LICENSING BILL.

HC Deb 19 November 1908 vol 196 cc1436-553

As amended, further considered.

* MR. GRETTON (Rutland)

said 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 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 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. GRETTON

said 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. GRETTON

said that that was exactly so. During the Committee stage the Government introduced Amendments which made it clear that the 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 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 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 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 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,) Yorkshire, Cleveland

May I ask what the Schedule A values were of the houses, and to what extent they differed from one another.

* MR. GRETTON

replied 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. GRETTON

replied 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. GRETTON

repeated 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 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 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 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. BARNARD (Kidderminster)

seconded 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, 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 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. BARNARD

said 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 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 (St. George's, Hanover Square)

What does the hon. Member believe to be the principle of the London quinquennial valuation?

* MR. BARNARD

was 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. BARNARD

said 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 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 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. MOND (Chester)

confessed to some surprise at the action which had been taken by the mover and seconder 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. 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 (Ayr Burghs)

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 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. MOND

hoped 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 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 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 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. MOND

said 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. YOUNGER

said 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 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. MOND

thought amending the clause would have been a better course to pursue than rejecting it.

* MR. YOUNGER

said 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. 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 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. YOUNGER

said 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 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 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 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. FABER (York)

said 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 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 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 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- 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 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. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston)

thought 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 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 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 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 HOPE (Sheffield, Central)

could 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 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 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 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 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. CAVE

said 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 (Dublin University)

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 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 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 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 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 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 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)

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 (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 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 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. REMNANT (Finsbury, Holborn)

seconded.

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-DAVIES (Hackney, N.)

did 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 WINTERTON (Sussex, Horsham)

did not know whether the Government would find it more convenient to 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 RUTHERFORD (Liverpool, West Derby)

thought 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. EVANS

said 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 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.' 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 WINTERTON

said 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. EVANS

said 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. BANBURY

complained 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 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 RUTHERFORD

said 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 WALKER (Lancashire, Widnes)

pointed 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 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. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University)

said 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 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 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 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 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 RUTHERFORD

said 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 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 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 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 MACDONALD (Leicester)

said 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 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 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. HUNT (Shropshire, Ludlow)

said 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 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 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 PARKER (Halifax)

agreed 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, 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. GRETTON

said 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 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-DAVIES

pointed 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-DAVIES

said 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 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 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 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 "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 (Cambridge University)

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 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 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, 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 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. COURTHOPE (Sussex, Rye)

said 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 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. COURTHOPE

said 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 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. COURTHOPE

said 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 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. VERNEY (Buckinghamshire, N.)

said 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. BANBURY

said that his hon. friend the Member for Rye had 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. EVANS

said 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. BANBURY

said 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 BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley)

said 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 BALCARRES

said 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.

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 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. FABER

seconded.

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 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 WINTERTON

said 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

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

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

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

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

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.]