afraid.

  LICENSING BILL.
  As amended, further considered.
  MR. GRETTONsaid he rose for the purpose of moving the rejection of Clause 24, which was of vital importance to the Bill, because it dealt with the question of monopoly value. The monopoly value was very difficult to define. A definition as given in the Act of 1904 was fairly easy to ascertain, because that monopoly value was to be applied only to the cases of new licences granted after the passing of the Act. The monopoly value under the Act of 1904 was to be the difference between the value of the premises as licensed and the value of those same premises without a licence. The purpose of Parliament in passing that Act with that provision was that when new licences were granted the State was to have the advantage of retaining any special value which might attach to those licences, having regard to the fact that there was, and had been for years, a restricted grant of licences. He had always quarrelled with that definition. He believed the word "monopoly" was a misleading term. There was undoubtedly a licence value, but the term monopoly value was not a true definition, because with the word "monopoly" was associated the meaning that there was a true monopoly, i.e., an absolutely restricted right in which others were not allowed to share. In the case of a new licence no real monopoly could exist especially when these licences were not all held by one group of persons trading in the same

  1437
  interest. At any rate, the term had to be taken as it stood embodied in Acts of Parliament. It would have been better to have got a more accurate and more useful description than monopoly value. No one in the House or elsewhere disputed the fact that attaching to a licence there was a value, a something which did not attach to a trade for which a licence was not issued. When a licence was issued it gave a right to trade within limits to a number of persons who exercised that right to the exclusion of other persons not in possession of a licence. At one time there was no monopoly value attaching to a licence. The State from 1830 to 1872 issued licences for dealing in ales, beer, etc., freely to all those who applied for them. These licences were issued by the Excise without any application to the justices, and persons who got them had only to satisfy the Excise authorities that they would be able to fulfil the conditions in the licence. But it was undoubted that owing to the restrictive policy of the Legislature and to the administrative methods of the local authorities in granting new licences, the tendency of recent years for the justices and the Legislature to eliminate a certain number of the licences which already existed, a licence or monopoly value had been created. Under the Act of 1904 the value of the new licence was to be ascertained roughly by a system of tender; that was to say that a great many justices decided that if in the public interest a new licence was to be issued, they were to put that licence to private tender to ascertain what were the highest terms which a trader would be willing to give for that licence, and that was to be the monopoly value to attach to it. Any one who got a licence under these conditions did so with his eyes open. The conditions were fairly laid down under the Act, and one of those conditions was that the licence should not be issued for a longer period than seven years. Another condition was that the monopoly value might be revised year by year, or biennially, or triennially, or septen ially, and if a greater value should accrue to licences issued after 1904 owing to improved conditions of trading the justices were to be perfectly entitled
  1438
  under the provisions of the Act and were even required, to put up that licence to tender again, in order to ascertain what the value of the licence should be. As he had said, any one who tendered for that licence did so with his eyes open. But when that principle was applied to any of the old licences issued by the justices and which had been subjected to sale and barter for many years, and which had been paid for in hard cash, the whole condition of things was radically changed. Under the provisions of the clause now being discussed, the Government intended within twenty-one years to take the monopoly value from the licence-holder. If he understood the explanation given by the Government of this clause as it originally stood in the Bill, they, intended to put these licences again to tender, and to charge for them accordingly. That principle amounted, in his view, and in that of those who agreed with him on the Opposition Benches, to confiscation.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir S. EVANS, Glamorganshire, Mid.): I rise to a point of order. I ask whether it is in order on this clause to discuss the justice or injustice of the enacting of a monopoly value at all. Has that not been decided already?
  MR. GRETTONsaid he did not know what the position of the hon. and learned Gentleman was. He was not going to discuss the justice or injustice of monopoly value, but to show the hon. and learned Gentleman how the principle laid down in the clause they were now discussing would amount to confiscation and the difficulty of adopting any other alternative.
  MR. SPEAKER: It depends upon the meaning of what monopoly value is. If defined in one way it may be just, if in another way it may be unjust. I understand that the hon. Member is taking exception to the form in which it is defined in this section.
  MR. GRETTONsaid that that was exactly so. During the Committee stage the Government introduced Amendments which made it clear that the

  1439
  principle they now adopted was that they were going to charge monopoly value on the difference between the value of the premises as assessed for purposes of income-tax under Schedule A without a licence, and the value of the same premises assessed by the same method with the licence attached. The Government had also announced, though it was not embodied in the clause, that they did not intend to include in this valuation any charge for goodwill, but only the value of what they called the monopoly value—that was the value of the right to trade by an ordinary trader without having any special advantages or skill or any of the peculiar qualifications for the conduct of a business in the particular neighbourhood where the licence might be issued. As he understood the section, this method of valuation would be extremely unjust and extremely irregular in its character. There were very numerous cases, for instance, in the East of London and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, where the value of the premises with the licence attached was certainly not greater, and in some cases less, than the value of the same premises without the licence. The conditions of districts varied. Licences existed undoubtedly in many parts of the country where the value of the premises which had a licence attached was greater for other purposes than those of a licensed business. In some districts it was more profitable to erect a building to be let in flats at high rents. In such a neighbourhood there was a great demand for chambers and business premises. Buildings which afforded accommodation of that kind would command higher rents than similar buildings, part of which was licensed for the purposes of the liquor trade. In all such cases the monopoly value would be nothing whatever. In other cases in a poor neighbourhood there would be found what were practically cottage properties with a licence attached to them. With the licence these cottage properties were very valuable, but without the licence the property became really cottage property commanding a very small weekly rental for the purpose of housing working men and their families. In such cases the difference between licensed value of premises and the unlicensed value of premises was a
  1440
  very great one indeed, and when Schedule A was applied to the two cases the irregularity and injustice of the application was very apparent. In the case where there was no difference between the premises with a licence and those without a licence a very large trade might be done; in the poor neighbourhood a comparatively small trade might be done. It was perfectly patent that the application of Schedule A to the two cases was entirely inequitable, and was in no measure whatever the monopoly value of the trade done in these premises qua licensed premises. Then the method of assessment of valuation to Income-Tax also varied in many parts of the Kingdom. So far as he understood, the Government had abandoned any attempt to justify valuation under Schedule A as it now existed. They had said that they intended to raise assessments by a process which was to take place subsequent to the passing of the Bill and they intended that method of assessment to produce a much greater monopoly value than in many cases would be produced by the present method of valuation. The case was one of very great difficulty indeed in working out what would be the result of Schedule A under this Bill. He thought that the only possible method by which they could obtain it, was to apply Schedule A to those cases which now existed, where the assessment was on a higher basis than elsewhere. They could apply that definition most conveniently and to cases less open to criticism in London, because there there was not only the rental value taken of the premises but the valuation of the trade done in those premises. In order to arrive at the valuation under Schedule A the rental of the premises was taken, as buildings and the assessors ascertained from the books what was the trade done. It was a very unsatisfactory and inequitable way of ascertaining the trade done, but 10 per cent. was taken for the purpose of the valuation and was added to the value of the bricks and mortar and the land value of the premises. It was manifest that under that method there was some assessment of the goodwill, and the great difficulty which the Government were in was that of eliminating the element of goodwill from their assessment of the

  1441
  monopoly value attaching to the issue of licences for the purpose of the trade. In dealing with this question it was perfectly manifest that it would be a gross injustice to attach to a monopoly value any assessment of the goodwill. The goodwill was the result of the efficiency, personal exertion, business aptitude and other qualities which were brought into the business by the owner who exercised the privilege of the licence. The licence itself might or might not be a valuable property—a very valuable property if it was in good hands, and anyone who had experience of the trade would know that the licence in bad hands might become a worthless property, and lead to great loss to anyone who invested money in it. The licence itself was not, qua licence, the sole factor in estimating the success of the business, nor was the particular neighbourhood. The Government maintained that there were only two kinds of goodwill attaching to any licence, but in that he thought they were entirely wrong. They said the local goodwill, that was to say, the particular trade to be done by the ordinary man who came in without any special or extraordinary qualifications to do that business, and the personal goodwill, which made the success of the business, owing to the man's own personal exertions, were the two factors. He maintained that there was something beyond that; there was the trading goodwill. He would give an illustration of what he meant, and he was perfectly willing to give hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite the facts from which he was quoting. He was going to mention two particular brewers, who might be at a disadvantage if he proclaimed their names as being concerned in this matter. In one of the Northern towns there was a large brewery which occupied a block of buildings. It so happened that in that block there was one section, and only one, which was occupied by a public-house, the property of another and a rival brewery. On the other side of the same street there was another house which happened to be in the possession of the brewery he had first mentioned. These premises which intruded into their block belonged to the rival brewrery. They desired
  1442
  to obtain this particular block of buildings for the purpose of enlargement of their premises, as they desired to have elbow room so that they might extend their premises at some future date. They went to the other brewer and suggested an exchange of the two houses. The brewer who owned this intruding block was perfectly willing to treat, and it so happened that the house was doing ten barrels a week while the house on the opposite side of the street was only doing two barrels. An arrangement was come to based on a difference of trade of eight barrels a week, but the first-named brewery obtained the licensed premises which were within their own building block, and the rival brewer obtained the premises on the other side of the street which were previously only doing two barrels a week. What was the result? Why, the trade of ten barrels a week went across the street and became the possession of the house which had formerly been doing two, and the two barrels a week trade also went across the street into the building block and became the property of the purchaser instead of a house doing ten barrels. Why was that? It was because of the goodwill. It was owing to the popularity which these premises enjoyed in the neighbourhood, in consequence of the attraction of the article which was sold in them. They could not estimate that. That was not personal goodwill, or local goodwill, but it was the business goodwill which attached to a certain trade the market price of which the Government had no right to confiscate by including it in its estimate of monopoly value. Instances of that kind came up over and over again, and he was quite certain that if the estimate was to be taken under Schedule A, as it was now taken in London for the purpose of estimating monopoly value, the Government were going to tax a man for his own efficiency, and for dealing in a first class article. Therefore, the man who had the greatest possible efficiency was at a great disadvantage, because he would have to pay more than the man who was less efficient and dealt in a less desirable article. The whole basis was that they

  1443
  were going to charge a man at the end of twenty-one years a price which would be a tax upon his own business efficiency.
  THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,): May I ask what the Schedule A values were of the houses, and to what extent they differed from one another.
  MR. GRETTONreplied that his information was that the Schedule A valuations of these two houses were now absolutely identical.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Then the hon. Member's argument falls to the ground.
  MR. GRETTONreplied that he did not think the right hon. Gentleman understood the argument. Under the proposal of the Government as explained in speeches they were going to take a valuation of the trade done in these houses—
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: No.
  MR. GRETTONrepeated that this was a question of valuation under Schedule A, and he was seeing how it would work out. Let them apply it to the new licences which had recently been issued in the County of Essex. There were not many new licences which had been issued under the Act of 1904, but there were a certain number and the application and effect of Schedule A under these particular circumstances was rather interesting. He was also perfectly ready in regard to the case he was going to give, to supply any hon. or right hon. Gentleman opposite with the facts, chapter and verse in order that they might be verified, but he did not think that there was any advantage in disclosing publicly the private affairs of any particular traders in a way which would enable them to be identified. In the case of a new licence recently issued by the Essex licensing authority, there was a certain valuation made. It was made, first of all, of a vacant piece of ground subject to a ground rent of £50. It was then proposed that a provisional licence should be taken out, and an
  1444
  estimate of the trade which was likely to be done upon the premises which it was proposed to erect was made. Of course it was only an estimate with regard to the wants of the neighbourhood and the character of the accommodation, and of the building which it was proposed to erect according to the plans which were submitted and passed. It was estimated that the trade to be done was £5,000 and the gross profit was put at 40 per cent. which would amount to £2,000. The question was to arrive at the net profit. The ground rent, as he had said, was £50 and the cost of the building £8,000 which at 6 per cent. represented a rent of £480, so that the total rental to be paid before any monopoly value was charged would be £530. Then of course there were all manner of expenses, rates, taxes, licence duty, staff wages, compensation charges, the upkeep of staff, trade expenses, insurance, repairs and incidentals of all kinds. The result was an estimated net profit to the licence-holder of £300, and the arrangement made was that net profit should be halved between the licensing authority and the licence-holder. He believed in that case there was a seven years term. There was therefore a rent to be paid for the privilege of the licence, in addition to the licence duties, of £150 a year. That certainly had to be paid whatever the business done for seven years. The man who undertook that did so with his eyes open. No doubt he thought he was going to make a larger profit than his share of £150. Did the Government propose to apply that principle to the cases of the licences now existing? Were they going to confiscate half the value of these licences? Under the original clause they could not escape that result. Let them look at the application of Schedule A to that case. This particular building could not be estimated to be worth more than £100 a year if it were used for any other purpose, so that the difference in value between these particular premises licensed and this small value unlicensed would be £430, that was to say a capital value of £7,000. That was what the Government were going to take if this Bill passed. They were going to confiscate at the end of twenty-one years a capital value of £7,000, and charge the owner annually the

  1445
  value of the invested capital of which they had deprived him. A more unjust proposal than the application of Schedule A to the licences of this country for the purposes of assessing monopoly value could not be conceived. He noticed that in the Bill the freeholder's interest was taken into account in assessing the monopoly value because in the third schedule the leaseholder was entitled to deduct from the rent he paid to the freeholder a certain amount for compensation levy, and that represented a continuing interest in the monopoly value up to a period of sixty years. Taking as an illustration the case of licensed premises valued at over £900 a year and having twenty-two years to run, the compensation levy of which would be £100 in the third schedule of the Bill, the deductions from the rent in respect of that charge of £100 would be £13 for the first year and a sum of £382 for the whole fourteen years. Why should that be paid at all? At the end of twenty-two years the freeholder in the ordinary way would resume possession of the premises with the licence attached. Under the Act of 1904 it was reasonable to make that charge of £13, because the licence could not be reduced without compensation, but under this Bill at the end of twenty-one years the State would take the property for which the levy was charged. Why should the freeholder have the insurance deducted from his rental when at the end of twenty-one years he was to be deprived of his property? Then what did the Government mean by "resuming State control"? They said they were going to take away the local goodwill but not the personal goodwill of the licenceholder. By control the Government meant £ s. d. What they really wanted was that abounding revenue which the Under-Secretary announced that they were going to obtain under the provisions of this Bill. Did they mean that licences were to become State property under municipal control and that the profits were to be devoted to State and local funds? The Government owed it to the House to state clearly in what way that control would be exercised. If they did not mean £ s. d. and the full and abounding revenue, what did they mean? If
  1446
  they meant that, they were, without any explanation, going to confiscate under Clause 24 of Schedule A property which was estimated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Spen Valley at £95,000,000 upon which the people had been taxed and rated for years. He hoped that before the debate closed the hon. and learned Gentleman would enlighten the House and the country as to what the Government really meant by the full and complete State control which they were going to assume.
  MR. BARNARDseconded the Amendment. The questions which had just been put, in his opinion, illustrated the complexity and difficulty of understanding fully the principle involved in the application of Schedule A. The principle was one thing, the effect of working it appeared to him to be another. They had heard from temperance reformers a great many speculative and risky predictions as to the value of licensed premiums, and it had been pointed out in debate that Schedule A had been taken because it had been found that licensed premises had been under-assessed and undervalued, and that the application of this schedule would lead to increased assessment. He had on more than one occasion asked for information as to how Schedule A would be likely to act, and had been told by the Government that they had not the information. In the course of discussion two public-houses in Hertfordshire had been referred to, and the Minister who replied did not deal with the particular instances as to which information was available, but certainly made some very grave admissions. The right hon. Gentleman said, first of all, that the Schedule A valuation was much higher than the ordinary Poor Law valuation, and secondly, that whereas the Government had not hitherto given an indication of exactly how much contribution levy they required or how they were going to use it, the Government now calculated that they could afford to give three years additional annuity out of the funds they expected to get. He thought it would have been of greater advantage if, instead of furnishing this information,

  1447
  which the Government must have had to make this calculation, in driblets, the Government had disclosed the whole of the information they possessed on the subject. The Prime Minister recently expressed the opinion that this method of arriving at the monopoly value by the application of Schedule A would not alter the local assessments in the country, and the hon. and learned Gentleman took the same view. But if they raised Schedule A they would correspondingly increase the local assessments and place an additional charge on the trade for licence duty, for local rating purposes, and compensation levy. If they reduced the number of licensed houses by their redundancy scheme the result must be that they took out of the local assessment totals the extra value of the houses as licensed houses so reduced. The licensed houses became ordinary houses, and they reduced the local finances and the rates paid on local taxation account to the county councils by the amount of the licence duties taken away. One of these two results must happen. Either they increased enormously the charges on the trade or they drained the local authorities of their finances. In dealing with Schedule A he thought it advisable to take the definition as given by the Royal Commission on Local Taxation. The Commissioners said in Paragraphs 104–5 of their first Report that:—
  "The valuation of property for income-tax purposes is (except in the Metropolis where the assessments follow those of the union assessment committees) in the hands of Local Commissioners appointed from the body of Land Tax Commissioners. They appoint assessors whose duties consist in procuring returns from occupiers as to the amount of rent actually paid and in framing a list of the properties liable to be assessed. A copy of the poor rate valuation is first obtained and from this the forms are issued to the occupiers. It is upon these returns that the assessments of Schedule A are made up. Should the occupier fail to make a return of his rent or of the annual value of the property occupied, the Local Commissioners make an estimated assessment generally based on the gross value shown in the last poor rate, though they are not in any way bound to accept this valuation, and may make an independent one, based on what they consider to be the true annual value. Notices of assessment are then issued, against which an appeal may be made. Such appeals are heard by the Local Commissioners, the surveyor of taxes attending on behalf of the Crown. If the appellant is dissatisfied with the decision of the Commissioners, he may claim to have a valuer appointed, whose
  1448
  valuation is binding. A new valuation is made every five years, and is adopted by law as the basis of the assessments for each of the four succeeding years. The annual value is defined to be the rent if the property is let at rack-rent on an agreement made within the seven years preceding, or, if the property is not so let, then on the rack-rent at which it is worth to be let by the year."
  He referred to this explanation with the object of showing how it applied. Schedule A meant what, for convenience, he would call the rack-rent, which was the value of the premises, or the gross rents they would command in the open, market. Some portion of Schedule D was more or less against the brewing trade. In the Metropolis, under the Valuation Act of 1869, the borough councils moved in the first instance, and the surveyor of taxes sat with them and assisted and advised them. They had the London County Council at the quinquennial valuation, over-watching and saying whether what had been done was all right. Did the Government absolutely ally themselves with the statements that had been made in that House as to the quinquennial valuation in London, and would they say whether it was correct or incorrect? He did not understand why the Solicitor-General shook his head.
  SIR S. EVANS: I cannot say whether they are correct or incorrect.
  MR. BARNARD: Exactly; that was what he had been endeavouring to show, namely, that the Government's own speakers, while asking them to accept their compensation proposals were in doubt as to the basis they were taking.
  SIR S. EVANS: No.
  MR. BARNARDsaid that was his view. What he wanted to show was that when quotations of certain figures were continually trade, and when they multiplied the annual value of certain sums with some factor, to indicate how they would work out under the Kennedy judgment, he imagined from the way the figures were stated that the persons concerned thought that they were incorrect or unsatisfactory. At any rate, he would not go further than that. Perhaps more than anyone in the House he had recently had to review the whole question of valuation for local rating inside and outside the Metropolis, and he had to do so for this reason. Last year the Water Board brought a

  1449
  Bill into Parliament. They collected their income inside and outside the county of London, amounting to £3,000,000. Inside London it was collected on the rateable value. Outside the Metropolitan area they collected on the annual value. Subsequently there was a joint battle before the Committee of the House of Lords and of the House of Commons on this particular point, and the conclusion to which he came, and he believed most people who had studied the matter, was that there was hardly any solid ground of objection to the quinquennial valuation which was in force in London. He came to outside London, and here let him say at once that he had listened with astonishment to the remarks of some representatives of temperance, upon these rating questions.
  MR. LYTTELTON: What does the hon. Member believe to be the principle of the London quinquennial valuation?
  MR. BARNARDwas afraid that he could not enter into a contest with the right hon. Gentleman on that point. He understood that the principle of it was to arrive at the hypothetical value of the hereditaments to the people who occupied; them.
  SIR S. EVANS: That will not do.
  MR. BARNARDsaid that, at any rate, that was an expression of his opinion. That was to say, the hypotethical value that the premises were honestly worth to the people who occupied them—the true annual value. He thought some hon. Gentlemen had a mistaken notion as to the method of valuation adopted in the country. In the provinces they had the right of access to Schedule A, and they availed themselves of it. They had their own valuation, and they sent their clerks from time to time to copy, in the case of each of the properties inside the assessable area, the valuation placed against it under Schedule A, and then by comparison with local information, they made their own valuation lists. It had been said that there was a huge difference between the valuation for Poor Law, and the valuation for purposes under
  1450
  Schedule A. Although there was a great difference years ago, it kept on getting less and less, and to-day there was a difference of a little more than 3 per cent. between the two valuations. The reason was that years ago very probably many of the properties were under assessed, but latter-day legislation had so increased the charges on local authorities, and as far as he knew they were likely to do it still further, that it became imperative on the assessing authorities, in order to avoid a high rate, to keep increasing the assessment in order to keep themselves within a certain margin of pound-rate. That brought him to the question why, when those things were happening, and when there was no general system of assessment, the Government should single out this one trade and, practically speaking, raise its assessments. If they were universally raised, and if every other class of property were to be raised, he would have very little to say about it, but, as they stood to-day, they knew perfectly well, by a recent legal decision, that the licensed houses nearly all over the country had been raised to a high pitch of valuation, and he did not believe, except in isolated cases, that they could be put much higher. He desired to ask whether the Government deliberately intended by this method to raise the whole of the charges which were already too onerous in connection with licensed premises, or whether they still adhered to the view that the effect of taking Schedule A. would leave the position as they had already stated it, though in his opinion, quite wrongly. What was the machinery they proposed to adopt? They proposed, practically speaking, to take this particular entry as they found it, and then to deduct from the value as it was in the rate book what they said would be the ultimate valuation of the structural premises. The hon. Member for Rutland appeared to him to have shown that such an operation as that was almost certain to tend in the direction of unfairness to this particular trade. He did not personally believe that the Government were desirous of doing anything which was really unfair, but, when he carefully investigated the operation as it seemed to work out, he was forced to the conclusion that the monetary effect of it would be to give nothing at all approximate to the market value

  1451
  of what hitherto had been the buying and selling value of the premises. He very much desired that the Government should give the House a definition of what they meant by these words "monopoly value." He understood the Solicitor-General to say that the brewers' profits were to be eliminated. As he understood it, the brewers' profit, or, at any rate, the valuation of such things, were to be found, practically speaking, upon the rate books of most assessment committees in the country. If they put under Schedule A this higher valuation, and the assessment committees took it and put it on their valuation books, they knew what would follow. There was another question he wished to ask. They were told that in the future for monopoly value purposes they were to have the structural value of premises in one column and the monopoly valuation in another column. The monopoly valuation was to have nothing whatever to do with the wholesale profits. Therefore, it would be very interesting, and it was a fair thing to ask for, if the Solicitor-General would tell the House what was the extent and how they were to regulate and define what it really meant. Was it to be done on the same basis as the Inland Revenue dealt with licensed premises before, or what was to be the method to be adopted? He should not mind very much how it was done if he could in some form or other bring about the effect that compensation should represent what the property had been bought or sold for in the market. It seemed to him that on the present proposals of the Government they lacked the information they were entitled to expect, and before going further, the House ought to hear from the Solicitor-General exactly what he meant by these very doubtful words.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 15, line 36, to leave out Clause 24."—(Mr. Gretton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'shall,' in page 15, line 37, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. MONDconfessed to some surprise at the action which had been taken by the mover and seconder
  1452
  of this Amendment in proposing the rejection of Clause 24. When the Bill first came before the House he noticed among members of the licensed trade, both in speeches and in private conversations, that the one thing that alarmed them more than anything else was the want of a definition of monopoly value. What they said was: "The Government are going to seize our houses; they are going to seize all our profits, and at the end of fourteen years we shall have nothing." He should have thought that the hon. Member for Rutland and the hon. Member for Kidderminster would have welcomed a definition of monopoly value which made it perfectly clear that, far from intending to seize their premises, far from intending to interfere with the brewers' profits or even with the profits of the publicans, the term monopoly value was defined and closely defined as the difference between the rental value of the premises with and without a licence. He could not understand how his hon. friend the Member for Kidderminster could ask the Solicitor-General to define monopoly value and at the same moment move to reject the very clause that did define it. If his Motion was carried there would be no definition of monopoly value in the Bill. They had passed the stage for considering whether they were or were not to charge monopoly value. The Member for Rutland seemed to have overlooked that. What they were now discussing was whether they should have a new definition of monopoly value or whether they were to rest content with the definition given in the Act of 1904. Suppose the clause was rejected, what would happen? Then, as he understood the Bill, monopoly value would still be defined by Section 4 of the Act of 1904. That section defined it as the difference between the value which the premises would bear in the opinion of the Justices when licensed and the value of the same premises if they were not licensed. That was the definition of monopoly value adopted in the Act of 1904, and if Clause 24 was struck out that was the definition of monopoly value that would remain. The principle was entirely the same. In the Act of 1904 compensation and monopoly value ran pari passu. As Mr.

  1453
  Patterson pointed out in his excellent work, the two things must be taken together—
  "In calculating the monopoly value similar considerations will be taken into account as in assessing compensation under Section 2, that is to say, monopoly value will be the difference between the value which the premises will bear when licensed and the value of the same premises when not licensed."
  Without the definition of Section 24 they had it, on the authority of what he thought was looked on as a standard work, monopoly value would bear the same interpretation as it did under the compensation clause, and these words which had been added, and he thought very wisely added, by the Solicitor-General were really more declaratory than absolutely necessary. But surely it was not really relevant row to discuss whether or not monopoly value ought to be charged. It seemed to him that it was entirely in favour of the trade to get the monopoly value down to the basis of the compensation value. They had been listening to the complaint that the compensation value was so low that it was not worth having, and he would have thought the trade would have been relieved to know that the 60,000 licences that would remain out of the 90,000 would have to pay a much lower monopoly value than at one time they evidently anticipated.
  MR. YOUNGER: The hon. Gentleman wholly forgets that in the case of compensation it is a limited annuity, while in the case of monopoly value you take the whole—two very different things.
  MR. MOND: I quite appreciated the point of the hon. Member—that when the compensation came to an end they would get no more compensation.
  MR. YOUNGER: My point is this. You only get a few years purchase of the difference in one case, while the difference in the other case is taken permanently.
  MR. MOND: What the hon. Member means is this; that as the compensation period lapses the number of years
  1454
  purchase you get is reduced, while in this case the number of years purchase is indefinite, so long as the business lasts. But the basis is the same. I do not say the amounts are the same. I confess I do not know in what way we can meet the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken. Would they prefer to have no definition of monopoly value?
  MR. YOUNGER: I will tell the hon. Member in a minute.
  MR. MONDhoped the hon. Member who always illuminated their debates would shed a little more light than they had yet had on this question. He had no doubt he would tell them why he objected to the Schedule A valuation, but he confessed it appeared to him an extremely reasonable valuation in endeavouring to arrive at the rack rent of the premises. In all the debates they had had they had heard a great deal about market value which had been a kind of blessed word like Mesopotamia, but he noticed that all the gentlemen who had had to deal with market value, including the Inland Revenue Commissioners and Mr. Justice Kennedy, had found it extremely difficult to arrive at, and they had made very different estimates. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue of 1904 issued a Memorandum in which they started by saying they wished to arrive at market value, and they made the following very interesting remarks—
  "In ascertaining the value of licensed premises as thus understood, the same general principles apply as in the case of unlicensed premises, but these general principles are subject to certain modifying considerations by reason of the monopoly character of the business conducted under cover of the license. This tends to enhance the rent that can be exacted for licensed promises."
  They then quoted a case of which they had heard very little, although it was as important as the Kennedy judgment—
  "As Lord Blackburn laid it down in the case Mersey Docks v. Liverpool—'if the hereditaments are such as to afford peculiar facilities for carrying on any kind of business, that facility does, beyond all question, enhance the value of the occupation.' These words, though used at the time in a different connection, seem exactly to describe the case of a public-house, and accordingly the Commissioners have kept steadily in view the fact that the possession of a licence must, as a rule, substantially increase the rent the premises can command. They

  1455
  have, therefore, in each case carefully questioned the valuation of premises for purposes of income-tax under Schedule A. with a view to satisfying themselves with reference to business done and other evidence before them whether that valuation corresponded, as it aims at doing, with the rent that on entering into occupation a free tenant might be expected to covenant to pay."
  That was the language of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue who, after all, had had many years experience in valuation, and who had valued these houses for death duties. That was the basis they went on. They started with Schedule A, and all the Government had done with regard to compensation and monopoly value, so far as he could ascertain, was to follow the practice of the Treasury Departments. He would like to point out, although it might not be quite relevant, that he gathered from an answer he received the other day from the Chancellor of the Exchequer the interesting fact that in taxing for death duties and probate the Treasury were still proceeding on the lines of their own memorandum and not on the lines of the Kennedy judgment. So that the Treasury still adhered to their method of valuation for purposes of Imperial taxation. Be that as it might, it seemed to him that Schedule A aimed, and if it aimed it ought to succeed, and if it did not succeed it ought to be made to succeed, at arriving at the rent which a tenant would pay, and that after all was what they wanted to get at. They wanted to get at the difference between the annual value of the premises with and without a licence. The annual value to whom? To the tenant, and what better guide could they have? What better guide could they suggest—except the perfectly arbitrary kind of decision of the justices which they had under the Act of 1904, and which had produced the greatest fluctuations and confusion throughout the country where, in some cases, no monopoly value and in others a very high monopoly value had been charged,—what better guide could they have than the practice which the Treasury had adopted for so many years under Schedule A? It was quite possible that a large number of licensed premises were under-assessed under Schedule A. That in itself in local rating was very notorious. One of the reasons why this extraordinary method
  1456
  of keeping accounts had been adopted—charging the tenant a nominal rent and then making additional profits by charging fancy prices for beer—had been in order to make it difficult for assessment committees to find out the true value of the property. At any rate, when rating authorities wanted to find out the true value the rent book was always produced and nothing was said about the additional profits on the beer. But if Schedule A were used in reference to licensed premises in the same way as he had to pay on his house in London and as other people who owned houses not based on a fancy kind of rent had to pay, then it seemed to him the basis would be very fair in both ways. There was just one point to which he would like to refer, and that was the question put by the Member for Rutland at the end of his speech. He made an impassioned appeal to the Government at last to explain to the harrowed souls of the trade what they meant by resuming control. He had not found those words in the Bill although they had been used in speeches, he believed, but surely the confusion in the hon. Member's mind, so far as he could understand his speech was a very obvious one. Resumption of control, as he had always understood it, meant the resumption by the justices of the freedom to refuse licences. Before the Act of 1904 the justices had an absolute discretion to refuse licences. That was the law which was not disputed. After the Act of 1904 and till the expiration of the time-limit the justices could only refuse licences on payment of compensation, except for misconduct. At the end of the time-limit the justices would resume control, that was to say, not the State in the sense of the Treasury; but the State, in the sense of the people through the justices and through local option, would once more have liberty to say how many licences they would grant or whether they would grant no licences at all. That was what was meant by resumption of control. Monopoly value was a fiscal question—quite a different question. It was merely a higher licence duty postponed for twenty-one years. If they were to charge a higher licence duty in the Budget of next year would the Member for Rutland say: "You are confiscating the property"? If they were

  1457
  to double his income-tax would he say that the State was confiscating his property?
  MR. GRETTON: The hon. Member is quite as capable of answering that question as I am.
  MR. MONDsaid his answer was that he would certainly not complain of confiscation. He would say it was a grievous injustice and hardship, but he would not stand, up and contend that his property was being confiscated. He had never been able to understand why monopoly value—the difference in the rental value between licensed and unlicensed premises, which was really in his opinion a rather clumsy form of licence duty—should be looked upon as different in principle from any other form of taxation imposed by the State. That was the real difference between the two things. Resumption of control was a question of administration; monopoly value was a fiscal question, and what they were going to take, what the State was going to take, if there was anything left at the end of twenty-one years—the hon. Member for the City cheered that. He know that the consumption of beer had boon steadily declining for some time and at the end of the twenty-one years it might have declined still further, and the monopoly value might not bring in as much as sanguine minds on either side imagined it would—either on the fiscal side or on the brewers' side. As he was saying, monopoly value at the end of the twenty-one years was quite independent of the question of resumption of control. If they excluded this clause hon. Members would only be in a worse position than they were in now. The exclusion of this clause would still leave the trade liable to pay monopoly value on the undefined basis of the Act of 1904. This clause certainly defined it, and that, in itself, was a valuable thing for the trade. Personally, in the interests of the trade, he would certainly vote for the clause.
  MR. YOUNGERsaid that if this Bill applied to chemical works he did not think the hon. Member for Chester would have any difficulty in answering the questions which had been put, and he
  1458
  would take the same view of monopoly value as that which was being taken by the Opposition. It was all a matter of personal interest, and they must look at it from that point of view in dealing with licences in which they were interested, when they thought they were not being fairly dealt with. Surprise had been expressed because they had asked for a definition of monopoly value. The Prime Minister, from the outset, had stated that the monopoly value under this Bill was a totally different thing from the monopoly value attaching to a new licence. Therefore that should be swept out of the consideration if justice was to be done by the State in resuming what it gave itself, and not that which was the result of the labour, capital, and enterprise of other people.
  MR. MONDthought amending the clause would have been a better course to pursue than rejecting it.
  MR. YOUNGERsaid the hon. Member for Chester had specifically made a point of the definition given in the Act of 1904, but nobody, not even the Prime Minister, the Solicitor-General, or the Under-Secretary, for one single moment would say that that definition applied to the monopoly value of an old licence at the end of twenty-one years. The kernel of this clause was to be found in the second part of the first section containing the new definition given of monopoly value, which would apply to old licences, as well as to all new licences off and on, now to be charged at less than under the Act of 1904 which was now repealed. That was one of the effects of this particular clause as it stood, although it was not fully realised by many people. On 3rd November, when the Prime Minister placed his definition of monopoly value on the Paper, he made a speech in favour of the insertion of those words. On that occasion, he listened to the right hon. Gentleman with great interest and attention, and he followed his remarks with the idea in his mind confirmed by what the Prime Minister said that the system of valuation in use in Scotland was one which, if carried out in principle, might form a reasonably successful method of estimating fairly this very difficult question of monopoly value.

  1459
  Having that in mind he said in his own speech on that occasion that he did not consider that the Government had been altogether unsuccessful in their attempt, although he was particularly careful to say that he did not commit himself to that opinion, because the new definition had been sprung upon the House, and he had not had time carefully to consider it. He ended his speech by saying that he would give it his friendly consideration, and he had done so. He had carefully compared the system proposed with the Scottish system, and he had concluded that the definition in this clause could not fairly stand, because it would rope into the monopoly value something which the State was not entitled to take, and which under this definition the State was bound to receive. The day after he made that speech he found himself in a very unusual position. The Government supporters in the Press, anxious to grasp at any scrap of approbation, whether about Sunday closing or anything else from that side of the House, took up what he had said on this point, and paid him many compliments, and he almost imagined for the moment that he was a Parliamentary hero because he had said something which was not hostile to the proposals of the Government. He confessed that at the time he felt there was a fair chance of success for the proposal, but he was sorry he could not support the Government now, and there would have to be some alteration if monopoly value was to be fairly and honestly settled as between the licence-holder and the State. What was monopoly value? What did the Prime Minister say he wanted? The right hon. Gentleman had used the expression over and over again that he only wanted to get the local monopoly. His definition of that would be the value of an exclusive trading privilege granted in a particular area. He meant exclusive in a general sense. The first difficulty which struck him was that under this system they at once made the position difficult by introducing a hypothetical value. The value of premises made and constructed for a certain purpose must as unlicensed be of a purely hypothetical character, and therefore they had to estimate that hypothetical basis to start with, and then
  1460
  to take the difference between that and the Schedule A value, and between those two points they arrived at the monopoly value. The right hon. Gentleman also said in his speech that there were only two goodwills, the goodwill of the tenant and the goodwill of the State. The hon. Member for Rutland dealt fully with that point, and stated that there was something to be considered in addition to the popularity of the tenant and the monopolistic privilege, and that was the quality of the goods supplied in tied houses which gave a goodwill to the brewers. There was also the structural convenience and the comfort or attractiveness of the house provided by the expenditure of capital on the part of the owner, and it was impossible in valuing under Schedule A to ignore those particular conditions and leave them out of the valuation. If that was admitted, then the Prime Minister was taking something which he told them tie did not want to take, in fact, he was taking more than the local monopoly value, because he was taking what was due to the investment of the capital and the energy of the man who built up the trade. The State had no right to take that. The hon. Member for Rutland in discussing the question of owners' goodwill dealt with the case of a public-house selling two barrels a week and one selling ten barrels, and when the brewers changed the ownership the trade changed over as well. That was evidence of the brewers' goodwill.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The assessment would be the same.
  SIR S. EVANS: Does the hon. Member say we ought to make a difference between the two houses because in the one case the brewery sells better beer than the other?
  MR. YOUNGERsaid that in London there were two systems of valuing under Schedule A. One was to add to the rent a proportion of hall the premium paid for the lease, plus 10 per cent. of the added sum of the two figures; the other system was to take 10 per cent. of the turnover, which was a particularly unfair method because of its unequal operation in differently placed houses. If they sold bad beer they were not likely

  1461
  to sell much, and if they sold good beer they would be likely to sell more. That was where the question of owners' goodwill came in. Outside the Metropolis the system was wholly different. The rack-rent was taken, the tenant paying the usual rates and taxes, the landlord repairing and maintaining the property. The application of these systems varied considerably. Sometimes the scale was high, sometimes it was low, and there was no consistent scheme all over the country. A great deal depended on the assessor himself. So far as he could see a good deal more than the local monopoly value was included, and all these valuations in the future would, under this Bill, be rendered more difficult owing to the operation of Clause 20 which empowered the justices to attach conditions to the renewal of a licence. The conditions so attached to a licence might make it difficult to ascertain the local monopoly value. Then the unlicensed valuation, which was the other basis, was, of course, purely hypothetical. There were perfectly well-known cases, as the hon. Member for Rutland had pointed out, where the unlicensed value of a house was greater than that under Schedule A, just as in a very poor district, the East End of London, a large and costly public-house would have practically no value at all if the licence were taken away. In the one case, according to the Government scheme, there would be no monopoly value at all, while in the other case there would be a wholly extravagant figure. That alone was enough to prove that the definition of monopoly value given by the Government was not correct and that the plan was grotesque. If their definition was capable of producing two so entirely different results, it was quite obvious that it could not be generally accurate, though, of course, it must be generally applied, for there could be no variation. Therefore it would be extremely inequitable in its application. In many cases it would be as absurd as it was unjust. He did not blame the Government or the draftsman of the Bill for inability to discover a form of words which would define in a consistent and logical way this will-o'-the-wisp called the local monopoly value. It had eluded so
  1462
  far all those who had attempted to find it, and he did not see much more sign of success in the definition given in Clause 24 than in the efforts which had previously been made. He was not an expert and it was not his business to give a definition. He was only there to criticise, or to approve if he could approve. It was the business of the Government to define the term, and he had proved, at all events to his own satisfaction, that they had not discovered a definition in this particular case which could fairly or properly apply. Another difficulty arose out of the extraordinary variations in local rating in England. Every parish had its own system. In some cases, as in his own county in Scotland, the gross 100 per cent. valuation was taken and that valuation appeared on the rate books, while in other cases the valuation was placed at 60 or 70 per cent. of the full amount. That was perfectly fair so far as local rating was concerned if all the ratepayers were assessed on exactly the same principle. But it was a different thing if they took this valuation as the starting point for fixing the monopoly value. If they took a low valuation, which was made for rating purposes in one parish, and a high valuation in the next parish, and then took the difference between these valuations and the Schedule A valuation they would get different results from what they wanted to get, and there again the monopoly value would be unfairly estimated, in his view some other system must be discovered if the monopoly value was to be fairly ascertained. It would be very difficult no doubt, but he did not think it would be altogether impossible. Regard would have to be had to various considerations, such as the requirements and population of the area, and an estimate of what the profits would be if the trade was carried on under free instead of restricted conditions. The other day he consulted a very able assessor who summed up his opinion of Schedule A very shortly by saying: "I am satisfied that Schedule A valuation would be quite inequitable." The Government had to address themselves to a solution of that. The monopoly value of licensed houses in a particular area depended upon whether

  1463
  they were large or small, and whether they were doing a good or a bad trade. Originally the monopoly granted in any area by the State was of equal value in all cases. A and B each got a monopoly to sell liquor; the privilege in each case was absolutely the same. One man who had not very much capital nor much enterprise opened a small house and only developed the monopoly to a certain extent. The other man opened a large house and was able to secure a very much larger trade. The Government now came in and said to the small man that his monopoly value would be so-and-so, and that the large man's monopoly value must be so much more, though the monopoly values were originally exactly the same. One man by his capital and enterprise developed the monopoly value and made it ten times better than the other man who did not develop it at all. The Government came in and took a portion of the value which was given to the property by the man who had employed larger capital and shown greater enterprise and energy than the other man on the ground that it was part of the local monopoly value. He held that the value so given to the licensed premises could not be regarded as part of the local monopoly value. The Government no doubt had done their best to find a definition which would be logical and consistent, but they had entirely failed, and that was the reason why he objected to the clause. The House should remember that at present part of the monopoly value was being received by the State. He would remind the House that the State was at present receiving part of the monopoly value in the shape of licence duty. This amounted to £1,500,000 per annum or a capitalised value of £37,500,000. An assessor had informed him that it was difficult to say how much the monopoly value exceeded this licence duty. He did not think the measure of the monopoly value had been found. It was still a will-o'-the-wisp which eluded its seekers, and the Government could not be congratulated on the attempt it had made to find it, and a solution which would be equitable and consistent had still to be discovered.
  MR. G. D. FABERsaid that no doubt the Government found themselves in an extraordinarily invidious position, brought about entirely through their own fault. On the one hand, they had to satisfy their most extreme supporters that what they were going to take at the end of twenty-one years under the guise of monopoly value was almost everything except the bricks and mortar; and on the other, they had to try and convince a fair-minded public that they were going to take at the end of the twenty-one years, under the guise of monopoly value, something quite small and immaterial. Why was not the definition now given, given months and months ago? It was regarded on all sides as one of the cardinal points of the whole business. The Bill was introduced last February, and there was not a word in it defining monopoly value. It was only two or three weeks ago, during the Committee stage, that suddenly one morning there appeared upon the Amendment Paper a definition evolved out of the inner consciousness of the Government, of monopoly value. And the discussion of the Amendment came on at half-past seven when there were not forty Members in the House. The Prime Minister gave his explanation of the Amendment; the right hon. Member for Dublin University followed him, and the matter was discussed to a certain extent, but only cursorily, because the terms of the Amendment were anything but clear. Therefore Members wire in this unusual position, that they were for the first time seriously grappling with the meaning of monopoly value on the last day of this most laborious discussion on the Report stage, while the Third Reading, which was an ornamental summing up of the whole position, would be taken on the morrow. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University, who always entered into the minds of other people, especially on the Government side of the House, remarked, it might be that the Government found the task entirely beyond them, and that they were leaving the task to the more popular House, to the House of Lords. So much did he suspect anything coming from the Government side of the House on this licensing

  1465
  question that he wished to examine this clause in the light of what was written and said at the time of the introduction of the Bill. What was then said gave a much fuller insight into the Government mind than anything proposed now. Before the introduction of the Bill, the right hon. Member for Spen Valley, their champion, writing in a pamphlet, said—
  "In 1904 I estimated the then market value of all the on-licences in England and Wales at about £125,000,000."
  That estimate was exclusive of the premises. It was the licence market value only. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to give reasons for putting the figure at the present time at £95,000,000. He need not enter into the right hon. Gentleman's reasons for taking off £30,000,000 from the original figure. All the right hon. Gentleman excluded was bricks and mortar and the ground on which these stood. The right hon. Gentleman was entitled to pray the Bill in aid to the extent that the Bill gave no definition whatever of monopoly value, and consequently the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to put his own interpretation on the meaning of monopoly value. What did the Under-Secretary for the Home Office say on 28th April last on the Second Reading? The words had been quoted before. They were few but very pregnant. He said—
  "At the end of the time-limit we believe that the monopoly value will bring to the public purse an abounding revenue."
  It would be for that House and another place to judge whether the present belated explanation of monopoly value was not merely a gloss in order to conceal the real intentions of the Government in this matter and the real intention of the temperance party which was behind them. And what did the Prime Minister himself say in regard to monopoly value, when he introduced the Bill? This seemed to him to be of extreme importance in order to ascertain the real meaning now. The Prime Minister said—
  "The second main object of the Bill—not less important though, perhaps, less easy of attainment—is the gradual but complete recovery, with due regard for existing interests, by the State of its dominion over its property
  1466
  in a monopoly which has been improvidently allowed to slide out of its control."
  And then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say—
  "How, then, has that which we are accustomed to call the monopoly value in licences in private hands come into existence and been allowed to grow up? How have these enormous values… been allowed to come into existence? The answer is very simple. The State has received nothing, unless, indeed, the very small licence duty that is exacted from the owners of the licences of public-houses can be regarded as anything—and as everybody knows, it is a mere drop in the ocean. The State has received nothing, or nothing that can be described as in any sense a substantial or even a partial equivalent for the monopoly value with which it has parted."
  In view of the above, he was entitled to say that, at any rate at that time when the Government, after profound consideration—because a Bill of this kind was not suddenly thrown on the Table of the House of Commons without having been carefully considered—there was every indication that the Ministerial Party intended to take an immense sum of money at the end of twenty-one years under the guise of monopoly value. What he was now trying to ascertain was what it was they really proposed to take under the new definition. Did they propose to take merely the value of the restrictive privilege to trade under the licence as granted, or did they propose to take very much more—the personal or the local or the manufacturing goodwill belonging to different people, or did they intend to take all? It was almost an impossibility to disintegrate these kinds of goodwill from the restrictive permission to trade. The latter was the bone, and round it had been built up the flesh and blood. It was as impossible to tear the one from the other, as Shylock found it when he was confronted with the attempted task of cutting off the pound of flesh without shedding a drop of blood. He would, for the purposes of argument, credit the Government with honesty in this matter. Suppose he had had the extraordinary ill-fortune to be one of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue who would have to form an estimate of monopoly value—because when they had passed this Bill they had not finished with the matter. Somebody would, have to work out this definition of the monopoly

  1467
  value. Let him take the words of the clause—
  "The monopoly value shall be taken to be the sum by which, in the opinion of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, the value of the premises, as adopted or estimated for the purpose of income-tax under Schedule A when licensed, and without taking into consideration any provisions for securing to the public the monopoly value, exceeds the value of the premises for that purpose when not licensed."
  What did the phrase: "without taking into consideration." etc., mean? If he were an officer of the Inland Revenue he should try to understand the matter in this way. His first quantity would be to find out the value of the premises with the licence. Supposing he brought that out at £400, then the clause told him that he must not take into account any provisions for securing to the public the monopoly value. For argument's sake he would assume that the monopoly value was £100, he supposed the clause meant that he must not take the monopoly value of £100 from the £400, and bring it down to £300, but he must leave the £400 standing. The words, however, were most obscure and might be read in a great many ways. On the one hand that would be the value, with the licence. On the other hand he had to ascertain the value without the licence, but that again would be a most difficult task. He did not know which was the more difficult to ascertain—the value of a licensed house with or without the licence—because, when he was trying to ascertain the value with a licence, there arose the whole quest on of monopoly value, and when he had to value it without a licence he had to enter into the arena of speculation, because he had to contemplate a state of things which did not exist, and imagine the property without a licence. Therefore he did not think hon. Members of the House should think that merely by putting a cut-and-dried form of words into this Bill, it meant that it was going to be a cut-and-dried or easy task for anybody to work out, however expert he might be. His next duty, if he were a Commissioner of Inland Revenue, would be to proceed upon the basis of the assessment for the purpose of income-tax under Schedule A. Here everybody knew that there were extra-
  1468
  ordinary differences, disparities, and inequalities. Different authorities took entirely different views. Sometimes the valuation would be very high; some-times it might be very low; it depended upon the idiosyncracies of the assessors. There was no hard and fast rule. Therefore the Inland Revenue Commissioners would find themselves in every case with their major premise a varying one. The Government had felt that difficulty, because it was part of their argument that this unequal valuation with all its disparities was not going to inure, as they were going to have a fresh assessment under Schedule A for income-tax purposes. Let this House realise what extraordinary results were going to follow from that. There was always danger attending the taking of a first step in a new country without having worked out where that step was going to lead to; if they altered the assessment for income-tax purposes and made it higher, rating for municipal purposes would sympathetically follow—in fact, in London the two marched together at present—so that the result of altering the Schedule A assessment for income-tax purposes would be that it would everywhere be followed by a corresponding increase in rates; and not only so, the licence duty would rise, because that was based on Schedule A. It would result in gross unfairness all round for licensed properties. In their attempt to get a cut-and-dried definition of monopoly value by taking the assessment in Schedule A as their basis, they were going to do extraordinary injustices all round to licensed premises in other directions. And what an unfair position the Government were going to put licensed property in in another respect. They were really going to put it between "the Devil and the deep sea." because if Schedule A was increased, then under Clause 10 the owner of the licensed property that was taken away would to that extent get more compensation—he agreed that would inure to his benefit qua compensation, but that compensation was not paid by the State, but was paid by the trade to the trade. But when they came to the monopoly value, the screwing up of Schedule A would mean that the State would get much more

  1469
  monopoly value. They were calling on the trade to choose between one or the other. If the income-tax assessment under Schedule A was not screwed up, then the compensation would be very low; whereas on the other hand if it was screwed up, then the monopoly value became the higher because of that operation. The State got the advantage then in the shape of an increased monopoly value. He asked the hon. and learned Solicitor-General when he got up to reply, to answer this question: Is it only the value of the restricted privilege conferred by the licence which you propose to take under your new definition of monopoly value, or are you taking goodwill as well, and if so, is it the personal goodwill or the local goodwill or the goodwill of the manufacturer; is it all of each, or part of each, or what is it? The last point he would touch upon seemed to him to be of importance. If the goodwill was not included in the monopoly value how was the State to get that complete control of the liquor trade at the end of the time-limit on which temperance reformers had laid such stress? According to the new definition the monopoly value was only the lamb and not the wolf. Were the Government genuine in this matter? If their definition was honest it did not mean that they were to recover the control of the trade. This was a sort of sop thrown down at the last moment in the hope that it would satisfy somebody, and that another place would be led to say: "After all, this monopoly value does not mean much." It was intended not as a working factor, but as merely introduced to secure the passage of the Bill. Once the Bill was passed with this indefinite illusory clause in it, there would be a thousand and one ways in which the monopoly value would be screwed tip and up until it reached such a figure as would amount to the whole value of the property, and the trade would be left with the bare bones and nothing else.
  MR. CAVEthought they ought to have an answer to the speeches that had been made from the Opposition benches, but as no answer had yet been forthcoming he would like to put as shortly as he could the view which
  1470
  he took of this clause. He complained on the discussion of this clause in Committee of two things. One was that under it the monopoly value—the sum to be paid to the State—was to be fixed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, who were the Revenue officers of the State. They were thus made in fact judges in their own cause. He was, when he advanced that objection, referred to the Act of 1904, under which the Commissioners fixed the compensation, but in that case the compensation was to be paid not to the State but to the person dispossessed by reducing the licence. Therefore the analogy did not apply. He asked the Prime Minister at the time of the discussion whether, in view of the points which had been raised, he would in this Bill allow an appeal against the Commissioners' decision. The Prime Minister had said that he would consider it. The right hon. Gentleman had now had time to consider it and he would ask the Minister who replied to say whether that appeal would be allowed. A point had been made that the Opposition had asked for a definition, and having got one were not satisfied with it. They had asked for a definition certainly, but not for this definition. He had asked for one which would give effect to the definite and very clear pledges given by the Government on the Second Reading. The Under-Secretary had given as his definition of the monopoly value the annual value of the advantage conferred by the exclusion of free competition, and he had asked time after time to have in the Bill a definition which would give effect to that statement and that pledge. His complaint was that this definition was entirely at variance with the statement made by the Under-Secretary on the Second Reading, because it included the goodwill of the publican and the brewer, except the goodwill attaching to the personal influence of the publican and the increased value given by expenditure on the buildings to adapt them to this trade. Take the case of a man owning a public-house worth £200 a year and assessed at that sum. Assume that he spent £3,000 upon that house in order to adapt if for the purpose of a public-house and for no other purpose. The

  1471
  following year his assessment would be put up, say by £100. Under this Bill and this definition the effect would be that this £100 a year, which represented the expenditure of the owner of the house, would be exacted every year by the State as monopoly value. The hon. Member for the Appleby division had admitted the difficulty on a previous occasion and that he did not see the answer to it. Perhaps the Government would give them an answer in the course of that debate. He did not think the Government could deny that the monopoly value as now defined did include any goodwill attached to the premises. The Schedule A value of the premises as licensed necessarily included the goodwill attached to the premises as licensed premises, and the Schedule A value of the premises without the licence necessarily excluded that goodwill, and it was by deducting the latter figure from the former that the monopoly value was assessed. Accordingly, they had it definitely that, in spite of the pledge of the Under-Secretary, this definition of monopoly value did include the local goodwill. As an illustration he would take the case of a man who took a new public-house and spent his energy, money, and time upon it and made a good custom for that house. He had there created a real and increasing goodwill. Did the State create either that goodwill in this particular case or the value of the building in his first illustration? If the State created them there would be some ground for saying that the State could take the value, but if the State did not create either, what earthly justification was there for taking either of them into account for the purposes of monopoly value? His objection was not only to the use of the reference in Schedule A, but that the Government were attempting to apply the definition of monopoly value in the Act of 1904 or a somewhat similar definition in this clause to a new subject matter altogether, to which it could not be fairly applied. If the Government wanted to do justice they must put in a definition which would confine the monopoly to that which the right hon. Gentleman had termed "the advantage conferred by the exclusion of free competition." If they put in that definition the monopoly value would
  1472
  be simply what the charter of the State had given to the publican. To do more than that would be to annex, to appropriate the goodwill which a man had created by his own energy and his own capital. To take the yearly value of his capital expenditure was not to take back what the State had given but to take away the property of the individual: that could no more be defended than similar proposals put forward by persons holding the Socialistic creed. If this definition stood in the Bill it appeared to him that it ought to be fatal to the Bill, because he did not think any fair-minded man in either House who understood the real meaning of the cause could pass this Bill with this definition in it. For that reason unless some promise of some amendment was given by the Solicitor-General he would be compelled to vote against the clause.
  MR. JAMES HOPEcould not find any time when the State held this monopoly, therefore the word "resumption" was out of place. The first restrictions placed on the trade were in the interest of good morals and public order. It was solely due to those restrictions that the monopoly value was created. A different, policy was attempted by the Alehouse Act of 1828, with very disastrous results. He took exception to the word "estimate" in the clause, and would ask the Solicitor-General whether it meant that the Commissioners going over the various houses might say that the Schedule they had before them was wrong; that they believed the valuation ought to be higher, and that they might base their calculation for monopoly value solely on an arbitrary estimate of their own, quite apart from other considerations. He would compare the effect of this clause with Clause 10. When they were dealing with compensation they were told that all would be well if the licensed holders would allow their assessments to be raised, in order that they might get a larger sum for compensation. He thought it had been pretty well shown in argument that it mattered very little what the exact amount of the compensation would be under Clause 10 to the trade, as a whole. It was paid by the trade to the trade, and they had not the same conditions

  1473
  that they would have under the old system. But after comparing these two clauses, if they got their assessments raised, as had been suggested, although they got a greater advantage by way of compensation under Clause 10, still the amount of the levy would be increased, and as the result of monopoly value being included they would be in an infinitely worse position than if their assessments had not been raised. Therefore, the State would get an enormous value in hand if they adopted the suggestion that these assessments should be raised for the purposes of compensation. Whether they wished the assessments to be raised or not, Clause 45, which they had no opportunity of discussing, intimated that it was the intention of the Government, partly by legislation, where London was concerned, and partly by administrative action, that these assessments should be raised, in order that revenue might be obtained. The third subsection said that conditions attached to the granting of new licences for the purpose of securing to the public the monopoly value might provide for the provision of the payment fixed for the purpose on the renewal of the licence either annually or periodically. He submitted that this would lead to worse abuses in the licensed trade, as had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, who said that if they wanted a licensed trade well conducted, they must give them security. That was exactly what this third subsection would destroy. They would be liable to this continual revision under the section, and the worst kind of tenant would go into the business, would make his profit as quickly as possible, by whatever means were at his disposal, and would then clear out, lest a further inquisition should come upon him. Hard as these provisions would be on the licence-holders in general, there would be a particular hardship in the effect of this clause combined with the Third Schedule on those owners of licensed property who had let their premises on lease. The Third Schedule provided for deductions that might be made by the actual licence-holder from the rent which he paid. Of course, if the assessments were raised, the result would be that more would be paid by way of levy, with the result that
  1474
  the licence-holder would be entitled to make a larger deduction from the gross amount of his rent. Take the case of licensed premises with a lease of twenty-one years, terminating coincidently with the reduction period, plus the seven years. Putting the value of the premises at £900, the levy would be £100. In the first year, there would be a deduction of £13 from the rent, in the second year £14, and so on, up to the whole amount of rent in the last year of the reduction period, which he believed worked out at £382. Was that not extraordinarily hard on the owner of the premises? All those deductions were a direct consequence of those higher assessments. It might be said that this was the case under the Act of 1904, but let the House note the difference. Under that Act, the owner in the end got the fruition, and got back his licensed premises into his own hands. He was able to re-let on further terms, and he had an additional advantage from the fact that a number of other licences were being suppressed in the meantime. Here, on the other hand, having made his calculation, he found that immense deductions had to be made from it, and at the end of the term, instead of resuming possession, he merely came into possession of the bare premises, and the State came down with a sledgehammer and demanded monopoly value from him. That was a case of extraordinary hardship. On a former clause he had submitted a converse case of a householder. In this case the hardship was on the freeholder. What was to be the position at the end of the twenty-one years when monopoly value was to be exacted? This Bill was conceived in the interests of temperance reform, but it was also conceived in the interests of the Treasury, and when the time came, at the end of the twenty-one years, there would be a difference between these two interests. There would be the interest of temperance that less liquor should be sold, there would be the interest of the State that more and more liquor should be consumed. They would find themselves in face of exactly the same difficulty that the Government of India had been confronted with in regard to opium, that although they limited the abuse they could not take steps to

  1475
  correct it without denuding the Treasury. When it came to morality versus finance, it was generally finance that won.
  SIR S. EVANS: This matter has been dealt with by every speaker in a way of which we have no right to complain at all. Nobody feels the difficulty more acutely than I do of getting an accurate definition, but I think it was the desire of everybody that monopoly value should not be left in this Bill undefined. In answer to the observations of the hon. Member for York, when he complained that the speech of the Prime Minister was made on the same day that the Amendment was put down, I have only to say that all along it was estimated by the Prime Minister that in his view and in the view of the Government, if we could, it would be advisable to put in a definition of monopoly value, and that Amendments would be put down with that object. At that time the Prime Minister made a full explanation of what his meaning was in regard to the definition—I am not going to ride away on a defence of other portions of the clause. We have got in this clause the concession made to the hon. Member for Sheffield with regard to the lump-sum houses; and we have got in the clause, also, the provision with regard to securing revision of amount, which I think is a very good portion of the clause. I conceive that hon. Members opposite are perfectly entitled to move the rejection of this clause in order to get a discussion on it as one question. It is necessary to remember in connection with the whole question that the definition will apply to two classes of houses. It applies at once to the new licences which may be granted after the passing of this measure. In other words, the definition of the monopoly value as described in the Act of 1904, which the justices were required to take on the granting of new licences, will now have to be changed in the basis of calculation for the monopoly value as defined under this measure. The operation of the definition, whatever definition may finally be adopted with regard to new on-licences, will be very small, because it will apply to a vary small number of houses. With regard to other licences to which the
  1476
  definition will be applicable, it is postponed for a period of twenty-one years, and however difficult it may be for us I to-day to define what monopoly value may be, it may happen that the wisdom of those who succeed will be greater than curs. It is only to those licences which come into existence as new licences at the end of twenty-one years that this definition will apply. Let us see what the words were in the Act of 1904, because we must remember that monopoly value was first invented under that Act. It is not merely a debating point that I make when I criticise those words, because if our definition is not accepted we must fall back upon what the justices have to do under the Act of 1904.
  MR. CAVE: Why?
  SIR S. EVANS: There is no other definition in the Bill, and the Amendment which is down on the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kingston, seeks to restore the description of monopoly value given under Section 4 of the Act of 1904.
  MR. CAVEsaid he had tried to give a definition and had considered and reconsidered it in regard to his own Amendment, but he had said very plainly that he did not think it would meet his point, and therefore he wanted a new definition altogether.
  SIR S. EVANS: That shows the difficulty. It is quite right that I should point out that the hon. Member himself thought a better alternative would be the description in the Act of 1904. The hon. and learned Gentleman thinks these things out very carefully, and the conclusion to which he has come is shown in the Amendment he has put on the Paper. So far as I have been able to ascertain, I think I am right in saying that the hon. and learned Member has never put an Amendment on the Paper in the course of the whole Committee stage which was not from his point of view a perfectly serious Amendment. Under the Act of 1904 the justices had to fix and secure to the public the monopoly value in the way they thought best. If you take the words of that Act you have the proposal that the licensing justices

  1477
  themselves in some way, without the necessary machinery, without the qualifying experience, by some haphazard method, should fix what the monopoly value is to be. That is perfectly clear under the Act of 1904. Everybody knows that in practice, when that monopoly value was fixed in reference to new on-licences granted since 1904, the action of the justices has been by mere rule of thumb. I am not making that a matter of complaint, but it has been the result. There was a sort of estimate and what the justices said was: "We will give you a licence to which we attach the monopoly value. Will you take it?"
  MR. YOUNGER: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman estimated the possible trade which will accrue, which is not altogether so difficult as he imagines?
  SIR S. EVANS: It is much more difficult than to estimate the value of the premises as licensed and as unlicensed. But that is the condition in the Act of 1904 which for the first time created monopoly value—which made it possible for the first time to get monopoly value in respect of new licences. Of course it is perfectly fair to say in answer to that: "But you are now legislating, although for twenty-one years hence, in respect of existing houses." Let me come to the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs for a moment. He also has kept a very clear brain, notwithstanding that he says his brain is bewildered.
  MR. YOUNGER: It is a perfect nightmare to me.
  SIR S. EVANS: Then he has been able to conceal that remarkably well, for I never heard him deliver a speech in the course of this discussion which was not perfectly clear and plain and easily understood by everyone. I do not think that follows merely because he has a clear brain. I do not think there are many provisions of the Bill which have been anything but clear. I admit that portions have been difficult, but so far as any bewilderment is concerned it has been entirely absent from the brain of the hon. Member opposite and of a good many others besides. It is fair, when discussing whether or not this is as good
  1478
  a definition as you could have, to quote what the hon. Member himself said, giving him a full right to say upon reconsideration that he has come to a different conclusion. First thoughts are sometimes the best, and this is what the hon. Gentleman said when the matter was first discussed in the House—
  "He thought the Government had made a not unsuccessful effort to define in this clause what the monopoly value really was. He was bound to say it was extremely difficult to give a proper definition of monopoly value if they did not want to include tenants' goodwill and considerations of this kind rightly charged under Schedule B. What they wanted to get at was the monopoly value of the licence, in whosever hands the house might be—that was to say, to get rid of the goodwill."
  MR. YOUNGER: May I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that I asked him whether he was dealing with the Scottish point of view, and he said he was. So was I. But you are not dealing with it from the Scottish point of view, because I have found out since that the English system of valuation is totally different. What was present to my mind is not what is now present to my mind on further inquiry into the matter.
  SIR S. EVANS: The hon. Member went on to say—
  "With regard to the Scottish method the assessor in Scotland made his calculations which enabled him to find out in a rough and ready way what the monopoly value of these premises might be."
  Finally he said—
  "If the time were to be extended in such a way and under such conditions as to make it palatable, he thought there was a method sketched out in this Amendment which probably afforded as good a chance of defining what might reasonably be called monopoly value as any other system he could suggest."
  I am not tying him in any way to these observations.
  MR. YOUNGER: Under similar conditions I would say exactly the same now, but I find the conditions to be different, and I particularly dealt with the Scottish system, having asked the Prime Minister who stated to me beforehand that was the way he was dealing with the matter. I find it was not so.
  SIR S. EVANS: I do not recollect that statement of the Prime Minister.

  1479
  However, the definition which is now on the Paper and which is now being discussed is the definition which was on the Paper and was being discussed at that time. I accept entirely what the hon. Member says. These were his first thoughts on the materials then before him, and with the understanding which he said he had when the Prime Minister discussed the matter. To-day he has called it a bad attempt, which he is perfectly entitled to do, but he has also called it a careless attempt, which I assure him it is not. Now let me come to the question put by the hon. and learned Member for Kingston. I am going to pass by if I may, in order to give time to others, the question put by the hon. Member for Kidderminster. I think he was confusing Schedule A with rating more than he ought to do. The hon. and learned Member for Kingston made three main points. The first was that the monopoly value was to be fixed by the Inland Revenue officers, that they were the officers of the State which was to receive money, and that therefore they were to be made judges in their own cause. Of course, to make a person judge in his own cause as we ordinarily understand that phrase is a bad thing, but I do not think we ought to apply that well-known maxim to a case of this kind, and the answer the hon. and learned Gentleman made to my reply, that the compensation was to be assessed finally under the Act of 1904 by the Inland Revenue Commissioners, was not a complete analogy, because he says the money in that case went to the locality.
  MR. CAVE: Not to the locality, but to the owners of the houses.
  SIR S. EVANS: The fund was a local fund. But let me deal with the question whether it is right for the Inland Revenue to deal with the matter. It does not make a penny of difference to the Inland Revenue. The same thing applies entirely to the question of income-tax. The very fixing of Schedule A is a fixing of Schedule A in order to attach income-tax to it, and that money goes to the State, and therefore the observation of the hon. and learned gentleman with regard to
  1480
  that matter is entirely unsound. I do rot believe anyone will say there will be a tendency to do anything unfair or unjust on the part of the Inland Revenue officials, because indirectly by anything they may do in putting a valuation upon any premises for the purpose of Schedule A, they may be benefiting the State of which they are the servants.
  MR. CAVE: Will there be an appeal?
  SIR S. EVANS: No. There is no appeal. The second argument was that the definition transgressed the rules which were laid down in the statement of the Under-Secretary for the Home Office, and that the definition would make the Schedule A. value include the goodwill of the publican and the brewer apart from local goodwill. I understood at the time, and I am informed now, that what was intended by my right hon. friend on that occasion was this—that the Schedule A assessment should not include the personal goodwill either of the publican or of the brewer, and it is not now intended and it never has been intended to include personal goodwill either. A great deal has been said with regard to the state of things which arises because good beer is sold in one house and bad beer may be sold in another. I do not think Schedule A assessments are arrived at by having any regard to the quality of the beer at all. I know the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs gave some rough and ready method which was applied in London in order to arrive at Schedule A. I propose before I sit down to read the provisions with regard to Schedule A. which are applicable to London and to the country, in order to test whether or not our definition is a right and just one. In connection with the second head, the hon. and learned Gentleman gave a concrete case, and concrete cases are not only very easy to understand but are very often difficult to answer, because they are intended to be made difficult. You may put a definite concrete case which may appear to give rise to injustice. The hon. and learned Gentleman says, Supposing a house is worth £200 a year, and then there is expended £3,000 on the building and by reason of

  1481
  the expenditure the assessment is put up to £300, Schedule A would include that £100 in the monopoly value, and it would have to be exacted every year after the twenty-one years period. If there are any words which would make it easy to deal with a case of that kind by way of reference to the Inland Revenue officials or otherwise, I should not object. But I think the answer is this. The expenditure upon that house is made with reference to the licensing trade and, after the expenditure has been made I see no difference between that case and the original expenditure on the original building. The expenditure is in order to adapt the house for the licensing trade. The house, by reason of the licence being given to it by the State, is worth so much. It is worth more because it has been increased or better adapted for the purpose, but it is only worth that much because a licence attaches to it.
  MR. CAVE: And because the money has been spent.
  SIR S. EVANS: So is the money spent in building the house in the first instance. It is exactly the same.
  MR. CAVE: You do not take monopoly value on the original building.
  SIR S. EVANS: I beg pardon. You do if you ascertain the annual value of the premises in the one case with the licence and in the next place without the licence. I do not think in practice there will be any injustice at all done to anybody in the case which is put by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I think I might ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether there is any difference between the case he put and that of a house licensed since 1904 with the monopoly value fixed year by year. There is none at all, if the justices under the Act of 1904 did their duty, because there was no discretion given them as to the basis. They were told they must adjust the matter as best they could. The difficulty put by the hon. and learned Gentleman would be precisely the same and the injustice caused, if any, would be identical. The third and last point was that the local goodwill would
  1482
  be included in the assessment for the purposes of Schedule A. The Prime Minister said it was, and it is included in Schedule A. The local goodwill is very difficult to define exactly in figures. In some measure a house becomes a better known house by reason of the activity and good management of the tenant, but the house would be assessed for the purpose of contributing to the State in the position where it is, and with the licence attached to it. Such goodwill, therefore, as attaches to it, which is properly described as local goodwill, we think ought to be included in all assessments under Schedule A. And that brings me to ask myself the question, What is there in the definition which makes it unfair if we apply the monopoly value after twenty-one years? Take a house with a business worked up by the personal attention of the tenant to a high figure. Schedule A for the purpose of income-tax says you must find out what the rent is, and, if not, estimate the rack rent. I hope the House will allow me to read the rule that applies to Schedule A in the income-tax, and I will also read the provision in regard to the Metropolis. The general rule for estimating under Schedule A is—
  "The annual value of lands, tenements, hereditaments, or heritages charged under Schedule A shall be understood to be the rent by the year at which the same are let at rack rent if the amount of such rent shall have been fixed by agreement commencing with the period of seven years preceding the fifth day of April next before the time of making the assessment, but if the same are not so let at rack rent, then at the rack rent at which the same are worth to be let by the year."
  That was the general Schedule A. The provision in the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, provided that Schedule A value—
  "Means the annual rent which a tenant might reasonably be expected, taking one year with another, to pay for an hereditament, if the tenant undertook to pay all usual tenant's rates and taxes, and tithe commutation rent charge, if any, and if the landlord undertook to bear the cost of the repairs and insurance, and the other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain the hereditament in a state to command that rent."
  Bearing in mind what the basis of valuation for assessment under Schedule A is, I ask is it fair or not to say that you ought to fix a monopoly value with reference to the difference in the rack-rent, not which

  1483
  the particular tenant pays to the particular brewer, but which, looking to the thing as a whole, if there be no rack-rent in existence, where it is premises with a licence attached, and estimating it also as premises without a licence—is it fair or not to say that the difference between those two things is the increased value given to those premises by reason of the licence which has been conceded to the premises or to the owner of the premises by the State? That is the foundation of this definition. It may not be perfect. It has been said on all sides that a definition is advisable, but I think I am right in saying that although it may be attacked here and there more or less successfully and only defended less or more successfully, that definition holds the field. It was a complaint when we were discussing compensation that that was unfair to the brewers; now it is a complaint the other way. And until I hear a better definition I am satisfied that the definition we have put in the Bill is as near the right definition as can be got.
  SIR E. CARSON: My hon. and learned friend has claimed that his definition holds the field, but I am very glad to think that even if it holds the field it will not come into force at any rate for twenty-one years. That is a matter for congratulation considering the fact that we are now seriously discussing at the twelfth hour what is really the paramount question in relation to the whole of the proposals of the Bill, namely, the question of monopoly value. I think it is remarkable that in the short time allotted to us we are supposed to discuss some twenty clauses and five schedules. I think we have now arrived at a condition of affairs in relation to this question in which I may safely say that there are not twenty Members in the House who know what will happen at the end of the twenty-one years period. This section is doubly important for the reason that you are taking away by it the possibility of a discussion as to what monopoly value means when the matter comes to be adjudicated upon. Under the Act of 1904 you had a discussion before the magistrates where you could be represented and examine witnesses. The last discussion on this question is the one that
  1484
  takes place to-night, and there will not be any more room for the discussion of this subject before any tribunal and the whole thing is to be left in this condition. The Solicitor-General has made two admissions which must startle those who are trying to get at what it is that the State proposes to take possession of at the end of twenty-one years. We were told by the Under-Secretary for the Home Office, as quoted by the hon. and learned Member for Kingston, that all the State wanted was the advantages conferred by the exclusion of free competition. Is that what the Solicitor-General has just told us? He told us if you had a licensed house—and when you have got the licensed house you have the monopoly—you have the advantage of the exclusion of free competition. If after you have got the licence you spend £3,000 upon the premises, that raises the assessment £100 a year, and the hon. and learned Gentleman says that the State has a right to confiscate that.
  SIR S. EVANS: No.
  SIR E. CARSON: The Solicitor-General says that the State has a right to resume possession of that, and I want to know where the State gets that right. We are asked what is the difference between a house in which there is no licence and one where a licence has been granted in regard to the making of improvements. I wish to point out that in my illustration when the improvements were made the man had the monopoly and that is the monopoly conferred; but under this clause if you spend £3,000 and there by raise the value of the premises for the purposes of valuation under Schedule A the State conies in and claims to take that money away.
  SIR S. EVANS: No.
  SIR E. CARSON: Yes, it does, according to the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, and it necessarily is so. The answer given to us was that there was no difference between that and an o house, because if what is to be taken the State is the exclusion of free c petition that was there before the man spent his £3,000, and according to the

  1485
  Solicitor-General the State will resume possession of it.
  SIR S. EVANS: I did not say anything at all about resuming possession of that £, but the State has a right to say that the house has been increased in value so much by the monopoly we have given, and that is the monopoly value which we take.
  SIR E. CARSON: Surely the Solicitor-General does not mean that. My point is that you have given the monopoly before the improvement is made, and yet you say that the State is to resume possession of it. I think the point is too clear for argument. In the first place, you give a monopoly and a man afterwards spends £3,000. Then the State takes advantage of that; therefore, I say you are taking something which has arisen after you have given the monopoly. The Solicitor-General tells us that the local goodwill is to be resumed possession of by the State and charged for at the end of the period in assessing what the owner of the licence will have to pay for the local monopoly. Does the State create the goodwill?
  SIR. S. EVANS: Yes.
  SIR E. CARSON: I cannot see how the State creates the goodwill. It creates the licence, but to say that is creating the local goodwill is an abuse of terms. At the eleventh hour, in considering this matter, we are told that the State is going to charge, at the end of twenty-one years, for money which has been expended upon improvements in bricks and mortar, and also the local goodwill created by that expenditure. That is not what the majority of hon. Members thought was going to be done under the Bill. That is not what the great majority of this House understood was going to be resumed possession of by the State, and I do not think it entered into the heads of any of them that such things were going to be included. Anything more unfair it is impossible to conceive than to say that the money spent upon bricks and mortar, and the local goodwill created by the energy put into the business, should be taken over by the State. The only thing we can
  1486
  congratulate ourselves upon is that if this Bill does become law there will be twenty-one years in which the owners of this property will be able to agitate for a fairer plan. The Solicitor-General said very truly that it is extremely difficult to define this matter, but is that any reason why we should legislate according to this definition? It is no reason at all. If we have not come to a conclusion as to what it means, or how it ought to be defined, then I think we ought to leave it alone. When we are dealing with between 60,000 and 90,000 licences, surely it is no excuse to say in the House of Commons that we must make the best of a bad job, because we can do no better. Is that the kind of legislation which ought to be passed by this House? Is it the kind of clause which we ought to pass with the guillotine and let go from this House without half a dozen hon. Members really understanding what is being done? I do not think there are half a dozen hon. Members who can tell us what will be included in or excluded from the monopoly value, and it is rather remarkable that during the whole of this afternoon when the discussion was going on there were not more than twenty or thirty hon. Members present, and the vast bulk of them know nothing about what we are doing by this proposal. Let us consider for a few moments what is being included in Schedule A. I have had some experience in taxation cases and in licensing cases, and I must confess that I do not know what is included in Schedule A, and for this reason. There is no scientific and uniform method of making any valuation under Schedule A. I know perfectly well what has happened to my self when I took a house in the country. The man who was there before me happened to be a poor man, and the moment I went there the assessing authority put a large valuation on the house because they thought I had a large income. That was all very well, but it was very unsatisfactory to me. I did not grumble, for I would do anything rather than go to law. How could anyone tell on what basis we are going to charge the monopoly value at the end of twenty-one years? Let me ask a question. In a village

  1487
  which I have in my mind, there is a small population, and there are five licensed houses. In putting down the valuation under Schedule A in regard to each of these houses, is it taken into consideration that there are five? The Solicitor-General cannot tell me.
  SIR S. EVANS: Schedule A is part of the law of the land, and has been for forty years.
  SIR E. CARSON: I say it is impossible to assess the monopoly value under Schedule A. The hon. and learned Gentleman does not know what he is really doing in this Bill. What we want to get at is what advantage is gained by the exclusion of free competition? If you have only one public-house in the village instead of five, is there, under those circumstances, any difference in the valuation under Schedule A? That goes to the root of the whole question, because, I think, if there is no difference, you pay the same price for the monopoly value whether you are competing with five or fifty houses. Where do you get the advantage conferred by the exclusion of free competition? It is nowhere in the Bill, and it is nowhere in the Schedule, and, therefore, the moment you get down to the root of this it shows the ignorance under which we are legislating here. We do not know the very principles on which Schedule A is framed in relation to the free competition of other houses. That one point demonstrates that, although your definition may hold the field, and you may be exceedingly proud of it, it is a definition on a false basis, giving a false reason for assessing the monopoly value. You are leaving nothing whatsoever open, as I understand, to be considered by the Commissioners who are to sit at Somerset House, or somewhere in London. The whole matter goes through cut and dried, under a section of an Act of Parliament. They are not entitled, as I understand, to take any single condition affecting the premises or the locality of a public-house into consideration. That is the tribunal you are setting up and from which the hon. and learned Gentleman is going to give no appeal. In the most ordinary case of the assessment of a public-house for death duties you
  1488
  can appeal against the decision of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and take the appeal right up to the highest Court in the land, and rightly so because no tribunal ought to be judge in its own cause. What is the reason why you are going to assess the monopoly value in regard to 60,000 or 70,000 public-houses at the end of the reduction period when resuming that value for the State, and at the same time make you own officers the judges in the cause? This definition, although it holds the field, is a faulty one and founded upon no proper basis and no proper assessment. The hon. and learned Gentleman was asked one question which he has no answered. He was asked the meaning of the words "without taking into consideration any provisions for securing to the public the monopoly value."
  SIR S. EVANS: They were explained by the Prime Minister.
  SIR E. CARSON: They were not explained by the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman said they would be explained hereafter. I am bound to say that I do not understand them. Do they mean that you are to add something or to subtract something from Schedule A?
  SIR S. EVANS: It is quite true that I did not answer that question in the course of the long speech I made. I answered several questions, but I did not take a note of that particular one. I am prepared to answer it but not by replying to the question across the Tables—Is it an addition or a subtraction?
  SIR E. CARSON: What is the meaning of the words?
  SIR S. EVANS: The meaning of the words I can put easily in figures. Supposing that a house is worth £100 without a licence and £120 with a licence, at the present moment £120 goes to the landlord. When we resume possession of the monopoly value say the £20, it will go to the State. The value of the licensed premises will still be £120. Therefore, though the landlord will only have to pay property tax on £100, the value of the house is to be taken as £120 when

  1489
  you make a comparison in order to ascertain the difference between the licensed and the unlicensed value of the house. [MINISTERIAL cheers.]
  SIR E. CARSON: I take it that that cheer means that the House thoroughly understands the explanation given by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I think, to put it shortly, that you add £20. It is not a very satisfactory way of dealing with a matter of great importance. It is a matter with respect to which we were told by the Prime Minister that we should have full information. The matter was put before him, and we only get this answer now. I am sure that it is a perfectly good explanation if we could only understand it. I have tried to understand the matter under somewhat difficult conditions, and I, at all events, may express my great gratification that the House of Lords will set these matters right if further Amendments should be considered necessary. Another matter
  has not been explained in relation to subsection (3):—
  "The conditions attached to the grant of a new licence for the purpose of securing to the public the monopoly value may provide for the revision of the payment fixed for the purpose on the renewal of the licence either annually or periodically, or for fixing in some future year the amount of the payment to be made in the event of the licence being renewed in that year."
  By whom is this to be done? Is it to be done by the Inland Revenue, or by whom? Does it mean there is to be a revision outside and in addition to Schedule A, or does it mean there must be a new Schedule A? I really do not understand what it means, unless it is for the purpose of increasing the charge for the monopoly value and taking more from the trade. None of these matters have been explained, and the fact is the clause, like many others, leaves the House in a hapless, hopeless condition.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 289; Noes, 94. (Division List No. 402.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Esslemont, George Birnie

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

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Byles, William Pollard

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Alden, Percy

  Cameron, Robert

  Fenwick, Charles

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Ferens, T. R.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Findlay, Alexander

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Clough, William

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Gill, A. H.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

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

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

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

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

  Beale, W. P.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Glover, Thomas

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Crooks, William

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Bell, Richard

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Grant, Corrie

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Crossley, William J.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Dev'np'rt)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Gulland, John W.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Hall, Frederick

  Black, Arthur W.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Branch, James

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Bright, J. A.

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

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

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

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

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Harwood, George

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

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Wals'll)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Erskine, David C.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Massie, J.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Menzies, Walter

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

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

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Snowden, P.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Middlebrook, William

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Higham, John Sharp

  Mond, A.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Morrell, Philip

  Steadman, W. C.

  Hodge, John

  Morse, L. L.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Hooper, A. G.

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

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Myer, Horatio

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Summerbell, T.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nicholls, George

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hudson, Walter

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Partington, Oswald

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Paul, Herbert

  Tomkinson, James

  Jenkins, J.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Perks, Sir Robert William

  Verney, F. W.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

  Walters, John Tudor

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Walton, Joseph

  Jowett, F. W.

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

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Radford, G. H.

  Wardle, George J.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Waring, Walter

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rees, J. D.

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Lambert, George

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

  Watt, Henry A.

  Lamont, Norman

  Richardson, A.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  White, J Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robinson, S.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wiles, Thomas

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

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

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

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

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

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

  M'Callum, John M.

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

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Sears, J. E.

  Winfrey, R.

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Seddon, J.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Maddison, Frederick

  Seely, Colonel

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Shackleton, David James

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

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Shaw, Sir Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

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

  Marnham, F. J.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Cave, George

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

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

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

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

  1492

  1493

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Keswick, William

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cross, Alexander

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Stanier, Beville

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

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

  Starkey, John R.

  Duncan, Robert Lanark, (Govan)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

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

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Fell, Arthur

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Tillett, Louis John

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Napier, T. B.

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Whitbread, Howard

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol West)

  Nolan, Joseph

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Oddy, John James

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Paulton, James Mellor

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

  Gretton, John

  Percy, Earl

  Winterton, Earl

  Haddock, George B.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Young, Samuel

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Younger, George

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Hills, J. W.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster.

  Hogan, Michael

  Renton, Leslie

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  And, it being after half-past Seven 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 Seven of the clock this day, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 11th November.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 16, lines 20 and 21, to leave out the words 'holder of the licence proves,' and to insert the words 'it is proved.'"
  "In page 16, line 28, at end, to insert the words 'and to all the circumstances under which the amount was fixed.'"
  "In page 16, line 29, after the word 'sum,' to insert the word 'so.'"
  "In page 16, line 30, to leave out the words 'holder of the licence,' and to insert the words 'person appearing to the Commissioners (after requiring, if they think fit, a Report from the licensing justices on the matter) to be entitled thereto.'"
  "In page 16, line 33, at end, to insert the words 'in accordance with rules made for the purpose by the Treasury.'"
  '"In page 17, line 9, to leave out the words 'as amended by this Act.'"
  "In page 17, line 27, to leave out the words 'consultation with,' and to insert the word 'giving.'"
  "In page 17, line 27, at end, to insert the words 'an opportunity for consulting with them.'"—(Sir S. Eaans.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  SIR F. BANBURY SIR F. BANBURY (City of London) moved to leave out Clause 36. They had always said on that side of the House during the course of those debates that legislation having for its object the promotion of temperance would not be effective in the form proposed by this Bill. In moving the omission of this clause the ground on which he took his stand was that he did not believe that the Bill was a good Bill, and that he did not want to accentuate its evils by including clubs in the same legislation as public-houses. It was perfectly clear that the position which he took up was logical, and that the omission of this clause in no way interfered with the statement that legislation without dealing with clubs was a farce, and that the question of clubs ought to be left for another measure, because the whole manner of legislation in this Bill was wrong. The clause provided that a club required to be registered and that that registration should require annual renewal. His recollection of the Act of 1902 was that no club could be started unless it was registered, and that if any complaints were made against a club, it was in the power of any person having information against the club, to bring that complaint before the justices by whom the registration, might be cancelled. That was how the law stood after 1902. He did not see in

  1495
  what way that law was improved by this particular clause. He supposed that the secretary to the club was to make an application annually for a renewal of the registration of the club, and that that application was more or less formal; but he would make it now, if the Bill passed, to a court of summary jurisdiction instead of to the licensing justices. He did not object to that; but he must allude for a moment to Clause 37, which said that if any person made objection to the renewal of the registration of the club within fourteen days of the application for registration, it would be in the power of the magistrate to cancel the renewal of the registration of the club on the ground that certain wrong things had been sanctioned in that particular club. He failed to see what the advantage of the provision was. Suppose a club appointed a secretary, he with considerable trouble would have to attend before the Court, and make an application, with all the formalities which were imposed upon all people who had to attend before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction or indeed any Court at all. With regard to the secretary of the Carlton or any large club of that sort, no doubt no great inconvenience would be entailed, because all that would happen would be that he would have to go and fill up a form and make the application. He might have to wait three or four hours as people did when they had to attend police courts, and the case might be adjourned for a week. In the case of the Carlton it took up some of the secretary's time and no great harm was done to anybody, but in the case of a working men's club, the secretary was a working man himself, and his time was valuable, and if it was taken up in dancing attendance on a police court, in order to register the club, then, he thought, considerable hardship would be placed upon working men's clubs. In fact, it again illustrated what they had said, over and over again in the course of the debate: that all this legislation was directed against the poor man, and was in favour of the rich. It was an extraordinary coincidence that with the return of a democratic Parliament to power, full of representatives of the working classes, they had so little faith in the class which they represented that
  1496
  they must legislate for them, and tell them what they ought to do and how they ought to behave. All this legislation penalised the poor man, while it allowed the rich man to go free. They must also remember that Clause 36, which was gathered up with Clause 37, gave an opportunity to any malicious person who had any grievance against the club or any person in it, to make a complaint. It might be perfectly ill founded, and might not result in registration of the club-being refused, but it might entail upon the club the disadvantage of going to the expense and trouble of putting their case before the magistrates and demonstrating that a renewal ought to be granted. As they had to discuss something like eleven clauses and the schedules in two and a half hours, and there were no doubt many points that hon. Gentlemen desired to make, he would content himself with moving the rejection of the clause.
  MR. REMNANTseconded.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 20, line 3, to leave out Clause 36.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)
  Question proposed "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'local' in page 20, line 7, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. HART-DAVIESdid not think there was very much in the Amendment, as this clause was very thoroughly discussed in Committee. He admitted that as the clause originally appeared in the Bill it was open to some objection, but the Government very wisely had altered the authority; they had taken the matter away from the licensing justices, and placed it in the hands of a regular Court, the stipendiary magistrates, and the clubs did not object and had no feeling at all upon the matter. He thought it was waste of time to try and lash up any kind of feeling against this section, so long as the people affected had not that feeling themselves. He suggested, therefore, that they should go on to some other Amendment.
  EARL WINTERTONdid not know whether the Government would find it more convenient to

  1497
  reply upon the general effect of the clause then, or upon a later Amendment. He thought his hon. friends on that side of the House were not anxious to press the matter on this particular Amendment. They were quite ready to discuss it upon the later one of the Solicitor-General, if convenient.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Government are anxious to proceed
  with the business on the Paper, and if the hon. Baronet will withdraw his Amendment we shall be pleased. There is really nothing fresh to say on this clause, which was discussed in Committee, and the Government have nothing to add.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 236; Noes 53. (Division List No. 403.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Alden, Percy

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Dann, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Erskine, David C.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Atherly-Jones, L.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)>

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lambert, George

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Beale, W. P.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Beauchamp, E.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Bell, Richard

  Gill, A. H.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Benn, Sir J. Williains (Devon p'rt)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Glover, Thomas

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

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

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Grant, Corrie

  M'Callum, John M.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Gulland, John W.

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Branch, James

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Bright, J. A.

  Hall, Frederick

  Maddison, Frederick

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

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

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

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

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Massie, J.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

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

  Menzies, Walter

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Middlebrook, William

  Burt Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Mond, A.

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Hazleton, Richard

  Morse, L. L.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cameron, Robert

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Myer, Horatio

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Napier, T. B.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

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

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Nicholls, George

  Clough, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doneast'r)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hodge, John

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Nuttall, Harry

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

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth).

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hudson, Walter

  Partington, Oswald

  Crooks, William

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Paul, Herbert

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Cross, Alexander

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Perks, Sir Robert William

  Crossley, William J.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Jenkins, J.

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Radford, G. H.

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

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Waterlow, D. S.

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

  Snowden, P.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Richardson, A.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  White, J. Dundus (Dumbart'nsh.)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Steadman, W. C.

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

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Robinson, S.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Summerbell, T.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

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

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Sears, J. E.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

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

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

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

  Seddon, J.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Shackleton, David James

  Verney, F. W.

  Winfrey, R.

  Shaw, Sir Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Yoxall, James Henry

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

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wardle, George J.

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

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Waring, Waller

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Rawlinson John Frederick Pee

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Barnard, E. B.

  Forster, Henry William

  Renton, Leslie

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gardner, Ernest

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gretton, John

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hills, J. W.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hogan, Michael

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Stanier, Beville

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

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

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Young, Samuel

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Younger, George

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Nolan, Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Frederick Banbury and Earl Winterton.

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

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Fell, Arthur

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 20, lines 7 and 8, to leave out the words 'local stipendiary magistrate or local.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDthought it was due to the House that the Solicitor-General should explain what was the intention of the Government and what exactly the jurisdiction would be in regard to clubs.
  SIR S. EVANSsaid the matter of the tribunal before which club offences were to be brought and the registration of clubs would take place was fully discussed in Committee, and the general feeling was gathered by the Prime Minister when he made the concession that there
  1500
  should be a regular judicial tribunal instead of the licensing justices. All these drafting Amendments were the result of the concession then made. With regard to the word "Court" the definition as now appearing in the Bill would come in on Clause 37. It meant that a stipendiary would deal with the matter in those districts where there was one, and in other districts where there was no stipendiary the Court would be one of summary jurisdiction.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 20, line 8, to leave out the words 'of summary jurisdiction,' and to insert the words 'as hereinafter defined.'"
  "In page 20, line 10, to leave out the words 'local stipendiary magistrate or local.'"

  1501
  "In page 20, line 11, to leave out the words 'of summary jurisdiction.'"
  "In page 20, line 16, to leave out the word 'unless,' and to insert the words 'Provided that,'"
  "In page 20, line 16, to leave out the word 'is,' and to insert the word 'if.'"
  "In page 20, line 16, at end, to insert the words 'failure to make the.'"
  "In page 20, line 17, to leave out the words 'not made owing,' and to insert the word 'due.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 20, line 17, at end, to insert the words 'may extend the time for making the application, subject to such conditions (if any) as they think fit to impose.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
  EARL WINTERTONsaid this Amendment was put down in pursuance of a pledge given by the hon. and learned Gentleman that he would make this clause more elastic. He would suggest that some of the words were very vague. It made it rather difficult for the Court to know exactly what was in the mind of the Legislature when it passed the clause, and it left the onus of construing the idea of the legislative mind upon the Court or authority that had to carry out the Act. He asked the Solicitor-General to explain what he meant by the word "conditions."
  SIK S. EVANSsaid the sub-clause to which the Amendments related was a clause on which much discussion arose as to the hardship that might be entailed, supposing the secretary of a registered club had omitted, quite inadvertently, to apply for registration at the proper time. He had promised to insert words providing that through such inadvertence the club should not cease to be a registered club, and to make it clear to the justices that the club should be registered notwithstanding the lapse of time before the application was made, and should be registered under such conditions as the justices thought fit.
  SIR F. BANBURYcomplained that the Solicitor-General had not given the explanation asked for. The hon. and learned Gentleman had been asked to state what was the meaning of the word "conditions," and he had carefully
  1502
  evaded that point altogether. "Conditions" might mean anything. They might have a bench of magistrates, the majority of whom were teetotal fanatics, and who might impose any conditions they liked under the clause. The words of the Amendment were—
  "Subject to such conditions, if any, as they think fit to impose."
  The magistrates might refuse to register them unless they made an entirely new structure or it might be the case of a back door, and they would refuse to grant a renewal unless the door was closed. He thought unless they got some explanation from the Solicitor-General as to what the words meant they ought to divide against the Amendment.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid it was very difficult to follow some of the Amendments, and he confessed that it was difficult to follow this one. For instance as to the word "they," he could not in the whole sentence find a word in the plural to which that would apply. If they read the words through, "they" referred to the only plural word which preceded it, namely "conditions." It was perfectly evident, if that was the case, that the clause would be nonsense. He thought that it must refer to the Court who imposed the conditions. When the Court was being asked to make exceptions in favour of a club which had neglected to comply with the law, it was reasonable that the Court should have power to insert some condition, such as carrying out the formalities within seven days, or some condition of that sort. He did not think that these conditions referred in any way to the structure of the premises; they simply referred to the conditions on which the renewal, though out of time, were granted. If that were so, he thought that the Solicitor-General might substitute the word "Court" for "they," and the clause would then read perfectly sensibly, and the whole set of Amendments be carried out in an excellent way.
  SIR S. EVANS: I do not think the word "conditions" is fitted by the word "they" at all.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: The word "Court" would make sense of it.
  SIR S. EVANS: I think it is quite good sense and good grammar now.
  COLONEL WALKERpointed out that "they" was governed by the whole of the section, and the word "Court" ought to be substituted for "they." He moved to substitute the word "Court," for "they."
  SIR S. EVANS: I accept the Amendment, but I do not accept the criticism. The words "the Court" would have to be substituted—"the Court think."
  COLONEL WALKER COLONEL WALKER moved to insert the words "the Court" accordingly.
  Amendment to the Amendment proposed—
  "In line 2, to leave out the word 'they' and insert the words 'the Court.'"—(Colonel Walker.)
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid he wanted to draw the attention of the Government to the real point raised on this Amendment. Supposing a club through inadvertence at the end of twenty-one days had failed to register, by the time it went to Court it would have incurred various pains and penalties from 21st of January until the time it went into Court. As he understood the discussion, they wanted to know whether there was not some way of protecting the club secretary who, through simple inadvertence, had omitted to make his application, from any penalties that might exist under the law. He understood that it was on that point the Solicitor-General was to prepare an Amendment. The present Amendment was no more in favour of the secretary than was the original Bill. The Bill said that—
  "The club shall cease to be a registered club as from the expiration of the time within which the application for renewal may be made unless the Court is satisfied that the application was not made through inadvertence."
  All that was done by the Amendment was that the Court might simply extend the time of application on such conditions as they thought fit. The club ceased to be registered on 21st of January, and if application was not made until the 8th, then in the meantime these penalties
  1504
  would have been incurred, but what they desired was that the club should be exempted from them. He ventured to submit that the words of the Amendment did not carry out any useful purpose from that point of view.
  SIR S. EVANS: There was a little discussion upon this particular point, and questions were asked by several Members on this side of the House as to what would be the effect on a club which remained unregistered. This Amendment does not deal with a case of that kind, and it is not necessary to deal with it, and I so expressed my opinion at the time. On an application to extend the time being granted, the club is in exactly the same position as if it had been registered. Supposing a club through inadvertence was not registered, and the secretary was threatened with a prosecution, it an application to extend the time were granted there would be no penalties incurred in the meantime.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 20, line 24, to leave out the words 'licensing justices,' and to insert the word 'Court.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for East Somerset, next on the Paper, is not in order, not being within the scope of the clause.
  EARL WINTERTON EARL WINTERTON moved to leave out Clause 37. He did not, he said, necessarily object to the whole of the clause, but hon. friends on that side of the House desired to raise one or two points which could be very well discussed on the clause as a whole. The first point to which he wished to refer was one which they had discussed in Committee without coming to any definite conclusion, having been unable to arrive at any agreement as to the meaning of the words, "to be used mainly as a drinking club." Those words, as he understood, were in no way qualified or affected by the Amendments. Both sides of the

  1505
  House were anxious to arrive at some understanding or agreement as to what was really meant by a drinking club. The words were capable of any kind of interpretation. A bench of magistrates who held that clubs were undesirable might interpret the words to mean that any club where liquor was sold was used mainly as a drinking club. Another bench, who thought there was no harm in selling drink in clubs—it might be urged that such a thing; was not likely—might bold that a club where drink was sold did not make it a place where drink was unduly consumed. It seemed to him that from every point of view this form of words was wholly undesirable. If they placed restrictions upon drinking on licensed premises, they ought to put as far as they could every restriction upon illegitimate drinking on unlicensed premises. He was perfectly sincere when he said that, he and his friends were just as anxious as hon. Members opposite to prevent any of the clubs which were springing up so rapidly from becoming drinking clubs. The question was whether these words would carry out the intentions of the Government. He thought that in the time which had elapsed between the Committee and Report stages of the Bill the Government might have found some words which would have more definitely described what was meant by a drinking club. There was one other point he wished to refer to in connection with these words "mainly used as drinking clubs." As he understood it, and he had heard nothing to the contrary, sergeants' messes in Territorial Army camps would come under the provisions of this clause. Not only was that so, but a club held for noncommissioned officers and men in a drill hall connected with a territorial regiment and used, perhaps, only during two or three nights a week in the winter months, would also come under the clause. When they raised this matter in Committee, the learned Solicitor-General gave a very sympathetic answer, and it was one of the many points connected with the difficulties of this club question upon which, apparently, no one on the other side of the House could give a definite answer. It was only the most extreme temperance
  1506
  advocates who would object to such clubs as these. They were of vast importance to the efficiency of the territorial regiments, inasmuch as they enable the noncommissioned officers to come together for instruction classes and to discuss matters connected with the administration and organisation of the corps. In any case, even if it were urged that abuses might sometimes arise in connection with these clubs, he did not think that they should come under the club clauses of this Bill, and for this reason: The whole idea of the new Territorial Forces was that the commanding officers should be solely responsible for what went on in their respective regiments, and so in the case of these clubs it was the commanding officer who should be held responsible, and they should not be classed within the club clauses. He would like to know what opinion the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had upon this matter, and what the intentions of the Government With respect to it were. To return again to his first point he would appeal to the Government to give some better definition of a "drinking club," because unless that was done they would have a condition of affairs which would be far worse than anything which had taken place at the present time, and far worse than anything which the greatest pessimist had so far ventured to prophesy. Indeed, they might even get that condition of affairs which they were all so anxious to avoid; he meant a species, he would not say of blackmail, but of "log rolling"; of getting certain clubs kept upon the register, and others taken off. If these words remained in the Bill, the result would be disastrous.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid his objection to the clause was that it commenced with the words "any person may within fourteen days," and so on, and the result of that was that the whole clause invited any people to object to the registration of clubs. They knew perfectly well what would happen in a good many districts if the clause became law. Unfortunately, people were so constituted that in almost every district where there were clubs, some individuals

  1507
  would be found who had so much prejudice with regard to supplying intoxicating liquor, that they might be relied upon to object wholesale to the renewal of the licences of all clubs which sold intoxicating liquor, and these clubs might be driven every year to contest a case before the Courts, and to prove that they were not used mainly as drinking clubs. They would probably have to produce their accounts in Court and show the amount of their subscriptions, and the amount expended in intoxicating liquor, and they would generally have to show what they gave for it, whom they bought it from, and how much they got for it. Information of that sort might be of considerable use to political opponents, and to opposition clubs, and it might lead to the annoyance and inconvenience of any club, however respectably conducted; in fact, the effect of the clause would be that the whole of the clubs in any district in the kingdom would be practically at the mercy of any common informer who chose, having a fad or political prejudice, to lodge this fourteen days notice of objection. He hoped after the discussion in Committee the Government would have seen their way to bring up some Amendment, but he could not see that there was any alteration with regard to that part of the clause. It was still left open to the common informer to make his objection. If somebody was really going to object bona fide to the registration of a club, he ought to give some security or show he had some right to object, or give some prima facie case. For instance, if an information had to be laid and two magistrates had to grant a summons on a sworn information that the club was being used for some irregular purpose, undoubtedly it would very materially improve the position, but he gathered that none of the Government Amendments went in any way towards that point and that the whole clause was still left to the common informer. His next objection on the merits of the clause related to the words "a drinking club." In dealing with Bills of this kind they were used to the coining of new expressions. They had one here. A drinking club meant a place
  1508
  where the members mainly drank. He had taken the precaution to obtain the accounts of two or three clubs in the West End of London, and it was a fact that the principal expenses and receipts in two of those clubs came under the heading of drink. He would not mention the names of those clubs, but he was willing to furnish them to the Solicitor-General privately. He was sure that if he mentioned the names it would be at once conceded by everybody that there was not the slightest risk of anyone calling them drinking clubs. What was to be the criterion of a drinking club which would be tried upon the information of the common informer? The principal takings were tobacco, drinks, mineral waters, meals, billiards and other games. He suggested that there was hardly a club in the kingdom conducted under such circumstances in which intoxicating drink would not be the largest item. It might be contended upon the production of the accounts of such a club that it was mainly a drinking club because drink would be the principal item in the expenses and receipts. The same would apply to the clubs in Pall Mall. It should not be forgotten that working men's clubs were used principally in the evening and the members went there after their last daily meal. Very often they played cards, dominoes, and billiards, and if they had any outlay at all it was nearly always upon a drink. Under those circumstances practically the whole receipts would be for drink. Would such places be considered as "mainly used as a drinking club"? It was a most unfortunate expression and after the criticism passed upon it in Committee he thought on this point the Government should have seen their way to have given some better definition, than one which would render a club liable to be disqualified if its largest item of the receipts happened to be for drink. If drunkenness or excessive drinking by the individual could be proved to have taken place, he thought such a club should be dealt with in the same way as a licensed house would be dealt with; it ought to be closed. Supposing a club was used by working men and the accounts contained as the principal item drink. Why should a common informer under those circumstances be able to annoy

  1509
  that club? That was a most unreasonable proposition. Most of the Amendments put down seemed to be reasonable, but he seconded the omission of this clause, because he considered it was a most objectionable one in regard to the points he had indicated.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 20, line 25, to leave out Clause 37.'"—(Earl Winterton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'any person,' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. RAMSAY MACDONALDsaid that when this Bill was before the Committee his colleagues in the House took a considerable interest in Clause 37. They did so because they suspected very much the general powers of objection given under the clause, and they proposed that some sort of guarantee for the bona fides of the objector should be inserted. Their suggestion was that the Chief Constable should make himself responsible for passing on those objections. He was bound to admit that the answer of the Government to that suggestion convinced them that it was not altogether a happy one. Still they had in their minds that good clubs, honestly eon-ducted, might be hardly dealt with if the common informer was encouraged to put clubs in the position of having to defend themselves. The next suggestion they made was that if any person felt obliged to enter an objection, that person, if the Court desired, might be compelled to find security for the costs. That suggestion had been adopted, and there was an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the Solicitor-General carrying this out which, in due course, the House would be asked to vote upon. To that extent the Labour Party had been met and they were satisfied. The difficulty in a case like this was that unless they made it tolerably easy to lay objections to clubs a bad club undoubtedly would escape. He felt quite certain that no section of the House desired that bad clubs should go on, and, therefore, a certain amount of case must be allowed for making objections. On the other hand, the bona fide clubs must be protected against
  1510
  frivolous objections by security being given for costs. The Amendment they were going to discuss provided that security for costs might be asked by the Court, and that would amply meet the case. He wished to state that the Club and Institute Union Executive was, on the whole, willing to accept the clause with that Amendment inserted. With reference to the other point raised in the speech of the hon. Member for the West Derby division of Liverpool as to the use of the word "mainly," here again there was a great difficulty. When the Bill was first printed conferences took place between the Labour Party and the Club and Institute Union Executive, and this word "mainly" was pitched upon and objected to. From that time to the present attempts had been made to discover either a word or a formula which would carry out the intention which he felt sure was shared by all sections of the House to rule out the drinking clubs, but up to the present moment the most successful suggestion was that made by the Government, namely, the use of the word "mainly." He was not at all afraid of the word "mainly," because its interpretation could not possibly be given by any Court simply after a mere examination of the income of a club. The income was only one of very many circumstances which a Court would have to take into consideration. A club might exist for social purposes; it might have swimming, shooting, fishing, and reading clubs, billiards, and so on, but it might be that the only article sold to any extent would be drink. Obviously a Court in considering whether a club was "mainly used as a drinking club" would consider all those other adjuncts of the club such as reading and recreation, and so on, and those facts must be accepted as evidence regarding the purpose and meaning of a club and not merely an examination of the income and the balance sheets. The word "mainly" evidently indicated not income but intention, and what a Court was directed to do by Clause 37 and by this particular expression was to consider what was the purpose of the clubs and in doing that it must accept evidence as to all the activities connected with club. If the only activity was that numbers of men entered its doors to be

  1511
  supplied with drink and nothing else then that club was used "mainly as a drinking club" and that was the sort of club which nobody in the House desired to see continued. On the other hand, if the members entered the doors of the club for the purpose of taking part in rational recreation, even if it was not intellectually high, then the Court was bound to decide accordingly, and refuse to disallow the existence of such a club. Over and above that there was an appeal provided for in the clause. He knew that appeal was not in practice a very good safeguard, but nevertheless, it was there and it might be used. In consequence of the further consideration of Clause 37 and the removal of the difficulties which existed at the earlier stages of the consideration of the Bill, he for one was prepared to accept it now, more particularly with the various Amendments in the name of the Solicitor-General. He should certainly vote against the Amendment now before the House.
  MR. HUNTsaid he was decidedly against the words "any person," because it seemed to him that that phrase would cause an enormous amount of trouble, and have the effect of preventing members of a club turning out people they wanted to get rid of. Working men had told him that some members of a club might be turned out because they were in the habit of getting too much to drink at the club. Those members would be sure to be vindictive for a time, and they might, by lodging an objection, cause an enormous amount of trouble and friction amongst the members of the club. He certainly thought this ought to be altered. Some person like the chief constable ought to be definitely stated in the clause. One of the things working men in his part of the world objected to most of all was that objection could be taken to registration or renewal of registration on the ground that a club "is used or is to be used mainly as a drinking club." That would be very difficult to define. If there was no drink allowed to be sold in West End clubs, there would not be many clubs. It might also be said that a good many clubs all over the country would never have been brought into existence if they
  1512
  were not allowed to sell drink. He fancied that if there was no drink sold in the Reform Club, a good many people would be very glad to be made honorary members of the Carlton Club. Unless it was laid down definitely what a drinking club was there might be a good many frivolous objections.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Perhaps it will be convenient if I say now a few words on the points so far raised in regard to this clause. As to the first point, with reference to the words "any person," there was a prolonged discussion on the Committee stage. We hold that clubs, by the new subsection added to the clause to enable the Court to order security for costs, will be amply safeguarded against the frivolous objector. We are glad to learn from the hon. Member for Leicester that the Club and Institute Union, a body which has taken a very great interest in this part of the Bill, is satisfied with the safeguard provided by the subsection. I would point out that the words "any person" appear in the Act of 1902 in reference to clubs. The matter was fully discussed by Parliament then, and it was decided after long deliberation that it was a desirable thing to give any person the right to object to the registration of a club. Further I would remind the House that the words "any person" appear in the Licensing Acts, and at the present time any common informer may bring an objection to any licence—not merely a public-house licence, but the licence of the largest hotel in this city. In view of the fact that costs may be given against a frivolous objector, that there is a judicial tribunal to decide these matters, and that there is an appeal, the clause is not open to objection on the ground that it contains the words "any person." Again the words "is used or is to be used mainly as a drinking club" have been made the subject of criticism. The noble Lord the Member for the Horsham division said it was perfectly impossible to interpret words of that character.
  EARL WINTERTON: I was not necessarily blaming the Government. I admitted that there was very great difficulty in getting words to express

  1513
  the intention which the House wished to carry out.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I think the noble Lord also said that the words could not be properly interpreted. I would point out that the late Government passed three measures dealing with clubs. The English Act did not contain those particular words, but both the Scottish and the Irish Acts did include as a reason of objection that clubs were mainly used for the sale of excisable liquors. The distinction between the two forms of words is so fine that no argument can be based on the distinction. If it is right to object to a club because it is mainly used for the sale of excisable liquors, it is also right to object to one because it is used mainly as a drinking club. Cases have been taken and decided in Scotland on those very words, and clubs have been struck off the register on the ground that they were mainly used for the supply of excisable liquors. No Amendment appears on the Paper in the name of any hon. Member suggesting any alternative or better form of words than those in the clause, and I think in the circumstances we may justly ask the House to adhere to the phraseology we use. It is unwise to fetter, if it can be avoided, the discretion of the Courts in this matter. What we want to do is to suppress clubs which are mainly drinking clubs, and the simplest way is to say so in the Act of Parliament. The question of canteens will be dealt with by the Solicitor-General.
  MR. JAMES PARKERagreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it was difficult to find a word to take the place of "mainly" in this connection. He and his friends had puzzled over the matter, and they came to the conclusion that it was hopeless to find a word which, for the purpose of expressing what was intended, did not go too far either in one direction or the other. The hon. Member for the West Derby Division seemed to suggest that the only kind of clubs which existed among the working classes were purely drinking clubs. He could assure the hon. Member that there were clubs of quite a different kind,
  1514
  where meetings of all sorts were held. There was a good number of such clubs throughout the country. These clubs could not be properly judged by the question of income. He had a club in his mind whose total income from drink amounted to less than a penny per head per week, and the membership was 11,000. He would have liked to see a clearer definition than "mainly a drinking club," but at the same time he accepted in good faith the assurance of the Government that they had done all they could to meet the difficulty. He had given notice of an Amendment on Clause 38 for the purpose of providing that the penalties specified should not be imposed unless it was shown to the Court that there had been "repeated" drunkenness on the premises of a club. As that Amendment was not likely to be reached before the closure resolution began to operate, he asked whether the Government would be able to accept it. By doing so they would not be giving away anything in the Bill in so far as it made for temperance.
  MR. GRETTONsaid a more adequate, explanation should be given than that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite as to the meaning of the words "mainly as a drinking club." What was to be the test whether it was mainly a drinking club or not? It was a matter of common knowledge that a large number of clubs in this country derived a considerable portion of their revenue from the sale of alcoholic liquors and temperance drinks. If they were not allowed to sell drink, they must in some cases cease to exist. Was the question whether or not a club could maintain its existence in the absence of the sale of alcoholic stimulants to be the test applied by the Government as to whether a club was mainly for drinking? If that was to be the test, there would be some curious results. It would extinguish the vast majority of the clubs of the working classes, and a large number of political clubs attached to both sides. It would also hit some of the larger clubs. He would remind hon. Members opposite that it appeared from the financial statement of the National Liberal Club that it derived an income from the sale of alcoholic stimulants of

  1515
  about £8,500. In the absence of the profit on these sales the balance of the club would have been on the wrong side. If that was not to be the test for maintaining the existence of a club what was the test to be? At an early stage of the debate he asked whether military messes and clubs attached to the headquarters of the Yeomanry and the Territorial Infantry would be exempted from the obligations imposed by the clubs. Of course, it was notorious that those clubs were not drinking clubs, but he thought that it would be impossible for them to continue to exist if they required to register under the Bill. Military clubs were carried on under military law; they were largely under the control of the local commanding officer. There was no secretary as a rule; the sale of alcoholic liquor was not in the hands of a committee; and in all these respects the clubs were not under the control of a committee such as was required of ordinary clubs under the Act of 1902. He thought the House should have some explanation from the law officers of the Crown as to whether messes attached not only to the Regular military forces but to the Territorial Forces, would be brought within the provisions of this clause. If there was any confusion or doubt with regard to that point, it would place such messes and clubs in a most difficult and onerous position. The clause was vague and unsatisfactory as it stood, and before they on that side of the House could allow it to pass they should have a fuller explanation than they had yet got on the two points which he had raised.
  MR. HART-DAVIESpointed out that the Working Men's Club and Institute Union were not dissatisfied with this clause as it now stood.
  EARL WINTBRTON: Will the hon. Gentleman describe what is "mainly a drinking club"?
  MR. HART-DAVIESsaid he could only describe a club which was mainly a drinking club as just a club mainly used as a drinking club. The words were simple and perfectly intelligible. He was sure that every member of a working men's club knew what was "mainly a
  1516
  drinking club"—a club where the amount of money raised from drink was more than was derived from other sources. He suggested that as the working-men's clubs themselves did not raise any objections to this clause as a whole, the Mouse should pass it and get to other Amendments which were more important.
  SIR E. CARSON: The hon. Member who has just addressed the House said that the Working Mens' Club and Institute Union was satisfied with this clause, that that is enough, and he cannot understand why it should want any discussion. Well, we do not all hold briefs, if I might say so, for this particular club and institute union. It seems to me to be very easily satisfied. I do not know on what representations they were satisfied as to the meaning of this clause, but I deny that their rights are absolutely protected under it. It was said that there was security for their obtaining costs against "any person" who unsuccessfully laid an information against the club; but I do not think that the clause provides a very satisfactory method of securing protection against the common informer. Hon. Members opposite do not seem to have the least difficulty in construeing the words "mainly used as a drinking club." Has it occurred to these Gentlemen that at the present moment a drinking club can be prosecuted for selling drink without a licence? And as this clause does not deal with such a case on the ground that it is covered by the ordinary law, what is it that the Government have in their mind as to what is "mainly used as a drinking club," and upon what criteria are you to determine this knotty point of law? The Solicitor-General has told us what criterion he would lay down; and an hon. Member put it that if it was found that the main income of the club was derived from the sale of drink that would be a club mainly used as a drinking club. It is quite clear that nobody wants to put an end to the National Liberal Club, or any other respectable political club; but what is the criterion which would lead a magistrate to decide one way or the other whether a club is used mainly as a drinking club? Is the criterion to be whether or not the

  1517
  main income of the club is derived from drinks, or whether more whiskey and beer are consumed than coffee and soda water? What is the exact measure of drink to be consumed in a club that turns it into "mainly a drinking club"? All I can say is that I do not know. Therefore, it seems to me that we should give a little more time to the consideration of what is the meaning of the word "mainly." I had a communication sent to me from a club—I do not know of what political persuasion it is—in which it was stated that artists of very high eminence were to appear in the club on a Sunday morning and give an entertainment. It is quite true that the artists were to get £5 5s. for appearing there; but am I to maintain that that is a club mainly used for the purpose of entertaining? The truth of the matter is, that I believe you will lead to all sorts of confusion. It is far better to leave the law as it is and to keep to your police and the people interested—not the common informer. Make the police do their duty and go into these houses, which everybody knows are unlicensed houses selling drink, and deal with them under the ordinary law, and not have these plausible pretexts for saying they are used mainly as a drinking club. Rigorously enforce the law. What we all want in this matter is to protect the bona fide club, and I say it is protected by the law as it stands, and that there is absolutely sufficient law for the purpose of dealing with these clubs which are not bona fide clubs. To leave it to the Courts to determine in any way they please the meaning of words you are unable to define, and without giving them definite criteria which are to enable them properly to interpret the words of the statute is, I say, shirking our responsibility. If we are not able to determine the circumstances under which a club ought to be held to be mainly a drinking club, it is far better to leave it alone and trust to the common law tribunal to deal with the question.
  SIR S. EVANS: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to certain, proceedings which he said might be taken at common law, which I have never heard of till the present moment. He
  1518
  says that if a club exists now and nothing but drinking goes on there, you can prosecute it for selling beer without a licence. That is not an offence at common law. If you sell drink on any premises without a licence you are amenable to the common law, but immediately you get a club there is no sale of drink at all, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly. You cannot prosecute a club for selling drink on its premises. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that if an association of people, occupying convenient premises, formed an association for the purposes of drinking and nothing else, pledging themselves to drink as much as they can hold without getting drunk, and to have occasional drunkenness on the premises—does he say that you can put that down under the Act of 1902?
  SIR E. CAESON: It may be put down under the ordinary common law.
  SIR S. EVANS: I have never heard of such a case.
  SIR E. CARSON: Because such a case has never arisen.
  SIR S. EVANS: I have never known of proceedings being taken under the ordinary law.
  SIR E. CARSON: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to deny, as Solicitor-General, that an association of men banded together for the purposes of getting drunk, that is for the purpose of committing a crime under the ordinary law, cannot be proceeded against?
  SIR S. EVANS: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must take my words. I said "occasional drunkenness" in framing the case, because under the Act of 1902 the words used are "frequent drunkenness." I say that an association of people banding themselves together, occupying convenient premises, as an association for drinking, pledging themselves to drink in large quantities without getting drunk, though occasionally getting drunk, cannot be touched under the ordinary law or under the Act of 1902. The right hon. Gentleman asks for a definition of the words

  1519
  "used mainly as a drinking club," but surely it is hardly necessary for me again to say that that is a question of fact, and a matter which is not capable of legal definition. I observe in the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself, which he has just delivered, a couple of phrases. I want to ask him what is the meaning of those phrases, and what is the criteria of judging. He alludes to a "reasonably conducted club"; but who is to decide but the tribunal before which the case comes? He used the phrase "a bona fide club." Who is to decide? These are pure questions of fact, easy to determine, and in the determination of which no bench of magistrates can find any difficulty whatever.
  SIB E. CARSON: I do not agree with that.
  SIR S. EVANS: At any rate that is my opinion, and I have asked in vain in the course of this discussion for the right hon. Gentleman, or anybody who is associated with him, to tell the House what they meant in the Scottish Act and the Irish Act when they used the words "mainly used for the supply of excisable liquor."
  SIR E. CARSON: Will you accept those words?
  SIR S. EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly tell me what they mean?
  MR. RAWLINSON: I told you on the last occasion and I proposed very strongly an Amendment of the Bill, but you would not accept the words.
  SIR S. EVANS: What is the use of accepting in substitution of those which we have put in the Bill which are easy of interpretation, words which raise precisely the same difficulty? The word "mainly" is the only word which is supposed to raise any difficulty at all, and the difficulty is found not only in our Bill but in the Scottish and Irish Acts of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The right hon. Gentleman has asked why it is that the Club and Institute
  1520
  Union have expressed their satisfaction through those who speak on their behalf in this House. They have expressed their satisfaction because we have put some precautions in this Bill which shows that we do not desire to interfere with clubs properly carried on. That is the only reason why. They are satisfied with the provisions of the Amendments which we have put in giving protection from undue interference, and because we have provided that security for costs shall be required from an objector. The right hon. Gentleman said that costs are very often irrecoverable, but what we have enabled the justices to say is that there must be security for costs, and have not merely given them the power to inflict costs at the end of the charge. Before anyone lays an information against a club he can be required to give security for costs, so that if it turns out upon investigation that the circumstances of which he complains have no foundations, those costs will be there by the order of the justices to be handed over to the persons damnified by his taking proceedings. I said at the beginning, both inside the House and outside it, that the provisions dealing with clubs were not intended to hurt or to be prejudicial in any degree to bona fide clubs, whether they were workmen's or any other kind of club. We want to destroy and prevent the creation of merely drinking clubs in substitution for public-houses. I have been asked as to the meaning of the words "is to be used as a club." If immediately a tied house, to which a licence was attached, is shut up by the operation of the law, in the same street two or three doors off premises are taken by the brewer, who forms a club with all formality, so that you cannot tell it is not a club, we say it is quite easy to bring facts forward, and we give the justices discretion no say that that is not a proper club, but is to be mainly used as a drinking club, and if they say that they can prevent its being opened or can shut it if it is opened. There is no power under the Act of 1902 to prevent the registration of such a club; it must take place automatically. What do you have now? You have the club opened although it may be common knowledge what it is going to be, but you must

  1521
  allow it to be opened and for some time you must collect your evidence, and a great deal of time may elapse and a great deal of mischief may be done, before you can prevent the registration of that club automatically taking place. That is my answer to the right hon. Gentleman as to clubs, and I have answered warmly, because I cannot understand the complaint that justices will not be able as commonsense men to decide upon evidence whether a club is mainly used as a drinking club or not. I have to answer a question by the hon. Member for Rutland, and a speech by the noble Lord, with regard to a matter upon which I do not feel as strongly as the criticism upon this subject. The question was raised suddenly during Committee by the hon. Member for Rutland, and he was good enough afterwards to send me a memorandum. It touches the status of messes and clubs in the Regular Army and the Territorial Force. I perused the memorandum, and I forwarded it to the authorities, and what I am going to say now is the result of consideration, not only by the Government but also by the authorities. The question of officers' and sergeants' messes of the Regular Army has been, raised by the War Office with the Home Office, and a reply has been received that the Act of 1902 does not apply, and that they will not be affected by the present Bill. The question of authorising sergeants' messes in the Territorial Force was raised by the Territorial Force branch at the time the Territorial Force Regulations were being framed. It was not considered advisable to draw up special regulations, or to give general War Office authority for their formation. The present Paragraph 136, Territorial Force Regulations, throws the responsibility for proper initiation and subsequent management upon officers commanding units. If a sergeants' mess is established in a unit under the authority of the commanding officer that officer will be responsible that it is organised on the lines laid down in the King's Regulations, that discipline is maintained, and that the accounts are properly kept and audited. The mess president of an officers' mess is not appointed by the officers, but is or should be detailed by the commanding officer,
  1522
  but there is really very little similarity between the officers' and sergeants' messes of the Regular Army and those of the Territorial Force. In the former the mess is the home of all unmarried members; in the latter it only becomes a "mess" in the proper sense of the word for a few days in the year, and during the remainder of the year is to all intents and purposes a club. Another point is that in comparatively few Territorial Force units can such institutions exist. They will only be found in the large towns where corps have command of a good deal of money, and the members are concentrated. In "country" corps they are practically non-existent. The carrying on of the sergeants' messes in the Territorial Force on the lines of the King's Regulations was only contemplated when a unit was out for training, and not during the whole year. It would not be possible during non-training to exercise the supervision demanded by the King's Regulations. The authorities have since been advised that the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, has not altered the status of these messes and canteens and does not affect them. There is no equivalent to a regimental club in in the Regular Army. The regimental institutes of the latter are not analogous. The authorities think that it is very doubtful if it is advisable to exempt Territorial Force officers' and sergeants' messes from the provisions of the present Bill—that is, to recognise them as "messes" rather than as "clubs"—the reason being that to all intents and purposes in the corps where they exist permanently they are practically clubs, and it would be impossible to apply the disciplinary provisions of the King's Regulations to them, except during training. If they are excepted from the provisions of the Bill then the onus for their proper management must eventually fall on the War Office. At the present time when Territorial Force units are out for training, the officers' and sergeants' messes and the mens' canteens are run by contract for the time being, and the contractors arrange for the necessary licence. The authorities think that there is no reason to alter the present system, and where permanent messes exist it would be better

  1523
  to treat them as clubs under the Act, which they are to all intents and purposes, rather than attempt their management as regular messes under modified conditions. I said when we were discussing this matter that we did not propose to alter the law, and I have the authority of my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War for saying that he does not consider that the law which at present applies to clubs where they are clubs has been changed by anything that has happened since the Act of 1902.
  MR. COURTHOPEsaid a great deal of use had been made of the statement that the Club and Institute Union had agreed to this clause. He supposed that statement was founded on some sort of agreement, or conversation with some official of the Union. He would, however, remind the House that the Club and Institute Union did not represent all the clubs in the country and he knew that a great many were not satisfied. He had within the last ten minutes read a letter from a prominent official of the Club and Institute Union, expressing great dissatisfaction with the Bill as it stood, and with the Amendments put on the Paper by the Government. Therefore, he did not think it right that the House should be given to understand that the clause as proposed to be amended was acceptable to the clubs as a whole. The question which the justices would have to decide was: "What is the purpose and intention of the club?" That was not a question of fact, it was a question of opinion. Very different opinions might be formed on the same set of facts. The only facts that could be brought to the notice of the justices were the number of members, the balance sheet, and the general conduct of the club. Where a club existed for a perfectly bona fide purpose, but where its continued existence was only possible through the profit made on drink, there was a grave danger that the justices might be prejudiced by the figures of the sales of alcoholic refreshment and might make harsh conditions against useful and perfectly justifiable institutions. Another point which had not boon sufficiently
  1524
  touched on arose under the final lines of the first subsection—
  "On the ground that the club is bound by any covenant, agreement, or undertaking, or is otherwise under an obligaion to obtain a supply of any intoxicating liquor from any particular person not being a club which was so bound or under such an obligation before the passing of this Act."
  That would prevent the universal custom of all the best social clubs. He undertook to say that all the best clubs contracted for the supply of wines which they had bought as they matured, particularly port. Contracts were entered into for port years before in matured, because it was manifestly impossible for the clubs to mature it in their own cellars. That was an agreement "to obtain a supply" entered into for mutual advantage but did not make the club a tied club in an objectionable sense.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: There is an Amendment on the Paper.
  MR. COURTHOPEsaid he did not think the Amendment of the Solicitor-General covered that, but if it did that was sufficient. Then there was the question of military messes and canteens. The ignorance of the War Office as just displayed by the Memorandum which had been read by the Solicitor-General was absolutely incredible. He knew there was a good deal of ignorance in that Department of the State, but that which had been displayed over this matter of the sergeants' messes was positively amazing. The Solicitor-General had just read to the House that, in the opinion of the War Office, these messes were few and far between, and in connection with the Territorial Army were only possible in the large towns where the battalions were possessed of great wealth. That was absolutely wrong, for every Territorial battalion had them. He knew a case of a battalion which had five or six such messes situate at the headquarters of the different companies. Wherever there was a drill hall there was some arrangement for a mess of this character. There were no rules as to whether such messes should be open or closed at particular times, nor had they any secretaries. Their opening was entirely under

  1525
  the discretion of the commanding officer. Sometimes weeks elapsed between the dates of opening, and very often they were opened at most irregular hours. He had experienced a case of this quite recently, when one of these messes was opened, and quite rightly so, between the hours of three and four in the morning, after the men had returned from night manœuvres. If a bench of magistrates were told that the mess was opened at such an hour, their hair would stand on end. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that these messes were not excluded from the Act of 1902, but it was a remarkable thing the military canteens, and military canteens only were excluded and sergeants' messes were not.
  SIR S. EVANS: That was with reference to justices' licences.
  MR. COURTHOPEsaid that was quite true, but he contended that that was an argument in his favour and that there was very great risk as the law stood that these messes were clubs and that these restrictions might apply to them. He hoped the Solicitor-General would refer the Memorandum of the War Office back again to that Department, with an instruction that officers of the Territorial Forces in the House complained that the information upon which the Memorandum was based must have been obtained from someone entirely ignorant of the facts. With regard to another statement made in the document, it was not true that these messes were invariably run by contractors. On the contrary they were often run by the regiment concerned. A mess in the Territorial Army was often run by some one in the regiment. He had run one himself. All these points clearly tended to show that the War Office advisers were not to be trusted, and that the matter should be reconsidered, and submitted to some authority who not only understood the practice but was competent to interpret the law. He would conclude by again pressing the Solicitor-General to reconsider the question whether an express exclusion could not be provided for in another place. If anyone chose to bring up a case against these messes and the Court held they were clubs, within the
  1526
  present law, everyone of them would be seriously hit, because they did not comply with the conditions with which the ordinary club had to comply. It was really a serious matter, and he thought the naval and military forces might well demand that the matter should have reconsideration.
  MR. VERNEYsaid that in reply to the hon. Member for Rye, he might say that he had a letter from the secretary of the club and Institute Union in reply to one which he wrote asking him for his remarks on the Bill as it stood for consideration on Report. The secretary of that union raised two objections in his letter. The first objection was to the Amendment which appeared in the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Windsor. He wrote—
  "But apart from that, there is but one matter in Report of interest to us."
  That other matter was the point alluded to by the Solicitor-General. He asked that before the word "drunkenness" the word "frequent" should be introduced, stating that under the Bill as at present drafted a single case of drunkenness might lead to every member of the committee being fined, and he pointed out that in Section 28 of the Act of 1902 the offence was "frequent drunkenness." Those were the only two objections raised by the secretary of the Club and Institute Union, and, although it was true the union was not representative of all, it represented between 1,100 and 1,200 clubs in the country. He had had a good deal to do with clubs; and, for his part, he did not think there was any possible way of defining the word "mainly" except by a reference to the intention in the future on the one hand and to the facts in the present and past on the other. He would remind the House that in no less than three different places in the Peel Report the word "merely" or "solely" was used. It was quite true that the word "mainly" was not used in that Report; but a sufficient answer to that, as the Solicitor-General had said, was that the word "mainly" appeared in both the Scottish and Irish Acts.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid that his hon. friend the Member for Rye had

  1527
  appealed to the Solicitor-General to ask the War Office to reconsider the opinion they had given, and he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to signify his willingness to comply with that request. They were, however, now on the last day of the Report stage of the Bill, and, however much the War Office might reconsider their opinion, they would have no opportunity of giving effect to their reconsideration unless the Solicitor-General to-morrow moved to recommit the Bill.
  SIR S. EVANSsaid he was asked by the hon. Member for Rye to bring the matter before the War Office, so that an Amendment might be made in another place.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid the Government were again to rely upon the other place, and he congratulated them upon not taking advantage of a certain Resolution of two years ago, and abolishing the other place. The clause said that any person might within fourteen days after the publication, etc., lodge, with the clerk of the Court, a notice of objection on the ground that the club was used "or is to be used" mainly as a drinking club. How on earth was anybody going to know what would happen in the future? He attached very great weight to the opinion of the Solicitor-General, but he did not believe he was a prophet, and an ordinary common informer could not possibly know that a club which was being started was going to be used mainly as a drinking club. He really thought the words required some explanation. He was glad to have the statement of the Solicitor-General that there was an Amendment on the Paper providing that the Court might insist upon security for costs being given; but there was nothing to say that that security must be given before listening to an informer, and the safeguard of the hon. and learned Gentle-
  man therefore fell to the ground. There was another point to which the hon. Member for Rye had called attention, and the Under-Secretary said there was an Amendment on the Paper to deal with it. He ventured to say it did not deal with the point except that it would exempt the proprietor of a club who was the proprietor before the passing of the Act. The Carlton or any other club would not be able in the future to buy champagne or port for five or six years. All that was done was to exempt from any penalty the Carlton or any other club if they had already done so. Probably these would be the last remarks that he would be able to make upon the Bill, and he might perhaps be allowed to say that they were in greater confusion than they had been on any night—and that was saying a great deal—during the twenty-eight days the Bill had been discussed.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid he did not know whether the Solicitor-General had read the whole of the Memorandum of the War Office, and he rose to ask that, in accordance with custom, the text of the Paper should be laid upon the Table of the House. The Solicitor-General shook his head, but he thought the Paper must be laid.
  SIR S. EVANS: I read the whole of the material part of the Paper, and it will appear in Hansard.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid he did not wish to press the hon. Gentleman unduly, but it was a matter of great importance, and he hoped at least the hon. Gentleman would undertake that in correcting his speech they should have a complete and official version of this very remarkable Memorandum.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 262; Noes, 93. (Division List No. 404.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Bell, Richard

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Benn, Sir. J. William, (Devonp'rt)

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Bennett, E. N.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Beale, W. P.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Beauchamp, E.

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

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Black, Arthur W.

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Partington, Oswald

  Branch, James

  Higham, John Sharp

  Paul, Herbert

  Bright, J. A.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Hodge, John

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

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

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

  Hooper, A. G.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

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

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Hudson, Walter

  Radford, G. H.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Cameron, Robert

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Rees, J. D.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Jenkins, J.

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

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Richardson, A.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Clough, William

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Jowett, F. W.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Robinson, S.

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

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Cooper, G. J.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Rowlands, J.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Crooks, William

  Lambert, George

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Lamont, Norman

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Crossley, William J.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire Wirral)

  Sears, J. E.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Seddon, J.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Lewis, John, Herbert

  Seely, Colonel

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

  Lupton, Arnold

  Shackleton, David James

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

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

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Esslemont, George, Birnie

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down S.)

  Snowden, P.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  M'Callum, John M.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Ferens, T. R.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Maddison, Frederick

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Summerbell, T.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Gill, A. H.

  Massie, J.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Menzies, Walter

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Glover, Thomas

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Middlebrook, William

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Mond, A.

  Tomkinson, James

  Gulland, John W.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Verney, F. W.

  Hall, Frederick

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Vivian, Henry

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morse, L. L.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Walters, John Tudor

  Hart-Davies, T.

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

  Walton, Joseph

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Myer, Horatio

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

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

  Napier, T. B.

  Wardle, George J.

  Harwood, George

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Waring, Walter

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Nicholls, George

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r)

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Nuttall, Harry

  Watt, Henry A.

  1530

  1531

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Winfrey, R.

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

  Williamson, A.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

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

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

  Wiles, Thomas

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Wilkie, Alexander

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

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Balcarres, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gardner, Ernest

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Banner, John S. Harmood

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gretton, John

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Haddock, George B.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Salter, Arthur Slavell

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Stanier, Beville

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Starkey, John R.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hills, J. W.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Cave, George

  Hogan, Michael

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Craig, Charles Cutis (Antrim, S.)

  Keswick, William

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Whitbread, Howard

  Cross, Alexander

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

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

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Young, Samuel

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Younger, George

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  M'Arthur, Charles

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Earl Winterton and Mr. Courthope.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Oddy, John James

  Fell, Arthur

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  SIR F. BANBURY SIR F. BANBURY moved to leave out the word "mainly," so that the clause would read: "Club used or intended to be used as a drinking club." The reasons in favour of it seemed to be absolutely unanswerable. "A club to be used as a drinking club" would be understood by everyone. It would prevent briefs being given to the Solicitor-General and other ornaments of the profession, but the ordinary layman would be able to define what was meant by the Bill, and everyone would know what he was about.
  MR. G. D. FABERseconded.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 20, line 29, to leave out the word 'mainly.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'mainly' stand part of the Bill."
  SIR S. EVANS: I am not at all sure that the effect of the Amendment would not be entirely different from what the hon. Baronet thinks. I am not sure that it would not be the means of closing every club, but whether that is the effect or not there is hardy time to discuss now. It would give no briefs to lawyers. It raises no question of law but a mere question of fact, and we fortify ourselves in the use of this word, first of all, by saying it is a word which anyone of ordinary common sense could not fail to understand, and further we follow the most excellent example of the Government which passed the Scottish Act of 1902 and the Irish Act of 1903, which

  1533
  used the word "mainly." The hon. Baronet was a strong supporter of the Government of the day, and I do not recollect that he ever on any occasion raised any point that there would be any difficulty in understanding the meaning of the word "mainly."
  EARL WINTERTONsaid that at last they understood the real difficulty that the Government were in. After waiting for the whole of the Committee and
  Report stages they understood that the meaning of the words "drinking club" might be that drinking clubs in which liquor was sold might be shut up. He was sure the clubs would be grateful to their intelligent representatives below the gangway.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 288; Noes, 93. (Division List No. 405.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Crooks, William

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Crossley, William J.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Alden, Percy

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Hodge, John

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Hooper, A. G.

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Atherley-Jones, L.

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

  Hudson, Walter

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Jocoby, Sir James Alfred

  Barnard, E. B.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Jenkins, J.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Beale, W. P.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Erskine, David C.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jowett, F. W.

  Bell, Richard

  Fenwick, Charles

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Ferens, T. R.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt)

  Findlay, Alexander

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

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

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Lambert, George

  Black, Arthur W.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lamont, Norman

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Gill, A. H.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Branch, James

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Blight, J. A.

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

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Glover, Thomas

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Gulland, John W.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Burton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Lynch, H. B.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Cameron, Robert

  Hall, Frederick

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Hart-Davies, T.

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

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

  Maddison, Frederick

  Clough, William

  Harwood, George

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Marnham, F. J.

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

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Massie, J.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Masterman, C. F. G.

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

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Menzies, Walter

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

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

  Middlebrook, William

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Mond, A.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Vivian, Henry

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Walters, John Tudor

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Rowlands, J.

  Walton, Joseph

  Morrell, Philip

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Morse, T. L.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wardle, George J.

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

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Waring, Walter

  Myer, Horatio

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Napier, T. B.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Nicholls, George

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r)

  Sears, J. E.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Seddon, J.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Seely, Colonel

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Shackleton, David James

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

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

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

  Whitehead, Rowland

  O'Grady, J.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Partington, Oswald

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wiles, Thomas

  Paul, Herbert

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Snowden, P.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Williamson, A.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

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

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

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

  Radford, G. H.

  Summerbell, T.

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

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Rees, J. D.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Winfrey, R.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Wodehouse, Lord

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

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

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Richardson, A.

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Tomkinson, James

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)

  Verney, F. W.

  Robinson, S.

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

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

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Fell, Arthur

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Banner, John S. Harmood.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Oddy, John James

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Forster, Henry William

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Gardner, Ernest

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Gretton, John

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

  Haddock, George B.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Renton, Leslie

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cave, George

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, W.)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

  Hills, J. W.

  Stanier, Beville

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

  Hogan, Michael

  Starkey, John R.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hunt, Rowland

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Cross, Alexander

  Keswick, William

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Doughty, Sir George

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

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Whitbread, Howard

  1536

  1537

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Frederick Banbury and Colonel Sandys.

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

  Young, Samuel

  Winterton, Earl

  Younger, George

  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 20, line 32, to leave out the words as amended by this Act.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
  Amendment 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.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 20, line 34, to leave out the word 'an,' and to insert the words 'any direct or indirect.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
  Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 294; Noes, 94. (Division List No. 406.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

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

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

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cooper, G. J.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Alden, Percy

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

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

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Harwood, George

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Crooks, William

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Crossley, William J.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

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

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Barnes, G. N.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

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

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Beale, W. P.

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Hodge, John

  Beauchamp, E.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Bell, Richard

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Hudson, Walter

  Bennett, E. N.

  Erskine, David C.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Illingworth, Percy H.

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

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jenkins, J.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Branch, James

  Findlay, Alexander

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Bright, J. A.

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Jowett, F. W.

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

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

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

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Gill, A. H.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Glover, Thomas

  Lambert, George

  Cameron, Robert

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lamont, Norman

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Gulland, John W.

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Clough, William

  Hall, Frederick

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Clynes, J. R.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Radford, G. H.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Rees, J. D.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampt'n

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Tomkinson, James

  M'Callum, John M.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampt'n)

  Verney, F. W.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Richardson, A.

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Maddison, Frederick

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Vivian, Henry

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Marks, G. Croydon (Lauceston)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Walton, Joseph

  Marnham, F. J.

  Robinson, S.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Massie, J.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wardle, George J.

  Menzies, Walter

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Waring, Walter

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Rowlands, J.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Middlebrook, William

  Russell, Rt, Hon. T. W.

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Mond, A.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.)

  Morrell, Philip

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

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

  Morse, L. L.

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

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Morton, Alphens Cleophas

  Sears, J. E.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

  Seddon, J.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Myer, Horatio

  Seely, Colonel

  Wiles, Thomas

  Napier, T. B.

  Shackleton, David James

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

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

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Nicholls, George

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Williamson, A.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Nuttall, Harry

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

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

  O'Grady, J.

  Snowden, P.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

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

  Partington, Oswald

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

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

  Paul, Herbert

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Winfrey, R.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wodehouse, Lord

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Summerbell, T.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Balcarres, Lord

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cross, Alexander

  Hills, J. W.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Dixon-Harland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Doughty, Sir George

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Hunt, Rowland

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Faber, George Denision (York)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

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

  Keswick, William

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Cave, George

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey.

  Gretton, John

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Haddock, George B.

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingham)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Oddy, John James

  1540

  1541

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Winterton, Earl

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Stanier, Beville

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

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Starkey, John R.

  Young, Samuel

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Younger, George

  Renton, Leslie

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

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 20, line 34, after the word 'obligation,' to insert the words 'of any kind.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
  Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 295; Noes, 93. (Division List No. 407.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

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

  Harwood, George

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Alden, Percy

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Crooks, William

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Crossley, William J.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Dalmeny, Lord

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

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Henry, Charles S.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Barnard, E. B.

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

  Hodge, John

  Barnes, G. N.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Hooper, A. G.

  Beale, W. P.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Beauchamp, E.

  Duncan J. H. (York, Otley)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Hudson, Walter

  Bell, Richard

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt)

  Erskine, David C.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Bennett, E. N.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Jenkins, J.

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

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Fenwick, Charles

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Branch, James

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Jowett, F. W.

  Bright, J. A.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Brooke, Stopford

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Laidlaw, Robert

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

  Gill, A. H.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Lambert, George

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Lamont, Norman

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Glover, Thomas

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Byles, William Pollard

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Cameron, Robert

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Gulland, John W.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Chance, Frederick William

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hall, Frederick

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Clough, William

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

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

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Cooper, G. J.

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

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rees, J. D.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Maddison, Frederick

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

  Tomkinson, James

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Richardson, A.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Verney, F. W.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Marnham, F. J.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Vivian, Henry

  Massie, J.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Robinson, S.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Menzies, Walter

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Walton, Joseph

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Middlebrook, William

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Rowlands, J.

  Wardle, George J.

  Mond, A.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Waring, Walter

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Morrell, Philip

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Morse, L. L.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

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

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

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.)

  Myer, Horatio

  Sears, J. E.

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

  Napier, T. B.

  Seddon, J.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Seely, Colonel

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Nicholls, George

  Shackleton, David James

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r)

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

  Wiles, Thomas

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  O'Grady, J.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Williamson, A.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Partington, Oswald

  Snowden, P.

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Paul, Herbert

  Spicer, Sir Albert

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

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Winfrey, R.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Wodehouse, Lord

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Summerbell, T.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

  Radford, G. H.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cross, Alexander

  Hunt, Rowland

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Doughty, Sir George

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Keswick, William

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

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

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Fell, Arthur

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Meysey Thompson, E. C.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Gretton, John

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cave, George

  Haddock, George B.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Pee

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Renton, Leslie

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

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Hills, J. W.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  1544

  1545

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Young, Samuel

  Stanier, Beville

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Younger, George

  Starkey, John R.

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

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Forster and Lord Balcarres

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

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

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Winterton, Earl

  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 20, line 35, to leave out the words 'not being,' and to insert the words 'by reason of that person having a proprietary interest in the club, or in the premises or furniture of the club, or being a creditor of the club, or being in any other manner in a position to control the supply of intoxicating liquor to the club; Provided that the last-mentioned ground of objection shall not apply in the case of.'"
  'In page 20, line 39, at end, to insert the words 'and the Court may order the objection to be upheld or dismissed as they think fit.'"
  "In page 21, line 32, at end, to add the words '(6) For the purpose of the provisions of this part of this Act relating to the registration, and the renewal of the registration of clubs, the expression "Court" means a Metropolitan Police Court as respects any place within the jurisdiction of such Court, a stipendiary magistrate as respects any place within the jurisdiction of such a magistrate, and as respects any other place a Court of Summary Jurisdiction having jurisdiction in that place. (7) Rules of Court may be made under Section twenty-nine of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, with respect to the procedure of the Court, and provision may be made by those rules enabling the Court, in such cases as they think fit, to order security for costs to be given by any objector. (8) The clerk to a stipendiary magistrate shall be substituted for the clerk to the justices as the
  person to keep the register of clubs under the Licensing Act, 1902, and to exercise and perform all powers and duties under that Act with respect to that register in any place within the jurisdiction of the magistrate, and the register and all other documents relating thereto shall accordingly, if not already in the possession of the clerk to the stipendiary magistrate, be handed over to him. (9) Where a Court of Summary Jurisdiction make an order striking a club off the register, the clerk of the Court, if he is not also the clerk of the Court as above defined, shall forthwith send notice of the order to the clerk of that Court.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 22, line 28, at the end, to inser the words '(2) Section twenty-eight of the Licensing Act, 1902, shall be read as if any grounds for notice of objection to the registration or renewal of registration of a club under this Act, which are not mentioned in that section, were added thereto as grounds on which a club may be struck off the register.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
  Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 291; Noes, 92. (Division List No. 408.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Branch, James

  Curran, Peter Francis

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

  Bright, J. A.

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Alden, Percy

  Brooke, Stopford

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

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

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Bryce, J. Annan

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

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cameron, Robert

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Erskine, David C.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Beale, W. P.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Clough, William

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Clynes, J. R.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Ferens, T. R.

  Bell, Richard

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Cooper, G. J.

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt)

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

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

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

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Crooks, William

  Gill, A. H.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Crossley, William J.

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

  Glendinning, R. G.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Seely, Colonel

  Glover, Thomas

  Maddison, Frederick

  Shackleton, David James

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Mallet, Charles E.

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

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Gulland, John W.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Massie, J.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Hall, Frederick

  Menzies, Walter

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Snowden, P.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Middlebrook, William

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Mond, A.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Harwood, George

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Morrell, Philip

  Summerbell, T.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morse, L. L.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hedges, A. Paget

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

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Myer, Horatio

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Napier, T. B.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

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

  Nicholls, George

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r)

  Tomkinson, James

  Higham, John Sharp

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Verney, F. W.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Hodge, John

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Vivian, Henry

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Grady, J.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Partington, Oswald

  Walton, Joseph

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Paul, Herbert

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

  Hudson, Walter

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Wardle, George J.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Waring, Walter

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Jenkins, J.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Radford, G. H.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

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

  Jowett, F. W.

  Rees, J. D.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

  Wiles, Thomas

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Richardson, A.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Lambert, George

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Lamont, Norman

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Williamson, A.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Lease, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Robinson, S.

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Rowlands, J.

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

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Winfrey, R.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wodehouse, Lord

  Lynch, H. B.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

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

  M'Callum, John M.

  Sears, J. E.

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Seddon, J.

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Balcarres, Lord

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  1548

  1549

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Gretton, John

  Renton, Leslie

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

  Haddock, George B.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cave, George

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hills, J. W.

  Stanier, Beville

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

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Starkey, John R.

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Joynson-Hicks, William

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Keswick, William

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Cross, Alexander

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

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

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

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

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Winterton, Earl

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  M'Arthur, Charles

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

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

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Young, Samuel

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Younger, George

  Fell, Arthur

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Gardner, Ernest

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 22, line 33, to leave out the first word 'Any,' and to insert the word 'The.'"
  "In page 29, line 11, after the word 'holder,' to insert the words 'to a person from whom he is bound by any covenant, agreement, or undertaking, or is otherwise under any direct or indirect obligation of any kind to obtain a supply of intoxicating liquor.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In Schedule 5, page 33, line 31, to leave out the words 'of Inland Revenue,' and to insert the words 'for the time being having the management of the duties of excise."—(Sir S. Evans.)
  Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 287; Noes, 91 (Division List No. 409.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Bottomley, Hotatio

  Crooks, William

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

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Branch, James

  Crossley, William J.

  Alden, Percy

  Bright, J. A.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

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

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Ches're)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Cameron, Robert

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Beale, W. P.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Erskine, David C.

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Clough, William

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Bell, Richard

  Clynes, J. R.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Fenwick, Charles

  Benn, Sir J. Williams, (Devonp'rt

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Berridge, T. H. D.

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

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

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

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Black, Arthur W.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Gill, A. H.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Seddon, J.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  M'Callum, John M.

  Seely, Colonel

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

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Shackleton, David James

  Glendinning, R. G.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Shaw, Sir Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Glover, Thomas

  Maddison, Frederick

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Gulland, John W.

  Massie, J.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Menzies, Walter

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Hall, Frederick

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Snowden, P.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose

  Middlebrook, William

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthvr Tydvil)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Mond, A.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Stewart-Smith. D. (Kendal)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

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

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Harwood, George

  Morrell, Philip

  Summerbell, T.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Morse, L. L.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

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

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Myer, Horatio

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Napier, T. B.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nicholls, George

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r)

  Tomkinson, James

  Higham, John Sharp

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Verney, F. W.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Hodge, John

  O'Grady, J.

  Vivian, Henry

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Partington, Oswald

  Walters, John Tudor

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Paul, Herbert

  Walton, Joseph

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n)

  Hudson, Walter

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Wardle, George J.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Waring, Walter

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan)

  Jardine, Sir J.

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Jenkins, J.

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Radford, G. H.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rees, J. D.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rendall, Athelstan

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

  Jowett, F. W.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

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

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Richardson, A.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Lambert, George

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Lamont, Norman

  Robinson, S.

  Williamson, A.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Rowlands, J.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Levy, Sir Maurice.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

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

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

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

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Winfrey, R.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Lynch, H. B.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

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

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

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

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Sears, J. E.

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Balcarres, Lord

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  1552

  1553

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Gretton, John

  Renton, Leslie

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

  Haddock, George B.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cave, George

  Hay, Hon. Claude George.

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hills, J. W.

  Stainer, Beville

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

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Starkey, John R.

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh).

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Joynson-Hicks, William

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Keswick, William

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  King, Sir Henry Saymour (Hull)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Cross, Alexander

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

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

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

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

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Winterton, Earl

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  M'Arthur, Charles

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

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

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Young, Samuel

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Younger, George

  Fell, Arthur

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Gardner, Ernest

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Resolution agreed to.

  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 34, to leave out lines 11 to 13 inclusive, in second column."
  "In page 34, line 38, to leave out from the word 'one,' to the word 'the,' in line 40."
  "In page 35, line 14, after the word 'certificate,' to insert the words 'under this Act.'"
  "In page 35, to leave out lines 19 to 21, inclusive, in second column."
  "In page 35, line 25, to leave out the words 'may be held.'"
  "In page 35, line 26, after the word '1828,' to insert the words 'may be held.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
  "In page 37, line 16, after the word 'section,' to insert the words 'in Section 43,' the words 'and in a borough the borough justices.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 374.]

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. FORSTERhad no desire to delay the Second Reading of this Bill, but asked for the convenience of hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee for Scottish Bills that the Government would arrange not to take the Committee stage of the Bill next week.
  MR. J. A. PEASEsaid the Lord-Advocate had seen the Chairman of the Standing Committee on the subject, and had arranged not to take the Committee until the week after next.

  CONSTABULARY (IRELAND) [PAY, ETC.].
  Resolution reported:—
  Resolved, That it is expedient to make further provision for the pay of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and for the pensions, pension allowances, and gratuities payable to them, their widows, and children.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Birrell and Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.

  CONSTABULARY (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the Pay and Pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and for other purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, next, and to be printed. [Bill 375.]

  OLD-AGE PENSIONS (REGULATIONS).
  LORD R. CECIL LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.) moved: "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying him to annul so much of the Old-Age Pensions Regulations, 1908, as provides that the pension officers shall, in investigating the claims of applicants, be subject to any further instructions issued for the guidance of pension officers by the Board of Inland Revenue." He apologised for having to bring the matter before the House at a very inconvenient hour, but that was the only time available for the discussion of the matter. The question arose under Regulation 9 and Regulation 34. Regulation 9 was—
  "Subject to compliance with instructions set out in the Second Schedule of these regulations and to any further instructions issued for the guidance of pension officers, the pension officer shall investigate a claim in such manner as he thinks best for the purpose."
  Regulation 34 was—
  "Subject to the provisions of the Act and these regulations every person appointed as a pension officer shall, in the execution of his office, observe and follow the instructions and directions of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue."
  The House would see that the pension officer was subject, in addition to the statutory rules and regulations, to instructions to be issued by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue; in other words, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, so far as the pension officers were concerned, determined the manner in which the Old-Age Pension Act was to be administered, and how the vast sums under that Act were to be paid away. Practically, the pension officer was the person who determined the greater part of the matters arising under the Act. There were, he thought, only thirteen pension committees to deal with the whole of London. It was quite impossible for them to give any real consideration to the question of granting or withholding a pension. The reports of the pension officers were presented to these committees, and in a vast number of cases they were passed practically without any discusson. He could give the House an instance of a particular pension committee. In two hours they dealt with over 250 separate applications. It was quite plain, however able the
  1556
  gentlemen forming the committee might be, that they could give no real attention to the matter in two hours, and, as a matter of fact, all the cases in which the pension officers reported in favour of a 5s. pension were passed without any consideration at all. They were not even examined by the pension committee. That accounted for 200 cases. The other fifty in which smaller pensions were recommended were given some consideration, but it was physically impossible for the committee to examine with any care any more than six or eight; and in only one case did they make any serious criticism of what the pension officer had done. All the cases in which the pension officers did not think it desirable to report in favour of a pension never came before the Committee at all. He did not say a word against the pension officer; generally speaking and as far as his experience went, he was an admirable officer, but he and he alone was the administrative judge under the Act. The officers might do their best; but they were working at the very highest pressure now, many of them working fifteen and more hours a day, and their consideration of the matter was, he would not say perfunctory, but necessarily brief. Their guide in the whole matter was the instructions issued by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. They were bound to obey those instructions, and it was upon instructions which were absolutely secret from the House that £6,000,000 or £8,000,000 of public money a year were being expended. The Government had been asked and had refused to lay those instructions before tie House. If the financial control of the House was to be anything more than a mere name, it ought, to know what instructions the Commissioners of Inland Revenue — that was to say the Chancellor of the Exchequer—were giving to the pension officers, who practically had the whole administration of this vast sum of £6,000,000 or £8,000,000 a year. He did not propose to detain the House at any length at that hour, but he ventured to think it was a matter which deserved the attention of the House of Commons. It was quite obvious that the gravest abuses might easily arise under a system of expenditure of public money

  1557
  of that description. He did not propose to go at any length into the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Preston at an earlier period of the session, but it illustrated in a comparatively minor degree the thing which had happened on one side of the administration and which might happen on the other. The case which was probably well-known, was under one of the instructions published in the newspapers. The pension officers had been directed not to take into consideration the furniture of the applicant up to £30 in estimating a man's means. He did not wish to say that that was not a perfectly proper provision. He thought it was a perfectly reasonable thing in itself, but it was not part of the Act of Parliament. Anyone who looked at Section 4 of the Act would see that everything the applicant had had to be taken into consideration in estimating his means. Under subsection (d) everything which the applicant personally used or enjoyed had to be taken into consideration. So strict was the Act of Parliament that every advantage which an applicant got for living in a house below its full rack rent had to be taken into consideration, although the fact that he possessed £30 worth of furniture would not be taken into account under the instruction which had been given. If an applicant had any gifts of clothing, or food, however small or minute, they would be taken into consideration, but the question of the possession of this furniture would not be taken into account. Some hon. Members might imagine they were objecting to this instruction, but that was not so. What they were objecting to was the Chancellor of the Exchequer taking upon himself the making of Amendments in a statute which had received the assent of both Houses of Parliament. He would illustrate what a tremendous constitutional innovation such a procedure as that was. Supposing after this Bill had passed the House of Commons and had gone up to the House of Lords their Lordships bad inserted an Amendment to the effect that in estimating the means of the applicant no account should be taken of furniture up to the value of £30. He had no doubt Mr. Speaker would have considered that an infringement of the privileges of the House
  1558
  of Commons, because it would have involved an additional payment by the taxpayers; and yet that could be done by the Chancellor of the Exchequer without any infringement of their privileges at all. If that was to be allowed an immense power was being placed in the hands of the Government, because that was by no means the only blot upon the Old-Age Pensions Act. There were many other things which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might, with much greater fairness, have taken upon himself to amend in the Act. There was, for example, the ridiculous provision that if a man was taken into an infirmary for a few days—it might be in consequence of an accident in the street or a sudden attack of illness—he was absolutely disqualified for a pension. That was a gross injustice which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not amended, although if he had done so he would not have infringed the law any more than he had already done by the issuing of this instruction. It clear that the right hon. Gentleman could amend it in other ways by imposing new conditions directing pension officers to make most elaborate inquiries into a man's character. Hon. Members would remember the provision dealing with the test of character. It was of the utmost importance how that was considered, and it entirely depended upon the instruction sent to the pension officer. They might be told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that their objections were ridiculous, and that the question of the furniture was not worth while considering, but he did not agree with that argument. This was a very important constitutional question, for if the House of Commons was to allow a Minister of the day to make Amendments and alterations in Acts of Parliament, another blow would be struck at the prestige and constitutional position of the House. The fact that the actual change had been made was in itself a small matter, but they had to consider the principle. First of all, there was the principle at stake that no change should be made in an Act of Parliament by the executive Government except by another Act of Parliament, and in the second place there was the more serious principle involved that the administration

  1559
  of a vast sum of money, amounting to something between £6,000,000 and £8,000,000, ought not to depend upon secret instructions given by the Minister of the day. It was for that reason that he ventured to move his Motion, and he desired to ascertain the feeling of the House upon this very serious constitutional principle.
  MR. BOWLESsaid that in a very few words he would second the Amendment of his noble friend. The case for this Motion had been put so clearly that the point at issue must be apparent to the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite. There could be no doubt that this was a matter of grave and serious importance to the House of Commons. The question was whether the House of Commons was prepared to allow the administration of one of its own Acts of Parliament to lie in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any other Minister acting outside the control of the House of Commons, behind its back, secretly, in the dark, in a way that neither the House of Commons nor the country could understand. [MINISTERIAL laughter.] He was not astonished that some hon. Members opposite, by their laughter, seemed to doubt the exact accuracy of the description he had given. He did not know whether any of them were aware that in this case they were dealing with instructions having the force of a statute, and those instructions affected the administration of vast sums of public money. Those instructions were absolutely secret, and nobody outside the Treasury bench had any means of knowing what they were. Under those circumstances he submitted that this was a matter which vitally concerned the House as a whole, and he should await with great interest the answer made on behalf of the Government. He confessed that he thought it would be a little difficult, unless there was something which had entirely escaped his notice, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to satisfy the House. They might be told that, under this regulation, the pension officer had to act under the secret instructions of the right hon. Gentleman, and that he was subject to the provisions of the Act. That was true, but what was the result of it? It
  1560
  was that they were putting every pension officer in the country in what he conceived to be a cruel and impossible position. They were putting pension officers under two direct authorities, namely, the authority of the Act of Parliament and the authority of the regulations issued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Every pension officer would have to choose whether he would obey the direct instructions of both Houses of Parliament contained in the Act, or the contradictory instructions given in secret by the light hon. Gentleman. That was a position in which the House ought not to place any public officer, and it was a position which the House of Commons, not the Chancellor of the Exchequer or any other Minister on the Treasury bench, ought to take up. He regarded this as a matter of very great seriousness, and he thought they were under a debt of gratitude to his noble friend for having raised the question, even at such a late hour. He begged to second the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying him to annul so much of the Old-Age Pensions Regulations, 1908, as provides that the pension officers shall, in investigating the claims of applicants, be subject to any further instructions issued for the guidance of pension officers by the Board of Inland Revenue."—(Lord R. Cecil.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): The noble Lord who moved this Motion has made a very ingenious speech, but my complaint is that it has nothing to do with this Motion. He has challenged certain secret instructions issued by the Department and complains that they have not been published, but that is not the Motion. The hon. Member who seconded this Motion complained that some of those instructions were ultra vires. That is not the Motion submitted to the House. Will the House just look for a moment at the Motion, to which the noble Lord never referred, and which he never supported by a single argument in his speech. The Motion is "That an bumble Address be presented to His Majesty praying him

  1561
  to annul so much of the Old-Age Pensions Regulations, 1908, as provides that the pension officers shall, in investigating the claims of applicants, be subject to any further instructions issued for the guidance of pension officers by the Board of Inland Revenue." Really, what is the complaint of the noble Lord? He submits to the House of Commons the statement that one instruction out of 150 or 160, which very improperly has appeared in the newspapers, is, according to his notion, ultra vires, and because of that the Department is never to give any instructions at all to any officer under any conditions, and a humble Address is to be presented to His Majesty, and the House is invited to say that these officers for ever shall act without any instructions at all. Whom are they to obey?
  LORD R. CECIL: The statute.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The officers have to be under the direction of somebody even in administering the statute. They are officers of the Inland Revenue, and if this Motion is adopted the Inland Revenue cannot give them instructions.
  MR. BOWLES: Not Secret instructions.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Really I think the hon. Member who has taken the trouble to second the Motion cannot have read it. There is not a word in this Motion about secret instructions. The House is invited to appeal to His Majesty to declare that these officers should not be instructed at all as to the way they are to administer the Act. I think it is one of the most preposterous Motions ever submitted to the House of Commons. If the noble Lord wants to carry out that instruction there is a way of doing it, but if this Motion is carried the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be responsible, nobody can give any instructions, and these officers will act on their own responsibility and will not be responsible to Parliament in the ordinary constitutional way. The noble Lord says he wants to preserve the Constitution, but he is absolutely destroying it by this Motion. The Constitution says that a Minister shall be responsible for an officer who is carrying out an Act of Parliament under his general control. If that Minister is
  1562
  directed not to give any instructions at all, and if the officer is to act upon his own initiative without any reference to the Minister, how is the Minister to be responsible to Parliament for the administration of the Act? I do not think the noble Lord can have thought out this Motion when he put it down, because he is simply trying by a very indirect and irrelevant method to raise a matter which is not within the four corners of the Motion. The noble Lord wishes to challenge the interpretation placed by the Inland Revenue upon an Act of Parliament, but that is not his Motion. I may remind him that there is a method by which he can do this, and that is upon the Estimates. The noble Lord asks me to follow constitutional methods, but I have pointed out to him the time-honoured constitutional method of challenging the act of a Minister. It is the only way you can do it.
  LORD R. CECIL: I can challenge it upon this Motion.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The noble Lord cannot challenge my interpretation of an Act of Parliament by a Motion that has absolutely nothing to do with it. His Motion is that no further instructions be issued at all to any officer under that Act of Parliament. I am quite willing to defend the instruction complained of, because I think it is a proper, reasonable, and sensible instruction, and the only practical interpretation to place upon the Act of Parliament. It would have been perfectly absurd to place an interpretation upon the Act which would have involved the pension officer valuing not merely the furniture in a man's house but also the clothes which he wears.
  LORD R. CECIL: But he has to do that.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg the noble Lord's pardon; that is not so, and he cannot have read the instructions. This, however, is not the time to discuss the instructions. I wish to save the Excise officers the very unnecessary trouble of going through the form of valuing every little article of clothing and furniture in a poor household—and

  1563
  to save them, too, at the present moment, when they are strained up to breaking point by the labours cast upon them. We wish also to save the people themselves from this very unnecessary annoyance of having to submit an account of every yard of clothing they have got and place a valuation upon it. To give a general instruction against that kind of thing is a sensible and national course to follow. That is my defence. I am prepared to defend my action at the proper moment when the noble Lord has devoted a little more time to studying the Constitution. Until the noble Lord takes the real constitutional method of challenging my action, I ask the House to reject this really very foolish and preposterous Motion.
  MR. HAROLD COXsaid the right hon. Gentleman must have known that the remedy which he suggested was a purely futile remedy, because there would be no Estimates before the House for another three or four months. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer said his instruction was a right instruction, why was it not put into the Statutory Regulations? There were many points in those regulations as minute as this, and there was no reason why it should not have been put in. There was a great deal to be said for this limitation but it ought to have been in the Act. His right hon. friend was a lawyer and had distinguished himself in so many ways lately that they sometimes forgot that fact. Would the right hon. Gentleman stand up and say that this was a legal interpretation of the Act of Parliament? The pension officer in making the valuation was to ignore furniture and certain other things, but really if he was to make a proper valuation he must take these things into account. But that was not the point at issue. He was not prepared to argue whether it was a wise or a foolish rule. He thought there was a good deal to be said for it. Might he point out that no limitation was made with regard to food and clothing? He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a little out of the facts in regard to his own instruction. It applied to furniture, but not to clothing. Clothing was to be valued to the last stitch. Food was also to be valued. His point was
  1564
  that when the Old-Age Pensions Act was passing through the House they ought to have had an opportunity of discussing these questions, and they ought to have been allowed to decide under what conditions pensions should be given. They were not allowed to do so, but after the Bill had become an Act the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his own authority took upon himself to alter the words of the Act, and what was more, he took upon himself as a Minister of the Crown to do what the House of Commons had always resented being done by the Crowr, namely, to impose a charge on the taxpayer. He thought the noble Lord was perfectly justified in using any form which the rules of the House permitted to bring to the notice of the House this gross breach of the English Constitution.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a verbal excuse rather than an answer worthy of the occasion. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested was that if this Resolution were carried, no instructions would be available for the guidance of the pension officers. The Regulations were there. What his noble friend said was that further secret instructions, in addition to the Regulations, should not be issued. These instructions they had every reason to suppose—in fact they knew—were ultra vires, inasmuch as they imposed an additional charge on the people. That was the real issue. What they asked was whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would defend his instructions, which he had assured the House were good and sensible and proper, by laying them on the Table of the House, and whether he was prepared to defend himself against the allegation that he had made a charge upon the people.
  MR. JOHN WARDsaid he understood from the reply to a Question that before the Regulations became operative the House would be afforded an opportunity to discuss them. He should like to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there would be an opportunity to discuss the printed Regulations. He was not referring to the secret instructions to officers.

  1565
  He did not think it was fair to say that this matter could be discussed on the Estimates, because that would practically mean arraigning the right hon. Gentleman on a vote of censure.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the disposition of the time of the House was a matter for the Prime Minister, and the hon. Member must address a Question to his right hon. friend on the subject.
  MR. HICKS BEACH, in supporting the Motion, asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would lay the instructions on the Table. What they complained of was that the right hon. Gentleman had issued certain instructions privately to the Inland Revenue officers in addition to the regulations which had been published. A summary of these instructions had appeared in one of the newspapers, and some of them undoubtedly did impose a charge on the taxpayers If the charge had been imposed by the other House, Mr. Speaker would have ruled that it was a breach of privilege, and he would have been supported.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Are we to understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer declines to lay those instructions on the Table?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the instructions had been published in a newspaper. What he was informed was, and other Government Departments took the same view, that it was extremely undesirable that instructions of that kind should be published. He would ask the hon. and learned Member whether he would accept the responsibility of advising any Government Department to start as a precedent the publication of instructions, given to its own officers. It would, he thought, be almost impossible to stop at that. Instructions given to Revenue officers with regard to the method of collecting the revenue, instructions with regard to breweries, distilleries, and income-tax, instructions given by the Home Office to the police,
  or to its own officers by the Board of Trade, would all have to be published if once the precedent were established. That would be most inadvisable, and he must ask the hon. and learned Member to consider very seriously the stand he had taken in that matter. It was not a matter which affected the present Government only, but one which would affect all Governments once the precedent was established, and he must appeal to the House not to establish that precedent.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid he desired to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that the instructions were so important that they ought to have been laid on the Table of the House.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid there appeared to be some confusion as to the instructions. Those which the noble Lord had referred to had been confused with others. Instructions 92 had legal authority, but Instructions 34 were purely ordinary instructions given by the Department.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that there was great danger in establishing a precedent, but the right hon. Gentleman had himself established a precedent in those regulations, for he had issued instructions which were a schedule addition to an Act of Parliament, and which had been issued in an unconstitutional manner. That was the charge they had to make against the right hon. Gentleman, and that charge was not to be got rid of by the most improper levity with which the right hon. Gentleman had answered it. The right hon. Gentleman's answer had been a long string of words in which the word preposterous had been used at least three times, but he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the use of language such as that had at times recoiled on those who used it with most damaging effect.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 54; Noes, 141. (Division List No. 410.)

  AYES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Cave, George

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Byles, William Pollard

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cox, Harold

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Seddon, J.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hills, J. W.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stanier, Beville

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Starkey, John R.

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Keswick, William

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Fell, Arthur

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Forster, Henry William

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingto)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

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

  Gretton, John

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Pee

  Younger, George

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd)

  Renton, Leslie

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Lord Robert Cecil and Mr. Bowles.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Haworth, Arthur A.

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

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Henry, Charles S.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Beale, W. P.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Robinson, S.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Beck, A Cecil.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Bennet, E. N.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Shackleton, David James

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Shaw, Sir Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hudson, Walter

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

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Brooke, Stopford

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

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

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Carr-Gomm, W. H.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Lambert, George

  Summerbell, T.

  Cawley, Sir Frderick

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Clough, William

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Verney, F. W.

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

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Walters, John Tudor

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n)

  Crossley, William J.

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Waring, Walter

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Massie, J.

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Middlebrook, William

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Mond, A.

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

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Morrell, Philip

  Wiles, Thomas

  Ferens, T. R.

  Morse, L. L.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

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

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Williamson, A.

  Gill, A. H.

  Nicholls, George

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Gulland, John W.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Radford, G. H.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

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

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 31st
  July, adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at twenty-two minutes after Twelve o'clock.