HC Deb 21 October 1908 vol 194 cc1174-288

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

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

Clause 4:

MR. JAMES HOPE (Sheffield, Central) moved an Amendment providing that in the case of old on-licences extinguished under the power of optional reduction, the compensation should be in accordance with the financial provisions, not of the Bill, but of the Act of 1904. He said that when this scheme had taken effect the number of public-houses would be brought down to the level of the wants of the neighbourhood, and now it was proposed to give the justices special power beyond that to reduce licences. If the theory of the Bill was that the scale of reduction would bring the licences down to a proper proportion he submitted that if the magistrates went beyond that on the face of it they should grant those houses the old-standing terms they would have received before this Bill was brought in. On those grounds he begged to move his Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 30, to leave out the words 'this Act,' and insert the words 'The Licensing Act, 1904.'"—(Mr. James Hope.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'this Act' Stand part of the clause.

*MR. G. D. FABER (York)

said this was a Bill primarily providing for the reduction during a certain number of years of a certain number of licences, and it had always been approached from that standpoint. During a period of fourteen years the total number of licences would be reduced by 30,000, and a certain measure of compensation would apply to them. With regard to the licences coming under Clause 4, which was the clause for optional reduction, it would be well that a different standard of action should be applied. That clause being altogether an exception to the main scheme of the Bill, he put it to the Committee whether the compensation should not be of a different character, They had a method of compensation ready to their hand which was set forth clearly under the Act of 1904, and which had worked satisfactorily. The compensation that would be provided in cases of optional reduction under the scheme of 1904 would not cost the State a farthing, and would not set up the injustice of which they had had occasion to complain in cases of statutory reduction. If the Government were open to argument at all, if they had not stopped their ears with wax or cotton-wool, he hoped that inasmuch as in Clause 4 they went entirely outside the main structure of the measure they would allow compensation to be given on the liberal and equitable terms of the Act of 1904, and not under the wicked provisions for compensation which were applied to the licences to be reduced under the scheme of this Bill.

MR. YOUNGER (Ayr Burghs)

said it appeared to him that the Committee were in a difficulty in dealing with this matter at present, because it was impossible to know how Clause 10 might be dealt with. The experience which the Committee had already had of the astounding changes of view on the part of the Government led him to hope that they might be induced to make Clause 10 a great deal more reasonable than it was at present. Although Clause 10 was unfair, and the compensation under it not at all equitable, they were bound at this stage to do what they could to prevent the licences being abolished on unfair terms. He cordially supported the Amendment.

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir S. EVANS, Glamorganshire, Mid.)

was understood to say that it was impossible to discuss the question of compensation under this Amendment. The fact that it was not moved by the hon. Member for Kingston, in whose name it stood upon the Paper, rather indicated to him that it was regarded as consequential on an Amendment moved last night.

*MR. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston)

said he addressed the Committee on the subject yesterday, and he did not wish to make two speeches on the same point.

SIR S. EVANS

said the Amendment was to a great extent consequential. The meaning of the provision in the last four lines of the subsection was quite clear. It was also clear that if they substituted the Act of 1904 they would make absolute nonsense of the whole of that part of the clause. The proviso was intended as an indication to the justices that they might, subject to the financial provisions of this Act, make further reductions in excess of the statutory reduction. He gathered from the speech of the mover of the Amendment that he desired to discuss the question of compensation, but that could not be done at present.

LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)

said it did not follow that this Amendment, whether right or wrong, was necessarily consequential on the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Kingston last night. Two quite different objects were aimed at in the two Amendments. His hon. friend last night urged that the procedure available under the Act of 1904 should be adopted, namely, reference to Quarter Sessions. The object of the present Amendment was to substitute the scale of compensation available under the Act of 1904 in a particular set of cases for the scale proposed under this Bill.

SIR S. EVANS

That is why I said in answer to the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs that it was impossible to discuss it now.

MR. YOUNGER

What I said was that it was difficult to discuss this without knowing how Clause 10 would be framed. I expressed the hope that the Government would change it.

LORD R. CECIL

said they could only take the Bill as it stood at present. They must discuss this clause now, knowing quite well that they would not be able to go back on the matter at a later stage. The point now before the Committee was one which he should have thought worthy of a more complete answer from the Solicitor-General. He had a profound dislike of the scheme of compensation proposed by the Government, and he regretted that any responsible Government should have committed themselves to such an extraordinary perversion of justice as was contained in the section. He thought that in this particular set of reductions—reductions which were entirely discretionary and on a different footing—there should be the freest and fullest compensation. In the particular clause they were now discussing they were going to allow a bench of magistrates to extinguish licences beyond even the scale provided by the Bill.

MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.)

said he would not enter into competition with the Solicitor-General on a matter of legal construction, but this was not a matter of legal construction at all. It was a matter of the plain meaning of the English language. If the clause were passed in its present form there could be no doubt whatever that the compensation payable for the licences extinguished beyond the statutory number provided for under the scheme would be the compensation payable under this Bill. If the words of the Amendment were inserted a separate scheme of compensation would be payable. Unless those words were inserted now he believed it would be impossible for the Government to make Clause 10 carry out the necessary change. The discretion given to the licensing justices beyond the statutory reduction was to apply to licences "in any rural parish or urban area," and he profoundly regretted that his hon. and learned friend the Member for Kingston did not move the Amendment standing in his name to leave out these words. In a vast number of cases since the passing of the Act of 1904 licensed property throughout the country had acquired special value. The owners of licensed property in his own county had surrendered licences in order to secure licences which they now had running. These would now become subject to the operations of this clause, and to say that licences of that kind, which had acquired a value they did not possess before, were to be destroyed subject to the scale of compensation payable by the justices under the general scheme of the Bill was very unjust. If the Solicitor-General was right in saying that this proposed Amendment was in the wrong place or form it would be easy to alter the place and form. It seemed to him that the Amendment, if accepted as proposed now, would have the effect they desired. If the Amendment was not made here, it could not be done on Clause 12.

SIR S. EVANS

Yes, it can.

MR. WALTER LONG

said he was sure the Solicitor-General would not give an assurance of that kind unless he was confident. If that was so he would not press for the insertion of the words here. It was conceivable that, under the procedure Resolution, they might not reach that part of the clause on which the change was to be made. He thought this Amendment was of the utmost importance, especially with regard to the extra licences which he had referred to as having acquired an additional value, which should not be ignored by the supporters of the Bill.

*MR. CAVE

said he did not move his Amendment to this clause, to leave out "in any rural parish or urban area," because it was put down as consequential to an Amendment on an earlier clause enlarging the area for the purpose of statutory reduction. He was strongly in favour of a larger area, but the Amendment was defeated. He agreed with his hon. friend that the Amendment now before the Committee raised the whole question of the scale of compensation. By the words proposed to be omitted the Government were providing that the licences extinguished on the optional system would be compensated at the lower scale. If the clause passed as it stood it would be extremely difficult to argue afterwards the point that the extra licences beyond the statutory reduction ought to be compensated on a different scale. By accepting the Amendment it would not prejudge that question. This was a question affecting not brewers only, but owners of licensed houses of every kind.

*THE CHAIRMAN

suggested that it would be better to withdraw the Amendment and the question as to whether the extra houses, if extinguished, should be compensated on a higher scale could be raised on Clause 10.

MR. JAMES HOPE

said that his argument was that the extra licences stood in a stronger position than the licences statutorily reduced. However, he would gladly accept the suggestion of the Chairman and withdraw the Amendment.

SIR S. EVANS

hoped that the Committee would allow the Amendment to be withdrawn. The real truth of the matter was that this subsection of Clause 4 did not touch the question of compensation at all; and he was sure that it would be perfectly competent to discuss the point raised by the hon. Gentleman on Clause 10.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*MR. CAVE moved to leave out subsection. (2). The point he wanted to take bore somewhat on the question debated at a late hour on the previous night, viz., as to the right of appeal. The subsection provided that— Subject to the foregoing provision the licensing justices shall have the same powers and discretion (subject to the like appeal) as to refusing the renewal or transfer of an old on-licence as they have for the time being with respect to other on-licences. He was rather puzzled to know what the other on-licences were. The reference appeared to be to on-licences other than old on-licences, and therefore to on-licences granted since the Act of 1904. But the on-licences granted since 1904 were granted on monopoly value, and with regard to those granted for a term of years there would be no question of compensation at the end of the term. He could not help feeling that there was some confusion of thought which inspired the drafting of this Bill. He did not know whether this clause did preserve the right of appeal in cases coming within this clause; and he hoped that that would be made clear. Of course, apart from that question, they had the strongest objection on principle to this subsection. There were two things of great importance involved in it. In the first place it took away from Quarter Sessions the power of dealing with those licences; and secondly, there was the alteration of the present scale of compensation. The clause provided that if a renewal or transfer of an old on-licence was refused during the reduction period then compensation should be paid in accordance with the provisions of this Act. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 32, to leave out subsection (2)."—(Mr. Cave.)

Question proposed, "That the words of subsection (2), down to the word 'this' in line 3, page 4, stand part of the clause."

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,) Monmouthshire, N.

said that the hon. and learned Gentleman had put his point so fairly that he almost disarmed criticism. A question of principle, however, was involved in this subsection, and be could hold out no hope that the Government would change their view as to the desirability of giving power to the local justices to deal with this matter. He thought that the clause adequately provided for an appeal.-All that the clause did was to provide that the local justices should have revived to them the same powers and discretion as to refusing the renewal or transfer of an old licence, not necessarily every year but at the expiration of the period for which the licence was granted; but when it did come up for renewal of transfer at the expiration of the period it would then be treated under the provisions of this clause as a new licence. If they exercised that discretion which they had before 1904, then it could only be exercised subject to the payment of compensation. He thought there was no real difficulty in the interpretation of the clause. The House had already decided on the point of principle, that the discretion of the local justices should not be reviewed by Quarter Sessions.

SIR S. EVANS

said he did not desire to repeat the argument he had used on the previous night. The intention of the Government was to give a full right of appeal on the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman thought that any words would make that intention clearer he would communicate with his hon. friend as to the form of words which might be employed.

SIR E. CARSON (Dublin University)

expressed satisfaction with the undertaking of the Solicitor-General that he would accept words to make it clear that there was a right of appeal in the cases mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Kingston.

*MR. G. D. FABER

said that before they let this clause out of the hands of the Committee he should like to say a few words about it. He should like to call attention to the fact that under subsection 2, the licensing justices had the same powers and discretion (subject to the like appeal) as to refusing the renewal or transfer of an old on-licence as they had for the time being with respect to other on-licences. It was strange to call that a full discretion. He should hardly call it a full discretion which limited the licensing justices in one direction, and gave them no power in another. It said that they might refuse, but it did not say that they might grant additional licences. Additional point was lent to this criticism by the words used by the Prime Minister when he introduced this measure, with regard to optional reduction. He said that the Bill gave power to make optional reduction, and that it was a power vested in the authority in addition to its statutory duty, so that they restored, under this Bill, to the licensing authority the discretion which was taken away from it by the Act of 1904, with regard to refusal, renewal and transfer of existing on-licences, and they repealed the provisions of the 1904 Act vesting such power in the Quarter Sessions. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman the clause which they were now discussing did nothing of the kind. The right hon. Gentleman said that it restored to the licensing authority the full discretion with regard to refusal and renewal, but when they looked at the clause they found that it was restricted entirely to refusal. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman when he foreshadowed what was going to be done under the Bill did not foreshadow it properly.

MR. MCKENNA

wished to point out that the words were "refusing the renewal." Therefore, if they did not refuse, they renewed.

*MR. G. D. FABER

said the power was limited to further reduction. He was in some doubt, owing to the extraordinary way the subsection was drafted, on another point. Licensing justices had the same powers or discretion as to the refusal of the renewal of an old "on-licence" as they had, for the time being, with respect to "other on-licences." This was most obscure, especially when he considered what were the provisions later on of Clause 20, which were of the most drastic and far-reaching nature. He knew he was not in order in referring to Olause 20 at length. Under that clause the licensing justices might attach all sorts of conditions to the licence, and if those conditions were not complied with then there was no compensation to the publican. The old on-licences might, it seemed to him, under the wording of the subsection, be subjected to those conditions. The wording of the subsection clearly required alteration. On the general question of which was the preferable tribunal, the licensing justices or Quarter Sessions, that was more or less dealt with last evening, and he would not trouble the Committee with it in any detail, but he would like to say that his opinion remained the same, that the best initial tribunal in all the circumstances of the case would have been the Quarter Sessions, and not the licensing justices. The main object of the Bill from first to last seemed to be to find some stone to throw at anybody supposed to favour the licensed trade. Here the body that had been selected was the Quarter Sessions. The reason why the Act of 1904 substituted Quarter Sessions for the licensing justices was that in a matter where there was any feeling in regard to licences aroused, it was much better to remove the settlement of the question from the local to the larger arena, where it would not be swayed by any prejudice in the locality, and where they could rely upon justice being done. It was for no reason except that of working up feeling in favour of local justices against Quarter Sessions that this provision was inserted.

MR. JAMES HOPE

said it might be due to the density of the lay mind, but he did not understand the answer of the Solicitor-General to the hon. Member for Kingston as to the obscurity of these words "other on-licences" in distinction from "an old on-licence." What would be the effect of these provisions in regard to new licences granted under the Act of 1904? The clause said that with regard to the renewal of these licences the magistrates had the same power. These powers under the fourth section of the Act of 1904 were very extensive indeed, and he submitted that if one of these licences granted under that Act came up for renewal the magistrates might attach fresh conditions to it. For instance, if the licence were granted, say last year for a term of three years, and came up under the operation of this Act within two years, it might be in 1910, quite early in the reduction period, the magistrates might well make use of their powers under the fourth section and vary the conditions of granting the renewal and attach conditions as to monopoly value, so that the licence would not be renewed unless these conditions were submitted to. He thought it was plain that that would refer to all licences granted under the fourth section of the Act of 1904. If that was true of them what did this provision mean? It applied the condition to all "on-licences," and the effect would be to give the magistrates powers in regard to them, to attach the same conditions of renewal as they at present attached to new licences under the Act of 1904, and in that way they might even during the reduction period put before the licensees the alternative of being cleared out altogether under the compensation provisions of Clause 10, or having their licences renewed subject to that very monopoly value which the Prime Minister said he did not mean to exact for twenty-one years. He thought that was the meaning of these words and he should like to know if the Solicitor-General could supply an explanation.

MR. F. E. SMITH (Liverpool, Walton)

said that as at present advised if his hon. and learned friend went to a division he should not be able to support him. As he understood it except for the words in this subsection there was no provision even for the grossly inadequate compensation provided for under this Bill, and if this subsection disappeared even that inadequate compensation would be lost. Therefore he had a difficulty in supporting the Amendment of his hon. friend. But on the earlier part of the clause he thought his hon. friend raised a substantial difficulty, which had not been adequately answered by the Solicitor-General. It might be that the difficulty was only due to somewhat obscure drafting, but certainly an explanation had not been forthcoming of the curious method of expressing themselves which the draftsmen, no doubt by the instruction of the Government, had adopted. He conceived that the operative part of subsection 2 was that, subject to the provision at the end of subsection 1, Quarter Sessions should cease to be the tribunal in dealing with these licences, and the licensing justices should be constituted as the tribunal. It would be quite possible to say that easily and simply without any reference to the old on-licence or other on-licences, and he confessed himself puzzled to know what the powers were which would not otherwise have been possessed in respect of post-1904 licences, which were to be given to the magistrates decision under subsection 2 in regard to pre-1904 or old on-licences. If a licence had been granted for three or four years he did not know what power the provision gave which was not possessed under the Act of 1904. It appeared to relate to a different class of licences, and there must be some reason for it.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he rose to put some points to the Government and also to the Chair with regard to order and the convenience of the debate. In the first place, he hoped before they went further there would be some explanation from the Government as to the rather cryptic phrase which had puzzled Gentlemen more learned than himself— Subject to the foregoing provisions the licensing justices shall have the same powers and discretion (subject to the like appeal) as to refusing the renewal or transfer of an old on-licence. Apart from that it seemed to him that this was the proper place in which his right hon. friend the Member for South Dublin could properly raise a question to which he attached great importance, the question whether the discretion of Quarter Sessions might not at all events be retained with reference to the rural areas. It was not the same question that had been raised on the previous day by the hon. and learned Member for Kingston, but quite a different one. He did not know exactly what words were put from the Chair, but it seemed to him that this question could best be raised by the insertion of words after the word "shall" in line 33, so that the clause should run: "The licensing justices shall except in rural parishes." That would be a convenient way of raising the question his right hon. friend desired to raise with regard to certain questions which especially affected the rural areas of the country. He therefore asked whether the general question would be best discussed on this Amendment or whether his right hon. friend should await a more convenient opportunity to introduce this or a similar Amendment at or near the beginning of line 33. Another point he had to suggest for the convenience of the debate was the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for the Walton division of Liverpool, who had truly said that much as they objected to some parts of this section they did not object to some compensation being given for those licences which were refused at the unfettered discretion of the local justices. They thought the compensation was inadequate, but they also thought the worst compensation was better than no compensation at all. Those were the three points. The first was an explanation of certain words, the second was for the Chairman to say as to what would be the more convenient course for dealing with the rights of rural parishes with regard to licences, and the third was whether, whatever the Chairman's ruling might be on this particular point, it would not be wiser to have that discussion on this subsection, having regard to the fact that this was the only subsection which dealt with the licences to be reduced.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said he put the words down to the word "this" in line 3, page 4. Therefore it would be necessary for the present Amendment to be withdrawn by consent if another Amendment was to be proposed in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. That, of course, was a matter for the Committee.

SIR S. EVANS

said he had no objection to that course being taken.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WALTER LONG

, in moving the insertion of words exempting rural parishes from the discretion of the licensing justices, said he desired to raise the question of the application of this subsection to the rural areas of the country. He raised it on this clause, because as had been pointed out, it stood absolutely clear and distinct from the main policy of the Bill. This was the clause which gave power to deal with what had been called the extra licences, and it proposed to take away the power now possessed by Quarter Sessions, and transfer it to the licensing justices of the district. Whatever might be said with regard to the general principle with regard to the large towns and urban areas, the general convenience of the community had been entirely ignored by the Bill. Yesterday the hon. Member for the Appleby division gave a description of certain parts of the country which he said enjoyed great blessings owing to the absence of licences. He had ventured to interrupt the hon. Gentleman by pointing out other districts which were quite as blessed which possessed licences. He was going to submit that their condition was not due to there being no licences. He had in mind a great many rural parishes in which there were no public-houses in the villages and never had been, but in which there were public-houses in the neighbourhood. There was at times a wave of popular opinion which led to action being taken by the licensing justices who in no way represented the district, and there was a power given, subject only to that, to enable justices sitting in Petty Sessions to deal with the licences of the whole district without any power of control by any body which not only represented the whole county, but had the general conditions of the district much more fully before it than the justices could have. Anybody who knew our rural parishes, know that they were not composed of single villages hanging on to two sides of one or two roads. Most of the rural parishes were much better supplied by adjoining parishes for the sale of liquor and things of that kind, than by their own neighbourhood. All these things had been brought to the notice of those who sat in Quarter Sessions to deal with licences. They had been brought forward with a force and an authority which there would not be if these vast powers were given to the licensing justices under the Bill. Under the Bill they provided for a greater reduction; they provided that there should be a power in the justices to deal with extra licences, and then in addition they proposed to remove the only safeguard now possessed, namely, the administration by Quarter Sessions, and to hand over these very strong powers to a non-elective body which in many cases did not represent the views of the district. He believed that if this clause was put into force it would create a vast amount of feeling against the justices and those responsible for the clause. He could see no reason at all events why they should not make this exception with regard to the rural parishes and leave them to be dealt with by Quarter Sessions as at present. He had heard no reason given for this remarkable change in the law. It seemed to him to be made without any just ground being given for it. It would inflict very severe hardship on many of the rural districts of the country, and the magistrates would be charged with a most invidious task. They had never asked for it, and why this special charge was put into the Bill unless, indeed, as had been stated, the Government were determined to make the Bill as severe as possible to those who came under its operation, he could not say. It was sufficient for him to move the insertion of the words "except in rural parishes" after the word "shall" in line 2 of the subsection. It was with the hope that there would be some explanation other than that it was the general policy of the Bill that he begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 33, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'except in rural parishes.'"—(Mr. Long.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR S. EVANS

said he imagined the right hon. Gentleman had moved the words more or less as a matter of form. If his Amendment were adopted they would have one course of procedure in the case of rural areas and another in the case of urban areas, whereas the right hon. Gentleman's argument covered the whole field. It must always be remembered by the Committee that they were dealing now only with the very smallest possible reduction. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the extraordinary powers to be given to the justices, but it was indisputable that these powers which were being restored to them in respect of optional reductions were powers which they had always had up to 1904. What was the main reason of the change made in 1904? It was that for the licences to be taken away there was to be compensation in every case, and that compensation was entirely controlled by Quarter Sessions; therefore, the Act merely allowed the justices who thought the licence ought to go for compensation to refer it to Quarter Sessions. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that so far as this matter was concerned, there was really a very small difference, no more than the difference between tweedledum and tweedledee. Under the section, in every case of the refusal of a licence there was the right of appeal to Quarter Sessions. What was the difference between the local justices saying that the licence ought to be taken away with right of appeal to Quarter Sessions in the one case, and in the other the reference to Quarter Sessions? The difference was infinitesimal. The tribunal which had the approval and commendation of the right hon. Gentleman would be the final tribunal under the first subsection, just as it was under the Act of 1904.

MR. NIELD (Middlesex, Ealing)

pointed out that there was a very great distinction between the two cases. In the one case the licence was referred for compensation, and Quarter Sessions had to deal with it. Under the clause the right of appeal to Quarter Sessions was restricted.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he should like some explanation of the words in the subsection "as they have for the time being with respect to other on-licences." He formally moved the omission of those words which he did not exactly understand.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 35, to leave out the words 'as they have for the time being with respect to other on-licences."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

SIR S. EVANS

said the meaning of the words was this: Wherever, under this subsection, there had been a refusal by the justices either to renew or transfer an old licence, there would be full right of appeal, as there would be in the event of their refusing to renew or transfer any on-licence that might come before them. They had the right to refuse renewal or transfer subject to the fullest right of appeal. He did not say that the words were as clear as they might be, but if there was any doubt the matter should be set right, and he would communicate with his right hon. friend the Member for Dublin University in regard to it.

MR. F. E. SMITH

said the Solicitor-General seemed to him to be entirely mistaken as to the effect of these words. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that appeal would survive in both cases, but if they looked at the way in which the clause was drafted it was perfectly clear that the object was not as stated, because it said— The licensing justices shall have the same powers and discretion (subject to the like appeal) as to refusing the renewal or transfer of an old on-licence as they have for the time being with respect to other on-licences. The object of the clause was that they "shall have the same powers," an expression difficult to construe and deal with, and giving powers and discretion with no right of appeal at all. The difficulty which he and many of his hon. friends felt had not been dealt with. The effect of this subsection was that the justices would have the same power in relation to pre-1904 licences as to post-1904 licences. He wanted to know what powers the justices had in relation to post-1904 licences which they did not possess in regard to pre-1904 licences. If, as to pre-1904 licences, under the terms of this Bill the justices had the same powers as for post-1904 licences, then for the life of him he could not understand why it was necessary in this sub-section to express it in this way— As they have for the time being with respect to other on-licences.

*THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,) Yorkshire, Cleveland

said the justices possessed powers with regard to post-1904 licences which they did not possess with regard to pre-1904 licences—the power of refusing renewal without a formal reference to Quarter Sessions, though subject to appeal to Quarter Sessions; and these words "as they have for the time being with respect to other on-licences," were emphasised by the words which followed, "and the provisions of the Licensing Act, 1904"—and so forth.

MR. YOUNGER

pointed out that this section gave the justices smaller powers with regard to the renewal of an old licence than they now possessed under the Act of 1904. The Solicitor-General had entirely missed the point; it was not a question of appeal at all.

MR. HERBERT SAMUEL

said the section dealt not with the granting of a licence but the renewal of a licence.

*MR. JAMES HOPE

said that the words of the section as they stood would, if the justices thought they had the power, unless modified, enable them to attach a monopoly value during the reduction period to the renewal of an on-licence. The Solicitor-General was redrafting the clause he understood, and he would ask him to make quite clear what the power was.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he did not thoroughly understand what the powers given were. They wanted to know what was meant by the words "new licences under the Act of 1904." The licence granted since 1904 came to an end, was not renewed, and no compensation was to be made. The contract between the justices on the one hand and the post-1904 licensee on the other was finished and complete, and he took it that the new contract was for not renewing the old licence at all. He did not think it ought to be called a renewal; it was a new thing altogether. If he was right in that, then the powers the justices had for the time being with respect to other on-licences, namely, the post-1904 licences, were the same as they had with regard to the licences coming to an end. Suppose the 1904 licence had come to an end, then the new licence thereupon created might carry with it all sorts of new and extremely onerous conditions which they could not put upon the old licence; and what they wanted to know was whether the Government were not merely restoring the pre-1904 powers of the magistrates, plus a certain right to compensation—whether they were giving the justices not merely their old powers but a new kind of power; in other words, that they were granting power to deal with the post-1904 licences. That was the exact point he desired to have cleared up.

SIR S. EVANS

pointed out that the words in line 34 made it clear that the provision referred to pre-1904 licences. It might be a refusal to renew or transfer, and this sub-clause did not deal with any post-1904 licences at all. The operative part of this section was line 34, which enacted what the powers of the justices would be with reference to pre-1904 licences. With regard to post-1904 licences, if the licence was granted for a term under the Act of 1904 it came to an end, and there was a provision in that Act which provided that any application for a re-grant of a licence for a term should be treated as an application for a new licence. The operation of this sub-clause was not upon the pre-1904 licences at all.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Then why not content yourself with saying that the old powers shall be given to the magistrates?

SIR S. EVANS

Well, we will redraft it in that sense.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*MR. CAVE

said the Amendment he had on the Paper dealt with a matter which might seem a small one, but it was very important to the parties interested. Under the Act of 1904 when a licence was refused, on the terms of compensation being paid, provision was made for continuing the licence until the compensation was actually paid. It was thought unfair that the publican should lose his licence until he had actually got the money, and provision was made in Clause 6 of the Act of 1904 for continuing the licenee refused until actual payment of the compensation had taken place. That seemed perfectly fair, and the object of his Amendment was to make the same provision in this clause. A licensee might have his licence refused in April in one year and might not get his compensation until three, six or even twelve months later, and meantime he might have to go without means of livelihood and without his compensation. He had known a case where the fixing and apportionment of the compensation had taken twelve months, and he hoped that some provision would be made for meeting this case.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 3, at the end to insert the words 'and the refusal shall not take effect until compensation has been paid, the licence when necessary being provisionally renewed or transferred for this purpose.'"—(Mr. Cave.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR S. EVANS

said there was provision in the Act of 1904 dealing with a provisional renewal of a licence, but it had been omitted from this Bill because it was unnecessary under the procedure now adopted. In many cases where a licence was referred to the Court of Quarter Sessions there was an interval of time before Quarter Sessions could deal with it, and there was also an interval before the compensation was paid, and meanwhile the licensee was entitled to carry on business until he actually received the money. But the procedure under this Bill was quite different, and it was intended that in the case of statutory reduction and the other reduction that the matter should be dealt with at the annual licensing meeting of the justices, who would be the final tribunal. Therefore they had not to go to Quarter Sessions. The intention was that the licence should come to an end on the 5th April next succeeding the annual licensing meeting which was generally held in February and March. They had dealt with compensation having regard to these circumstances, and it would be seen that Clause 10, subsection 2 provided— And the number of unexpired years shall be calculated as from the 5th day of April after the date on which the renewal of the licence has been refused by the licensing justices. That was to say that the amount of compensation which was to be received by the person who lost the licence was to be fixed with reference to the 5th April, the date at which it ceased. Therefore it was unnecessary to insert the provision which had been suggested. The hon. and learned Member opposite said that he was not wedded to this particular form of words, and his Amendment was to the effect that the house should be kept open meanwhile. That was a different matter from saying that something in the nature of interest should be paid or an advance made to the licensee. The point raised was whether the house should be closed or not on 5th April and the policy of the Government was that it should be closed on that date as licensed premises. Therefore the Government were not able to accept the Amendment.

MR. F. E. SMITH

thought the Solicitor-General would have been well advised to accept the principle of this Amendment even if he had varied the expression of it. What had his hon. and learned friend pointed out? He had with his great experience told the Committee that unforeseen accidents did take place, and where a delay had not been anticipated it had actually taken place and the licensee had not been compelled to close his house. Under the present Bill it was true one or two obvious grounds of delay which existed in 1904, had been removed, but no one would contend that under the Bill the Government were free from all chance of delay. The hon. and learned Gentleman had referred the Committee to a later section dealing with quite a different matter not in any way affording security for the payment of the money. Surely it would save considerable debate and make it clear that no hardship would accrue if words were inserted providing that in case compensation had not been paid the house should not be closed. The hon. and learned Gentleman said he would not do that, and if he refused the Amendment, unless he could show that under no conceivable circumstances could this arise, his action would naturally create a sense of suspicion and discontent, and it would be taken as a refusal to meet an obvious grievance. If there was any method of satisfying them that this contingency could not arise it would be different, but the hon. and learned Gentleman had not shown that this was the case.

*MR. HERBERT SAMUEL

said they agreed that there was a possibility of such a grievance arising, although he did not think it was probable. The settlement of the amount of compensation might take some little time, and meanwhile the man's house being closed, if he had no other resources, hardships might arise. The point was one which clearly ought to be met. But the way which had been suggested by the hon. and learned Member opposite was very undesirable, and he would state briefly why. Under the Act of 1904 power was given to keep the house open until the compensation was paid, and this had given rise to real abuse. The house to be closed was frequently selected because it was not a very desirable one, and in the interval abuses often occurred and misconduct took place which could not be adequately penalised for the licence was already to be discontinued and compensation was assured. Therefore, the Government must adhere to the view which had been expressed by the Solicitor-General. It had been suggested that power might be given to the Licensing Commission to pay a sum on account pending a settlement of the whole amount. There was nothing to prevent the Licensing Commission doing that now, but in order to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite the Government would undertake when they reached Clause 10 to meet the point.

*MR. G. D. FABER

said the publican was going to get beggarly compensation and nothing more under this Bill, and now the Government were actually proposing that this wretched man, the greater part of whose living was to be taken away from him, was to be paid a small sum on account. When the licensed property was taken away, if the Commissioners did not happen to have the money the unfortunate person who was turned out would not get paid his due. In the Act of 1904 there was a specific provision for continuing a licence refused on compensation grounds until the compensation money had been paid over. Surely that was a fair and proper way of dealing with the matter. He could understand that the Government might have a good reason for repealing that particular clause, but that was no earthly reason for not re-enacting it in some just and proper shape. It might not seem a large point in that House, but he was perfectly certain that when the outside public heard that when a licence was taken away, the person concerned was not to be paid compensation money there and then, but only a bit on account, the resentment against the whole measure would if possible be intensified.

EARL WINTERTON (Sussex, Horsham)

said the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department had left the matter most vague, for he had not dealt with the point at all. He would venture to ask him whether he thought it quite dignified to insert an Amendment in a later clause providing that an unfortunate licence-holder dealing with the Government should be paid something on account for being dispossessed of his licence. Really the Government were adopting the methods of usurers. He quite agreed that cases of hardship were not very likely to arise; but they had to look at the unexpected. He did not want to go into a very big question, but everybody who knew what had happened in connection with land purchase knew that there had been considerable injustice to individuals. The grotesque proposal of the Government that a certain sum should be paid on account did not in any way meet the case, and there had been no reason shown why, if an Amendment was to be made, it should not be made here. He ventured to say that it would be much more possible to debate the Bill and evade those muddles and troubles which they had had hitherto if the Government would consider the suggestions made to them from that side of the House. The proposal of the Under-Secretary to amend Clause 10 would not meet a quarter of the difficulty. He hoped the Government would reconsider their decision. Although they agreed that cases of injustice were unlikely to arise, he hoped such cases would be guarded against; but the way this Amendment had been met did not encourage them to believe that the Government wished to treat the publican with ordinary justice.

MR. LYTTELTON (St. George's, Hanover Square)

thought there was a real difficulty here. He appreciated what the Under-Secretary had said as to its not being desirable to keep the public-house open for a very long time, but it was equally an injustice and a hardship to take away a man's property and not pay him for it there and then. He did not think the anticipations of delay which had been made on that side of the House were exaggerated. There must be cases of appeal which would often take a prolonged time, and surely it was a plain injustice that during an interval, which might be twelve or eighteen months, a small sum on account should be paid. Directly the compensation money was assessed by any tribunal, the publican was entitled to it. Until it was assessed, under the Government plan, the publican was to lose his home and get nothing. He should himself be prepared to accept a compromise upon the footing that until the compensation money was assesed the publican should remain in possession of the house, and that it should remain open. As soon as it was assessed it should be at once paid to him in full and the public-house be killed. There were two distinct periods. The first, which might be very considerable, was that during which the amount of the compensation money was being determined, and there might be a subsequent interval before it was paid. But until it was determined surely a man ought to be left in possession of his house. When it was determined it should be at once paid.

*MR. HERBERT SAMUEL

said the suggeston differed infinitesimally from the Amendment which the Government could not accept for good reasons given. There might be two periods, one during which the amount of the assessment was being determined, and the second, subsequent to assessment but prior to the payment. That second period would be exceedingly short. As soon as the assessment was made there was no reason why the money should not be paid. The only point of substance was with regard to the period between the time the publican was told his licence was going to be taken away and his house closed, and the time when he received the money. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal was the same as that of the Amendment, that during that period the house was to remain open under sentence of death with practically no power of control. He was informed in the Home Office that the experience of the Act of 1904 was that abuses might and did occur in these very instances, and it would be a grave error on the part of Parliament to perpetuate a system which gave rise to these abuses. He saw no reason why the suggestion of the Government should not be accepted.

MR. WALTER LONG

thought they ought to press the Government. In an earlier stage of this and the previous debate certain figures were quoted. The Under-Secretary had again exercised the privilege of which Ministers very rarely, in his experience, availed themselves. He had told them that under the administration of the Act of 1904, he had been assured that cases of misconduct occurred which caused the gravest inconvenience, and naturally ought to be provided against if possible. But he had not fortified himself, as was usually the case when these assertions were made, by one single case which he could quote in support of his contention. He was not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman had made a false statement, but it was neither usual nor was it just to make allegations against traders connected with a particular industry in general terms unless they were prepared to fortify the allegation by producing particular instances, and especially to the jury whom they were seeking to convert to their view, that there was in the archives of the Home Office abundant evidence to justify a step of this kind. If they knew neither the number nor the character of them it was impossible to say whether this grave act of injustice was justified. The final answer of the Government was that the operations of this Bill, which he believed to be unjust and unnecessary, were to be brought into force against a publican who had committed no misconduct, who might have no other means of living than that derived from his occupation, and that he was not to be paid anything but some modicum on account, because in certain cases there had been instances of misconduct after it had been intimated that the licence would be withdrawn. Further, the Under-Secretary told them that these cases had occurred under the Act of 1904, and he quoted them as justification of his present conduct. Surely his own contention was that, whereas under the Act of 1904 the period which elapsed was a long one, in this case the interval would be a very short one. Was it reasonable to propose, on the ground of a single instance, that the compensation money should be withheld after the house was closed? The Under-Secretary said there was no means of dealing with the publican in case of misconduct; but he could be prosecuted for misconduct. Was it likely, however, that a man was going to run this risk, the loss of his character, and possibly punishment, during the interval, which the Under-Secretary said might be only a few months? That was no argument. If this was not injustice, there was a new meaning altogether to be given to the word. They were taking a man's property against his will, not because he had been guilty of misconduct, but in the general interests of the community, and they were paying him a price which everybody connected with the trade, and a vast number of those who were not connected with it, believed to be altogether unfair. He had never heard coming from a Government a proposition with less support behind it, nor allegations made with less justification against men connected with a trade. Unless some better reason could be given for this additional injustice in the policy of the Government, he hoped his hon. friend would go to a division, and he should most certainly support him, because he believed without an Amendment of this kind a grave and unprovoked and unnecessary act of injustice would be done.

SIR S. EVANS

said the right hon. Gentleman had repeated, what had been said over and over again on very nearly every Amendment, that such compensation was grossly unfair. That was not the point they were discussing. He desired to enter his protest against, the canon which the right hon. Gentleman laid down as to discussions in that House. Apparently no Minister was entitled to express an opinion gathered from experience unless he gave case A., case B, and case C.

MR. WALTER LONG

The hon. Gentleman did not express an opinion. He said he was informed that cases had occurred.

SIR S. EVANS

said a Minister gathered his knowledge both from personal experience and from immediate contact with those whose duty it was to advise him, and he supposed it was in that sense that his hon. friend said he was informed. But he would tell him from his experience, without giving the name of the case, because it was unnecessary, and, indeed, it was common knowledge to everybody who knew anything about the business, that immediately a house had its licence threatened or taken away the conduct of the house became less reputable. He had known cases where licence-holders said: "My licence is going to be taken away," and the result was that people who used to go to a house did not continue to go. That was the difficulty in the way of the Amendment, and he told the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Government could not accept it on that ground. Prima facie, when a licence was taken away, it was done in the public interest. If it was to be taken away notice was given as early as the month of February.

MR. CAVE

said the decision might not be come to in February.

SIR S. EVANS

In February or March. The licensing body would be an important body with important duties to discharge, and they might be depended upon to discharge those duties in the best possible way. What did the hon. Member mean by saying that they would pay over the money when it suited them?

*MR. G. D. FABER

said the Under-Secretary had proposed that a bit should be paid on account.

SIR S. EVANS

said that was done to meet the objections of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He asked the Committee to consider what would happen. They were to compensate a man who was earning his living. Hon. Members had been speaking in favour of licence-holders rather than of their friends the brewers. [An HON. MEMBER: There are some of them on your side of the House.] However much the justices might be inclined to do their duty there might be a little delay in the payment of compensation. What was the objection to paying a little of the money on account? If a licence-holder was paid a sum on account it did not matter for the first fortnight or three weeks, or even the first two or three months, whether he was paid in full. That concession was quite fairly made immediately they saw what the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman was. The Government were strongly against the particular Amendment now before the Committee. Immediately a decision had been come to under Clause 1 or Clause 3 to take the licence away, that licence would cease in respect of the premises from 5th April next succeeding. There would be no injustice such as had been suggested. Everybody would do his duty and the money would be forthcoming. He would give an illustration. Every lawyer in the House knew that when it was proposed to take a piece of land for the benefit of the State they could enter at once into the possession of the land after it had been valued by a valuer appointed by the Board of Trade. What happened? The money was paid into Court, and the matter of assessing the value came before a Court or arbitrator. [An HON MEMBER: He gets interest.] No doubt the individual whose land was taken got interest on the money, but that was a totally different matter. [An HON. MEMBER: He gets the full market value.] So far as inconvenience or injustice could be avoided by hurrying up the Commission or using the power now possessed of paying something on account the Government were perfectly prepared to meet the desire of the Opposition.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I think the hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that upon no point has he given satisfaction, even to his own friends, with regard to this matter. The first point is the matter of justice to the individual whom you admittedly are depriving of his living. That is granted, and is not denied. You do not deny that at a given date you absolutely deprive him of his living, and you say he must have compensation for that. Does not common justice suggest that a provision should be put in the Bill which would prevent there being anything between the deprivation of a man of his living and his getting the compensation—good or bad—that you mean to give him? And let me tell the Government and those who support this Bill that the Bill does not on the face of it carry very much popularity; it does not suggest generous and fair treatment so obviously that they can afford to burden it additionally with what every man in the country plainly and manifestly thinks a hardship on deserving individuals. I am not sure that the Government do not admit it, and that the Under-Secretary did not think something would be done. Is that going to be put in the Bill?

*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,) Leeds, W.

My hon. friend said that an Amendment would be inserted.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not ask the Government to draft an Amendment on the spur of the moment, because I notice how unsuccessful they have been on other parts of the Bill. But I do ask for, not the exact words, but the exact provision which they mean to introduce, and the part of the Bill in which they mean to introduce it, and whether they mean to make it applicable not only to the class of licences immediately affected by this Amendment but to all licences affected under the Bill. The second point is a very important one. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down said they must insist if a licence is condemned in February or March on the house being closed on 5th April, because experience shows that immediately you have told the publican that he is to lose his licence the house becomes an ill-conducted house.

SIR S. EVANS

The right hon. Gentleman may paraphrase what I said, but I am not bound to accept it as an accurate paraphrase. I did not say anything of the sort. I said he becomes more reckless in the management of his trade.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I should think what I said was more in the nature of a translation. But what a light does that cast upon the operations of this Bill. Every licence-holder is to be under notice at the end of fourteen years; every licence-holder, therefore, in the opinion of the Government is going to be turned into a reckless trader by the action of the Bill, which we are told is a great temperance reform. The Government cannot think that every licence-holder will become a reckless trader, for no one who holds that opinion would have the face to defend this Bill. I imagine, therefore, they do not hold it. If the hon. Gentleman would really compare the argument which he has thought it convenient to use upon this particular Amendment with the general principle that underlies the wholesale withdrawal of licences which is involved in the Bill, he will see that the two propositions are absolutely inconsistent with each other. Both on the ground of common equity and on the ground of general principle, the Government have shown themselves in an utterly impossible position in connection with this Amendment. But I do not press the hon. and learned Gentleman further on the general principle. All I ask is that now, before we leave this question, the Government will tell us in what language they mean to meet the particular difficulties that my hon. and learned friend behind me has pointed out, and the general terms of the scheme now put before us which would relieve the authors of the Bill from what would otherwise be a great and manifest injustice.

CAPTAIN FABER (Hampshire, Andover)

said he rose to correct one or two inaccuracies. The Solicitor-General must have forgotten that a licence-holder was liable to be heavily fined if anything happened before the extinction of the licence. The probability was that a licence-holder might apply for a licence elsewhere at some future time, and if he were convicted of keeping open his old premises after his licence terminated, it was quite clear that he would not be likely to get another licence. The hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken of the licence-holder's character not being kept in check; but that man had probably just as good a character as many Members of this House, and it was as dear to him as to those hon. Members.

MR. JAMES HOPE

said he only intervened to refer to a point not yet mentioned. What was to happen if the Licensing Commission ran out of funds? That seemed to be contemplated in subsection (5) of Clause 13, which stated that— The Licensing Commission shall exercise their powers under this Act in such a way as to make the assets and liabilities of the compensation fund, as far as possible, balance at the end of the reduction period. It did not say that they expected a balance every year, and it might happen that they found they had sanctioned a good many more reductions than they had money to pay for. He submitted that unless this Amendment were accepted the result would be that while the Commission and the Treasury were engaging in a long correspondence for the loan of money on the security of the compensation fund to pay the compensation, the poor licensee would be kept in a very unhappy state of mind.

MR. J. M. HENDERSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)

thought that the Opposition were fighting about very little. Clause 10 provided that— Where compensation is payable in respect of the extinction of an old on-licence the amount payable shall be determined by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and shall be such sum as will purchase, with interest reckoned at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum, an immediate annuity for the unexpired years of the reduction period equal in amount to the annual value of the licence. If the licence expired the moment it was taken away on 5th April, he was entitled to compensation for the unexpired term from 5th April, but if he kept his premises open for another six months, the unexpired term would date from the end of the six months, so that he would lose all he would get from the Amendment.

*MR. COURTHOPE (Sussex, Rye)

said that it was not a question of amount but a question of date. The Under-Secretary seemed to think that the claims of justice and equity would be met by paying the licensee a sufficient sum on account to keep the man alive. Surely the hon. Gentleman had overlooked the possibility of a case arising where a man might himself own the building of the licensed premises and have his whole capital represented partly by bricks and mortar and partly by the licence. If his licence were taken away, and the compensation due to him was not paid by the date on which his house was closed, his premises would stand idle, because he would not have sufficient capital to adapt them to any other business. Surely this would be grossly unjust. He thought the arguments of the Solicitor-General were extraordinarily contradictory. When that hon. and learned Gentleman first spoke against the Amendment he said it was exceedingly improbable that such a case would ever arise, and he concluded his speech by picturing a terrible state of things if the Amendment were carried—that the public-house would be kept open after the proper period, that there would be disorder and reckless dealing, and that the locality would be reduced to chaos.

SIR S. EVANS

said he did not use these words.

MR. COURTHOPE

begged the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon. He thought the word "chaos" had been used by him. At any rate the hon. and learned Gentleman drew a rather vivid picture of what would happen if the Amendment were carried. If the hon. and learned Gentleman were right in regard to the little probability of that case ever arising, why did he not accept the Amendment? Therefore that objection fell to the ground. If the hon. and learned Gentleman was right as to the latter state of things arising, surely the criminal law was sufficient to cope with it. From the experience he had had on the licensing bench he had not found that disorder followed when notice was given that the licence would be terminated. No case of the kind had been given in the course of the debate. He hoped that the Prime Minister, who had now arrived, would take this matter into his own hands and accept the Amendment which his colleagues had refused.

*MR. CAVE

said that what he wanted to protest against was not only the delay which might occur while the Licensing Commission was finding the money, but the still longer delay while the compensation was being assessed and the shares ascertained. It had to be assessed by the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue, who would have to arrive at the hypothetical value of the house if not licensed. That would take time. Then they would have to ascertain under Clause 10 what was proper to be paid to the licence-holder for loss of business. That would take time. Again, the Inland Revenue Commissioners having fixed that, the question would arise as to the division of the amount of the compensation amongst the persons interested. That would have to go to another tribunal—the licensing justices. Further, the clause provided that if any difficulty arose there, the matter might be referred to the County Court. That meant still further delay. The rule, therefore, would be that it would take months after the 5th April before the amount of compensation payable to each person interested could be assessed. The Solicitor-General had said that as soon as the licence was condemned there would be misconduct on the part of the licensee. He had never heard of such a case, and if it occurred it could be very easily met by introducing in the Amendment some provision that if there was misconduct the licensing justices might intervene and close the house.

MR. WATT (Glasgow, College)

thought that the principle underlying the Amendment was a very reasonable one. It would be very hard indeed, when a licensee was deprived of his licence, if he were not to get at once the compensation for being deprived of his income from the licensed premises, nor the use of the premises during the time which would necessarily elapse before he got the money. It had been said that if the Amendment were adopted, and the house were kept open, abuses would necessarily follow in the house. In his opinion, if abuses occurred they would not be attributable to the licensee, but to the purchaser of the house who failed to pay the purchase money. The licensee was entitled to get his money at once or interest on the money.

*MR. GRETTON (Rutland)

cordially supported the view of the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow. He would also point out that a licensee seldom had any capital invested elsewhere than in the licensed house which he would be able to employ in adapting his premises to another kind of business. He condemned hon. Members for laughing at the proposition that the licensee should be paid at once; but receive only an advance of a small portion of the compensation to be granted to him. With no income from the sums invested in the premises from which the licence was withdrawn and in which his capital was locked up, he would have to live on the portion of his capital advanced, and so reduce the capital he might secure through compensation. Hon. Gentlemen who treated this question in that way

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F. Gardner, Ernest Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Percy, Earl
Anstruther-Gray, Major Goulding, Edward Alfred Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Arkwright, John Stanhope Gretton, John Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Ashley, W. W. Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.) Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Haddock, George B. Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Balcarres, Lord Hamilton, Marquess of Remnant, James Farquharson
Baldwin, Stanley Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd Renwick, George
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.) Hay, Hon. Claude George Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Heaton, John Henniker Ronaldshay, Earl of
Banner, John S. Harmood- Helmsley, Viscount Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester Hill, Sir Clement Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Barnard, E. B. Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Houston, Robert Paterson Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bignold, Sir Arthur Hunt, Rowland Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Bowles, G. Stewart Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Bridgeman, W. Clive Kerry, Earl of Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
Brotherton, Edward Allen Keswick, William Stanier, Beville
Butcher, Samuel Henry Kimber, Sir Henry Starkey, John R.
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
Carlile, E. Hildred Lane-Fox, G. R. Stone, Sir Benjamin
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham) Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R. Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc. Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)
Clark, George Smith Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.) Thornton, Percy M.
Clive, Percy Archer Lonsdale, John Brownlee Tuke, Sir John Batty
Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) Lowe, Sir Francis William Valentia, Viscount
Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Courthope, G. Loyd MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. M'Arthur, Charles Watt, Henry A.
Craig, Captain James (Down, E. M'Calmont, Colonel James Whitbread, Howard
Craik, Sir Henry Marks, H. H. (Kent) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Mason, James F. (Windsor) Winterton, Earl
Du Cros, Arthur Philip Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan Mildmay, Francis Bingham Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) Moore, William Young, Samuel
Fardell, Sir T. George Morpeth, Viscount Younger, George
Fell, Arthur Morrison-Bell, Captain
Fletcher, J. S. Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Cave, and Mr. George Faber.
Forster, William Henry Oddy, John James
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N, E.) Agnew, George William Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Alden, Percy Armitage, R.
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

had very small consideration for financial matters.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he hoped the Prime Minister would inform the Committee in general terms the way in which the Government intended to meet this difficulty.

MR. ASQUITH

said that he would state the position the Government intended to take when Clause 10 came up for consideration.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 117; Noes, 283. (Division List No. 274.)

Ashton, Thomas Gair Findlay, Alexander M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) Freeman-Thomas, Freeman M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Fuller, John Michael F. M'Micking, Major G.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Fullerton, Hugh Mallett, Charles E.
Barker, John Gibb, James (Harrow) Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)
Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) Gill, A. H. Massie, J.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Menzies, Walter
Barnes, G. N. Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W. Middlebrook, William
Barran, Rowland Hirst Glover, Thomas Molteno, Percy Alport
Beale, W. P. Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Mond, A.
Beauchamp, E. Grant, Corrie Money, L. G. Chiozza
Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Montagu, Hon. E. S.
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Montgomery, H. G.
Bennett, E. N. Gulland, John W. Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Berridge, T. H. D. Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton Morrell, Philip
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd Hall, Frederick Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard.
Black, Arthur W. Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)
Boulton, A. C. F. Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil Myer, Horatio
Bowerman, C. W. Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Napier, T. B.
Bramsdon, T. A. Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r) Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r
Branch, James Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Norton, (Capt. William Cecil
Bright, J. A. Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. Nussey, Thomas Willans
Brooke, Stopford Harwood, George Nuttall, Harry
Bryce, J. Annan Haslam, James (Derbyshire) O'Grady, J.
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Hazel, Dr. A. E. Parker, James (Halifax)
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Hedges, A. Paget Partington, Oswald
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Helme, Norval Watson Paulton, James Mellor
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Byles, William Pollard Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) Perks, Sir Robert William
Cameron, Robert Higham, John Sharp Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Hobart, Sir Robert Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Pirie, Duncan V.
Cawley, Sir Frederick Hodge, John Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Chance, Frederick William Holt, Richard Durning Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)
Channing, Sir Francis Allston Hooper, A. G. Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Cheetham, John Frederick Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N. Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Rainy, A. Rolland
Cleland, J. W. Hudson, Walter Raphael, Herbert H.
Clough, William Hyde, Clarendon Rea, Walter Russell (Searboro'
Clynes, J. R. Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Rendall, Athelstan
Cobbold, Felix Thornley Jackson, R. S. Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Jacoby, Sir James Alfred Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd Jardine, Sir J. Richardson, A.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Johnson, John (Gateshead) Ridsdale, E. A.
Cory, Sir Clifford John Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Jones, Leif (Appleby) Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)
Crooks, William Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Crossley, William J. Jowett, F. W. Robinson, S.
Dalziel, James Henry Kearley, Sir Hudson E. Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Kekewich, Sir George Roe, Sir Thomas
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan Kelley, George D. Rogers, F. E. Newman
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Rose, Charles Day
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) Laidlaw, Robert Rowlands, J.
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Duckworth, James Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Lambert, George Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Lehmann, R. C. Sears, J. E.
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Levy, Sir Maurice Seaverns, J. H.
Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward Lewis, John Herbert Seddon, J.
Erskine, David C. Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Shackleton, David James
Essex, R. W. Lyeil, Charles Henry Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Evans, Sir Samuel T. Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Sherwell, Arthur James
Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs Shipman, Dr. John G.
Everett, R. Lacey Maclean, Donald Silcock, Thomas Ball
Faber, G. H. (Boston) Macpherson, J. T. Simon, John Allsebrook
Fenwick, Charles M'Callum, John M. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Ferens, T. R. M'Crae, Sir George Sloan, Thomas Henry
Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Trevelyan, Charles Philips Wiles, Thomas
Snowden, P. Ure, Alexander Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Soares, Ernest J. Verney, F. W. Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen
Spicer, Sir Albert Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Stanger, H. Y. Walters, John Tudor Williamson, A.
Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) Walton, Joseph Wills, Arthur Walters
Steadman, W. C. Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Stewart, Halley (Greenock) Wardle, George J. Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Stewart Smith, D. (Kendal) Waring, Walter Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Stuart, James (Sunderland) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Summerbell, T. Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)
Sutherland, J. E. Wason, John Catheart (Orkney) Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Waterlow, D. S. Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) Wedgwood, Josiah C. Winfrey, R.
Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr) White, Sir George (Norfolk) Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E. White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) Yoxall, James Henry
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Thorne, William (West Ham) Whitehead, Rowland TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.
Tomkinson, James Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Torrance, Sir A. M. Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.
*MR. H. H. MARKS (Kent, Thanet)

said the Amendment which he rose to move was in a sense preliminary and if it should find favour with the Committee, would necessitate certain consequential Amendments. He hoped that that might not be regarded as a fatal objection to it, more especially in view of the number and character of the Amendments which the Government had themselves made in the measure, during the time it had been under discussion in Committee. The Amendment proposed to leave out subsection (4), which provides that no appeal shall lie from the refusal of the licensing justices to renew an on-licence where the licensing justices declare that the licence is to be extinguished in pursuance of a scheme for statutory reduction under this Act. The argument in favour of the proposal could perhaps be best and most briefly put by laying before the Committee a statement of what consequences would ensue if this subsection (4) were permitted to remain part of the Bill. The Committee would remember that at present the power to extinguish old on-licences rested with Quarter Sessions. Under this clause the power to extinguish was to be transferred to the licensing justices subject to an appeal to Quarter Sessions. If, however, the justices declared that the refusal of renewal was a part of their "scheme," then, under sub-section (4), there was to be no appeal. Apparently under the Bill there was to be no publication of the "statutory scheme." It was to be prepared and submitted to the Licensing Commission. It might be altered at a later date. But, for all that the Bill said, its particulars were to remain a secret between the licensing justices and the Commission. When it was being prepared, no opportunity was given either to the trade affected or to the community that was to be reformed to protest against its details or to propose modifications, and no notice was to be given of any proposed revision. The reduction of licences was to be distributed over fourteen years. It followed that either in April, 1909, certain licences would be condemned in anticipation, so many in each year and some perhaps thirteen years in advance, while the knowledge as to which these licences were would be imparted exclusively to the justices and certain officials and clerks, or else the "scheme" would give the justices power to select the licences at their discretion as the period went on. The power to revise involved to some extent the power to select for extinction as they went on other licences than those originally contemplated. But during the whole period of fourteen years only the justices and the Licensing Commission were to know what had been determined on. The justices might renew or transfer a licence and stand by while purchases of property were affected, knowing all the time that the licence involved was scheduled for extinction at a certain date. When that date arrived they were to declare the licence extinguished, and their mere statement that its extinction was decided upon under a secret scheme prepared in 1909 was to deprive the licence-holder of any right to appeal. It might be argued that the risk of an innocent purchaser being injured by taking a transfer of a licence which, to the knowledge of certain people, had only a fixed time to run, would be averted by publication of the "scheme." But the power to revise "schemes" and the obligation to revise them at the order of the Licensing Commission rendered publication a wholly ineffective protection. They published one "scheme," and carried out another. At any time during the reduction period any licence-holder was liable to be told: "Your licence is extinguished and you cannot appeal because our decision is part of a "scheme." It does not matter to you if it was a "scheme" made in 1909 or a revision of that scheme made yesterday. Other people whose licences are refused can appeal, but not you, for you have been selected as a person who is not to have a right of appeal." He submitted that that constituted a great hardship and a gross injustice. For these reasons, he begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 7, to leave out subsection (4)."—(Mr. H. H. Marks.)

Question proposed, "That the word s proposed to be left out, to the word 'an,' in line 8, stand part of the clause."

MR. ASQUITH

said that so far as he understood the remarks of the hon. Gentleman his objection to this subsection was to the decision of this particular point being left in the discretion of the licensing justices. He pointed out that the scheme and revised scheme had nothing to do with what he might call the process of selecting the victim; it merely prescribed what should be the reduction in a particular area. When the statutory reduction had been applied by a scheme approved by the Licensing Commission to a particular district all that followed was to select, supposing it was shown that there must be some reduction, which of the existing licences should succumb. If the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman that that process might take place in a hole and corner fashion were a lively contingency it ought to be guarded against, but an Amendment to Clause 7 standing in the name of the Solicitor-General would provide against that possibility. That being so, surely of all questions that could be suggested as arising out of the provisions of an Act of Parliament of this kind this question of selecting the particular houses to be suppressed was one most properly left to the uncontrolled discretion of the justices of the district. What could be more irrational than to call upon Quarter Sessions, remote from the area of the house, to discuss whether the Black Bull or the Blue Lion should disappear? It was purely administrative action, and should be carried out by the licensing justices. Under these circumstances he could not accept the Amendment.

SIR E. CARSON

thought that everybody would admit that the Bill as it stood was a most extraordinary one. And so far as this subsection was concerned, it showed an absolute disregard for anybody who had any property whatever in these licences. Anyone who was prepared to take away the property of others in the most cruel manner possible would naturally support this Bill. This particular procedure was a most extraordinary one. The justices were to settle the number of licences to be extinguished. That was a matter in which he admitted the licence-holder had only an indirect interest. The Licensing Committee would say how many were to go, and the justices would say how many were to go one year and how many another. This they were bound to do under Clause 7. If the justices refused to carry out the provisions of the Bill, the Licensing Committee had power to go down and see the justices. They would then meet together and take a survey of the houses in the district and select those to be extinguished. This would be done behind the back of everybody, in the magistrates' room. Was that fair? The man whose house was to be extinguished got no hearing at all, neither under the Bill nor even under the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman. What the licensing justices would do would be to go into a room, look at a map, and without one word either to or from the man who was going to be dispossessed, say to the licensee when he came up for a renewal: "No." This was a fantastic operation. The clause destroyed not only the appeal but the preliminary hearing—a proposition foreign to our existing laws and unknown to our jurisprudence. He hoped before the Bill left the House that some effort would be made to give the 30,000 persons concerned a hearing, and that they would not be left to be turned into the street without a sixpence. All he could say was that such a proposal as that in the Bill was a disgrace to civilisation.

MR. YOUNGER

thought the Prime Minister had totally misapprehended the point which had been taken by hon. Members on that side of the House. He rather thought that the Amendment to Clause 7, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was not there for the purpose of meeting the point they now made, but for the purpose of machinery for the extinction of the licences, which those who drafted this Hill had forgotten to provide. The Prime Minister had taken up the wrong point, and had not met the objection raised by the Opposition, namely, that he was taking away licences without allowing the smallest opportunity to the persons concerned to appear, and there was nothing in the Amendment of the Solicitor-General which appeared on the Paper to provide such an opportunity.

MR. TOMKINSON (Cheshire, Crewe)

said the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University seemed to him to be another instance of what was apparently now the very common practice of assuming from any proposed legislation that there would be the most unlikely, the most farfetched, and the most injurious results. They spoke of them as very likely, if not certain, to accrue. The right hon. Gentleman took the instance of the reduction of licences in a country district, and said the licensing justices would have before them a number of licences together with the statutory reduction which they were bound to make, and that then, without one word of warning or notice, in the most hardhearted manner they would proceed to extinguish and take away the property of the licensees. He ventured to say, after some experience of local benches of magistrates, that, of course, no such action would be taken by them. The return would be made when this Bill became law and not before. They would have before them the population, its density or otherwise, of the area, they would have the number of licences within their licensing district, and they would have before them the statutory reduction which they would be bound to make under the Bill. He would undertake to say that the justices in every case, if a reduction had to be made, would not only deal with the matter as tenderly as possible, but the licensees whose licences were to be taken away would have as long a notice as possible and as much consideration as possible to prevent hardship.

MR. LYTTELTON

said after what the Prime Minister had stated, if he correctly understood him, the speech of the hon. Member opposite was irrelevant. He understood the Prime Minister to concede the right of the licensee to a hearing. If the licensee had a right to publicity—and publicity was equitable—then of course, he must be entitled to it under the bare words of the section. He saw no such words at all in the Amendment of the Attorney-General. He had conversed with a magistrate of experience the other day, an excellent man, and not a Party man at all, a man who had read this Bill, and who believed that he would have to administer it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite and the Government largely depended upon the goodwill, discretion, and zeal of the magistrates. But his friend told him that the duty cast upon the magistrates of selecting—perhaps from two or three between whom there was no distinction—whose licence was to be taken away, was so odious to him that he would absolutely and positively refuse to discharge it. He did not think a more powerful affirmation of the truth of what his right hon. friend had said could be made. To take away property in the way proposed was contrary to every principle of fairness. It was contrary to English law that a person should not be entitled to be heard before sentence was passed. He asked the Solicitor-General to show the House where the publicity was to come in, and where a hearing was to be given.

SIR S. EVANS

said the licensing justices would not be able to take away licences except at the annual licensing session upon application for a renewal. All persons who applied for a renewal must be fully heard in accordance with the provisions of the Acts of 1882 and 1904. They could always appear in open Court and would have the fullest opportunity of laying the facts before the justices.

SIR E. CARSON

pointed out that by the section as it stood, before the application for renewal came up at all to be heard the magistrates would have to decide what houses were to be taken. Would the Solicitor-General make clear in the Bill that there was to be no decision at all until the justices had heard all the various persons concerned? He did not see under the scheme of the Bill how anything was to occur except that which he had stated. It was not a question of one licence here or one licence there; it was a question of the whole scheme; and, therefore, if the matter was to be settled on the basis of the scheme, unless they allowed the licence holders to be present when the scheme was being made, and allowed them to be heard, there was no possible way of getting out of it.

SIR S. EVANS

replied that when the scheme was prepared it would only deal with the number of licences and not with the names of the licensees.

SIR E. CARSON

read the section— It shall be the duty of the licensing justices of every licensing district to give effect to this scheme for statutory reduction as approved by the Licensing Commission. That meant that the number was to be approved by the Commission. How were they to do it? "By selecting the licences to be extinguished for the purposes of the scheme and extinguishing the licences accordingly."

MR. ASQUITH

said the right hon. Gentleman had really answered himself. The whole of this discussion was really upon Clause 7, and had no relevance to the subject Under consideration. The right hon. Gentleman had begun by saying that the publican or licensee ought to be present at the framing of the scheme, but apparently he did not realise what the scheme was.

SIR E. CARSON

Yes.

MR. ASQUITH

Then the right hon. Gentleman's argument could not be seriously viewed. The scheme settled the number, and it was not until then that any particular licensee could be heard. The Solicitor-General had for long had an Amendment on the Paper to omit the words "extinguish the licences accordingly."

SIR E. CARSON

said the Solicitor-General did not propose to omit the words "by selecting the licences to be extinguished for the purposes of the scheme."

MR. ASQUITH

said the right hon. Gentleman did not do himself justice.

SIR E. CARSON

Nor do you me.

MR. ASQUITH

said that what he had stated was this, that the Solicitor-General proposed to leave out the words "extinguish the licences accordingly," the express purpose being to make the process of extinction incomplete until the licence had been brought on for renewal, and the licensee had an opportunity of appearing before the Court.

MR. NUSSEY (Pontefract)

said the procedure would be similar to that under the Act of 1904. The magistrates appointed a committee to investigate, and the houses in their district were ear-marked. The owners of those houses had a chance of being heard and evidence was taken on oath. That was the Amendment which the Solicitor-General had put on the Paper. When the houses had been ear-marked, then there would be opportunity to be heard in Court. That had not been so until the Amendment was put down the day before yesterday, but now it would be so.

SIR E. CARSON

As to the argument of the hon. Member, which had been cheered by the Solicitor-General, he made this offer to him, that he would allow them to retain the procedure under the Act of 1904.

MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS

said the subsection applied to on-licences, and his point was that it ought to apply to all old on-licences. The Prime Minister, from his speech, did not intend that the post-1904 licences were to be included in

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Cobbold, Felix Thornley Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Hart-Davies, T.
Agnew, George William Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)
Alden, Percy Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Cory, Sir Clifford John Harwood, George
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Haslam, James (Derbyshire)
Amritage, R. Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Hazel, Dr. A. E.
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton Crooks, William Hedges, A. Paget
Ashton, Thomas Gair Crosfield, A. H. Helme, Norval Watson
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Crossley, William J. Henderson, Arthur (Durham).)
Astbury, John Meir Dalziel, James Henry Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury. E.) Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Henry, Charles S.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Higham, John Sharp
Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. Hobart, Sir Robert
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N. Hobhouse, Charles E. H.
Barnes, G. N. Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Hodge, John
Barran, Rowland Hirst Duckworth, James Holt, Richard Durning
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Hooper, A. G.
Beale, W. P. Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.
Beauchamp, E. Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall Horniman, Emslie John
Beck, A. Cecil Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Horridge, Thomas Gardner
Bellairs, Carlyon Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward Hudson, Walter
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. Erskine, David C. Hyde, Clarendon
Bennett, E. N. Essex, R. W. Isaacs, Rufus Daniel
Berridge, T. H. D. Esslemont, George Birnie Jackson, R. S.
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'd) Evans, Sir Samuel T. Jacoby, Sir James Alfred
Bethell, T. R. (Essex' Maldon) Everett, R. Lacey Jardine, Sir J.
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Faber, G. H. (Boston) Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Black, Arthur W. Fenwick, Charles Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)
Boulton, A. C. F. Ferens, T. R. Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)
Bowerman, C. W. Findlay, Alexander Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Bramsdon, T. A. Flavin, Michael Joseph Jones, William (Carnarvonshire
Branch, James Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Jowett, F. W.
Bright, J. A. Freeman-Thomas, Freeman Kearley, Sir Hudson E.
Brooke, Stopford Fuller, John Michael F. Kekewich, Sir George
Bryce, J. Annan Fullerton, Hugh Kelley, George D.
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Gibb, James (Harrow) King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Gill, A. H. Laidlaw, Robert
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles Glover, Thomas Lambert, George
Byles, William Pollard Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Lamont, Norman
Cameron, Robert Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Grant, Corrie Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington
Causton, Rt. Nn. Richard Knight Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Lehmann, R. C.
Cawley, Sir Frederick Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich
Chance, Frederick William Gulland, John W. Levy, Sir Maurice
Channing, Sir Francis Allston Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton Lewis, John Herbert
Cheetham, John Frederick Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Hall, Frederick Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Cleland, J. W. Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale Lupton, Arnold
Clough, William Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Lyell, Charles Henry
Clynes, J. R. Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) Lynch, H. B.

the scheme of reduction, and therefore, a fortiori, there would be no appeal.

MR. ASQUITH

said as to the post-1904 licences, he could assure the hon. Gentleman he remembered what he had said, but the proper time to deal with them would be on Clause 24.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 317; Noes, 128. (Division List No. 275.)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Stuart, James (Sunderland)
Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs Radford, G. H. Summerbell, T.
Mackarness, Frederic C. Rainy, A. Rolland Sutherland, J. E.
Maclean, Donald Raphael, Herbert H. Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Macpherson, J. T. Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro') Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
M'Crae, Sir George Rendall, Athelstan Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)
M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th Thomasson, Franklin
M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.
M'Micking, Major G. Richardson, A. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton
Mallet, Charles E. Ridsdale, E. A. Tomkinson, James
Markham, Arthur Basil Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Torrance, Sir A. M.
Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Massie, J. Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.) Ure, Alexander
Menzies, Walter Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd Verney, F. W.
Middlebrook, William Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Molteno, Percy Alport Robinson, S. Walsh, Stephen
Mond, A. Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Walters, John Tudor
Money, L. G. Chiozza Roe, Sir Thomas Walton, Joseph
Montagu, Hon. E. S. Rogers, F. E. Newman Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Montgomery, H. G. Rose, Charles Day Wardle, George J.
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Rowlands, J. Waring, Walter
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Morrell, Philip Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard. Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Waterlow, D. S.
Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Watt, Henry A.
Myer, Horatio Scarisbrick, T. T. L. White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Napier, T. B. Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Nicholls, George Sears, J. E. Whitehead, Rowland
Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r Seaverns, J. H. Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Norman, Sir Henry Seddon, J. Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.
Norton, Capt. Cecil William Seely, Colonel Wiles, Thomas
Nussey, Thomas Willans Shackleton, David James Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Nuttall, Harry Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen
O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Sherwell, Arthur James Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
O'Grady, J. Shipman, Dr. John G. Williamson, A.
Parker, James (Halifax) Silcock, Thomas Ball Wills, Arthur Walters
Partington, Oswald Simon, John Allsebrook Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Paulton, James Mellor Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Sloan, Thomas Henry Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Pearce, William (Limehouse) Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) Snowden, P. Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)
Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) Soares, Ernest J. Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Perks, Sir Robert William Spicer, Sir Albert Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton) Stanger, H. Y. Winfrey, R.
Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Pirie, Duncan V. Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) Yoxall, James Henry
Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Steadman, W. C.
Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) Stewart, Halley (Greenock) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.
Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F. Brotherton, Edward Allen Craik, Sir Henry
Anson, Sir William Reynell Butcher, Samuel Henry Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Anstruther-Gray, Major Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Du Cros, Arthur Philip
Arkwright, John Stanhope Carlile, E. Hildred Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan
Ashley, W. W. Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Cave, George Fardell, Sir T. George
Balcarres, Lord Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Fell, Arthur
Baldwin, Stanley Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Fletcher, J. S.
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond) Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc Forster, Henry William
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Gardner, Ernest
Banner, John S. Harmood- Clive, Percy Archer Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)
Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) Goulding, Edward Alfred
Barnard, E. B. Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Gretton, John
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston)
Bignold, Sir Arthur Courthope, G. Loyd Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)
Bowles, G. Stewart Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S) Haddock, George B.
Bridgeman, W. Clive Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Hamilton, Marquess of
Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford M'Calmont, Colonel James Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
Harris, Frederick Leverton Magnus, Sir Philip Stanier, Beville
Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Mason, James F. (Windsor) Starkey, John R.
Hay, Hon. Claude George Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
Heaton, John Henniker Mildmay, Francis Bingham Stone, Sir Benjamin
Helmsley, Viscount Moore, William Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Hill, Sir Clement Morpeth, Viscount Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Hills, J. W. Morrison-Bell, Captain Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) Thornton, Percy M.
Houston, Robert Paterson Oddy, John James Tuke, Sir John Batty
Hunt, Rowland Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington Valentia, Viscount
Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Percy, Earl Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Kerry, Earl of Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Keswick, William Randles, Sir John Scurrah Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Kimber, Sir Henry Ratcliff, Major R. F. Whitbread, Howard
King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Lane-Fox, G. R. Remnant, James Farquharson Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Renwick, George Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) Winterton, Earl
Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R. Ronaldshay, Earl of Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S) Rutherford, John (Lancashire) Young, Samuel
Lonsdale, John Brownlee Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) Younger, George
Lowe, Sir Francis William Salter, Arthur Clavell
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. H. H. Marks and Mr. George Faber.
MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
M'Arthur, Charles Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

And, it being after half-past Seven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 17th July, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the Business to

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 318; Noes, 128. (Division List No. 276.)
AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Bowerman, C. W. Crossley, William J.
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. Bramsdon, T. A. Dalziel, James Henry
Agnew, George William Branch, James Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)
Alden, Percy Bright, J. A. Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Brooke, Stopford Davies, Timothy (Fulham)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Bryce, J. Annan Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.
Armitage, R. Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Buckmaster, Stanley O. Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Burns, Rt. Hon. John Duckworth, James
Astbury, John Meir Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Byles, William Pollard Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Cameron, Robert Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)
Barker, John Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)
Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) Cawley, Sir Frederick Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Chance, Frederick William Erskine, David C.
Barnes, G. N. Channing, Sir Francis Allston Essex, R. W.
Barran, Rowland Hirst Cheetham, John Frederick Esslemont, George Birnie
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Evans, Sir Samuel T.
Beale, W. P. Cleland, J. W. Everett, R. Lacey
Beauchamp, E. Clough, William Faber, G. H. (Boston)
Beck, A. Cecil Clynes, J. R. Fenwick, Charles
Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devon p'rt Cobbold, Felix Thornley Ferens, T. R.
Benn, W. (T' w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Findlay, Alexander
Bennett, E. N. Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. Flavin, Michael Joseph
Berridge, T. H. D. Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Freeman-Thomas, Freeman
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Cory, Sir Clifford John 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)
Boulton, A. C. F. Crooks, William Gill, A. H.

be concluded at half-past Seven of the Clock this day.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Bg'hs Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.
Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W. Mackarness, Frederic C. Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Glover, Thomas Maclean, Donald Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Macpherson, J. T. Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) M'Crae, Sir George Scarisbrick, T. T. L.
Grant, Corrie M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne
Greenwood, Hamar (York) M'Micking, Major G. Sears, J. E.
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Mallet, Charles E. Seaverns, J. H.
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Markham, Arthur Basil Seddon, J.
Gulland, John W. Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) Seely, Colonel
Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton Massie, J. Shackleton, David James
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Menzies, Walter Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Hall, Frederick Middlebrook, William Sherwell, Arthur James
Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale) Molteno, Percy Alport Shipman, Dr. John G.
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Mond, A. Silcock, Thomas Ball
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) Money, L. G. Chiozza Simon, John Allsebrook
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) Montagu, Hon. E. S. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Hart-Davies, T. Montgomery, H. G. Sloan, Thomas Henry
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Snowden, P.
Harwood, George Morrell, Philip Soares, Ernest J.
Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Spicer, Sir Albert
Hazel, Dr. A. E. Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard. Stanger, H. Y.
Hedges, A. Paget Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)
Helme, Norval Watson Myer, Horatio Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Napier, T. B. Steadman, W. C.
Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Henry, Charles S. Nicholls, George Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncastr Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Higham, John Sharp Norman, Sir Henry Stuart, James (Sunderland)
Hobart, Sir Robert Norton, Capt. Cecil William Summerbell, T.
Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Nussey, Thomas Willans Sutherland, J. E.
Hodge, John Nuttall, Harry Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Holt, Richard Durning O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Hooper, A. G. O'Grady, J. Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N. Parker, James (Halifax) Thomasson, Franklin
Horniman, Emslie John Partington, Oswald Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.
Horridge, Thomas Gardner Paulton, James Mellor Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Tomkinson, James
Hudson, Walter Pearce, William (Limehouse) Torrance, Sir A. M.
Hyde, Clarendon Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) Ure, Alexander
Jackson, R. S. Perks, Sir Robert William Verney, F. W.
Jacoby, Sir James Alfred Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Jardine, Sir J. Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Walsh, Stephen
Johnson, John (Gateshead) Pirie, Duncan V. Walters, John Tudor
Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Walton, Joseph
Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) Ward, John (Stokeupon Trent)
Jones, Leif (Appleby) Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Wardle, George J.
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) Waring, Walter
Jowett, F. W. Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Kearley, Sir Hudson E. Radford, G. H. Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan
Kekewich, Sir George Rainy, A. Rolland Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Kelley, George D. Raphael, Herbert H. Waterlow, D. S.
King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Rea, Walter Russell (Searboro' Watt, Henry A.
Laidlaw, Robert Rendall, Athelstan White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Lambert, George Richardson, A. Whitehead, Rowland
Lamont, Norman Ridsdale, E. A. Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.
Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Wiles, Thomas
Lehmann, R. C. Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.) Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n
Levy, Sir Maurice Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Lewis, John Herbert Robinson, S. Williamson, A.
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Wills, Arthur Walters
Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Roe, Sir Thomas Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Lupton, Arnold Rogers, F. E. Newman
Lyell, Charles Henry Rose, Charles Day Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Lynch, H. B. Rowlands, J. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.) Winfrey, R. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.
Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) Yoxall, James Henry
NOES.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Gretton, John Percy, Earl
Anstruther-Gray, Major Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Arkwright, John Stanhope Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.) Randles, Sir John Seurrah
Ashley, W. W. Haddock, George B. Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Hamilton, Marquess of Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Balcarres, Lord Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd Remnant, James Farquharson
Baldwin, Stanley Harris, Frederick Leverton Renwick, George
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.) Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Hay, Hon. Claude George Ronaldshay, Earl of
Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester Heaton, John Henniker Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Barnard, E. B. Helmsley, Viscount Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Hill, Sir Clement Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Bignold, Sir Arthur Hills, J. W. Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bowles, G. Stewart Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Bridgeman, W. Clive Houston, Robert Paterson Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Brotherton, Edward Allen Hunt, Rowland Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Butcher, Samuel Henry Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Kerry, Earl of Stanier, Beville
Carlile, E. Hildred Keswick, William Starkey, John R.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Kimber, Sir Henry Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffish.)
Cave, George King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) Stone, Sir Benjamin
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Lane-Fox, G. R. Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R. Thornton, Percy M.
Clive, Percy Archer Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) Tuke, Sir John Batty
Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S. Valentia, Viscount
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Lonsdale, John Brownlee Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire
Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm Lowe, Sir Francis William Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Courthope, G. Lloyd Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh Whitbread, Howard
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) M'Arthur, Charles Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Craik, Sir Henry M'Calmont, Colonel James Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Magnus, Sir Philip Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Du Cros, Arthur Philip Marks, H. H. (Kent) Winterton, Earl
Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan Mason, James F. (Windsor, Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Faber, George Denison (York) Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) Mildmay, Francis Bingham Young, Samuel
Fardell, Sir T. George Moore, William Younger, George
Fell, Arthur Morpeth, Viscount
Fletcher, J. S. Morrison-Bell, Captain TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Forster.
Gardner, Ernest Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Oddy, John James
Goulding, Edward Alfred Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Clause 5:

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 314; Noes, 118. (Division List No. 277.
AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Bennett, E. N.
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. Batker, John Berridge, T. H. D.
Agnew, George William Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd
Alden, Percy Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Barnes, G. N. Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Barran, Rowland Hirst Black, Arthur W.
Armitage, R. Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) Boulton, A. C. F.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Beale, W. P. Bowerman, C. W.
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Beauchamp, E. Bramsdon, T. A.
Astbury, John Meir Beck, A. Cecil Branch, James
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury E.) Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt Bright, J. A.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. Brooke, Stopford

Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."

Bryce, J. Annan Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) Montgomery, H. G.
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Hart-Davies, T. Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. Morrell, Philip
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Harwood, George Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard)
Byles, Wiliam Pollard Hazel, Dr. A. E. Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)
Cameron, Robert Hedges, A. Paget Myer, Horatio
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Helme, Norval Watson Napier, T. B.
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Cawley, Sir Frederick Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W) Nicholls, George
Chance, Frederick William Henry, Charles S. Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r
Channing, Sir Francis Allston Horbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) Norman, Sir Henry
Cheetham, John Frederick Higham, John Sharp Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Hobart, Sir Robert Nussey, Thomas Willans
Cleland, J. W. Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Nuttall, Harry
Clough, William Hodge, John O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Clynes, J. R. Holt, Richard Durning O'Grady, J.
Cobbold, Felix Thornley Hooper, A. G. Parker, James (Halifax)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N. Partington, Oswald
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. Horniman, Emslie John Paulton, James Mellor
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd Horridge, Thomas Gardner Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Cory, Sir Clifford John Hudson, Walter Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Hyde, Clarendon Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Perks, Sir Robert William
Crooks, William Jackson, R. S. Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)
Crosfield, A. H. Jacoby, Sir James Alfred Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Crossley, William J. Jardine, Sir J. Pirie, Duncan V.
Dalziel, James Henry Johnson, John (Gateshead) Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Johnson, W. (Nuncaton) Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Davies, Timothy (Fulhanm) Jones, Leif (Appleby) Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Jowett, F. W. Radford, G. H.
Duckworth, James Kearley, Sir Hudson E. Rainy, A. Rolland
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Kekewich, Sir George Raphael, Herbert H.
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Kelley, George D. Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')
Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Rendall, Athelstan
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Laidlaw, Robert Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n
Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Richardson, A.
Erskine, David C. Lambert, George Ridsdale, E. A.
Essex, R. W. Lamont, Norman Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Esslemont, George Birnie Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Evans, Sir Samuel T. Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)
Everett, R. Lacey Lehmann, R. C. Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd
Faber, G. H. (Boston) Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Fenwick, Charles Levy, Sir Maurice Robinson, S.
Ferens, T. R. Lewis, John Herbert Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Findlay, Alexander Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Roe, Sir Thomas
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Rogers, F. E. Newman
Freeman-Thomas, Freeman Lupton, Arnold Rose, Charles Day
Fuller, John Michael F. Lyell, Charles Henry Rowlands, J.
Fullerton, Hugh Lynch, H. B. Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Gibb, James (Harrow) Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.
Gill, A. H. Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Mackarness, Frederic C. Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) Maclean, Donald Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Glover, Thomas Macpherson, J. T. Scarisbrick, T. T. L.
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford M'Crae, Sir George Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Scott, A. H. (Ashton under-Lyne
Grant, Corrie M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Sears, J. E.
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) M'Micking, Major G. Seaverns, J. H.
Greenwood, Hamar (York) Mallet, Charles E. Seddon, J.
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Markham, Arthur Basil Seely, Colonel
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) Shackleton, David James
Gulland, John W. Massie, J. Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton Menzies, Walter Sherwell, Arthur, James
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Middlebrook, William Shipman, Dr. John G.
Hall, Frederick Molteno, Percy Alport Silcock, Thomas Ball
Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale Money, L. G. Chiozza Simon, John Allsebrook
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Montagu, Hon. E. S. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Sloan, Thomas Henry Tomkinson, James Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Torrance, Sir A. M. Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.
Snowden, P. Trevelyan, Charles Philips Wiles, Thomas
Soares, Ernest J. Ure, Alexander Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Spicer, Sir Albert Verney, F. W. Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen
Stanger, H. Y. Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) Walsh, Stephen Williamson, A.
Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) Walters, John Tudor Wills, Arthur Walters
Steadman, W. C. Walton, Joseph Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Stewart, Halley (Greenock) Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) Wardle, George J. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Straus, B. S. (Mile End) Waring, Walter Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Stuart, James (Sunderland) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Summerbell, T. Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Sutherland, J. E. Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) Winfrey, R.
Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe Waterlow, D. S. Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) Watt, Henry A. Yoxall, James Henry
Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr) White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Thomasson, Franklin White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.
Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E. White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton Whitehead, Rowland
NOES.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Guinness, Hn. R. (Hnggerston) Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Anstruther-Gray, Major Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Arkwright, John Stanhope Haddock, George B. Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Ashley, W. W. Hamilton, Marquess of Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Balcarres, Lord Harris, Frederick Leverton Remnant, James Farquharson
Baldwin, Stanley Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Renwick, George
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond) Hay, Hon. Claude George Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Helmsley, Viscount Ronaldshay, Earl of
Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester Hill, Sir Clement Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Barnard, E. B. Hills, J. W. Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Bignold, Sir Arthur Houston, Robert Paterson Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bowles, G. Stewart Hunt, Rowland Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Bridgeman, W. Clive Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Brotherton, Edward Allen Kerry, Earl of Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Butcher, Samuel Henry Keswick, William Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Kimber, Sir Henry Stanier, Beville
Carlile, E. Hildred King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) Starkey, John R.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Lane-Fox, G. R. Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
Cave, George Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Stone, Sir Benjamin
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R. Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Clive, Percy Arthur Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S) Thornton, Percy M.
Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) Lonsdale, John Brownlee Tuke, Sir John Batty
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Lowe, Sir Francis William Valentia, Viscount
Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham) Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Courthope, G. Loyd MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh Waldron, Hon. Lionel
Craik, Sir Henry M'Arthur, Charles Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- M'Calmont, Colonel James Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Du Cros, Arthur Philip Magnus, Sir Philip Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Faber, George Denison (York) Marks, H. H. (Kent) Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) Mason, James F. (Windsor) Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Fardell, Sir T. George Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Fell, Arthur Mildmay, Francis Bingham Young, Samuel
Fletcher, J. S. Moore, William Younger, George
Gardner, Ernest Morpeth, Viscount
Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Morrison-Bell, Captain TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Forster.
Goulding, Edward Alfred Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Gretton, John Oddy, John James

Clause 6:

*SIR EDWARD SASSOON (Hythe) moved to leave out subsection (1). He moved the Amendment as a protest against the new fangled obligation which it was sought to impose upon licensing justices. It required them to prepare by the 1st of April of next year—a most appropriate day, by the way—a scheme for the statutory reduction prescribed by Clause 1, Schedule 1. The Committee would observe that this Bill would come, or at least His Majesty's Government hoped that it might come, into operation by the 1st of January. The time, therefore, allowed to these bodies was only a period of three months within which to complete this complicated, and as the discussion the Committee had earlier in this debate showed, a most invidious task. These hapless justices were expected to unearth from some source or other elements of information which he believed existed in a very fragmentary condition. He thought he was right, or the learned Gentleman opposite would correct him. They had not the divining rod. The requisite figures to enable them to ascertain the ratio of licences to density of population in each rural parish and each urban area were not available. At any rate, it was not pretended that they were available with any approach to any degree of accuracy. And then they were in view almost of the taking of the new census. That was difficulty number one. Having surmounted this, the justices would have to consider how and where the modifications allowed in Schedule 1 were going to be adjusted, with the object of avoiding the infliction of gross injustice in exceptional cases. That was difficulty number two. These elaborate and anxious studies would have to be undertaken with the fear of the Licensing Commission in the minds of the justices, because this Bill finally invested that Commission with the power of accepting or rejecting these suggested Amendments, so that the local people, with their intimate knowledge of local conditions, ran the risk of having their opinions overborne and overridden by an outside body which would inevitably act to a great extent irrespective of local conditions, and in defiance, so to speak, of the desires of the respective localities, needs and wishes which he ventured to say no Government had any right to anticipate by such stringent, inelastic, and rough and ready rules. Presumably the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley, and the hon. Member for the Appleby Division would be the shining luminaries on that outside tribunal.

SIR. S. EVANS

No, no.

*SIR EDWARD SASSOON

said he was more than glad to have elicited this disclaimer from the learned Solicitor-General because, competent as they were, no two more bitter partisans could be found to equip a board which eminently required an impartial and a judicial mind to be brought to the solution of the problems coming before them. At any rate the work of the licensing justices would be of a very arduous nature, and he thought that it would be materially and physically impossible for them to complete their task within the specified period. From the nature of the case the scheme would, to all intents and purposes, be a numerical one, that was to say, the justices would have to fix upon the number of houses they had to see extinguished; the selection of the victims of the sacrifice would come after. And in this connection he might recall to the attention of the Committee subsection 1, Clause 44, which provided that the licensing justices should not refuse the renewal or the transfer of any old on-licences under circumstances involving the payment of compensation. It was difficult to conceive of conditions more harassing, because these future victims would be on the rack awaiting their appointed doom, or conditions less calculated to attract the right and the reputable sort of people to undertake the management of public houses. One would think that His Majesty's Government had taken a machiavellian delight in honeycombing their measure with provisions of bewildering uncertainty, and of wearisome ambiguity of interpretation. After all, these were minor and subsidiary objections. What he specially desired to impress upon the Committee was that this clause circumscribed and fettered the powers and the action of licensing justices. Why drag in the Licensing Commission at all? They could know nothing at first hand of local circumstances. Why could the Government not trust these local people not to abuse their powers or to act in a reasonable, sensible and businesslike manner? Here they were minutely prescribing to the local bodies all over the country, the precise lines and conditions upon which they were to proceed in the elaboration of their scheme, whatever attenuation and mitigation the special circumstances of each district might require. He should have thought that the Party opposite would have been the last people in the world to deal such a severe blow upon an important branch of our system of local government. The hon. Member for one of the divisions of Essex last night laid the flattering unction to his soul that the Party to which he belonged was the sole depository of the orthodox creed of national and local liberty. Did he still think that he could advance that claim with any justice, in view of the scurvy treatment meted out to a body of gentlemen who had deserved well of their follow countrymen? Had they, in any important case, been shown to have acted in defiance of the wishes of the districts with which they were connected? He remembered when they were piloting the Licensing Act of 1904, it was made a great point of that the Unionist Party ignored the position and the authority, and the competence of local justices, and the present Prime Minister, in criticising provisions of that Act, said that there should be an infusion in our local administrative licensing body of a popular and representative element. Could he still say with any approach to accuracy that anything like such conditions had been observed in the framing of the present measure? Instead of a popular and representative element, he offered a body of three gentlemen that reminded one very much of the three tailors of Tooley Street, responsible to no one, nominated by a party administration, having no acquaintance with local wants and local aspirations, sitting in some obscure office in London, and affecting the livelihood and the welfare of large bodies of His Majesty's subjects.

*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Baronet is anticipating the discussion of subsequent subsections of the clause. The question whether the licensing justices should have any discretion in the matter of the statutory reduction was fully debated, and decided in the negative, under a specific Amendment moved to Clause 1 (1). Subsection (1) of Clause 6, which the hon. Baronet is moving to omit, simply says that before 1st April, 1909, the licensing justices shall "prepare a scheme for carrying out in their district the statutory reduction." The submission of the scheme to, and its approval by, the Licensing Commission arise later, on subsection (4) of this same clause.

MR. F. E. SMITH

Is it in order for my hon. friend to object on the ground that when the scheme is prepared it is to be submitted to another tribunal?

*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I do not think that comes under the words in regard to the preparation of the scheme. That question will arise later.

*SIR EDWARD SASSOON

submitted, on the point of order, that this subsection being the governing factor which was to determine the nature and the character of amendments to subsequent subsections, it was open to him to refer in general terms to the Licensing Commission under whose heel the opinions and the wishes of the licensing justices were to be placed. By the statutory reduction the Bill had already snatched away from these the discretion they had always possessed as to the advisability of extinguishing or renewing licences; it now went further and deprived them of the freedom to carry out their statutory duty free from outside interference in such manner as might seem good to them. Even in regard to the modifications under Schedule 1, local desires were to be subject to the veto of the Commission. A popular and representative element indeed was the last thing the Government wanted to see introduced into the administration of this measure. They knew it to be so unpopular, so contrary to the mass of public opinion, that they had to coerce the licensing justices by imposing upon them a statutory duty subordinating their knowledge of local wants to the orders of an unrepresentative commission and deposing them if they declined to be over-ruled by the triumvirate. It was because he considered this as an intolerable infringement of local liberties and because of his conviction that the result of this measure would be detrimentally to affect the comfort and the welfare of those who had to resort to the public-houses of the land—a class than whom, or even as much as whom, no other class of His Majesty's subjects had a greater right to the indulgent and considerate treatment of Parliament, that he begged to move the omission of this subsection.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 20, to leave out subsection (1)."—(Sir Edward Sassoon.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'shall,' in page 4, line 21, stand part of the Clause."

SIR S. EVANS

said the hon. Baronet had delivered a panegyric upon the local licensing justices and in so far as that was justified, and he was not saying it was not justified, it was an argument dead against the Amendment, because what was proposed in this subsection was that that very body whose fidelity and ability the hon. Baronet had commended, should prepare a scheme. The whole question which arose upon this Amendment was whether or not that body, upon whom the duty had been laid under Clause 1, was to prepare a scheme for the reduction of licences. The clause imposed an obligation upon the justices to reduce the licences in the district in which they acted, and the question was how they were to do it. The hon. Member had referred to the Licensing Commission. That was a matter which had better be discussed on subsection 4 of this clause which said a scheme prepared by the local justices was to be submitted to the Licensing Commission. In subsection 1 there was no mention at all of the Licensing Commission. He thought the Licensing Commission was a bugbear in the mind of the hon. Gentleman, but an opportunity would be provided on subsection 4 of dealing with the matter. The sole question which arose upon subsection 1 was whether or not the licensing justices should prepare a scheme. He did not know who the Licensing Commissioners were going to be, but whoever they were he was sure when they were appointed they would perform their duties perfectly well. The subsection imposed upon the licensing justices the duty of preparing a scheme before 1st April, 1909. They hoped this measure would become law certainly before the end of the year, and, although the hon. Member might be thinking of the vast work which would have to be done all over the country, if they distributed that work in the various districts, he did not think there would be any difficulty at all. He had heard no complaint from any body of licensing justices that the time at their disposal between the framing of the measure and the time fixed for the operation of the scheme would not be sufficient. However, that might be, there was an Amendment down in his name which allowed the Licensing Commission to extend the time if special circumstances were brought to their notice.

*MR. YOUNGER

said the schedule specified the number of licences that should exist according to the population in particular districts, but of course it gave no information whatever, and the Government had no information worth having as to the effect their scheme of reduction would have or of the scheme which they said the licensing justices were to prepare. He had put a Question to the Prime Minister on 9th March last on this very point, but he was refused any answer on the ground that it was impossible to obtain the tabulated information desired without very great labour extending over a period which would prevent the issue of any such return in time to be of commensurate value for the purpose of discussion on the Licensing Bill. He should have thought there was lots of time between March and now to give all the information they wanted. It was extremely important that they should have had it. Loose statements had been made as to the number of licences to be extinguished under the Bill. The Government had not the ghost of a notion as to how many licences would be extinguished. They were in gross and culpable ignorance on the whole subject and they had done nothing whatever to enlighten themselves or the House. There were all sorts of conditions under which licences might be increased in certain circumstances which they could not tell the effect of and which they did not know how far it might be necessary in the public interest to use. The whole scheme of reduction was simply grabbed in rather an indifferently successful fashion from the Minority Report of the Royal Commission on Licensing, a Report which was thrown at their heads on every occasion when it suited the Government, and which was forgotten when it did not suit their purpose for quoting. But that minority was a very small one indeed. It only contained one member of the independent panel, and he had yet to learn that Lord Peel, able man as he was, and very respected as he must be by every Member of the House, possessed any very outstanding authority on the subject. He had sat with Lord Peel all the years the Commission did its work and he was most assiduous and careful in everything, but to the last moment on the Licensing Commission there were many questions which Lord Peel never understood, and on the very last day when examining a witness he showed he had not picked up the exact bearing of the questions he was putting after being chairman for three and-a-half years. He was sorry to say that, and he said it only because so much importance was always laid upon Lord Peel's views when it suited the Government and their supporters, though when they ran counter to those of the Government they did not hear much about them. When, for example, he suggested in his original draft Report that to have a prohibitory resolution they should have three-fourths of the electors in a particular district voting for it, and for local management two-thirds, the Government could hardly claim that he supported their proposition on the veto question. So with other parts of the Report Lord Peel originally introduced, the teetotal friends with whom he latterly associated could not swallow this and he had to drop it and sign something quite different. The facts would be found in Hansard, he believed, in April of last year. The preparation of this scheme was a very important duty indeed. Under the Amendment which the Solicitor-General was to propose later, the effect of the reduction was to be considered and reported upon, he supposed by the Licensing Commission. That was a new importation into the clause which made it a little more intelligible and it gave a little more freedom of action than the Government apparently intended originally to grant. It might make all the difference in the world in their preparation of schemes and recommendations, and probably would make all the difference in the world in the decisions of the Licensing Commission. Therefore, when the Prime Minister and other Members talked about 30,000 licences being wiped out they had no more idea than the man in the moon whether it would be 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000. The sooner the people understood that and the Government realised and admitted it, the better. The period would be practically only thirteen years, because no on-licences which would be entitled to compensation were to be refused in the first year, so that the whole of this great reduction would have to be compressed into some thirteen years, a very short period indeed in which to effect such a large interference with what might be a necessary public convenience in these various districts. Surely the scheme involved greater difficulties than there was any need to create. He was entirely dissatisfied with it. He objected to it on principle, because it was absurd to suggest that they could by a hard and fast line say how many licences there ought to be in a particular district. They had considered this most carefully in the Licensing Commission, because they all acknowledged that there were too many licences in many districts. He acknowledged it quite frankly now. They did everything they could to adumbrate a scheme under which they could get some sort of numerical relation of licences to population, but they found themselves hopelessly estopped from doing so. When they went carefully into the evidence from many of these districts where there was a large number of licences, they found drunkenness was not extreme. In other cases where they were comparatively few, they found drunkenness much more extreme. In such places as Epping Forest all sorts of arrangements had been made, not for the people who lived there but for those who went there; just as exceptional arrangements must be made in the City of London for people who went there every day but did not sleep there at night; and they found it perfectly impossible, with any regard to the wants of those districts, to propose any consistent scheme which would effect what they desired—a proper reduction of licences in those districts where they acknowledged the need for reduction. The Government had, with probably a great deal less consideration than the Commission had given to the subject, accepted this proposition, and he did not think they were wise in doing so. They would find when the local justices had prepared their schemes there would be very great variations indeed proposed in this hard and fast scheme and that it would not work in many districts to which it was proposed to apply it. The Licensing Commission was given a most difficult task in supervising and advising upon all these reports, and in granting or refusing them, one which it was perfectly impossible for three men to perform without any of the local knowledge or experience of the needs of the district, which was essential in a matter of this kind. For three panjandrums sitting in London to control with any success the operations of an enormous number of licensing benches, and ascertain for themselves in anything like a satisfactory way the varying necessities of those districts was impossible. He would like to see the scheme altered en bloc, because he did not think it could possibly succeed. He believed, moreover, that it would have a totally different effect from what the Government thought it would have, and for these reasons he entirely objected to it.

*MR. CLAVELL SALTER (Hampshire, Basingstoke)

said he cordially supported this very important Amendment to a very important clause. They had enacted the fact of reduction; they had now the hardly less important matter of the proper machinery for reduction, and he could not help thinking that on the threshold of a matter so vital to the Bill, the few perfunctory words which the Solicitor-General had vouchsafed to them, and the appearance of the Liberal benches, were an eloquent commentary upon those passionate statements, of which they heard so much, that this Bill had behind it all that was best in the Liberal Party. He entirely agreed with what had been said in general praise of the licensing justices. He had some experience of them and of their methods, and he thought that in the main they well deserved every word of commendation that had been used of them. But it was because he had a high opinion of the licensing justices that he desired to support this Amendment, in protest against the manner in which these clauses proposed to treat them. Discretion and responsibility must always go together, and no doubt responsibility often carried with it odium, and much that was unpleasant. But his objection to this clause was that it treated the licensing justices with the utmost injustice, in taking from them all real discretion and leaving them exposed to the bitterest odium and dislike, which they could stand if they had the discretion, but which without it was very hard to bear.

MR. MCKENNA

You are dealing with subsection (1)?

*MR. CLAVELL SALTER

said he was dealing with subsection (1), but he was sure that the narrowest critic of technical points of order would not object to his saying that he was opposed to this plan of making the justices prepare a scheme and select the victims, because it was obvious that the authority which did the one must do the other. The licensing justices must prepare this scheme whether they liked it or not; whether they thought a reduction was necessary or not. Having prepared it, they must consider it and reconsider it on the orders of the Commission, and if the Commission thought fit to alter it they were helpless. The only thing in which discretion was given to the justices was in the selection of those licence-holders whose livelihood should be taken away without any reasonable or real compensation. He ventured to think that the licence-holder who found his livelihood taken from him would turn the brunt of his indignation not so much on Parliament which had passed this Bill, or even upon the Licensing Commission who insisted on certain reductions, as on these justices who had selected him as a victim to be destroyed. It was treating the justices with the greatest injustice to leave them no real discretion as to whether or not they would reduce, while they would be exposed, being men living in the place, among their neighbours to the bitter odium and dislike which must attend this selection of those who should be destroyed and ruined. On these grounds he strongly supported the Amendment.

MR. F. E. SMITH

said he also desired to support the Amendment which his hon. friend had moved, and he was not intimidated by the signs of enthusiasm on certain of the benches opposite. If one considered this Bill as a harmonious whole, as a measure which, though lengthy, was one of perfect draftsmanship, he should feel some objection to supporting the Amendment of his hon. friend, because he would feel that he was spoiling the artistic value of the Bill of the Government. But having regard to the fact that there was hardly a single clause, so far, that the Government were not pledged to alter before the Report stage, he felt that he could support this Amendment without interference with the artistic merits of the Bill. Under these circumstances he had no hesitation at all in falling back upon the mere ground of merit in claiming some support for the Amendment of his hon. friend. What was the position as it stood at present? It was quite true that in the earlier clauses a certain scheme of reduction had already received the approval of the Committee, and could not be discussed by him at the present moment. The proposal before the House now dealt with the machinery by which the already approved scheme of reduction was to be carried out. He ventured to press upon the Government some argument in favour of his hon. friend's Amendment, which he thought was worthy of serious consideration. Four years ago, when the Licensing Bill was being discussed, hon. Gentlemen were extremely eloquent on the importance of the functions discharged by the licensing justices and the iniquity of interfering with them. It was not interfering with them by sending them to three esteemed strangers in London but to their own district, and the late Prime Minister, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, spoke of the undesirability of taking this decision from an able body of men and placing it in the hands of another body of men at a distance. This afforded the strongest argument in favour of the Amendment of his hon. friend. If they took subsection (3) of Clause 1 they would find that even there the activity of the Licensing Commission commenced, because it was to the effect that, if it appeared to that body that the grant of any new licence had been confirmed in contravention of the section, they should declare that that licence was invalid. As they went on in the Bill they would find that it was not the licensing justices who counted, but the Commission in London. When they came to Clause 6, which they were discussing, here again the permission of the Licensing Commission was necessary before the licensing justices might give an auxiliary licence. He put it whether it was not a great mistake to maintain in this Bill relics of the past. Why have licensing justices at all? Was it not worth considering in the stage which they had reached, whether the scheme should not be prepared by the Licensing Commission so that the duties of the local justices, merely nominal now, should be extinguished. They would then know that they had descended to a bureaucratic age and got rid of those who had discharged these duties for many generations. Why not get rid of the already confusing inconsistencies of the Bill under which the licensing justices did one thing and the Commission might refuse it, and the Commission did one thing and the licensing justices started a counter memorial? Why not start a Licensing Commission and say they should prepare a scheme, and when they had prepared it say there should be an appeal to the Licensing Commission, and they should decide whether the scheme was a good one? How admirable would be such an Amendment, and why should they expose the local justices to the indignity of being mere puppets to a bureaucracy in the City of London, who knew nothing of the locality and only interfered in the decision so far as they might be supposed to be ready to take a partisan Act for the political Government of the day?

MR. JAMES HOPE

said that until this Bill he always looked upon the office of justice of the peace as one of honour and dignity and of legitimate ambition. He believed that view was shared by many of the supporters of the Government, who in consequence caused some embarrassment to the head of the law ill making a selection and in not overcrowding the benches from which justice in petty sessions was administered. He could only suppose that this particular provision was brought in to obviate any such embarrassment, by making the office of justice of the peace a thing which was by no means to be desired, because he understood the operation of this clause would be to transform a justice of the peace into an unpaid functionary subject to a bureaucracy in London and in no way of any status or dignity. He thought, however, they should have some discretion and some responsibility, and if these duties were put upon the justices by Parliament they should at least be given an ample discretion as to the mode and as to the time in which they should discharge these functions. Moreover, legal machinery would have to be provided in case they discharged these functions ill. He presumed that the justices would get out elaborate statistics of houses in each parish, together with the population, that they would consult their ordinance maps as regards distances, and go through a great deal of uncongenial and unprofitable work, for which they would not be paid, in order that they might carry out the policy of the Government, and when all had been done they would have their decisions reviewed by a perfectly irresponsible board, upon which, once it had been created, no pressure could be brought. He could not conceive any proposals which more surely cut away the honour and responsibility of the office of justices of the peace. He believed many Members of this House were justices of the peace, and he was sure if this Bill became the law in its present shape, they would all refuse to do what he could only call the dirty work of the Government.

EARL WINTERTON

expressed the hope that the Government would give some further explanation with regard to this subsection before the division was taken. The duties placed upon the justices by the subsection would be not only most unpleasant but also of a most arduous character. One of his friends, who sat on a Licensing Committee, said that it had been impossible to devise a scheme at that time to carry out the reduction of licences, and all of those who were magistrates on that side of the House objected to the proposal as it stood, to place upon them the responsibility for the invidious duty of saying what licences should be extinguished. There ought to be some further explanation. All that the Committee had been told was that the proposals had been passed in the early sections of the Bill, and that the licensing magistrates must carry out the scheme. They had not been told how the scheme was to be framed with regard to the time that was to be involved in carrying it out. The effect of the hon. and learned Member's Amendment was to give the Licensing Committee a power to enable the licensing justices to take a little longer time; that was the only concession that was made. The hon. and learned Solicitor-General had said in the course of his Speech that there would be ample time for the justices to draw up their scheme between the passing of this Bill and the 1st April. He thought a greater conundrum could not be put to anybody than that of saying what the date of the passing of this Act would be. He appealed to the hon. and learned Gentleman not to throw the burden of this invidious duty on the shoulders of the licensing justices. If his hon. friend pressed the matter to a division he should certainly support him in the lobby.

VISCOUNT MORPETH (Birmingham, S.)

desired to say a few words upon the ancient office of magistrates, because he had an extremely lively recollection of the debate on the Licensing Act of 1904 in the late Parliament, when the then Opposition accused the Government of placing a great indignity on the body of magistrates in this country. The Government were then told that they were upsetting the system of licensing which had been in operation for 400 years. No one was so truly Tory as a Radical when he wanted to be so, and nobody was less Tory when he was able to do something else.

*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

called attention to the fact that the hon. Member was going very far from the Amendment.

VISCOUNT MORPETH

said that had he been allowed to conclude his argument he would have shown very conclusively that it was impossible to obtain men to do this work. His point was that if this work of the justices, which had been dignified and responsible work for all these centuries, was to be cut down to nothing and no responsibility or dignity to be attached to it, it was not likely that men would be desirous of sitting on the magistrates' bench.

*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

pointed out that the Committee had already decided in Clause 1 of the Bill that the statutory reduction of the licences should be made by the licensing justices. The Amendment now before the House was very limited in scope. The duty of the justices in this matter had already been decided, and the discussion now must be limited to the point that a scheme shall be prepared.

EARL WINTERTON

, on the point of order, asked whether it would not be in order to discuss this point, having regard to the fact that the scheme must refer to particular houses.

*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

reiterated that this was a scheme for carrying out the statutory reduction; that duty was placed upon the justices, and that being so, the decision to which he referred in Clause 1 applied to this sub-section so far as the discretion of the licensing justices was concerned. What the scheme should contain was the subject matter of the next subsection.

*MR. CLAVELL SALTER

asked whether it would not be in order, notwithstanding the fact that the reduction had been decided, to contend that the justices should not be made the vehicle.

*MR. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland, Appleby) asked whether the justices had not already in Section 1 been made the vehicle for carrying out the statutory reduction.

*MR. CLAVELL SALTER

pointed out that Section 1 said that the justices should reduce the licences; it did not say there should be a scheme—that the justices should prepare a scheme or anything of that kind.

*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

said he had already pointed out that the discretion of the licensing justices, as regards the statutory reduction, had been negatived in an Amendment moved to Clause 1. The duty to prepare a scheme was a necessary consequence, so far as the matter of discretion was concerned.

VISCOUNT MORPETH

said in that case he was afraid he had not made himself quite clear. The amount of the statutory reduction was decided by Clause 1, but under that clause there was a certain amount of discretion allowed both under subsection 1 and subsection 2.

*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

said that there was no discretion allowed to the licensing justices under Clause I which dealt with the statutory reduction. The present Amendment only dealt with the duty to prepare the scheme for carrying out the statutory reduction, and the noble Lord must limit his arguments to the Amendment before the Committee.

VISCOUNT MORPETH

said the point was that the magistrates should produce a scheme, and in that scheme they should say what was desirable, whether more houses should exist in particular districts, having regard to the fact that they were touring or market districts or exceptional districts of that kind. That discretion was of a very attenuated character, and if that were now taken away it would be impossible to get anybody of weight or authority to sit and determine matters of that kind. Not only was it a very fine distinction, but it was controlled and trammelled by the fact that there was a Licensing Committee which could upset all their decisions. They all knew that the machinery was extremely slow. The local authority sent up the recommendation to the Department in London, and the Department sent down an official to make inquiry. Suppose that the opinion of the official was different from that of the magistrates who had used their discretion, then the matter was left to the Commission in London, who had no knowledge of their own as to the special circumstances of the locality, and were dependent solely and entirely on the official whom they had sent down over the heads of the magistrates.

*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

said the noble Lord must confine himself to the subsection under consideration, and he must not discuss the subsections which follow.

VISCOUNT MORPETH

said his point was that the magistrates had little power because the matters left in their discretion were very limited, and further they could be overridden by somebody else. The difficulty in this matter was that the Government were prepared to trust nobody. The discretion of the magistrates seemed to be a discretion in which it was left to somebody else to say "Yes" or "No." The Government had taken the whole of the power out of the hands of these persons whom they would not trust, in order to concentrate it in the hands of two or three officials in London.

SIR F. BANBURY (City of London)

said he was rather surprised, in view of the very excellent arguments which had come from Members of the Opposition, that nobody on the other side of the House had got up to show that they were wrong. The Solicitor-General had made a general statement which he thought had been proved to be incorrect by the speeches made on that side of the House. The First Lord of the Admiralty had said nothing; therefore it was to be presumed that he saw that the arguments which had been advanced were such as did not admit of reply. Therefore, with his great acuteness, he had said nothing, and was careful of his reputation; he had not committed himself to a reply which might be afterwards held to be inadequate to the occasion. There were several hon. Members present, the hon. Member for Denbighshire and the hon. Member for one of the divisions of Wales, and others, who were not only great authorities but extremely eloquent, and who could have been trusted, without the responsibility which attached to the Treasury Bench, to have risen and at any rate made some show of a defence against the reasons which had been put forward by his hon. friends around him. It appeared to him that there were two points which should be considered in connection with this clause. The first was whether or not the time allowed was sufficient for the justices to do their work. That it was not sufficient was absolutely proved by the fact that the Solicitor-General had put down an Amendment to the clause, which provided that the time was to be extended, not by the Government, but by the Licensing Commission. But the Licensing Commissioners were not the people who ought to be entrusted with the power to extend the time. The original intention of the Government was that this scheme should be prepared by the licensing justices on 1st April, a very appropriate day as his hon. friend the mover of the Amendment had reminded them. If the Government had come to the conclusion that that was not the proper day, then they should themselves have extended the time by introducing an Amendment which would have provided a reasonable time in which the justices could prepare a scheme. There was nobody in that House or outside of it who really knew how long it would take to prepare a scheme, or what practical results it was to have, unless it was the Government. His hon. friend near him had, with his great prescience, so long ago as last March, asked how long it would take to prepare a scheme, or whether it would be possible for the justices to get the information to assist them in preparing a scheme. The Government said that it would require such an extreme length of time to get the information that they could not reply to the hon. Gentleman's question. But they would see that if they took from March to October they had seven months. Then if the Bill was passed by 1st January, he thought that was the estimate of the Solicitor-General, who added extreme sanguineness to his other great qualities — then taking from 1st January to 1st April, there remained—

*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

said the hon. Baronet was discussingan Amendment which would come later. Of course the discussion could include the question of time, but they could not have two discussions, one now and another when the other Amendments were reached, and if they were to discuss the question of time now, it must be understood that there was not to be a second discussion.

SIR F. BANBURY

said they were dismissing under very disadvantageous circumstances, and it was quite probable that the other Amendments would never be reached, because they had only another hour and twenty minutes. Of course, he did not wish to carry the discussion further. [Cries of "Go on."] Very well, he would endeavour to show that the time allowed, from every point of view, was not sufficient. Let them consider what the licensing justices had to do. He understood that under this scheme there was no question of choosing houses or persons; it was merely the numbers which would be chosen. But he also understood that the number would have to be distributed over the different areas of the districts of the licensing justices. That was an extremely difficult task to perform, because they had not only to get the facts with regard to the areas, but they had to gather their information for the whole fourteen years. He understood that he was correct in saying that the facts would have to be ascertained with regard to the different areas and spread over the whole fourteen years. That being so, he thought that three months was not a sufficient time, and he also thought that any extension of time should be given by Parliament and not by the Licensing Commission. The justices were really being put as a sort of buffer between the Commissioners and the people. That was a very invidious position in which to place them. If there was to be any buffer it should be Parliament. He did not think it expedient from the point of view of the nation that the justices should be treated in this manner. The justices had very high functions entrusted to them; they had to exercise judicial authority in a proper manner, and though he did not for one moment believe that they would be actuated by a desire to seek for popularity, yet one did not want to put them into a disagreeable position. Therefore, under the circumstances, he hoped that his hon. friend's Amendment would be accepted. He felt that in all courtesy the arguments which had been advanced with great cogency by hon. Members on that side of the House ought at least to have had some reply, if not from Members of the Treasury Bench, at any rate from hon. Members who sat behind them, in order to enlighten the Committee on one of the most important clauses of the Bill.

MR. RICHARDSON (Nottingham, S.)

said he had heard the whole of the speeches of hon. Members of the Opposition, and he must say, if he might do so without disrespect, that they appeared to him to be artificial and unreal, and not applied seriously to the Amendment before the House. Only two points, in his judgment, had been raised by Members of the Opposition. One was that it was a slight upon the justices to lay this duty upon them; and the second was that the justices were not the best instrument for carrying out the work. He had the honour to be one of a bench of magistrates, though he must say that he had not accepted the position for the sake of social distinction; but being a justice he could assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that no duty could be placed on his shoulders which he would carry out with greater pleasure than that of the enforcement of the provisions of this Bill, and especially this part of the measure which the Opposition wished to eliminate. He had noticed during the short time he had been on the bench that very many of the cases which came before them had their origin in these licensed houses; and he thought the justices would be better employed in doing away with some of those houses than in sentencing these unfortunate people to fourteen days imprisonment or inflicting upon them a fine of 15s. He thought the licensing justices were just the men to frame this scheme, because they knew the needs and requirements of their respective localities, and how the houses should be distributed. He hoped that the Government would stand by their proposal, and he opposed the Amendment.

VISCOUNT HELMSLEY (Yorkshire, N. R., Thirsk)

said that the argument of the hon. Member who had just spoken pointed to something which was not in the Bill. The hon. Member argued that the justices were thoroughly well acquainted with the business they had to do, and, as a justice, he would like to have the whole discretion in dealing with licences. But in this case there was no discretion at all. Instead of having discretion in dealing with licences in a particular district the justices were bound by a hard and fast rule to make a certain statutory reduction within a given time. That was not a position in which magistrates ought to be placed.

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

said that the Committee had already decided that the statutory reductions were to take place.

VISCOUNT HELMSLEY

said he was merely endeavouring to answer the arguments of the hon. Member for Nottingham, and to show that the justices had no discretion in the matter of statutory reductions. He would like to say a word on the general question as to which no member of the Government had yet spoken. They had not heard why the Government had fixed upon this particular date for the reduction of the licences and what grounds they had for supposing that the magistrates had sufficient time to make a scheme for reduction. Another important point on which they ought to hear a good deal from the Government was, what was the general basis for a statutory reduction in proportion to population. [Cries of "Order."]

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

said that the only question they were dealing with was that relating to the justices preparing schemes.

*MR. G. D. FABER

said he could not help wondering why only three months were to be allowed to the licensing justices to perform this arduous business of preparing schemes. Clause 44 provided that the licensing justices should not during the year 1909 refuse the renewal or transfer of any old on-licence under circumstances involving

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Barker, John Berridge, T. H. D.
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'd)
Agnew, George William Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)
Alden, Percy Barnes, G. N. Black, Arthur W.
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) Boulton, A. C. F.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Beale, W. P. Bowerman, C. W.
Astbury, John Meir Beauchamp, E. Bramsdon, T. A.
Baker, A. Joseph (Finsbury, E.) Beck, A. Cecil Branch, James
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlet, S. Geo. Bright, J. A.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Bennett, E. N. Brooke, Stopford

the payment of compensation. That meant that the year 1909 was to be a period during which no licence would be touched, and that the Licensing Commission, whatever might happen in the case of the licensing justices, would require a whole year to make their arrangements, because the reduction period was not to begin until 1910. Why was it that the Commission had a whole year to consider this matter, and the licensing justices were only to be allowed three months? It was contrary to the promise which the Prime Minister had given in introducing the Bill that all the powers of the licensing justices were to be restored, to find that the licensing justices were to have nothing to do except to prepare a scheme. From his point of view it was derogatory to the dignity of the licensing justices that their powers should be whittled down to the preparation of a scheme which might be torn to tatters by the Commission. Having prepared a scheme, the justices were afterwards permitted to do no more than to act as common executioners by selecting the licences to be destroyed.

MR. JOHN RUTHERFORD (Lancashire, Darwen)

thought that this clause was altogether objectionable. Every magistrates' clerk and chief constable throughout the country would object to the position in which it would place them; inasmuch as it would subject them to the approval of the town council and the magistrates, and also to the approval of the Commission in London. He supported the Amendment of his hon. friend.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 228; Noes, 68. (Division List No. 278.)

Bryce, J. Annan Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Burnyeat, W. J. D. Hudson, Walter Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Hyde, Clarendon Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles Jacoby, Sir James Alfred Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd)
Byles, William Pollard Johnson, John (Gateshead) Robinson, S.
Cameron, Robert Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Cawley, Sir Frederick Jones, Leif (Appleby) Rogers, F. E. Newman
Chance, Frederick William Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.
Channing, Sir Francis Allston Jowett, F. W. Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Cheetham, John Frederick Kearley, Sir Hudson J. Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Kekewich, Sir George Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne
Cleland, J. W. Kelley, George D. Sears, J. E.
Clough, William King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Seely, Colonel
Clynes, J. R. Laidlaw, Robert Shackleton, David James
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Sherwell, Arthur James
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Lambert, George Shipman, Dr. John G.
Crooks, William Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis Silcock, Thomas Ball
Crosfield, A. H. Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich Simon, John Allsebrook
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Levy, Sir Maurice Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) Lewis, John Herbert Snowden, P.
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Soares, Ernest P.
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. Lupton, Arnold Spicer, Sir Albert
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Lyell, Charles Henry Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Duckworth, James Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Steadman, W. C.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs) Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Mackarness, Frederic C. Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Maclean, Donald Summerbell, T.
Essex, R. W. Macpherson, J. T. Sutherland, J. E.
Esslemont, George Birnie M'Crae, Sir George Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Evans, Sir Samuel T. M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.
Everett, R. Lacey M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)
Faber, G. H. (Boston) M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.
Fenwick, Charles Mallet, Charles E. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Ferens, T. R. Markham, Arthur Basil Torrance, Sir A. M.
Findlay, Alexander Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Massie, J. Ure, Alexander
Fuller, John Michael F. Menzies, Walter Verney, F. W.
Fullerton, Hugh Middlebrook, William Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Gibb, James (Harrow) Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Walsh, Stephen
Gill, A. H. Morton, Alpheus, Cleophas Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Glover, Thomas Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) Waterlow, D. S.
Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) Myer, Horatio Watt, Henry A.
Greenwood, Hamar (York) Napier, T. B. White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Nicholls, George Whitehead, Rowland
Hall, Frederick Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale Nussey, Thomas Willans Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Nuttall, Harry Wiles, Thomas
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Hart-Davies, T. Parker, James (Halifax) Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Partington, Oswald Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Williamson, A.
Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Pearce, William (Limehouse) Wills, Arthur Walters
Hedges, A. Paget Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Helme, Norval Watson Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Higham, John Sharp Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Winfrey, R.
Hobart, Sir Robert Radford, G. H. Yoxall, James Henry
Hodge, John Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'
Holt, Richard Durning Rendall, Athelstan TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.
Hooper, A. G. Richards, Thomas (W. Monmt'h
Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N. Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)
Horniman, Emslie John Richardson, A.
Horridge, Thomas Gardner Ridsdale, E. A.
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F. Banbury, Sir Frederick George. Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks
Anstruther-Gray, Major Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester Bignold, Sir Arthur
Balcarres, Lord Barnard, E. B. Bridgeman, W. Clive
Brotherton, Edward Allen Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Ronaldshay, Earl of
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Houston, Robert Paterson Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Carlile, E. Hildred Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Salter, Arthur Clavell
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton
Cave, George Lane-Fox, G. R. Stanier, Beville
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R. Starkey, John R.
Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh Stone, Sir Benjamin
Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm) Magnus, Sir Philip Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Courthope, G. Lloyd Marks, H. H. (Kent) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Doughty, Sir George Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Morpeth, Viscount Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire
Faber, George Denison (York) Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) Oddy, John James Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Fell, Arthur Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Fletcher, J. S. Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Forster, Henry William Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Young, Samuel
Gardner, Ernest Randles, Sir John Scurrah Younger, George
Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Hamilton, Marquess of Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Edward Sassoon and Earl Winterton.
Helmsley, Viscount Remnant, James Farquharson
Hill, Sir Clement Renwick, George
SIR S. EVANS

moved to add the words after 1909, "Or such later day as may be allowed in any case by the Licensing Commission." He did not think that, in the ordinary course of things, the interval which would elapse between the passing of this measure and the operation of this clause was too short. It was not a general extension of time they desired, but if it was found in any particular locality on account of any difficulties of the work or for any special reason that the time was rather short they wanted the Licensing Commission to be able to do the best they could for the district generally, although they might not be able to present the scheme by the fixed date. It was merely to meet those exceptional cases that he had thought it necessary to put down this Amendment. There were about a thousand licensing districts, and, therefore, the work in the country would be distributed, but so far as the Commission was concerned, of course, they would have the supervision of the whole, and therefore it was quite necessary that they should have longer time than was permitted to the justices in the ordinary course to prepare schemes for their respective localities. It should be remembered that the scheme did not comprise the selection of the houses whose licences were to be extinguished.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 21, at the end, to insert the words 'or such later day as may be allowed in any case by the Licensing Commission.'"—(Sir Samuel Evans.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. F. E. SMITH

moved to omit all the words of the Amendment after the word "as" in order to insert the words "they may think proper." The effect of that would be that the persons on whom the decision would rest as to whether there should be an extension or not would be the justices and not the Licensing Commission in London. He would ask the Committee to consider a little more carefully what the proposal of the Government meant. In this case they had local justices dealing with the needs of their own locality and the Government was imposing upon them the duty of preparing schemes. Supposing the justices found themselves unable in the proper time to prepare their scheme, they had to appeal to three gentlemen sitting in London who knew nothing of the locality in order to ask them as a matter of grace for a little delay. A more undemocratic proposal was never heard from any Government. He would like to remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Solicitor-General, and the Home Secretary of a debate on the last Licensing Bill in 1904 in which most of them took part, and in which the then Leader of the Opposition, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, used the following words— We insist that there shall be no tampering with or modification of the discretion of the local magistrates.… We say that the discretion of the local magistrates ought not to be interfered with or modified, but it is to be abolished by this Bill. The local magistrate, the man on the spot, the man who knows all about it, who lives in the locality, is acquainted with its requirements, and is conversant with the feeling of the inhabitants, is to be practically set aside, except that he may, perhaps, send a written memorial to the superior court, and the estimable gentleman from another part of the world, who has no knowledge whatever of the circumstances, will be entrusted with this essential part of the magisterial control of the publican. Those who applauded and cheered those sentences, when they were uttered, and supported the then Leader of the Opposition in the division lobby, came forward four years later with the proposal that the discretion of the licensing justices should be subordinated not to Quarter Sessions but to the decision of three gentlemen in London to be appointed by the Government, and who did not pretend to have the slightest acquaintance with the needs of the locality. If there was any sincerity in the case put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite when in opposition that the discretion should be maintained, then there was no case in which it was more proper and essential to insist upon the maintenance of that discretion than in the case now under consideration. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment— To leave out from the word 'as,' to the end, and to insert the words 'they may think proper.'"—(Mr. F. E. Smith.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."

MR. LANE-FOX (Yorkshire, W.R., Barkston Ash)

said he supposed that on this Amendment it would be possible to raise the whole question of the existence and scope of the Commission.

*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

That would not be possible. It appears to me that the only question that is raised here is whether this matter is to be in the discretion of the Licensing Commission.

MR. LANE-FOX

said he rather anticipated that that would be the ruling. It was just as well to know where they were. This Amendment dealt with the question of the subordination of the local justices to the Licensing Commission. It was not putting it too strongly to say that the justices were going to be asked to do the dirty work of the Commission in the preparation of the proposed schemes. It seemed to him that the justices might have been left to their own discretion in such a matter as the date for the completion of the schemes. The position of subordination the justices were in to the Licensing Commission was sufficiently degrading in many points to make a good many dislike the task put before them, and refuse to serve in that capacity. It was quite possible that the effect of the Bill as it stood might be that they would only get as justices those who were so determined on reform in this connection that the Bench would be composed entirely of ultra-teetotal people. He hoped the Government would give some further reason for the attitude they had adopted in refusing to give the justices this discretion.

SIR S. EVANS

said it was in order that the Committee might come to a speedy decision on this matter that he rose to reply now. The point raised by the Amendment was whether the time should be extended. If they said in one part of the clause that the justices were to do this work by a certain date, and in another part at such another date, that would be contradictory. It was always interesting to listen to the hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division on democratic principles. He said that if the Government were to act on those principles in this matter, they would leave it to the discretion of the justices. Really that question did not arise on this Amendment. The quotation made from a speech of the late Prime Minister in 1904 was one which contained the expression of a view with which they all agreed and to which the Government had given the amplest effect in the Bill. The Government had said that the justices were the people to decide on the statutory reduction of licences. Of course, the Licensing Commission, or some other body, must be put over the licensing, justices, because the latter would have no control over the fund, which was to be a general fund, and it was because it was a national fund for the whole of England and Wales that they must have some central body to deal with it. The Commission, however, were not put over them for the purpose of saying whether the licence of the "Black Bull" or the "Blue Boar" was to be taken away. The fullest discretion in that matter was given to the justices, and the Commission in London would have nothing to do with it. With regard to the benches being composed of ultra-teetotallers, he knew what a teetotaller was, but not an ultra-teetotaller.

MR. LANE-FOX

said the tendency of the condition imposed on the justices by this section would be to induce gentlemen who found the work burdensome to keep away.

SIR S. EVANS

said he hoped the provisions of the Bill would not be such as to induce any of the present justices to withdraw from office, or to prevent anybody who desired to become a magistrate from still having that desire.

MR. YOUNGER

, in supporting the Amendment, reminded the Solicitor-General of his own Amendments on the Paper, some of which tended to make this clause a little less stupid that it was at present. The alterations to be made in the clause by the Government wholly altered the situation and made the justices on the spot very much better judges of the time required to prepare the scheme than the Licensing Commission sitting in London who knew nothing whatever of the districts. Of course, it was convenient for the Government to evade all those points. They were extremely clever in doing so, but they were usually found out.

*MR. CLAVELL SALTER

suggested to the mover of the Amendment that a certain amount of alteration in it was necessary. It would hardly do to enact that the justices should make their scheme before 1st April, or some future date. It was necessary to state some fixed date which they

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Astbury, John Meir
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. Armitage, R. Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)
Agnew, George William Armstrong, W. C. Heaton Balfour, Robert (Lanark)
Alden, Percy Ashton, Thomas Gair Baring, Goodfrey (Isle of Wight
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Barker, John

should have power to fix during the currency of a period. Provided that was done he could see nothing inconsistent or contradictory in the clause as it would then read. There was nothing novel in giving an authority power to extend the time in which it should perform some ministerial function. The practical question before the Committee was as to who was the best judge of the local circumstances of a particular scheme, and whether or not it was expedient that the time should be extended. The difficulties arising would be purely local and personal, as to which the Commission in London could, in the nature of the case, have no sort of knowledge, while the local justices must know fully all the circumstances of the case. It appeared to him that it would be more practical and desirable to allow the discretion as to the occasional extension of time to be exercised by those who had local knowledge.

*CAPTAIN FABER

said the Solicitor-General had stated that the justices were to have the power to decide whether the licence of the "Black Bull" or the "Blue Boar" was to be extinguished. But it should be remembered that the Commissioners in London could act over the heads of the justices in regard to money, and the two houses might not be of the same value. If the justices Were to recommend the Commissioners to do away with the "Black Hull," they might turn round and say they had not the £3000 necessary for compensation in that case, though the amount they had available would be sufficient to pay compensation in the case of the "Blue Boar." He hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman would admit that there was some difficulty in the case.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 271; Noes, 93. (Division List No. 279.)

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) Molteno, Percy Alport
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Money, L. G. Chiozza
Barnes, G. N. Greenwood, Hamar (York) Montagu, Hon. E. S.
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Beale, W. P. Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Beauchamp, E. Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Beck, A. Cecil Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard.
Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt Hall, Frederick Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale Myer, Horatio
Bennett, E. N. Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Napier, T. B.
Berridge, T. H. D. Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Nicholls, George
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Hart-Davies, T. Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Norton Capt. Cecil William
Black, Arthur W. Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. Nussey, Thomas Willans
Boulton, A. C. F. Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Nuttall, Harry
Bowerman, C. W. Hedges, A. Paget O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Bramsdon, T. A. Helme, Norval Watson Parker, James (Halifax)
Branch, James Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Partington, Oswald
Bright, J. A. Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Brooke, Stopford Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Bryce, J. Annan Higham, John Sharp Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Hobart, Sir Robert Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)
Burnyeat, W. J. D. Hodge, John Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Holt, Richard Durning Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles Hooper, A. G. Pirie, Duncan V.
Byles, William Pollard Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N. Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Cameron, Robert Horniman, Emslie John Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Horridge, Thomas Gardner Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Cawley, Sir Frederick Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)
Chance, Frederick William Hudson, Walter Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.
Channing, Sir Francis Allston Hyde, Clarendon Radford, G. H.
Cheetham, John Frederick Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Jacoby, Sir James Alfred Rendall, Athelstan
Cleland, J. W. Jardine, Sir J. Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th
Clough, William Johnson, John (Gateshead) Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n
Clynes, J. R. Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) Richardson, A.
Cobbold, Felix Thornley Jones, Leif (Appleby) Ridsdale, E. A.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. Jowett, F. W. Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd Kearley, Sir Hudson E. Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Kekewich, Sir George Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Kelley, George D. Robinson, S.
Crooks, William Laidlaw, Robert Roch, Walter V. (Pembroke)
Crosfield, A. H. Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster Roe, Sir Thomas
Crossley, William J. Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Rogers, F. E. Newman
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Lambert, George Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan Lamont, Norman Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Lehmann, R. C. Scarisbrick, T. T. L.
Duckworth, James Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Levy, Sir Maurice Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Lewis, John Herbert Sears, J. E.
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Seely, Colonel
Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward Lupton, Arnold Shackleton, David James
Erskine, David C. Lyell, Charles Henry Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Essex, R. W. Macdonld, J. R. (Leicester) Sherwell, Arthur James
Esslemont, George Birnie Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs Shipman, Dr. John G.
Evans, Sir Samuel T. Mackarness, Frederic C. Silcock, Thomas Ball
Everett, R. Lacey Maclean, Donald Simon, John Allsebrook
Fenwick, Charles Macpherson, J. T. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Ferens, T. R. M'Crae, Sir George Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Findlay, Alexander M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Snowden, P.
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Soares, Ernest J.
Fuller, John Michael F. M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Spicer, Sir Albert
Fullerton, Hugh Mallet, Charles E. Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)
Gibb, James (Harrow) Markham, Arthur Basil Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Gill, A. H. Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) Steadman, W. C.
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Massie, J.
Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W. Masterman, C. F. G. Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Glover, Thomas Menzies, Walter Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Middlebrook, William Summerbell, T.
Sutherland, J. E. Waring, Walter Williamson, A.
Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan Wills, Arthur Walters
Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) Wason, John Carchart (Orkney) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr Waterlow, D. S. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E. Watt, Henry A. Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Tomkinson, James White, Luke (York, E. R.) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Trevelyan, Charles Philips Whitehead, Rowland Winfrey, R.
Ure, Alexander Whitely, John Henry (Halifax) Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Verney, F. W. Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P. Yoxall, James Henry
Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) Wiles, Thomas
Walsh, Stephen Williams, (J. (Glamorgan) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.
Walton, Joseph Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen
Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F. Fletcher, J. S. Percy, Earl
Anson, Sir William Reynell Forster, Henry William Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Anstruther-Gray, Major Gardner, Ernest Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Arkwright, John Stanhope Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) Remnant, James Farquharson
Balcarres, Lord Gretton, John Renwick, George
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.) Hamilton, Marquess of Ronaldshay, Earl of
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Helmsley, Viscount Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester Hill, Sir Clement Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Barnard, E. B. Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks Houston, Robert Paterson Stanier, Beville
Bignold, Sir Arthur Hunt, Rowland Starkey, John R.
Bowles, G. Stewart Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.
Bridgeman, W. Clive Keswick, William Stone, Sir Benjamin
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Kimber, Sir Henry Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Carlile, E. Hildred King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Lane-Fox, G. R. Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)
Cave, George Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R. Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Clark, George Smith Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) Whitbread, Howard
Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Courthope, G. Loyd Marks, H. H. (Kent) Winterton, Earl
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Doughty, Sir George Mildmay, Francis Bingham Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Moore, William Young, Samuel
Du Cros, Arthur Philip Morpeth, Viscount Younger, George
Faber, George Dension (York) Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W. Oddy, John James TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. F. E. Smith and Mr. Salter.
Fardell, Sir T. George Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Fell, Arthur Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Amendments proposed— In page 4, line 26, after the word 'effect,' to insert the words 'as regards the number of licences.' In page 4, line 27, after the word 'area,' to insert the words 'giving particulars of any modifications made in the strict application of the scale.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)

Amendments agreed to.

MR. JAMES HOPE moved an additional subsection (c) providing that the scheme should be published in every district, and a copy sent to each of the licensees and owners affected. He thought that the Amendment, which had originally been put down on the Paper by the hon. Member for Wandsworth, would commend itself to the Committee. He held that all the licensees and owners in a district which would be affected by the scheme ought to be informed of the nature of the scheme, so that they might have an opportunity of approaching the Commission and showing, if need be, that the licensing justices had neglected in any way to carry out the principles of the Schedule. It was a slight mitigation in the direction of an easier working, and as such he had no doubt the Government would accept it.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 31, at the end to insert the words '(c) he published in every district, and a copy sent to each of the licensees and owners affected.'"—(Mr. James Hope.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR S. EVANS

said the effect of the Amendment was that the scheme to be prepared by the justices and sent to the Committee was to be published in the district and copies sent to each of the licensees and owners affected. It meant that a copy was to be sent to everybody who held a licence or was interested in one. He thought the Amendment was probably put down by the hon. Baronet the Member for Wandsworth under a misapprehension. It was quite right that those who were interested in the licences to be taken away should be heard, but there was no reason that he could suggest to the Committee why the scheme, dealing not with individual cases of licences to be extinguished but with the reduction according to the Schedule of the Bill or the modification in the particular localities, should go to everybody who was interested in licences in the district. But after the scheme had been originally passed, then it was right that those with licences which it was proposed to extinguish should be heard. Under those circumstances he was afraid he could not accept the Amendment.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said they would never get to Clause 7 for the purposes of discussion, and therefore they would not settle finally the discussion which they had before dinner as to where they now stood. The Prime Minister, the Solicitor-General and the Front Bench opposite generally said they meant to have every kind of publicity and a fair trial or hearing for all the persons whose licences were threatened. Very well. Supposing a man's licence under the scheme was to be taken away, what was his defence? He could say: "I have a good business, and I do not think there is any reason why my licence should be taken away." But the justices would say: "Well, all you say is true, but we have to take away a certain, number of licences. The other licensees are just as well behaved as you are, and every argument you can use is used by them, and the only argu- ment before us is as to how many licences have to be taken away." This was the scheme. Why were the Government not, therefore, going to publish the scheme which would furnish the real substance of the argument that that licensee must deal with? All the licensee could say was: "You are obliged by law to deprive this district of, say, five licences, and you have chosen to include mine among the five. I only hear this for the first time to-day as you have not published the scheme. I have not had an opportunity of preparing an argument to show that if five licences are to be abolished mine should not be one of the five." Was not that a material point, and yet that was the scheme which the Government refused to publish. He was unable to understand, first, why there should be a scheme prepared by the magistrates, secondly, why that scheme should be accepted by the Licensing Commission, and, thirdly, why that scheme, being the only one on which an argument could occur before the magistrates when this hearing of which they were told so much took place, should be kept from the knowledge of those most nearly concerned.

SIR S. EVANS

said he thought he made it plain that the scheme must follow the plan of the Bill—must have the population ratio of the Schedule. With that the individual licensee had nothing whatever to do, but when it came to the selection of the houses, and to the carrying out of the scheme which had been prepared, then the licensee would have notice and a good hearing.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

thought the licensee would not have a good hearing, but granting the thesis of the hon. and learned Gentleman, ought not the licensee to have the materials in respect to which that full hearing was to be held? What argument had the "Blue Boar," or whoever the particular victim was, to bring forward? It was not to be about his good behaviour, nor as to the needs of the district, because that was settled by the House of Commons in total ignorance of those needs. It could only be settled by a consideration of the number allowed in the district and by the proof which the owner of the "Blue Boar" could bring before the magistrates that if somebody was to be victimised he was not to be the man. But he must know exactly the number to be victimised; in other words, he must know the scheme. Surely the only argument he could bring forward was: "You tell me to-day that a certain number of licences have to be suppressed, and that you have chosen mine to be one of them. In my opinion if you have got to suppress these by law, the 'Red Lion' ought to be suppressed and not the 'Blue Boar.'" But the owner of the "Blue Boar" must know the general scheme before he used that argument. How could he make his defence unless he knew the scheme? The whole argument turned on the scheme. Therefore, let them publish the scheme and allow the man affected by it to know what it was and to frame the defence which would show that the "Red Lion" and not the "Blue Boar" was the licence that had to be sacrificed in order to meet the arbitrary and Procrustean method by which the learned Gentleman proposed to proceed. He could not tell why the Government resisted the Amendment. He thought the Government wanted the Bill to be not only unjust, but obviously and practically unjust. Even the smallest modification which they ventured to suggest, which did not touch or affect any vital principle of the measure, was un-pityingly rejected. He could not understand why the Government in their own interests did not at all events attempt to soften the outlines of their picture, even though they refused to alter the main scheme. Let them make it as agreeable as they could for their unhappy victims. They were not content to do that. They were determined not merely to do that which was unjust, but to do it in a most unjust way. The very least they could do when they put these unhappy persons on their trial was to give them all the information possible in order to make their defence

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F. Balcarres, Lord Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks
Anson, Sir William Reynell Baldwin, Stanley Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Anstruther-Gray, Major Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.) Bignold, Sir Arthur
Arkwright, John Stanhope Banbury, Sir Frederick George Bowles, G. Stewart
Ashley, W. W. Banner, John S. Harmood- Bridgeman, W. Clive
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester Brotherton, Edward Allen

as complete as possible. That was a modest request, and it was absolutely refused, and the Solicitor-General had given no reason for refusing it. Indeed he said it might be granted if the magistrates liked. There was no disadvantage in granting it in the case of the magistrates or the Commission; then let them make obligatory what they admitted was not noxious, and they would at all events, have shown that this hearing should be made with all the circumstances, not merely before the magistrates, but in the possession of the man who was to be heard.

SIR HENRY KIMBER (Wandsworth)

apologised for not being in his place in time to move the Amendment, and said it would be noticed that the provisions as to the preparation of the scheme described by Clauses 6 and 7 were all to be done in caméra. No party interested was to be at liberty to appear. The justices and the Commission were to meet, he supposed, and it then became the duty of the justices to select the individual licences to be extinguished. Up to that point, and even after, the person affected was not to be heard at all. He was only to be heard if and when he applied for a renewal of the licence, which, unknown to him, perhaps, it had already been decided should be extinguished. Let them suppose he was to have a hearing on the question as to whether it was or was not to be extinguished on that occasion. Obviously the answer which the licensing justices—

And, it being half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 17th July, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 122; Noes, 300. (Division List No. 280.)

Butcher, Samuel Henry Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Hay, Hon. Claude George Remnant, James Farquharson
Carlile, E. Hildred Helmsley, Viscount Renwick, George
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Hill, Sir Clement Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Cave, George Hills, J. W. Ronaldshay, Earl of
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Houston, Robert Paterson Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Hunt, Rowland Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc. Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Salter, Arthur Clavell
Clark, George Smith Kerry, Earl of Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Clive, Percy Archer Keswick, William Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
Courthope, G. Loyd Lane-Fox, G. R. Stanier, Beville
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Starkey, John R.
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.
Craik, Sir Henry Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R. Stone, Sir Benjamin
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Doughty, Sir George Lowe, Sir Francis William Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)
Du Cros, Arthur Philip MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh Valentia, Viscount
Faber, George Denison (York) M'Calmont, Colonel James Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) Marks, H. H. (Kent) Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Fardell, Sir T. George Mason, James F. (Windsor) Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Fell, Arthur Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Whitbread, Howard
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey Mildmay, Francis Bingham Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Fletcher, J. S. Moore, William Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Forster, Henry William Morpeth, Viscount Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Gardner, Ernest Morrison-Bell, Captain Winterton, Earl
Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) Oddy, John James Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Goulding, Edward Alfred Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend Young, Samuel
Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington Younger, George
Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.) Percy, Earl
Haddock, George B. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Henry Kimber and Mr. Gretton.
Hamilton, Marquess of Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Harris, Frederick Leverton Ratcliff, Major R. F.
NOES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Bright, J. A. Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. Brooke, Stopford Duckworth, James
Agnew, George William Bryce, J. Annan Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness
Alden, Percy Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Burnyeat, W. J. D. Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward
Armitage, R. Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles Erskine, David C.
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton Byles, William Pollard Essex, R. W.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Cameron, Robert Esslemont, George Birnie
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Evans, Sir Samuel T.
Astbury, John Meir Cawley, Sir Frederick Everett, R. Lacey
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E. Chance, Frederick William Fenwick, Charles
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Channing, Sir Francis Allston Ferens, T. R.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Fiennes, Hon. Eustace
Barker, John Cleland, J. W. Findlay, Alexander
Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) Clough, William Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Clynes, J. R. Fuller, John Michael F.
Barnes, G. N. Cobbold, Felix Thornley Fullerton, Hugh
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Gibb, James (Harrow)
Beale, W. P. Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. Gill, A. H.
Beauchamp, E. Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John
Beck, A. Cecil Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Glen-Coates, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.
Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt Cory, Sir Clifford John Glover, Thomas
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford
Bennett, E. N. Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)
Berridge, T. H. D. Crooks, William Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd Crosfield, A. H. Greenwood, Hamar (York)
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Crossley, William J. Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Curran, Peter Francis Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill
Black, Arthur W. Dalziel, James Henry Gulland, John W.
Boulton, A. C. F. Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton
Bowerman, C. W. Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.
Bramsdon, T. A. Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Hall, Frederick
Branch, James Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose Masterman, C. F. G. Seaverns, J. H.
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) Menzies, Walter Seddon, J.
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Middlebrook, William Seely, Colonel
Hart-Davies, T. Molteno, Percy Alport Shackleton, David James
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Mond, A. Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. Money, L. G. Chiozza Sherwell, Arthur James
Harwood, George Montagu, Hon. E. S. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Silcock, Thomas Ball
Hedges, A. Paget Morgan J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Simon, John Allsebrook
Helme, Norval Watson Morrell, Philip Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) Murray, (Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard. Snowden, P.
Henry, Charles S. Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) Soares, Ernest J.
Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) Myer, Horatio Spicer, Sir Albert
Higham, John Sharp Napier, T. B. Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)
Hobart, Sir Robert Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.
Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Nicholls, George Steadman, W. C.
Hodge, John Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Holt, Richard Durning Norton, Capt. Cecil William Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Hooper, A. G. Nussey, Thomas Willans Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N. Nuttall, Harry Summerbell, T.
Horniman, Emslie John O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Sutherland, J. E.
Horridge, Thomas Gardner Parker, James (Halifax) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Partington, Oswald Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Hudson, Walter Paulton, James Mellor Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)
Hyde, Clarendon Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Thomasson, Franklin
Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Pearce, William (Limehouse) Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.
Jacoby, Sir James Alfred Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Jardine, Sir J. Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) Tomkinson, James
Johnson, John (Gateshead) Philips, Col. Ivor (S'thampton) Trevelayn, Charles Philips
Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Ure, Alexander
Jones, Leif (Appleby) Pickersgill, Edward Hare Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Piric, Duncan V. Walsh Stephen
Jowett, F. W. Pollard, Dr. Walton, Joseph
Kearley, Sir Hudson E. Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Kekewich, Sir George Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Wardle, George J.
Kelley, George D. Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Waring, Walter
King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan
Laidlaw, Robert Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney
Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster Radford, G. H. Waterlow, D. S.
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Rainy, A. Rolland Watt, Henry A.
Lambert, George Raphael, Herbert H. White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Lamont, Norman Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis Rendall, Athelstan White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th Whitehead, Rowland
Lehmann, R. C. Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Lever A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) Richardson, A. Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.
Levy, Sir Maurice Ridsdale, E. A. Wiles, Thomas
Lewis, John Herbert Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n
Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.) Williams Osmond (Merioneth)
Lupton, Arnold Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd Williamson, A.
Lyell, Charles Henry Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Wills, Arthur Walters
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Robinson, S. Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Mackarness, Frederic C. Roe, Sir Thomas Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Maclean, Donald Rogers, F. E. Newman Wilson, J. W. (Worchesters, H.)
Macpherson, J. T. Rose, Charles Day Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
M'Crae, Sir George Rowlands, J. Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter Winfrey, R.
M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. Wood, T. M'Kinnon
M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) Yoxall, James Henry
Mallet, Charles E. Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Markham, Arthur Basil Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.
Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston Scarisbrick, T. T. L.
Marnham, F. J. Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) Scott, A. H. (Ashton, under-Lyne
Massie, J. Sears, J. E.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Question on the Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given, and the Questions necessary to dispose of the Business to be con- cluded at half-past Ten of the clock this day.

Amendments proposed— In page 5, line 2, to leave out the words 'consultation with,' and to insert the word 'giving.'

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 302; Noes, 120. (Division List No. 281.)
AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Crosfield, A. H. Holt, Richard Durning
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. Crossley, William J. Hooper, A. G.
Agnew, George William Curran, Peter Francis Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.
Alden, Percy Dalziel, James Henry Horniman, Emslie John
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Horridge, Thomas Gardner
Armitage, R. Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Hudson, Walter
Ashton, Thomas Gair Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. Hyde, Clarendon
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Dilke Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Isaacs, Rufus Daniel
Astbury, John Meir Duckworth, James Jacoby, Sir James Alfred
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Jardine, Sir J.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)
Barker, John Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) Erskine, David C. Jones, William (Carnarvonshire
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Essex, R. W. Jowett, F. W.
Barnes, G. N. Esslemont, George Birnie Kearley, Sir Hudson E.
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) Evans, Sir Samuel T. Kekewich, Sir George
Beale, W. P. Everett, R. Lacey Kelley, George D.
Beauchamp, E. Fenwick, Charles King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Beck, A. Cecil Ferens, T. R. Laidlaw, Robert
Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. Findlay, Alexander Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Bennett, E. N. Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Lambert, George
Berridge, T. H. D. Fuller, John Michael F. Lamont Norman
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd Fullerton, Hugh Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Gibb, James (Harrow) Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Gill, A. H. Lehmann, R. C.
Black, Arthur W. Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)
Boulton, A. C. F. Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) Levy, Sir Maurice
Bowerman, C. W. Glover, Thomas Lewis, John Herbert
Bramsdon, T. A. Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Branch, James Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Bright, J. A. Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Lupton, Arnold
Brooke, Stopford Greenwood, Hamar (York) Lyell, Charles Henry
Bryce, J. Annan Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Macdonald, J. R. (Liecester)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs
Burnyeat, W. J. D. Gulland, John W. Mackarness, Frederick C.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton Maclean, Donald
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Macpherson, J. T.
Byles, William Pollard Hall, Frederick M'Crae, Sir George
Cameron, Robert Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)
Cawley, Sir Frederick Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Chance, Frederick William Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Mallet, Charles E.
Channing, Sir Francis Allston Hart- Davies, T. Markham, Arthur Basil
Cheetham, John Frederick Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. Marnham, F. J.
Cleland, J. W. Harwood, George Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)
Clough, William Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Massie, J.
Clynes, J. R. Hedges, A. Paget Masterman, C. F. G.
Cobbold, Felix Thornley Helme, Norval Watson Menzies, Walter
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Middlebrook, William
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) Molteno, Percy Alport
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd Henry, Charles S. Mond, A.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) Money, L. G. Chiozze
Cory, Sir Clifford John Higham, John Sharp Montagu, Hon. E. S.
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Hobart, Sir Robert Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tyne mouth) Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Crooks, William Hodge, John Morrell, Philip

"In page 5, line 2, after the word 'justices,' to insert the words 'an opportunity of consulting with them.'"—(Mr. Solicitor-General.)

Amendments agreed to.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.
Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard.) Robinson, S. Thorne, G. R. (Wolvehampton
Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Tomkinson, James
Myer, Horatio Roe, Sir Thomas Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Napier, T. B. Rogers, F. E. Newman Ure, Alexander
Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) Rose, Charles Day Verney, F. W.
Nicholls, George Rowlands, J. Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter Walsh, Stephen
Norton, Capt. Cecil William Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. Walton, Joseph
Nussey, Thomas Willans Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Nuttall, Harry Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Wardle, George J.
O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Waring, Walter
Parker, James (Halifax) Scarisbrick, T. T. L. Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan
Partington, Oswald Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Paulton, James Mellor Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne Waterlow, D. S.
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Sears, J. E. Watt, Henry A.
Pearce, William (Limehouse) Seaverns, J. H. White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) Seddon, J. White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) Seely, Colonel White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampt'n Shackleton, David James Whitehead, Rowland
Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Pickersgill, Edward Hare Sherwell, Arthur James Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.
Pirie, Duncan V. Shipman, Dr. John G. Wiles, Thomas
Pollard, Dr. Silcock, Thomas Ball Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Simon, John Allsebrook Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen
Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Williamson, A.
Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) Snowden, P. Wills, Arthur Walters
Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Soares, Ernest J. Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Radford, G. H. Spicer, Sir Albert Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Rainy, A. Rolland Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Raphael, Herbert H. Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' Steadman, W. C. Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Rendall, Athelstan Stewart, Halley (Greenock) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) Winfrey, R.
Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampt'n Straus, B. S. (Mile End) Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Richardson, A. Summerbell, T. Yoxall, James Henry
Ridsdale, E. A. Sutherland, J. E.
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.) Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)
Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd Thomasson, Franklin
NOES.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) Hill, Sir Clement
Anstruther-Gray, Major Courthope, G. Loyd Hills, J. W.
Arkwright, John Stanhope Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Ashley, W. W. Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Houston, Robert Paterson
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Craik, Sir Henry Hunt, Rowland
Balcarres, Lord Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Kerry, Earl of
Baldwin, Stanley Doughty, Sir George Keswick, William
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond) Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Kimber, Sir Henry
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Du Cros, Arthur Philip King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)
Banner, John S. Harmood- Faber, George Denison (York) Lane-Fox, G. R.
Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W. Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks Fardell, Sir T. George Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Fell, Arthur Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.
Bignold, Sir Arthur Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)
Bowles, G. Stewart Fletcher, J. S. Lowe, Sir Francis William
Bridgeman, W. Clive Gardner, Ernest Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Brotherton, Edward Allen Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh
Butcher, Samuel Henry Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) M'Calmont, Colonel James
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Goulding, Edward Alfred Marks, H. H. (Kent)
Carlile, B. Hildred Gretton, John Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Cave, George Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.) Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Haddock, George B. Moore, William
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Hamilton, Marquess of Morpeth, Viscount
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Harris, Frederick Leverton Morrison-Bell, Captain
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc. Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Clark, George Smith Hay, Hon. Claude George Oddy, John James
Clive, Percy Archer Helmsley, Viscount Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Percy, Earl Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) Wilson, Stanley A. (York, E. R.)
Randles, Sir John Scurrah Stanier, Beville Winterton, Earl
Ratcliffe, Major R. F. Starkey, John R. Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Remnant, James Farquharson Stone, Sir Benjamin Young, Samuel
Renwick, George Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) Younger, George
Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Ronaldshay, Earl of Valentia, Viscount TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Foster.
Rutherford, John (Lancashire) Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)
Salter, Arthur Clavell Whitbread, Howard

Clause 7:

Amendment proposed— In page 5, line 10, to leave out the words 'extinguishing the licences accordingly,' and to insert the words 'if application is made for the renewal of any such licence, by refusing to renew the licence under the powers contained in the Licensing Acts, 1828 to 1900, in accord-

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. Cawley, Sir Frederick Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.
Agnew, George William Chance, Frederick William Glover, Thomas
Alden, Percy Channing, Sir Francis Allston Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Cheetham, John Frederick Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)
Armitage, R. Cleland, J. W. Greenwood, Hamar (York)
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton Clough, William Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Ashton, Thomas Gair Clynes, J. R. Gulland, John W.
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Cobbold, Felix Thornley Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton
Astbury, John Meir Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. Hall, Frederick
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)
Barker, John Cory, Sir Clifford John Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)
Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Hart-Davies, T.
Barnes, G. N. Crooks, William Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)
Barran, Rowland Hirst Crosfield, A. H. Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) Crossley, William J. Harwood, George
Beale, W. P. Curran, Peter Francis Haslam, James (Derbyshire)
Beauchamp, E. Dalziel, James Henry Hedges, A. Paget
Beck, A. Cecil Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Helme, Norval Watson
Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)
Bennett, E. N. Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. Henry, Charles S.
Berridge, T. H. D. Duckworth, James Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Higham, John Sharp
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Hobart, Sir Robert
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Hobhouse, Charles E. H.
Black, Arthur W. Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward Hodge, John
Boulton, A. C. F. Erskine, David C. Holt, Richard Durning
Bowerman, C. W. Essex, R. W. Hooper, A. G.
Bramsdon, T. A. Esslemont, George Birnie Horniman, Emslie John
Branch, James Evans, Sir Samuel T. Horridge, Thomas Gardner
Bright, J. A. Everett, R. Lacey Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Brooke, Stopford Fenwick, Charles Hudson, Walter
Bryce, J. Annan Ferens, T. R. Hyde, Clarendon
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Issacs, Rufus Daniel
Burnyeat, W. J. D. Findlay, Alexander Jacoby, Sir James Alfred
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Jardine, Sir J.
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles Fuller, John Michael F. Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Byles, William Pollard Fullerton, Hugh Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)
Cameron, Robert Gibb, James (Harrow) Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Gill, A. H. Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

ance with the provisions of those Acts.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)

Question put, and agreed.

Question put, "That Clause 7, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 302; Noes, 120. (Division List No. 282.)

Jowett, F. W. O'Grady, J. Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Kearley, Sir Hudson K. Parker, James (Halifax) Snowden, P.
Kekewich, Sir George Partington, Oswald Soares, Ernest J.
Kelley, George D. Paulton, James Mellor Spicer, Sir Albert
King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Stanley, Albert, (Staffs, N. W.)
Laidlaw, Robert Pearce, William (Limehouse) Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) Steadman, W. C.
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Lambert, George Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton) Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Lamont, Norman Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis Pickersgill, Edward Hare Summerbell, T.
Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Pirie, Duncan V. Sutherland, J. E.
Lehmann, R. C. Pollard, Dr. Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Levy, Sir Maurice Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Lewis, John Herbert Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Thomasson, Franklin
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.
Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton
Lupton, Arnold Radford, G. H. Tomkinson, James
Lyell, Charles Henry Rainy, A. Rolland Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Raphael, Herbert H. Ure, Alexander
Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro') Verney, F. W.
Mackarness, Frederic C. Rendall, Athelstan Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Maclean, Donald Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th Walsh, Stephen
Macpherson, J. T. Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n Walton, Joseph
M'Crae, Sir George Richardson, A. Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Ridsdale, E. A. Wardle, George J.
M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Waring, Walter
M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan
Mallet, Charles E. Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Markham, Arthur Basil Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd Waterlow, D. S.
Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Watt, Henry A.
Marnham, F. J. Robinson, S. White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Massie, J. Roe, Sir Thomas White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Masterman, C. F. G. Rogers, F. E. Newman Whitehead, Rowland
Menzies, Walter Rose, Charles Day Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Middlebrook, William Rowlands, J. Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.
Molteno, Percy Alport Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter Wiles, Thomas
Mond, A. Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Money, L. G. Chiozza Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen
Montagu, Hon. E. S. Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Williamson, A.
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Scarisbrick, T. T. L. Wills, Arthur Walters
Morrell, Philip Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard) Sears, J. E. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) Seaverns, J. H. Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)
Myer, Horatio Seddon, J. Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Napier, T. B. Seely, Colonel Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) Shackleton, David James Winfrey, R.
Nicholls, George Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r Sherwell, Arthur James Yoxall, James Henry
Norton, Capt. Cecil William Shipman, Dr. John G.
Nussey, Thomas Willans Silcock, Thomas Ball TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.
Nuttall, Harry Simon, John Allsebrook
O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
NOES.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Bignold, Sir Arthur Clark, George Smith
Anstruther-Gray, Major Bowles, G. Stewart Clive, Percy Archer
Arkwright, John Stanhope Bridgeman, W. Clive Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)
Ashley, W. W. Brotherton, Edward Allen Courthope, G. Loyd
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Butcher, Samuel Henry Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.
Balcarres, Lord Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)
Baldwin, Stanley Carlile, E. Hildred Craik, Sir Henry
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond) Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Cave, George Doughty, Sir George
Banner, John S. Harmood- Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Du Cros, Arthur Philip
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Faber, George Denison (York)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)
Far dell, Sir T. George Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Fell, Arthur Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R. Salter, Arthur Clavell
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Fletcher, J. S. Lowe, Sir Francis William Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Gardner, Ernest Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh Stanier, Beville
Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) M'Calmont, Colonel James Starkey, John R.
Goulding, Edward Alfred Marks, H. H. (Kent) Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
Gretton, John Mason, James F. (Windsor) Stone, Sir Benjamin
Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston) Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.) Mildmay, Francis Bingham Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)
Haddock, George B. Moore, William Valentia, Viscount
Hamilton, Marquess of Morpeth, Viscount Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Harris, Frederick Leverton Morrison-Bell, Captain Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Hay, Hon. Claude George Oddy, John James Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Helmsley, Viscount Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Hill, Sir Clement Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Hills, J. W. Percy, Earl Winterton, Earl
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Houston, Robert Paterson Randles, Sir John Scurrah Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Hunt, Rowland Ratcliff, Major R. F. Young, Samuel
Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel Younger, George
Kerry, Earl of Remnant, James Farquharson
Keswick, William Renwick, George TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Forster.
Kimber, Sir Henry Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) Ronaldshay, Earl of
Lane-Fox, G. R. Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Clause 8:

Amendment proposed— In page 5, line 22, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'after considering any representations made with respect to the matter by persons appearing to the Commission to be interested.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 5, line 23, at end, to insert the words 'but where an old on-licence is so declared

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Beauchamp, E. Cameron, Robert
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. Beck, A. Cecil Carr-Gomm, H. W.
Agnew, George William Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight
Alden, Percy Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. Cawley, Sir Frederick
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Berridge, T. H. D. Chance, Frederick William
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'd) Channing, Sir Francis Allston
Armitage, R. Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Cheetham, John Frederick
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton Black, Arthur W. Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Boulton, A. C. F. Cleland, J. W.
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Bowerman, C. W. Clough, William
Astbury, John Meir Bramsdon, T. A. Clynes, J. R.
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) Branch, James Cobbold, Felix Thornley
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Bright, J. A. Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Brooke, Stopford Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.
Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) Bryce, J. Annan Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.
Barnes, G. N. Burnyeat, W. J. D. Cory, Sir Clifford John
Barran, Rowland Hirst Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Cotton, Sir H. J. S.
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)
Beale, W. P. Byles, William Pollard Crooks, William

invalid, the provisions of this Act relating to the payment of compensation shall have effect as if the renewal of the licence had been refused by the licensing justices.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)

Question put, and agreed to.

Question put, "That Clause 8, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 297; Noes, 119. (Division List No. 283.)

Crosfield, A. H. Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)
Crossley, William J. Jones, Leif (Appleby) Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Curran, Peter Francis Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.) Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Dalziel, James Henry Jowett, F. W. Pirie, Duncan V.
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Kearley, Sir Hudson E. Pollard, Dr.
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) Kekewich, Sir George Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Kelly, George D. Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Duckworth, James Laidlaw, Robert Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) Radford, G. H.
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Rainy, A. Rolland
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Lambert, George Raphael, Herbert H.
Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward Lamont, Norman Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')
Erskine, David C. Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis Rendall, Athelstan
Essex, R. W. Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)
Esslemont, George Birnie Lehmann, R. C. Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n
Evans, Sir Samuel T. Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich Richardson, A.
Everett, R. Lacey Levy, Sir Maurice Ridsdale, E. A.
Fenwick, Charles Lewis, John Herbert Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Ferens, T. R. Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)
Findlay, Alexander Lupton, Arnold Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Brad'rd
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Lyell, Charles Henry Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Fuller, John Michael F. Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Robinson, S.
Fullerton, Hugh Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs) Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Gibb, James (Harrow) Mackarness, Frederic C. Roe, Sir Thomas
Gill, A. H. Maclean, Donald Rogers, F. E. Newman
Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) Macpherson, J. T. Rose, Charles Day
Glover, Thomas M'Crae, Sir George Rowlands, J.
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Greenwood, Hamar (York) Mallet, Charles E. Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Markham, Arthur Basil Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Gulland, John W. Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) Scarisbrick, T. T. L.
Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton Marnhara, F. J. Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne
Hall, Frederick Massie, J. Sears, J. E.
Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale Masterman, C. F. G. Severns, J. H.
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Menzies, Walter Seddon, J.
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) Middlebrook, William Seely, Colonel
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Molteno, Percy Alport Shackleton, David James
Hart-Davies, T. Mond, A. Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Money, L. G. Chiozza Sherwell, Arthur James
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. Montagu, Hon. E. S. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Harwood, George Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Silcock, Thomas Ball
Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen Simon, John Allsebrook
Hedges, A. Paget Morrell, Philip Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Helme, Norval Watson Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard. Snowden, P.
Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) Soares, Ernest J.
Henry, Charles S. Myer, Horatio Spicer, Sir Albert
Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) Napier, T. B. Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)
Higham, John Sharp Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Hobart, Sir Robert Nicholls, George Steadman, W. C.
Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Hodge, John Norton, Capt. Cecil William Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Holt, Richard Durning Nussey, Thomas Willans Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Hooper, A. G. Nuttall, Harry Summerbell, T.
Horniman, Emslie John O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Sutherland, J. E.
Horridge, Thomas Gardner O'Grady, J. Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Parker, James (Halifax) Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Hudson, Walter Partington, Oswald Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)
Hyde, Clarendon Paulton, James Mellor Thomasson, Franklin
Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.
Jacoby, Sir James Alfred Pearce, William (Limehouse) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Jardine, Sir J. Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester Tomkinson, James
Johnson, John (Gateshead) Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Ure, Alexander White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Verney, F. W. White, Luke (York, E. R.) Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) Whitehead, Rowland Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Walsh, Stephen Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Walton, Joseph Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P. Winfrey, R.
Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) Wiles, Thomas Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Wardle, George J. Williams, J. (Glamorgan) Yoxall, James Henry
Waring, Walter Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n
Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.
Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) Williamson, A.
Waterlow, D. S. Wills, Arthur Walters
Watt, Henry A. Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
White, Sir George (Norfolk) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
NOES.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Fletcher, J. S. Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend
Anstruther-Gray, Major Gardner, Ernest Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Arkwright, John Stanhope Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Percy, Earl
Ashley, W. W. Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Goulding, Edward Alfred Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Balcarres, Lord Gretton, John Ratcliffe, Major R. F.
Baldwin, Stanley Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.) Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.) Remnant, James Farquharson
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Haddock, George B. Renwick, George
Banner, John S. Harmood- Hamilton, Marquess of Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester Harris, Frederick Leverton Ronaldshay, Earl of
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Hay, Hon. Claude George Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Bowles, G. Stewart Helmsley, Viscount Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Bridgeman, W. Clive Hill, Sir Clement Salter, Arthur Clavell
Brotherton, Edward Allen Hills, J. W. Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Butcher, Samuel Henry Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Houston, Robert Paterson Stanier, Beville
Carlile, E. Hildred Hunt, Rowland Starkey, John R.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
Cave, George Kerry, Earl of Stone, Sir Benjamin
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Keswick, William Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Kimber, Sir Henry Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) Thornton, Percy M.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc. Lane-Fox, G. R. Valentia, Viscount
Clark, George Smith Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Clive, Percy Archer Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R. Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Courthope, G. Loyd Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. Lowe, Sir Francis William Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Craik, Sir Henry MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh Winterton, Earl
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon M'Calmout, Colonel James Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart,
Doughty, Sir George Marks, H. H. (Kent) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Mason, James F. (Windsor) Young, Samuel
Du Cros, Arthur Philip Mildmay, Francis Bingham Younger, George
Faber, George Denison (York) Moore, William
Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) Morpeth, Viscount TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Fardell, Sir T. George Morrison-Bell, Captain Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Forster.
Fell, Arthur Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey Oddy, John James

And, it being after Eleven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 31st July, adjourned the House without Question put.

Adjourned at Sixteen minutes after Eleven o'clock.