§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
§ Clause 14:
*MR. G. D. FABER, in moving to omit subsection (1), said the particular objection he took to the clause was that neither the chairman nor the two other Commissioners were required at all, and that it was wilfully imposing upon the already much overburdened resources of this country a serious sum of money to effect no useful object. To show that that criticism was well warranted he only had to turn 525 to the Act passed in 1904, under which the compensation fund was set up and the extinction of licences was provided for, and the cost of the working of that Act was not one farthing to the country. The licensing justices and Quarter Sessions did the work of that Act.
*THE CHAIRMANIf the hon. Member is moving to omit subsection (1), I do not see that his observations have any connection with the subsection, which merely states that the Licensing Commission shall consist of so-and-so.
*MR. G. D. FABERsaid he was arguing that no Commission was required. Unless the Act of 1904 had been ruthlessly upset there would be no necessity for any Commissioners.
*THE CHAIRMANThat, again, is not in order. We have already got the Licensing Commission in the Bill. All this does is to say it shall consist of so-and-so.
*MR. G. D. FABERThe appointment of these Commissioners and the salaries to be paid to them, in view of all the circumstances of the case—
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (Worcestershire, E.)called attention to the description of the clauses printed on the margin of the Bill. Clause 12, where the Licensing Commission was previously mentioned, came under the heading "Financial Provision," and was entitled "Payment of Compensation by Licensing Commissioners," and that was the subject which was debated on that clause. They could not, and did not, debate on it the real question of whether a Licensing Commission was required at all. He submitted that this was the first place where they really had an opportunity of discussing the question whether a Licensing Commission was required.
*THE CHAIRMANThe Licensing Commission is mentioned in many clauses already. There must be a Licensing Commission. We are dealing only with 526 subsection (1). It is not a question whether the clause stand part. It is a question of whom the Licensing Commission shall consist.
§ MR. BONAR LAW (Camberwell, Dulwich)May I press the point further? This is the first opportunity we have had of discussing whether or not a Commission is necessary. The fact that certain things are to be done by a Commission has been mentioned incidentally, but this is the first time that the question whether or not a Commission is necessary has been or could have been raised.
§ *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL, Yorkshire, Cleveland)Is it not the case that yesterday on Clause 12 we discussed very fully the necessity of having a Licensing Commission as a consequence of the arrangement made for the statutory reduction in Clause 1? The Leader of the Opposition and I, among others, referred to it also.
*THE CHAIRMANIf hon. Members desire to discuss the question whether there shall be a Licensing Commission or not they must do it having regard to what is already in the Bill. I called the hon. Member to order because he was transgressing in that respect.
*MR. G. D. FABERsaid he cheerfully accepted the Chairman's ruling, though it would lessen the number of his observations. Objecting as he did to the Commissioners altogether, he could only say that if there had to be any Commissioners he would minimise the evil and have as few as possible.
§ MR. BONAR LAWsaid that if the Chairman had finally settled it he would not say any more, but he would like to submit that it seemed to them that his ruling ought to be reconsidered. As he understood it it amounted to this, that the fact that the Licensing Commission had been incidentally mentioned previously in the Bill prevented their discussing a clause which was specially headed "Appointment of Licensing Commission." It would be a very strong measure to prevent the whole subject of 527 whether or not a Commission was necessary being raised under the clause, and if it was to be raised under the clause, the natural way to do it was on this subsection which was the only one specially appointing the Commission.
§ SIR S. EVANSsubmitted that the clauses which had already dealt with the Commission had dealt with it not incidentally but had actually imposed heavy duties on it—Clauses 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 12 and 13. The only question was the constitution of the body and the fact of its being appointed by His Majesty.
§ SIR F. BANBURYasked if the whole question could not be raised on the Motion "That Clause 14 stand part of the Bill."
*THE CHAIRMANThat is my ruling. With regard to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich I think my ruling has been misunderstood. I cannot shut my eyes to what is in the Bill, and subsection (1) deals only with the composition of the Licensing Commission. "We must have regard to what is already in the Bill.
§ MR. BONAR LAWsaid that as a discussion would be permitted on the clause he did not press the point.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he did not altogether agree with the view put forward by his hon. friend behind him. If there was to be a Commission of this kind entrusted with powers so vast, whether regarded from the point of view of the public generally or of the individual whose interests were materially involved, he would be very sorry to see the Commission composed of a single dictator. Much as he deprecated the appointment of three Commissioners he would still more deprecate the appointment of a single person to exercise all this power. Who were these three Commissioners to be? Most extensive and unheard of powers had been conferred upon them. The licensing justices in every area were subject to their control and approval, and every scheme adopted came under the review of this body and had to satisfy them before it could be put into force. If 528 the Commissioners did not approve of a scheme they could send it back to the magistrates for revision, and if the magistrates were in default then the Commissioners could prepare their own scheme. The licensing justices were quite an unnecessary wheel in the Government coach. These Commissioners had powers of practically unlimited taxation upon a certain class of the community. It was rather a large order for the House of Commons to part with its taxation power to a Commission of three, but to ask them to part with it in favour of an unknown Commission, of whose qualifications they knew nothing, was asking them to go a great deal too far. The time had arrived when the Committee ought to be taken into the confidence of the Government, and they should be informed who the Commissioners were to be. He could cite eloquent appeals made by hon. Members opposite when in opposition, urging the Government to disclose the names of the gentlemen who were to constitute certain Commissions. They had a right before parting with this subsection to know who the three gentlemen were to whom these enormous powers were going to be given.
§ SIR S. EVANSsaid it was not advisable to restrict the number of the Commissioners to one, and on this point he welcomed the support of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire. The Commissioners would have to give their consent to new licences, they had power to modify schemes to control the reduction of licences in Wales beyond the statutory reduction, to deal with optional reduction, and many other subsidiary powers. Those were very extensive powers, and he only mentioned them to show that one could not possibly do the work. He did not think it was the practice where Commissioners were appointed—it certainly was not the invariable practice—to name the Commissioners. Where they had been named it was not the rule but the exception. In the case of the University Commissioners for Ireland the names were not inserted or mentioned until the Bill had gone to another place. He was not in a position to state the names in this case, and he 529 did not know that anybody else was. No doubt the Prime Minister would take into consideration the appeals which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman, and, if during the subsequent stages of the Bill it was thought to be in the public interest that the names of the Commissioners should be disclosed, no doubt they would be given to the Committee. Meantime he urged the Committee to adhere to the usual practice.
§ MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.)said that in the case of the precedent quoted by the Solicitor-General an assurance was given that the names of the Commissioners would be given before Parliament parted with the Bill. In the case of the Local Government Bill of 1888 not only were the names inserted, but he was inclined to think that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite took an extremely active part in impressing upon the Government that it would be a monstrous thing to appoint Commissioners without letting Parliament know who they were. He thought the Solicitor-General had, with his usual courtesy, tried to meet them. They had not, however, received any promise that the names would be disclosed, and yet they were asked to part with this subsection merely with an assurance that the matter would be brought to the notice of the Prime Minister. He thought that was most unsatisfactory. One of the reasons why it had been held that a Cabinet Minister ought always to be present on the Treasury Bench was in order that when a definite question of this kind was put a statement could be made on behalf of the Government. This was not a question of trusting the Government or accepting the assurances of the Solicitor-General. They were prepared to trust the Government—within very narrow limits—and they accepted the Solicitor-General's assurance because they knew he would carry it out in the letter and in the spirit. It was not a question of the good faith of the Solicitor-General. Apart from this subsection the Committee would probably never have an opportunity of debating the question again until the Report stage, and they would not be able to elicit any further information. 530 His right hon. friend the Member for East Worcestershire had pointed out that this Commission was to be placed in an extraordinary position. It would be able to override local opinion and the local authority, and to dominate practically the whole of the country in regard to licences. If the Solicitor-General was unable to give the names now, he should be in a position to state when they would be given.
§ *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.)said the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly reasonable. It had been the practice on the Report stage of a Bill to give the names. He could assure hon. Members that the names would be given before the Bill left the House.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid he did not believe that three Commissioners would be sufficient for the work to be placed upon them. The Solicitor-General had stated that in his opinion three was the right number. He himself admitted quite frankly that he did not believe in any very large body. He believed that the smaller the body the better the deliberations, but when they were putting into the hands of the Commission these enormous powers the number should be larger. It should be remembered that the three Commissioners would not be always able to be present. If one of the Commissioners was absent through illness, two would have to go on with the business. He thought that too few. The Commission should have consisted of a chairman, a deputy-chairman, and two Commissioners. In that way they would have had a better tribunal, and one which would have more commanded the confidence of the people. The Solicitor-General had said that he would report to the Prime Minister the request which had been made, and he did not question the courtesy of the hon. and learned Gentleman. If when the hon. and learned Gentleman was in opposition, the Solicitor-General of the day had said he would report to the Prime Minister what would he have done? The Prime Minister was not in the House yesterday, and he was not present now, though this was the right hon. Gentleman's Bill. One 531 of the greatest attacks made on the Leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister was that he was not in the House when he ought to have been there. They were deprived of the presence of the Prime Minister in these debates because he was away attending bazaars and other places of amusement, and that placed the Committee at a great disadvantage. In similar circumstances the Solicitor-General when in opposition would have moved the adjournment of the debate. He asked the hon. and learned Gentleman to request the Prime Minister to be present occasionally at the debates.
§ MR. LANE-FOX (Yorkshire, W.R., Barkston Ash)said he would not have risen but for the remark of the Solicitor-General that there had been no opinion expressed on tint side of the House that the number of Commissioners ought to be increased. He did not know the Government estimate of the work to be done by the Commissioners. The Committee had now heard what they were to do, and he believed that if three archangels from Heaven were appointed they would not be able to get through the work satisfactorily. They had to consider the schemes, and that would involve an immense amount of work. The Commissioners, he supposed, would sit in London. If anyone wished to appeal to them, would he have to come up to London? Were trains to be filled with deputations?
§ MR. LANE-FOXsaid it was absolutely impossible for three men to do the work which was to be placed upon them, and the Government would inevitably have to increase the size of the Commission. If the Commissioners were to sit in London, people from far and near would have to come up to London, and there would be a great deal of absolutely unnecessary expense involved. He hoped for these reasons the Government would not say that there was no opinion on that side that the Commission was not exactly the size it should be.
§ MR. GOULDING (Worcester)said the Government had shown consideration for the views expressed on that side by promising to give the names of the Commissioners. He thought three Commissioners would be inadequate. In view of the numerous duties of a far-reaching character which they were to be asked to perform it would be impossible for three Commissioners to do the work satisfactorily. It was proposed that any two gentlemen could proceed with business in the case of the illness of the third. The Commissioners would have to deal with such questions as local veto in Wales, whether the justices were overriding the needs of particular localities, whether schemes were applicable or not, and such work would require that they, if they were to carry the country with them in their decisions, should personally visit the spot and make themselves acquainted with the circumstances of the place. Those who had listened to the debates knew that there was extreme diversity of opinion as to what were the requirements of particular districts. In one case the Commissioners would require to put in the knife severely, while in other cases it would be unwise for them to use the knife at all. Did the Solicitor-General suppose that the Commissioners sitting in London could make themselves adequately acquainted with the conditions in the different localities without visiting them and knowing all the circumstances? How could the Commissioners become conversant with the local requirements unless a sufficient number of them were let loose from headquarters to visit the localities? The duties were far too responsible to be delegated to any individual whose appointment was not sanctioned by Parliament where the manner in which the duties were performed could be brought up for discussion. The Water Board was a mere pigmy undertaking compared with the Licensing Commission. Before the Water Board got to work practically all the details of the purchase had been settled in the Committee-room. In this case the Commission would have to deal with considerable differences of opinion as to the needs of localities. They would have to consider the views put forward by prohibitionists, and on the 533 other hand by people who wished to get reasonable refreshment in their localities. It was absolutely farcical to say that justice would be got unless the Commissioners were multiplied considerably. He was not one of those who wished to make additions to permanent officials, but there were cases in which one had to waive his opinions in the interest of justice. When questions in connection with the taking of other people's property were involved there should be no cheeseparing. If the Government did not wish at the beginning of this work to raise a storm, they should show that they were going to meet the susceptibilities of localities by providing a sufficient number of Commissioners.
§ MR. G. A. HARDY (Suffolk, Stowmarket)asked whether it would be possible to appoint a brewer as one of the Commissioners. That was a question which had been asked outside the House. Whether such action would be wise was a matter on which there would naturally be difference of opinion, but there seemed to be a feeling in some quarters that they should not, if he might use the term, spot bar people interested in the trade from being Commissioners.
§ MR. H. H. MARKS (Kent, Thanet)trusted that the Committee would bear in mind for a moment the extent of the burden and responsibility that was to devolve upon the Commissioners. Their duty was not to prepare schemes in the first instance, but to receive schemes and pass their judgment upon them, to revise them if they required to be revised, and in addition to prepare schemes where the justices failed to prepare them. In other words the Commissioners were practically to supersede the justices throughout the country. The three gentlemen proposed in this section of the clause were to take upon themselves the work now discharged by between 8,000 and 10,000 justices from one end of the country to the other. Making all allowances for the difference in value between amateur and casual labour on the one hand, and professional, skilled, and highly paid labour on the other, he ventured to think that these three gentlemen would have their hands more than full. In addition to revising and preparing 534 schemes they would have to deal with the compensation fund now dealt with by the Quarter Sessions throughout the country. And it had to be borne in mind that in connection with the schemes as well as the administration of the compensation fund it would frequently be impossible for them to be in London. They would be ignorant of local conditions, which counted for a good deal in these matters; they would have to go great distances from London neglecting interests here while looking after interests elsewhere. Nothing had been advanced from the other side which met the objection that these Commissioners in numbers—they had yet to speak of their qualifications—would not be in any sense competent to discharge the very important work that would devolve upon them.
§ MR. JAMES HOPEasked whether the names of the Commissioners would be put in the Bill on Report or merely be announced at the beginning of the Report stage through the ordinary channels.
§ *MR. GLADSTONEsaid they would be announced before the end of Report stage.
§ *MR. REMNANT (Finsbury, Holborn)said that on the previous day an Amendment was moved from those benches that all schemes should be submitted to the Commission, and he did not see how they could go back from that on which they had divided, and argue that all the new schemes should not be submitted to this Commission. That would entail an enormous amount of work upon the Commission—work which would require not only great skill but adequate local knowledge—and that could not be acquired by three gentlemen sitting in London. It would involve their going to the different localities, to examine them for themselves, and see on the spot the conditions that prevailed. Even if the Government would not make a permanent increase of the Commission, he appealed to them that for the first two or three years they should allow an extra Commissioner to be appointed. Three, with the possibility of one, if not two, being ill, was an 535 inadequate number in the first instance. He hoped that the Government would see that the present provision was deficient and that they would prevent as far as they could any possibility of a breakdown when the Bill was brought into operation. In 1904 the present Government then in opposition met the proposal of the then Government to refer these questions to Quarter Sessions, by saying that Quarter Sessions were not in as close touch with local conditions as the local justices. How then could they now say that the proposed Commissioners would have the knowledge indispensable in dealing with licensing questions unless they went down to the localities? Much had been said about the anxiety with which the hon. and learned Gentleman had met the proposals made from the Opposition side of the House. He had accepted one Amendment—subject to approval afterwards. He appealed to him to accept a second Amendment and to increase the number of the Commissioners.
§ EARL WINTERTONsaid he did not quite understand whether the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield gave an actual undertaking that the names of the Commissioners would be published before the Report stage.
§ MR. GLADSTONEYes.
§ EARL WINTERTONhoped that due care would be taken in the selection of these gentlemen, for after the constant jeers and slurs that they had heard from the other side against the licensed trade and brewers and publicans, they must not suppose that the Government would appoint fanatical teetotallers without serious objection from that side of the House. He hoped the Government would avoid future trouble by being very careful in selecting the Licensing Commissioners.
§ SIR S. EVANSsaid he was satisfied of the genuineness of the desire of hon. Gentlemen opposite to increase the number of the Commissioners immediately they found that their remuneration was not to come out of the compensation fund but out of the Imperial Treasury. The duties devolving on the Commission 536 were very important, but nevertheless he thought they would be duties the Commissioners would be able to perform with the assistance they would have, because they would have power with the approval of the Secretary of State to appoint or employ such number of officers and assistants as they might think necessary for the purpose. They would be the supreme authority. Let him give some instances of how that worked out in our constitution. The work they would have to do would be nothing like the work which devolved upon his right hon. friend the Home Secretary or the President of the Local Government Board. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had been at the head of the Local Government Board. He did not know whether the Archbishop of Canterbury had been a member of that Board or merely a member of the Board of Trade. Everybody knew that the head of the Department was the person ultimately responsible. What would follow was that such assistance as the Commissioners required would be given by the officers appointed with the approval of the Secretary of State. He had no doubt that the work would be satisfactorily done. The hon. Member for Holborn had asked him to accept an Amendment. He would be prepared to accept any reasonable Amendment, but there was no Amendment at all before the Committee to increase the number of Commissioners. He, however, could not accept any Amendment which would alter the number they had put in the Bill. He would be very sorry to take away the extreme pleasure which hon. Gentlemen opposite felt in referring to the Commission as the "trio."
§ MR. WALTER LONGsaid that the Solicitor-General was generally so courteous that it went against their hearts to criticise his speeches. But the hon. and learned Gentleman must have been thinking of something else when making the speech to which they had just listened. He took as illustrations Government Departments, and he brought in the Archbishop of Canterbury; but the Archbishop could only sit in Council with the other members of the Board of Trade. The illustration bore no parallel whatever to the Licensing Commission. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted 537 an analogy he would find it in the Land Commissioners under the Irish Land Act. That was the nearest approach that he could find to the proposal in the Bill. He challenged contradiction—he did not care from what quarter of the House, whether from the Irish Nationalist Party or the Unionist Party—when he said that everybody who knew anything of the administration of the Irish Land Act would admit that nine-tenths of the trouble that arose was due to the action not of the Land Commission itself but of the Assistant Commissioners. They were accused of being now on the side of the landlords and now on that of the tenants, and that led to an immense amount of trouble to the Chief Secretary, because it was always held that the Assistant Commissioners were not fit for their work. The Solicitor-General had let the cat out of the bag in saying that these Licensing Commissioners were to have power to appoint assistants. That was the evil of the whole thing. The Government pretended to give Parliamentary control over the Commissioners; they pretended that they were going to disclose to Parliament who the people would be who would discharge the onerous duties that would fall upon the Commission. But the work would be far too heavy for them, and they would have to appoint sub-commissioners to do the work. What happened in other public Departments? Inspectors were appointed to make inquiries, and on their recommendations the Department acted. The head of the Department only reserved to himself a general discretion of accepting or rejecting the recommendations. But the Licensing Commission was going to appoint inspectors over the heads of Petty Sessions and Quarter Sessions, presumably in direct opposition to the wishes of the locality, for the Commission would have the right to make reductions of licences even although the localities had expressed the opinion that no such reductions were necessary. And how was that to be done? The Assistant Commissioners must make their report to the Commissioners, of whom the Committee at present knew nothing. He objected to the whole thing. He objected to the Commission, which he thought was a scandalous waste of public 538 money, because they could get all they wanted, and were getting all they wanted, under the Act of 1904 without any expenditure of public money at all. As he had said before, if the Government of the day were going to impose duties of a very responsible character upon individuals, they ought to see that they had a sufficient number of men to do the work and pay salaries which would secure the best men. The number of the Commissioners was insufficient for the work to be done, and the emolument was insufficient to secure the quality of men they ought to have. He thought the members of the Commission should be much higher in degree, and ought to be paid a much higher salary, in order that those who had to perform those duties should be the best class of men whom they could get for fourteen years. Nobody pretended they could get the best class of men for the salary which they were going to give. They were to have three Commissioners, but he wondered if the Government had gone through the country in divisions in order to see what the duties of these three men would be, which they should be able to discharge with fairness to everybody. It would, in his judgment, be impossible for them to do the work. A disclosure was made by the Solicitor-General that the work would be done by subordinates. [Cries of "No."] Then the hon. and learned Gentleman's whole speech fell to the ground if he did not mean that the work was to be done by subordinates, as it was under the Local Government Board, subject to the President. If he did not mean that, he meant nothing. His only analogy, or the nearest analogy he could get, was the Irish Land Commission, but he would find no consolation in any investigation he made into their work. He was not satisfied with the Commission, either in regard to its numbers or its constitution, and if the hon. Member divided against the subsection he should support him, because he believed that it was part of an unnecessary and unjust Bill. Moreover, the Government, in carrying on their policy, had been niggardly, and had placed an unduly heavy burden on the shoulders of these Commissioners, to whom they were not going to pay sufficient salaries. The 539 consequence was that this work, affecting the rights of thousands of people in this country, was not likely to be carried out with the fairness and justice with which it ought to be performed.
§ *MR. COURTHOPE (Sussex, Rye)asked whether the hon. and learned Solicitor-General or any other Member of the Government had considered the amount of initial work which these Commissioners would have to perform, because he imagined everyone would agree that there was one thing that could not be left to inspectors or subordinates, but which must be done, if it was to be done properly, by the Commissioners, viz., the consideration of the schemes for reduction from the different districts. The Commissioners would have to consider 993 schemes at the very beginning, and he wished to know how three men could get through that amount of work. It was essential that all these schemes should be properly considered and dealt with in the greatest detail, and the point which made it particularly important that the schemes should not be rushed through was the fact that there was no appeal. It was of the utmost importance that full consideration should be given to each scheme. If there was an appeal it would not matter so much, but as it was, it was imperative that the matter should not be hurried. He did not know how long the Commissioners might take for the initial consideration of these schemes, but if they gave them a whole year—and probably they would have to complete the initial work in a much shorter period—and assuming that they would have 250 working days, these three men would have to get through four schemes a day in order to get through all of them in a year. It was quite impossible that this work could be done, having regard to the magnitude of many of these schemes. There would be great boroughs submitting intricate schemes, any one of which would require days of consideration if the details were to be taken into account and a proper decision come to by the Commission. He hoped that the Home Secretary, whom he could not help thinking was more inclined to take these matters into serious account than some of his colleagues—he said it without wishing 540 to give any offence to anyone, but some of these questions were dismissed very light-heartedly by some of the hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench—might be able to hold out some hope that this Commission would be set up in such a way that they would be able to give due consideration to these 993 schemes. He trusted that there would be a sufficient number of Commissioners to allow for a quorum, so as to take into account the inevitable breaking down of health which this amount of work would bring upon them, and that all the necessary steps would be taken to secure the due performance of their onerous duties.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had remarked that he would leave his hon. friend who advocated four or five Commissioners instead of three, to deal with him as the apostle of economy. He was quite willing to accept the challenge of the hon. and learned Member, and if he would leave him to deal with it, he would convince his hon. friend that the Bill could be more economically carried on by five Commissioners than by the number named in it. With four or five Commissioners they would not want to have so many Assistant Commissioners, and with an increased number they would not only obtain increased efficiency, but save money. The hon. and learned Gentleman thus quite captiously, of course, taunted him with advocating increased expenditure, which was a thing he never did unless he thought they obtained increased efficiency. Under this extra expenditure he thought they would not only get increased expense, but increased efficiency.
§ *MR. BARNARDthought it would be very much better if there were five Commissioners, rather than to employ subordinates. The Solicitor-General, in hastily going over the duties of the Commission, had he thought, passed over one which was to his mind perhaps the most important. There were, as the hon. Member had said, about 1,000 licensing districts, and undoubtedly there would be different views in the various districts, and on the different benches, taken of the modifications which, for good reasons or bad, they might think desirable 541 to put forward, in the cases of places where there were a large number of visitors from time to time, and it was contemplated that they should not act upon the scale laid down in the Act. It was highly important that questions of that sort, which touched the root principle of the Bill, should be dealt with by the Commissioners themselves and not by subordinates. He personally thought that the Government might very well take into consideration the question of appointing five, as the proposal did not in any way attack the principle of their scheme, or the frame-work of their measure. The Bill would be much more satisfactory if the Amendment were adopted, for the reason among many others which he had mentioned.
§ VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHthought there was great substance in the reasons which had been urged as to the desirability of appointing five Commissioners instead of three. It was obvious that under the Bill the work which would devolve upon these three Commissioners was of so onerous a character, that it was quite impossible that it could be carried out in an efficient or satisfactory manner with the present number. They had heard some vague allusions to sub-commissioners, but what sort of responsibility would they hold? Would their responsibility be that of the Chairman and two Commissioners, or would the sub-commissioners be on exactly the same position as to responsibility as those who were looked upon as being superior in position to themselves? He objected to the whole system of the Licensing Commission, as he thought they were setting up an entirely undemocratic body. The Commission appeared to be responsible to no one, and the nearest analogy to it that he could think of was the Star Chamber. He hoped that the number of the members of this Commission would be increased, and an attempt made to establish it on a more democratic basis.
§ MR. GLADSTONEsaid he rose to answer the appeal made to him by the hon. Member for Rye who seemed under some misapprehension that his colleagues did not take a serious view of this matter, but he was quite certain that 542 they did. Of course, the Government had considered the question of whether the Commissioners would be competent to perform the work put upon them by the Bill, and he would point out that this was not really so formidable as it seemed. The hon. Member said that there were 993 schemes which would have to be prepared and examined by the Licensing Commission. That was true, but the chief work fell upon the licensing district and upon the licensing justices. They would have to consider in detail the proposals, and then they would in due course forward their schemes to the Commission. With regard, he ventured to say, to a large proportion of these schemes, the work of the Commission would be exceedingly light, as there was no reason to think that the commonsense of the local justices would not suffice for the submission of a scheme which was practical and of a commonsense nature. Therefore, a large number of these schemes would, in fact, give the Commission no difficulty at all. He agreed that certain schemes from the great boroughs and the big licensing districts would involve a large amount of work, but the House must remember that after all the detailed work, so to speak, with regard to all these schemes would be done locally, and so in fact the schemes would come to the Licensing Commission much in the same way as schemes and proposals came forward every day to the heads of big Government Departments, having been thoroughly sifted for final review and settlement. He thought hon. Members must realise how essential it must be for the local licensing justices to do all they could, and what a simple matter it would be for the Licensing Commission to survey a large number of these schemes. It seemed to him that the work of the Commission would not be nearly so arduous as the hon. Member thought.
§ MR. BONAR LAWthought the right hon. Gentleman had made an elementary error as to the work that had to be done. The Commissioners had to see that the provisions of the Bill were carried out. It was quite true that the preparation of the scheme lay first of all with the licensing authority, but the Commissioners had the power of over-riding the 543 recommendations of the local authority. The original plans might be got from the licensing authorities, but the Commissioners who were responsible would themselves have to see that those plans were properly carried out, and to do that would have to make investigations to see if the schemes were satisfactory to themselves. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman had shown that he had not realised in the least the magnitude of the work that had to be done, which was another proof, of which there had been many, that the Government had not troubled themselves very much about this Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked why it was the Inland Revenue Commissioners would not accept fourteen years purchase as a reasonable basis upon which to work. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman amounted to this: that the Inland Revenue would not take that basis because they did not think it was fair. The truth was they would not take it because they did not think there was a ghost of a chance of this Bill's ever becoming law.
§ *MR. TALBOT (Oxford University)agreed that this was not so easy a matter as the Home Secretary seemed to imagine. His many years experience of licensing law had convinced him that it was one of the most difficult of all the branches of magisterial procedure. When one remembered the extreme delicacy of many of these questions, how they had to reconcile the serious and reasonable demand for the reduction of licences with the equally reasonable objection to the extinction of the licence of this or that particular house, or the diminution of the provision of reasonable refreshment, the difficulties would be seen to be very great. All these things had to be taken into consideration, and the difficulties engendered by them in the minds of those who were engaged in this work were very serious indeed. The Government were making a great mistake in disregarding the voluntary service given in the past by those who knew the locality, its condition, and its requirements. If they were substituting a bureaucratic authority for a local authority let them at any rate see that the bureaucratic authority was equipped with the knowledge it required. It would be impossible for them to carry 544 out the duty the Government placed upon them of reducing licences in accordance with the general opinion of the communities with which they dealt without much greater knowledge than they were likely to possess. Possibly it would be said that they would work on the reports of the local authorities. But could these three gentlemen be trusted? If they were men of strict impartiality of course they could, but had the House sufficient confidence in the Government to be sure that these three gentlemen would be strictly and absolutely impartial? If, like the Government, they had a strong bias one way, what would their conduct to the licensing justices be? Speaking from his own knowledge, he could assure hon. Members that in many parts of the country the licensing justices would undertake this task with very heavy and unwilling hearts. Some already thought they had done enough, or at least were advancing sufficiently in the reduction of licences. They were gradually reducing them year by year. But the Commission would say they were not going fast enough and must reduce them more rapidly. That would lead to confusion immediately, and the Commissioners and the local justices would come at once to loggerheads. He regretted that the Government had taken upon themselves this disastrous change in the licensing policy of the country. The Commission, if appointed, would have a heavy task. Let them not think it would be easy. If would be just as hard as the task placed on the education committees and others. They would have to appoint a whole army of assistant commissioners, and if this task was to be carried out with the least possible friction it must not be entered into with a light heart. It was a serious business, and would have to be carried out with full knowledge and after full consideration of the facts.
§ *MR. MONTAGU (Cambridgeshire, Chesterton)said it was not denied on the Ministerial side of the House that the work of the Commission would be fairly heavy. But it was contended that it would be mainly carried out by inspectors, etc., appointed by the Commission; who would be responsible to the Commission which in turn 545 would be responsible to Parliament. If hon. Gentlemen opposite were in earnest in thinking the work could be done by the Commissioners themselves neither four nor five would be enough. A very large number would be required. But hon. Members opposite were not serious in their contentions that three Commissioners were not enough. He would prove this. It was shown by the fact that although the debate had continued for some time neither on the Paper nor in their speeches had hon. Gentlemen thought fit to suggest any addition to the number of Commissioners. That itself was a test of the seriousness of their contention. As to the impartiality of the Commissioners the House had some experience of Commissions appointed by the Government and it had never been suggested that any one of the Commissioners appointed or nominated was other than impartial. He instanced the Irish University Act, the Education Bill of 1906, the Small Holdings Act of last year. They were selected with every safeguard against partiality and he did not think the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Oxford or that of the right hon. Member for the Dublin University yesterday was worthy of the front Opposition bench.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINwas not quite certain whether the colleagues of the hon. Member who had just sat down would welcome his intervention in the debate. The hon. Gentleman had challenged the sincerity of the contention of the Opposition on the ground that no Amendment had been put upon the Paper. The question was now being discussed. He did not know whether the Government desired that an Amendment should be put down in order that a discussion might be raised at a later period. The hon. Gentleman reflected on his right hon. friend for not placing implicit faith in the selection which the Government had made of the Commissioners to carry out the provisions of the Bill. When the hon. Gentleman had had some experience of sitting in Opposition as well as on the Ministerial side of the House he would find that no Opposition was prepared to place implicit confidence in the Government of the day. Hon. Members on the 546 Opposition side of the House did not suggest that the Prime Minister was going to perpetrate a party job or do anything dishonourable or discreditable to himself. The justice of the claim of the Opposition was admitted by the Home Secretary who had promised to give the names of the Commissioners on the Report stage. They wanted a little information as to what was exactly meant by the Home Secretary's description of the work which the Commissioners would have to do. The right hon. Gentleman had argued that there would not be much trouble, because a great number of the cases would be in small districts where the schemes would be prepared by a few justices, and they would rarely have occasion to interfere with them or to examine them at all. In the case of big boroughs, however, they would have to go more closely into matters. Did the Home Secretary think that in small districts where there were few justices to decide upon the licences they were to have a free hand, but that in a great city with a larger licensing authority, and where the magistrates were not likely to be less competent or less interested in their duties, they were to have their schemes subjected to a meticulous examination by the Commissioners? If that were so, it was a disadvantage to the big towns and big licensing districts. It was to be presumed that the Commissioners must go into facts brought to their notice in order to ascertain that the intentions of Parliament were being carried out. An extreme teetotaller on the one side, or a person interested in the trade on the other, might represent to the Commissioners that the scheme was not in conformity with the law in one particular or another. Surely the Commissioners would be bound to investigate the circumstances to see whether or not the terms of the Act were being infringed. If they had to do that they would have to take the personal responsibility. It was quite true that they might send their officer down to look into the facts, but the responsibility rested with them of arriving at a decision, and they would have to go into the matter. He was sure that any suggestion that the work was practically to be done by the under officers without real and serious review 547 by the Commissioners would be to introduce into the working of the Act the worst results that followed from bureaucratic government. Unless the Commissioners had time to give full consideration to the various schemes he did not think the work could be done either satisfactorily to themselves or in such a way as to carry out the wishes of Parliament.
§ *MR. GLADSTONEsaid the Government anticipated that the most difficult part of the work of the Commissioners in supervising these schemes would be in respect of modifications under Schedule I. Of course there were modifications which would apply to villages, but he did not suppose that anybody would consider it necessary that the Commissioners should personally go down to the villages in order to ascertain their population and whether two, three, or more public-houses were wanted. These facts would be assumed to be true on statistical information, and the Commissioners would have no trouble in the case of a particular village licence in merely ascertaining whether or not the proposal of the licensing justices was in conformity with the law. The case was very different in the big towns because there the problems were much more difficult, and would have to be considered more closely by the Commissioners. Therefore, as regarded a considerable number of the large boroughs and large licensing places, the duties of the Commissioners would be more arduous than in the smaller districts.
§ EARL WINTERTONsaid he did not think the Government were exactly
§ grateful to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire for his intervention in the debate. He had begun by throwing a lurid light on what the expenses of the Commissioners were to be. Apparently there was to be an army of inspectors and others who were to do the work of the Commission in the country, and that had been further emphasised by the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. He strongly protested against the refusal of the Government to give them more information on the subject of the Commission, and especially on the subject of inspectors and others who were to be employed by the Commission. He had looked through the Bill and failed to find the slightest reference to the army of inspectors. Apparently the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire was in the confidence of the Government, or at any rate he was closely connected with them, and this suggestion which he had thrown out was the suggestion of the Government. They had already voted a sum of money for the purposes of the Commissioners, and apparently they were to have no sort of information as to the number of inspectors who were to be employed or as to what the expense was to be. He thought they were entitled to make a strong protest against this absence of information, and it was a matter for regret that the Prime Minister did not find it possible to be present in the House while this important subject was being discussed.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 269; Noes, 79. (Division List No. 303.)
551| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Barnes, G. N. | Brocklehurst, W. B. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Beale, W. P. | Brooke, Stopford |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Beauchamp, E. | Bryce, J. Annan |
| Agnew, George William | Beaumont, Hon. Hubert | Burns, Rt. Hon. John |
| Alden, Percy | Beck, A. Cecil | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Bellairs, Carlyon | Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles |
| Armitage, R. | Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd | Cameron, Robert |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Carr-Gomm, H. W. |
| Astbury, John Meir | Boulton, A. C. F. | Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Bowerman, C. W. | Cawley, Sir Frederick |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Brace, William | Chance, Frederick William |
| Barker, John | Bramsdon, T. A. | Channing, Sir Francis Allston |
| Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) | Branch, James | Clough, William |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Brigg, John | Clynes, J. R. |
| Barnard, E. B. | Bright, J. A. | Cobbold, Felix Thornley |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Jacoby, Sir James Alfred | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W | Jardine, Sir J. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs) |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd |
| Crooks, William | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Robinson, S. |
| Crossley, William J. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Curran, Peter Francis | Jowett, F. W. | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Dalmeny, Lord | Kearley, Sir Hudson E. | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Kekewich, Sir George | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S) | Kelley, George D. | Rose, Charles Day |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Laidlaw, Robert | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Lambert, George | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Lamont, Norman | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Duckworth, James | Lehmann, R. C. | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Lever, A. levy (Essex, Harwich | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall | Levy, Sir Maurice | Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Lewis, John Herbert | Sears, J. E. |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Shackleton, David James |
| Erskine, David C. | Lundon, W. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.) |
| Essex, R. W. | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Lyell, Charles Henry | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Lynch, H. B. | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Fenwick, Charles | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Snowden, P. |
| Ferens, T. R. | Maclean, Donald | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Steadman, W. C. |
| Findlay, Alexander | M'Callum, John M. | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | M'Crae, Sir George | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Freeman-Thomas, Freeman | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Furness, Sir Christopher | Mallet, Charles E. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Gill, A. H. | Markham, Arthur Basil | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) | Marnham, F. J. | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Glover, Thomas | Massie, J. | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr) |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Masterman, C. F. G. | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E |
| Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Menzies, Walter | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Grant, Corrie | Micklem, Nathaniel | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Tomkinson, James |
| Gulland, John W. | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Toulmin, George |
| Hall, Frederick | Morse, L. L. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Verney, F. W. |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Murray, Cap. Hn. A. C. (Kincard) | Vivian, Henry |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Myer, Horatio | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent |
| Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r) | Nicholson, Charles N. (Done'str) | Wardle, George J. |
| Hart-Davies, T. | Norman, Sir Henry | Waring, Walter |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. | Nussey, Thomas Willans | Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Nuttall, Harry | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | O'Grady, J. | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Parker, James (Halifax) | Weir, James Galloway |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Partington, Oswald | Whitbread, Howard |
| Hedges, A. Paget | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Henry, Charles S. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Pollard, Dr. | Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P. |
| Higham, John Sharp | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Pullar, Sir Robert | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen |
| Hodge, John | Radford, G. H. | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Holt, Richard Durning | Raphael, Herbert H. | Williamson, A. |
| Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N. | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Horniman, Emslie John | Rees, J. D. | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Hudson, Walter | Rendall, Athelstan | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Hutton, Alfred Eddison | Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th | |
| Jackson, R. S | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. |
| Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon | Joseph' Pease and Master of |
| Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) | Yoxall, James Henry | Elibank. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F. | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Percy, Earl |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gretton, John | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.) | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne |
| Bertram, Julius | Haddock, George B. | Ratcliff, Major R. F. |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hamilton, Marquess of | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hill, Sir Clement | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert |
| Cave, George | Hills, J. W. | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Kerry, Earl of | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Kimber, Sir Henry | Stanier, Beville |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh. |
| Clark, George Smith | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ. |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Valentia, Viscount |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Walker, Col W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon | M'Arthur, Charles | Winterton, Earl |
| Doughty, Sir George | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Young, Samuel |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | Morpeth, Viscount | |
| Fell, Arthur | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. |
| Fletcher, J. S. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | George Faber and Sir |
| Forster, Henry William | Oddy, John James | Frederick Banbury. |
| Gardner, Ernest | Parkes, Ebenezer |
*THE CHAIRMANI do not know whether the next Amendment † in the name of the hon. Member for Sheffield is meant seriously or not, but even if it is meant seriously it is too vague.
§ MR. JAMES HOPEIf I were to recite the powers that were actually exercised by the concilium regis ordinarium should I remove the reproach of vagueness?
§ MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS (Sheffield, Ecclesall)said he was sure, in moving an Amendment to secure that one of the Commissioners "shall be either a barrister-at-law of at least seven years standing who has had practising experience of licensing law, or a solicitor who has for at least three years since the coming into law of the Licensing Act, 1904, acted as clerk to any bench of
§ † The said Amendment proposed that the Commissioners should "be possessed of all such powers as were de facto exercised prior to the year one thousand six hundred and forty-one by the concilium regis ordinarium."
552§ licensing justices or to any licensing authority," he should have the sympathy and he hoped the approval of the Solicitor-General, who was always loyal to his profession. A good deal had been said about the constitution of the Licensing Commission, but they had had no information as to the qualifications these gentlemen were to have. It was very essential that there should be associated with them some gentleman of legal experience, and especially one who had had experience of the licensing law. The duties of the Commission were very various and onerous. They would have before them the alteration and revision of all schemes for reduction. They would have it in their power to consent to the grant of new licences despite a local veto vote, to an excess of the statutory reduction, to optional reduction, and to the carrying out of local option in Wales. They had also the administration of the compensation fund, the payment of compensation and borrowing on the compensation fund, and it was surely important that one of their number should be experienced in the licensing law. In almost all former cases 553 where Parliament had set up a Commission to administer large amounts of property it had been expressly provided that there should be on their body some representation of lawyers. The Ecclesiastical Commission included the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and two Judges of the Admiralty Division. The Lunacy Commission consisted of both legal and medical members, of whom the former must be practising barristers of at least five years standing and the secretary must be a barrister of at least seven, years standing. He had a subsequent Amendment to provide that there should be appointed a secretary of this Commission. The Bill merely empowered a secretary to be appointed. In regard to the Charity Commissioners the same thing applied. They were constituted under 16 and 17 Vict., c. 137, and by Section 1 of the Act two at least of the four Commissioners were required to be barristers of not less than twelve years standing and one of them must be the chairman. Knowing how intricate the law of licensing was he urged on the Government that it was important for these Commissioners to have legal advice among their number and that one at least should be a barrister of experience or a solicitor who had acted as clerk to a bench of licensing justices. There were many who had done so who would be very well qualified to take a position on the Licensing Commission.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 9, line 5, at end, to insert the words 'and one of such Commissioners shall be either a barrister-at-law of at least seven years standing who has had practising experience of licensing law or a solicitor who has for at least three years since the coming into law of the Licensing Act, 1904, acted as clerk to any bench of licensing justices or to any licensing authority.'"—(Mr. Samuel Roberts.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR S. EVANSsaid there were many solicitors who would answer to the proposed description who would be qualified for the work, but he did not think it at all necessarily followed that every solicitor who had for three years acted as clerk to these bodies would be a fit and proper 554 person to appoint. The truth of the matter was that, although this body would have some judicial functions and ought to act in every matter in a judicial frame of mind, it was really an administrative more than a judicial body, and it would be a pity to limit the choice of members by saying the Government were not to have a free hand except within the terms of the Amendment. They thought it was much better that there should be an absolutely free and unlimited choice. The hon. Member had referred to three Commissions, the constitution of which reinforced his argument. But the Admiralty Judges were only ex officio members and not acting members of the Ecclesiastical Commission. Moreover, there were matters of legal technicality to be determined by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and there might be reason why some of their body should be barristers. Questions of the very nicest possible legal subtlety came before the Charity Commissioners, and it was no doubt right that there should be some legal members on it. He saw no reason himself for adapting the constitution of the Lunacy Commission to that of the Commission they were setting up. It would be perfectly competent for those who advised His Majesty to appoint as Commissioners persons who would answer to the description of the hon Member's Amendment. The effect of the Amendment, however, would be to make this obligatory and would limit the choice. He thought it would be better to leave them a free hand.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)said he was disposed to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, though not for the reasons he had given to the Committee. He thought it would be quite unnecessary to appoint any lawyer or any prominent solicitor to serve on this Commission. Why was this general knowledge of the law and practice of licensing required? The first duty of the Commissioners would be to forget all they had ever learned about the licensing laws or practice. Previously passed licensing statutes were to be repealed, and the only statute they would have to deal with was the Bill under discussion, and the less one knew about the present law 555 the more likely would he be to take an intelligent view of the Bill under discussion. His hon. friend suggested that somebody should be appointed who had been in the habit of dealing with these matters as advisers to local justices. He could not conceive of any justification for that proposal, because every principle known to the law of compensation was torn up by this Bill. Every principle of equity, whether under the Act of 1904 or the Acts which governed payment for property taken, compulsorily, had been deliberately abandoned by the framers of this Act. Why should it be necessary for the people who would have to carry out this Act to have been trained in long-established methods of doing justice? They wanted people with a happy indifference to precedent, ignorant of all that had hitherto been done in giving compensation for market value, and therefore quite ready and happy in the administration of a law which totally ignored the market value of a man's property. He would not press the matter further, and under the circumstances he would ask his hon. friend to withdraw his Amendment.
§ MR. LAMBTON (Durham, S.E.)thought they required not only a lawyer but also a gentleman able to understand the Welsh language, because the Commission would have an immense amount of work to do looking after optional reduction in Wales. The Leader of the Opposition had said that it was not necessary to have anybody acquainted with the law to deal with a Bill like this, which would do away with all law on the licensing question. As a rule the Government appointed those who knew the least about the subject, and he hoped in this case the Solicitor-General would take some pains to see that those who were appointed would be those who understood something about licensing and the habits of the country.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ *MR. LANE-FOXmoved an Amendment providing that the Commissioners should hold office "by the same tenure as a Judge of the High Court of Justice." He said that whatever tenure was given to these Commissioners it 556 should be sufficiently long to make them feel secure and independent of outside criticism. The words which he proposed to move might give them too rigid a tenure, but he moved them in order to ascertain from the Government what that tenure would be, as it was not made clear in the Bill.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 9, line 5, at end, to insert the words 'who shall hold office by the same tenure as a Judge of the High Court of Justice.'"—(Mr. Lane-Fox.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there in sorted."
§ SIR S. EVANSsaid it would not be convenient to make the tenure the same as that of the High Court Judges. The hon. and learned Member for Kingston had put down an Amendment to the effect that the office was to be held during His Majesty's pleasure and those words expressed, what was implied by the method now suggested. The appointments would be made during His Majesty's pleasure, and these were the terms used in the case of all Civil servants. It was intended that the office should be held for fourteen years, or for such longer term as might be necessary to wind up the work allotted under the Bill.
§ LORD R. CECILsaid he very much disliked the proposal to which the Solicitor-General had given expression, that these Commissioners should hold office at the pleasure of His Majesty, which really meant during the pleasure of the Government of the day. Those gentlemen were going to discharge enormously responsible functions, and upon their decisions would depend the fortunes of a great number of their fellow subjects. In many respects they had to discharge what were, in their nature, judicial functions and they were taking the place of a judicial body which had hitherto carried out functions of a somewhat similar character. They were creating a judicial body of enormous power upon whose decisions a very great deal of the property of the country might easily depend. Judicial powers should always be sharply divided from executive powers, 557 and they ought to give to these Commissioners such a tenure of office as would make them practically independent of the Government of the day. Personally, he protested very strongly against the increasing habit of the present Government of creating ad hoc tribunals to take the place of existing tribunals. He could conceive a House of Commons containing a large teetotal majority and the Licensing Commission in the proper exercise of their duty giving some decision not in accord with the views of that majority. What would happen? A Motion would probably be made by some member of the majority disapproving of the action of the Commissioners, and the Government would have either to run the risk of a party defeat or to direct the removal of the Commissioners. The system was fundamentally wrong. The Government had already conferred upon the Local Government Board judicial powers under the Pensions Act, and the Housing Act. This was a very much more serious question than hon. Members seemed to think, for it was a question of the first possible importance. Everybody who had read elementary English history knew that the greatest reform of the 1688 revolution was that of making the Judges independent of the Government of the day. He was very strongly of opinion that some substantial tenure should be given to the Licensing Commissioners which would make them independent of the passing majority of the House of Commons. He appealed to the Committee seriously to consider whether it was wise to continue sanctioning the creation of new tribunals like the Licensing Commission. That was a most essential thing, and he appealed to the Government to do something to meet the legitimate objection raised by his hon. friend who moved the Amendment.
§ MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University)renewed the protest he had made in what he termed the "unfavourable circumstances" of the previous evening against the appointment of a quasi-judicial tribunal of this sort, and said it was the worst possible form of tribunal which could be set up. In this case it would be a tribunal made up of civil servants responsible to the Government 558 and the party that appointed them. It was not fair to put the Commissioners in that position. In such cases there was insensible pressure brought to bear upon the people appointed, and it was certainly desirable that if possible anything of that nature should be avoided. This was a question which went far beyond the particular Bill now before the Committee. It was a bad system in itself, and it should be resorted to only in exceedingly exceptional circumstances. If the House had made up its mind that this was to be a Commission of Civil servants, the least thing they could do would be to give them fixity of tenure for fourteen years to secure independence for that period. The present Government had not shown too great a desire to back up the Judges who had been appointed in Ireland. There were already difficulties enough in the way of people who were properly appointed, but if they appointed judicial officers directly responsible to the Government of the day, when possibly party feeling might run high, these officers would be less likely to receive the support of the Government in the discharge of their duties. The public would think that they were liable to bias because of the influence upon them of the opinions of the Government that appointed them.
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that there was nothing in the functions of this Commission which could be compared with the functions of a Judge. Those functions were undoubtedly responsible, but it could not for a moment be contended that they were judicial. They were entirely administrative and financial, and it was a misnomer to say they were judicial.
§ MR. BONAR LAWsaid he only rose to correct what he thought was a want of knowledge which the hon. Gentleman opposite had displayed of his own Bill. He had said that the functions of the Commissioners were not judicial. How could the hon. Member make such a statement? Supposing the question arose whether or not a big hotel was to get a licence, it remained absolutely in the discretion of the Commissioners whether it was to be given or not. Was that not a judicial 559 function when it dealt with immense sums of money? He maintained that the functions were judicial, and that they were to be carried out by no process known to the law. A Judge obtained his position because he had risen to a position of eminence in the law; the process by which he gave his judgments was known, and anyone who became a Judge could be trusted to exercise his functions fairly, and, therefore, it was admitted that his position should be secure. But what guarantee had they that the men who were to exercise these functions would be of the same standard as Judges? If the Commissioners were to be lawyers, how were they going to get a good lawyer at £1,200 a year?
§ SIR S. EVANSLots of them.
§ MR. BONAR LAWsaid then they had not shown that they were good lawyers, or they would make more. A dictatorship of fourteen years might be all right if they were sure of the dictator, but it might be a very bad thing if they were not.
§ SIR S. EVANScontroverted the suggestion that a good lawyer could not be secured for the salary given, and denied that the duties devolving upon the Commissioners were judicial. He would remind the House of one notable case of a law reporter who became one of the most eminent Judges this country had ever known. He referred to Lord Blackburn, who hardly ever opened his mouth in Court.
§ LORD R. CECILsaid that if the hon. and learned Gentleman would read the reports of some of the most important law cases of the day, he would find that though Lord Blackburn had a comparatively restricted practice he was in some of the most important cases.
§ SIR S. EVANSsaid that hon. Gentlemen opposite were quite wrong in saying that the duties devolving on the Commissioners would be judicial duties. They would be administrative duties purely and simply, but they would be carried out in a manner that might be described as judicial. The Committee would remember that even the licensing justices had been declared not 560 to be a Court in a judicial sense. The Commissioners would have nothing to do with discriminating between one public-house and another—the duty would be performed by the justices with their local knowledge.
MR. G. D. FABERsaid that if the justices failed to prepare a scheme, or failed to select one, the Commissioners were to exercise that function.
§ SIR S. EVANSsaid that was only the preparation of a scheme, and he did not think the case was ever likely to arise. He did not think that the hon. Member for York would suggest that any body of justices would fail to carry out, or try to carry out, faithfully and honestly the duties entrusted to them by Parliament.
§ MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)asked whether the Commissioners were in any way bound to accept the schemes prepared by the justices.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINthought it was impossible to reconcile the views held on the two sides of the House as to the duties of the Commissioners. The Government said that the Commissioners could not be compared to Judges, and he was inclined to agree with that. The reason for the existence of Judges was to administer justice, and the reason for the existence of these gentlemen was to administer injustice. He wished to know whether, unless special words were inserted in the Bill, it would not be obligatory to compensate the Commissioners for the abolition of office after the fourteen years had expired. There were in existence conditions which laid down that if the office of a Civil servant was abolished, he was entitled, in the absence of an express contract to the contrary, to claim the abolition terms.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid there was another point which ought to be considered. The Government meant to make these gentlemen practically Civil servants. In this House they were very chary about attacking or criticising Civil servants. What they did was to attack or criticise the Parliamentary head of the department in which the Civil servants carried on their duties; they regarded the 561 Parliamentary head as being responsible for the work of the Department, and he it was who had to defend his office. He understood that the Vote for the salaries of these new Civil servants was to be put down under the Home Office Vote. Was the Secretary of State for the Home Department to be in any sense responsible to Parliament for their action? Was he to have any power of supervision or control? Did any responsibility to Parliament lie with him for the manner in which these gentlemen carried out their functions? If not, they would have Civil servants who, by the very terms of the case were not Civil servants, like gentlemen who worked in the Home Office, or the Colonial or Foreign Offices. They were gentlemen who were Civil servants and yet had no Parliamentary chief. He believed there was no precedent for that. There might be, because he had not thoroughly examined the case; but he was quite sure that such a precedent should not be set up, least of all when those gentlemen were to carry out these functions and for large pay. What was to be the position of those gentlemen? A Vote might be put down on a given Supply night, say the Home Office Vote. A strong attack might be made on the way these gentlemen distributed the funds at their disposal, giving a preference to one district over another, and it might be alleged that their action was open to severe censure. Was the Home Secretary to be responsible for their action? Or was he going merely to hold a brief for them? Was he to say: "The reason, I understand, for their doing so-and-so is such-and-such. I am informed that the motive of these gentlemen is the following. I have had no opportunity of looking into the case. If injustice has been done I am not to blame. All that I can do is to inform the Committee of Supply what their defence is." He ventured to say that that would be extremely inconvenient both for the Secretary of State, and for those gentlemen.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that he could not see that the right hon. Gentleman could connect his argument with the Amendment before the Committee. The Amendment merely applied to the Commissioners holding office by the same 562 tenure as a member of the High Court of Justice. The right hon. Gentleman would he in order when they came to consider the clause as a whole.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURthought he was very strictly in order, because there were two alternatives before the Committee, judicial tenure or Civil Service tenure. He had no desire to prolong the debate, but as he thought the matter was of great importance, if it were more relevant when they came to consider the clause as a whole, he would then ask for a reply from the Government.
§ MR. GOULDINGsaid he could not follow the Solicitor-General when he said that the Commissioners had only administrative authority. He should have thought that their authority was both judicial and administrative. Sub-section (3) of Clause 1 distinctly said—
If the grant of any new licence has been confirmed in contravention of this section the Commissioners shall declare that that licence is invalid.There could not be a clearer case than that showing that their function was judicial. He was bound to say that the whole position was very confused, for they proposed to mix up great powers and duties in the same body of men. He insisted that the House must keep some control over them, because they were the Supreme Court of Appeal and their decision was final.
§ MR. NUSSEY (Pontefract)said it seemed to him that the Committee was now debating the question when was a Judge not a Judge—when was a Commissioner not a Judge. The Solicitor-General contended that the duties of the Commissioners were not judicial at all to an appreciable extent, but purely administrative. But if the hon. and learned Gentleman looked at subsection (4) of Clause 6, he would see that some of the duties were judicial as well as administrative. That subsection said:—
Every scheme prepared, and every revision of a scheme made by the licensing justices under this section shall be submitted as soon as practicable to the Licensing Commissioners for their approval.They were to give their judicial opinion as to whether the scheme submitted to 563 them properly carried out the Act or not. The words were:—The Commission shall consider the scheme or revision, and may, after consultation with the licensing justices, make such alterations, if any, therein as they consider necessary or expedient for the purpose of properly carrying into effect this Act.That seemed to be purely judicial so far as those duties went. He did not support the Amendment moved from the other side of the House, for it placed these Commissioners in too lofty a position to give them the same tenure of office as a Judge of the High Court. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was quite wrong in contending that they could not get a good lawyer for a salary of £1,200 a year. He believed that if the fact of such an appointment being open was made known to the Bar, there would be a large number of applications for it from good lawyers. He insisted, however, that the Commissioners should be put in an entirely independent position, not subject to be turned out of office at the caprice of a majority of this House, and not subject to undue pressure either by the brewers and the licensed trade, or by the teetotal party.
§ MR. LANE-FOXsaid he could not agree to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman that the functions of the Commissioners were not judicial, but he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. LAMBTONmoved to add to the first subsection the words "No person shall be appointed to the Licensing Commission who has held a seat in the present Parliament." This, he said, was a constitutional question, because the Commissioners had by the sense of the House been declared to be a judicial body—although the Solicitor-General had thrown some doubt about it—as well as an administrative body. As his hon. friend had pointed out, it was a maxim of our Constitution that judicial should be separated from executive functions. That was one of the principles laid down by the glorious Revolution of 1688, and that principle should be maintained in 564 this Bill. It was possible that some Member of Parliament might be appointed as one of the Commissioners—a Member who had helped to pass the Bill, and who had laid down conditions in it, not entirely in a judicial frame of mind but actuated by Party passion and partisanship, and perhaps ignorance of the subject. There were three schools of thought in the House on the Licensing Bill. There was the teetotal school; a Government school which seemed to think of nothing but of obtaining the monopoly value; and there was the third school, which sat on the Opposition side of the House, the temperance school, which did not believe in coercive measures, in extraordinary sumptuary laws, or in the idea of making people sober by Act of Parliament. It was almost impossible to have a man of impartial mind who had sat in this Parliament. If the Solicitor-General would accept his Amendment it would relieve some anxiety in the country. He begged to move.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 9, line 5, at the end, to insert the words 'but no gentleman who has hold a seat in the present Parliament shall be appointed a Commissioner.'"—(Mr. Lambton.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR S. EVANSdisputed the idea of the hon. Member that no Member of that House could bring an impartial mind to bear upon the duties of a Commissioner, under this Bill, if he were appointed.
§ MR. LAMBTONdenied that he said so. All he said was that they could not get an impartial witness to his own act.
§ SIR S. EVANSsaid he was sure that there was one hon. Member who would bring an impartial mind to bear upon his duties, and that was the hon. Member himself. He was sure that if he had the offer to make and were successful enough to get the hon. Member's acceptance of it, he would be perfectly well satisfied that he had done a very good thing in the interests of the country. He could not accept the Amendment. He did not think there was a precedent for it, 565 and he hoped the hon. Member would not ask him for any further argument against it.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that those who had taken part in passing Bills through the House were sometimes surprised at the interpretations which were given to them in a Court of law. It sometimes happened that a measure they carried did not carry out the intention with which they framed it. ["The Kennedy judgment."] He did not think that was a good illustration, because the Kennedy judgment carried out their intentions, because it prevented a man's property being taken away without proper compensation. But he would not go back to the debates of yesterday. He would only say as to intentions that a Judge rightly excluded all such ideas from his mind. Here, however, was a Bill which was full of difficult questions and the Commissioners were to have a latitude very much greater and powers very much larger than those of a Judge. Under the Bill a large amount of valuable property was at stake, and was it possible that a gentleman who had sat in this House and taken part in these discussions should be uninfluenced by his ideas as to the intentions of the framers of the Bill, or what he thought when he voted upon the measure? He thought there was ground for excluding those who had taken part in discussions of this controversial character. He should have thought the Amendment would have been very welcome to His Majesty's Ministers. They could not be anxious to create bye-elections, and it would be such a satisfactory answer to many possible claims, to be able to state that Parliament had put it out of their power to grant them.
§ *MR. GRETTON (Rutland)did not know whether the Government were inclined to make some concession, but the only serious answer they had had to the Amendment was that it was not usual to put a clause of this kind in an Act of Parliament. He thought the point could be met by an undertaking across the floor of this House that no such appointment would be made. If the Government were not prepared to give that 566 undertaking and make that concession, he thought it would be necessary to advance further arguments against the proposal that Members of the House should be appointed members of the Commission. Of course, every Government had followers, and often posts and appointments were wanted for those who had not found a place within the Ministry. The formation of any Government, also, must be a disappointment to some of their followers, and, of course, posts of this kind were a solatium to those who were disappointed in regard to a more important position. It was convenient enough for a Government to have posts of this kind with salaries attached, but his hon. friend who moved the Amendment advanced very cogent reasons why Members of the House should not be appointed to exercise the judicial functions which the Commission would have to exercise. It was very important that the Commission should exercise its functions according to the terms of this Bill, in a manner which would inspire confidence, and adhere strictly to the law. There should be no pressure or suspicion of pressure upon them. A Commission formed of Members who had taken part in the discussion and controversies of the Bill would not inspire confidence, as they would not be good judges. It seemed to him that arguments of a sufficient character had been advanced to induce the Government to enter into a self-denying ordinance in this matter.
§ MR. NIELD (Middlesex, Ealing)said that for the reasons given by the right hon. Member for Worcester he desired strongly to support this Amendment. From what the right hon. Member had said it appeared obvious that no person who had taken part in the discussion should be a Commissioner, as he might read into the Bill something of what he gathered was supposed to be the intention. In the Courts Judges refused to receive any assistance from statements made in the House as to the intention of the authors of the Bill. When such evidence was offered the Judges invariably ruled that it was inadmissible; that they could not take any other evidence than that which 567 could be reasonably deduced from the words in the measure before them. If ever a Bill had been introduced in this Parliament which had engendered heated feelings and anger it was this Licensing Bill. The statement that all in favour of the Bill were on the side of the angels, and that those who opposed it were on the other side, were a sufficient indication of the feeling that had been raised. The Government should guard against the slightest possibility of any one Member of the House being introduced into the Commission. He had in his hand a copy
§ of the Bill which had been carefully examined by a well-known authority on these matters, who had written a book upon them, and he characterised the whole of this clause as monstrous. Therefore, they ought to take care that the administration was in the hands of persons who could not be pointed at as being connected with the framing of the Act.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 82; Noes, 252. (Division List No. 304.)
569| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F. | Forster, Henry William | Percy, Earl |
| Ashley, W. W. | Gardner, Ernest | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gretton, John | Ratcliff, Major R. F. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.) | Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Hamilton, Marquess of | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd | Renton, Leslie |
| Bockett, Hon. Gervase | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hills, J. W. | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Cave, George | Houston, Robert Paterson | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hunt, Rowland | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Kerry, Earl of | Stanier, Beville |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore. | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birminghm | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham | Valentia, Viscount |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | MacCaw, Willaim J. MacGeagh | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | M'Arthur, Charles | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Whitbread, Howard |
| Doughty, Sir George | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Morpeth, Viscount | Winterton, Earl |
| Du Cros, Arthur Philip | Nield, Herbert | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | Nolan, Joseph | Young, Samuel |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid | |
| Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—M. |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | Oddy, John James | Lambton and Mr. Goulding. |
| Fell, Arthur | Parkes, Ebenezer | |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd | Channing, Sir Francis Allston |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Cheetham, John Frederick |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Boulton, A. C. F. | Clough, William |
| Agnew, George William | Bowerman, C. W. | Clynes, J. R. |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Brace, William | Cobbold, Felix Thornley |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Bramsdon, T. A. | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W |
| Armitage, R. | Branch, James | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Brigg, John | Cory, Sir Clifford John |
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry | Bright, J. A. | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. |
| Astbury, John Meir | Brocklchurst, W. B. | Crooks, William |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Brodie, H. C. | Crossley, William J. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Brooke, Stopford | Curran, Peter Francis |
| Barker, John | Bryce, J. Annan | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) |
| Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset | Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) |
| Barnard, E. B. | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. |
| Barnes, G. N. | Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Beale, W. P. | Cameron, Robert | Duckworth, James |
| Beaumont, Hon. Hubert | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Cawley, Sir Frederick | Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Scarisbrick, T. T. L. |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Lambert, George | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward | Lamont, Norman | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne |
| Essex, R. W. | Layland-Garratt, Sir Francis | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Lehmann, R. C. | Shackleton, David James |
| Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Levy, Sir Maurice | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Fenwick, Charles | Lewis, John Herbert | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Ferens, T. R. | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Lundon, W. | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Findlay, Alexander | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Snowden, P. |
| Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Lynch, H. B. | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Freeman-Thomas, Freeman | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs | Steadman, W. C. |
| Gill, A. H. | Maclean, Donald | Stewart Halley (Greenock) |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) | Mac Veagh, Jeremiah (Down, S. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Glover, Thomas | M'Callum, John M. | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | M'Crae, Sir George | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Gooch, George Peabody (Bath | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | M'Micking, Major G. | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Maddison, Frederick | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Gulland, John W. | Mallet, Charles E. | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr |
| Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton | Markham, Arthur Basil | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E |
| Hall, Frederick | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale | Marnham, F. J. | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Massie, J. | Tomkinson, James |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Menzies, Walter | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Micklem, Nathaniel | Toulmin, George |
| Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) | Molteno, Percy Alport | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Villiers, Ernest Amherst |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Vivian, Henry |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Morse, L. L. | Walton, Joseph |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard. | Waring, Walter |
| Hedges, A. Paget | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Myer, Horatio | Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Henry, Charles S. | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S., | Nussey, Thomas Willans | Watt, Henry A. |
| Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Nuttall, Harry | Weir, James Galloway |
| Higham, John Sharp | Parker, James (Halifax) | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Partington, Oswald | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Hodge, John | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Hooper, A. G. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Horniman, Emslie John | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) | Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P. |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Radford, G. H. | Wiles, Thomas |
| Hudson, Walter | Raphael, Herbert H. | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Hutton, Alfred Eddison | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n |
| Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Rees, J. D. | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Jackson, R. S. | Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Jacoby, Sir James Alfred | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Jardine, Sir J. | Ridsdale, E. A. | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.) |
| Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea | Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Robinson, S. | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Jowett, F. W. | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | |
| Kearley, Sir Hudson E. | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Kekewich, Sir George | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. | Mr. Joseph Pease and Master |
| Kelley, George D. | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | of Elibank. |
| King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland.) | |
| Laidlaw, Robert | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
§ MR. G. A. HARDY (Suffolk, Stowmarket)moved an Amendment that no person financially interested in the liquor trade should be appointed a Commissioner. 570 This, he said, was an Amendment urgently desired by a majority of the people outside the House. If the Bill were allowed to pass without this 571 disqualification it was thought that at some time or other a great scandal might possibly arise. He begged to move.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 9, line 5, at the end, to insert the words 'Provided that no person financially interested in the liquor trade shall be appointed a Commissioner.'"—(Mr. G. A. Hardy.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words as amended, be there inserted."
§ MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked whether the hon. Gentleman would include in his Amendment the words "or anybody connected with a so-called temperance society," or whether his sense of fairness only carried him half-way. Already they had that spectacle on licensing bodies on which members of the trade were not allowed to act, but on which the most rabid and fanatical teetotallers were. That had caused a great amount of injustice and unfairness, and it was typical of the frame of mind of the so-called temperance party. When moving an Amendment of this kind, where one party who might or might not have strong views were not to be admitted, whilst another party holding, as was well known, fanatical opinions were to be included, was the hon. Gentleman inclined to exclude the right hon. Member for the Spen Valley and the hon. Member for Appleby, the authors of this Bill, as well as those connected with the liquor trade? If he declined to make that addition they would have another instance of the unjust spirit which ruled the whole making up of this Bill, which was becoming the laughing stock of the country.
§ MR. GOULDINGmoved as an Amendment to the Amendment the words "or in any of the goods usually sold in licensed establishments." He submitted that with that addition anybody who had any connection with the trade would be excluded. He begged to move.
§
Amendment to the proposed Amendment proposed—
After the word 'trade,' to insert the words 'or in any of the goods usually sold in licensed establishments.'"—(Mr. Goulding.)
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
§ SIR S. EVANSsaid he imagined the original Amendment was moved as a sort of tu quoque to that of the hon. Member for South-east Durham. He hoped his hon. friend would not press it further. They did not want to make any distinctions, invidious or otherwise, in the matter. And the fact that the matter was to be fought out on the Report stage when the names of the Commissioners were to be given was, he thought, a sufficient answer.
§ MR. G. A. HARDYbegged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Leave to withdraw refused.
§ MR. GRETTONmoved as an Amendment to the Amendment, as amended, to add after the word "establishments," the words "nor anyone who is or has been financially interested in any temperance society." It was, he said, well known that a large body of persons in this country derived considerable profit out of the so-called temperance movement, and it was only right that any exceptions that were made should include those who were in receipt of salary as agents for these societies. A large number of the so-called temperance societies in this country had pledged themselves to take a drastic and extreme course in temperance reform. They could not, therefore, be called unbiassed persons, nor, having regard to the fact that they were or had been in receipt of salaries, could they be called otherwise than financially interested. He begged to move.
§
Amendment to the proposed Amendment proposed—
After the words last inserted, to insert the words 'nor anyone who is or has been financially interested in any temperance society.'"—(Mr. Gretton.)
§ Amendment to proposed Amendment, agreed to.
§ Question proposed, "That those words as amended, be there inserted."
573§ SIR S. EVANSappealed to the House not to divide on the Amendment, for he did not think it would be a dignified course for the House to adopt. The Amendment raised invidious distinctions, and the real answer was that the Prime Minister had undertaken that he would inform the House before the Report stage was completed who the persons were to whom the appointments would be given. To take a division would not add to the dignity of their proceedings.
§ SIR E. CARSON (Dublin University)said the dignity of the House, referred to by the Solicitor-General, was not in the least assailed apparently when a former Amendment was put down, and when it was proposed to exclude anybody interested in the licensing trade from
§ taking part in Quarter Sessions or Petty Sessions on licensing business. So long as this was a lopsided Amendment to exclude those who were interested in the licensing trade they heard nothing of the dignity of the House; but the moment an addition to the Amendment was proposed to exclude anybody who was financially interested in temperance societies then the whole dignity of the House was threatened.
§ SIR S. EVANSThe right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. I opposed the original Amendment.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 71; Noes, 237. (Division List No. 305.)
575| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F | Fletcher, J. S. | Oddy, John James |
| Ashley, W. W. | Forster, Henry William | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gardner, Ernest | Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Ratcliff, Major R. F. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond) | Gretton, John | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Halpin, J. | Renton, Leslie |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hamilton, Marquess of | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Hill, Sir Clement | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Cave, George | Hills, J. W. | Stanier, Beville |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Houston, Robert Paterson | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc | Hunt, Rowland | Valentia, Viscount |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Kerry, Earl of | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Lane-Fox, G. R. | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Doughty, Sir George | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Young, Samuel |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—M |
| Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W. | Nield, Herbert | Samuel Roberts and M |
| Fell, Arthur | Nolan, Joseph | Goulding. |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Beale, W. P. | Burns, Rt. Hon. John |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Beaumont, Hon. Hubert | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Beck, A. Cecil | Cameron, Robert |
| Agnew, George William | Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd | Channing, Sir Francis Allston |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Cheetham, John Frederick |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Boulton, A. C. F. | Clough, William |
| Armitage, R. | Bowerman, C. W. | Clynes, J. R. |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Brace, William | Cobbold, Felix Thornley |
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry | Bramsdon, T. A. | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. |
| Astbury, John Meir | Branch, James | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Brigg, John | Cory, Sir Clifford John |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Bright, J. A. | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. |
| Barker, John | Brocklehurst, W. B. | Cox, Harold |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Brodie, H. C. | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) |
| Barnard, E. B. | Bryce, J. Annan | Crooks, William |
| Barnes, G. N. | Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Crossley, William J. |
| Curran, Peter Francis | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S) | Jowett, F. W. | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Kearley, Sir Hudson E. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Kekewich, Sir George | Scarisbrick, T. T. L. |
| Duckworth, James | Kelley, George D. | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) |
| Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Lambert, George | Seely, Colonel |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Lamont, Norman | Shackleton, David James |
| Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward | Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis | Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick, B.) |
| Essex, R. W. | Lehmann, R. C. | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Levy, Sir Maurice | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Lewis, John Herbert | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John |
| Fenwick, Charles | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Ferens, T. R. | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Snowden, P. |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Lynch, H. B. | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Findlay, Alexander | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Steadman, W. C. |
| Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Freeman-Thomas, Freeman | Maclean, Donald | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Furness, Sir Christopher | M'Callum, John M. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Gill, A. H. | M'Crae, Sir George | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Glover, Thomas | Maddison, Frederick | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Mallet, Charles E. | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E |
| Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Markham, Arthur Basil | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Marnham, F. J. | Tomkinson, James |
| Gulland, John W. | Massie, J. | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton | Menzies, Walter | Toulmin, George |
| Hall, Frederick | Micklem, Nathaniel | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale | Molteno, Percy Alport | Villiers, Ernest Amherst |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Walton, Joseph |
| Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Morse, L. L. | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent |
| Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r. | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Waring, Walter |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. | Myer, Horatio | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r | Watt, Henry A. |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Weir, James Galloway |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Nussey, Thomas Willans | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Hedges, A. Paget | Nuttall, Harry | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Helme, Norval Watson | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Hemmerde, Edward George | Parker, James (Halifax) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Partington, Oswald | Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P. |
| Henry, Charles S. | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n |
| Higham, John Sharp | Radford, G. H. | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Hodge, John | Rainy, A. Rolland | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Holt, Richard Durning | Raphael, Herbert H. | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Hooper, A. G. | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N | Rees, J. D. | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Horniman, Emslie John | Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.) |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Hudson, Walter | Ridsdale, E. A. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Hutton, Alfred Eddison | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Jackson, R. S. | Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.) | |
| Jacoby, Sir James Alfred | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. |
| Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Robinson, S. | Joseph Pease and Master of |
| Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Elibank. |
| Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
§ MR. LANE-FOXmoved to leave out subsection (3). He imagined that the salaries which came under that subsection had been put as low as possible because they were to come out of the compensation 576 levy. It was only fair to say that the great injustice of this proposal having been recognised, it had now been arranged that the salaries and expenses were to be defrayed from 577 Imperial sources. He thought they were now free to say that such salaries should be paid to the Commissioners as were likely to ensure their getting good men who would be independent of any pressure which might be put upon them. The Solicitor-General, in the earlier part of the discussion, had twitted them with being economists who were at the same time ready to increase the number of Commissioners irrespective of the cost to the country. His position and that of most of his hon. friends was that they did not want a Commission at all, but if they were to have one, then, at any rate, let them have good men, and as many men as were necessary for a proper performance of the work. The salaries offered were in very distinct contrast to the salaries of many other Commissioners. The salaries of Judges were higher, though he did not agree that there was nothing judicial in the functions of these Commissioners. But it was surely coming rather too low if they put the salaries of the Commissioners below the level of the ordinary County Court Judge. The Railway and Canal Commissioners got £3,000; Visitors in Lunacy, £2,000; the Lunacy Commissioners, £1,500; and their first secretary from £800 to £1,000, and the chief clerk from £500 to £650. In the case of the Irish Land Commission, the Judicial Commissioner got £3,500; Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, £3,000; Mr. Wrench, £3,500; Mr. Lynch, £2,500; and Mr. Finucane and Mr. Bailey, £2,000. In connection with the Scottish Land Bill it had been suggested that the Commissioners should receive, the Chairman £2,000, and the others £1,200. In view of the enormous interests involved and the great necessity of securing men who would be above all pressure on either side from those interested in this great question, it was most important to give an ample salary. He did not care whether the Solicitor-General said they were extravagant or not. It was not their fault that this scheme was being created, but if they were going to create it, let them have men who would be independent and beyond suspicion in the public eye. No one suggested there would be anything in the way of monetary corruption. That sort of thing he hoped 578 was impossible. But there were many other forms of pressure besides financial, and what they wanted to avoid was appointing any man who would be liable to be subject to any pressure of this kind. He had heard an interjection a short time ago, suggesting that the only possible financial pressure would come from the brewers. But the great temperance organisations were also very wealthy, and were supported by many wealthy men. It was ridiculous for hon. Gentlemen opposite to sit on a pedestal and talk as if all the corruption was on the side of the brewers. It was just as much in the interests of the large manufacturer of ginger beer to promote temperance as it was in the interest of the brewers to promote his own trade, and nobody could blame the large manufacturer of temperance drinks who subscribed to temperance organisations, any more than they could blame brewers for subscribing to their organisations. It was a perfectly honest and business transaction, and it was absurd for Gentlemen opposite to talk as if there was no money on the other side, and the whole possibility of financial pressure must come from the brewing interest. In view of the much larger salaries paid to other Commissioners they would be committing a fatal mistake if they appointed men with a much smaller salary and thereby lowered the position, which ought to be the highest possible.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 9, line 10, to leave out subsection (3)."—(Mr. Lane-Fox.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
§ *MR. BARNARDsaid that in the few speeches he had made on the measure lately he had not tried to touch principles, but had endeavoured to deal with what appeared to him to be important details in the machinery of the measure. He fully agreed with everything which the hon. Member for Barkston Ash had just said. They wanted, whether they liked the measure or not, to see that its administrative future was under the best possible auspices, and he could not help 579 thinking that the sums of money it was proposed to offer these gentlemen were absolutely inadequate when they compared what other men were paid in many other positions which were not nearly so responsible. If he took London alone, their test administrative men, of whom he knew something, were all paid not less than £2,000 a year. Then there was another feature. The Government thought it desirable that there should be three Commissioners, and therefore, they would have to entrust a good deal of the work to persons who for convenience might be called sub-commissioners or inspectors. The Solicitor-General had said the Local Government Board carried out its business by means of inspectors, but they were sent down into the country very likely to contemplate the prudence or otherwise of some request for a loan, while in this case the class of men with whom the Commissioners or Sub-commissioners would be dealing were quite different. They were the magistrates of the country. Surely they should have some regard to the class of men to be appointed if they had to deal with the 900 different benches in the country. The position of these Commissioners was far and away a more important one than the Solicitor-General had pointed out. It was necessary to remind the House of one point which he had put to the Home Secretary and which the right hon. Gentleman had not answered. In the scheme of reduction there were certain possible exemptions touching upon auxiliary trades, and the necessity to deal with unusual populations coming to the place from outside or what not. The Commissioners had a tremendous judicial responsibility, recollecting that there were 900 different benches of magistrates in the country, some of whom might desire freely to utilise the powers of this Act in the schemes which they put forward, while others might positively resist it, and might very freely interpret the meaning of "auxiliary trades" and be more lavish in deciding what were the special requirements of a particular locality. There were estimated to be 80,000 or 90,000 people continually stopping for weeks at Blackpool, and that was an illustration of cases which would, in his opinion, very largely try 580 the Commission. He therefore hoped, and it was in no unfriendly spirit that he put it, that the men who were at the head of this Commission would be chosen, as he was sure they would be, from the most suitable people, but in order to secure this they ought to be remunerated upon a scale similar to that which other professional men were receiving in so many departments of life.
§ MR. W. THORNE (West Ham, S.)said thrt if the object of the mover of the Amendment was to increase the salaries of the Commissioners he would be prepared to vote against him. If he moved it with the intention of reducing the salaries of the Commissioners he would be able to vote with him. He did not think any comparison could be drawn with Cabinet Ministers and Judges, because they had to devote many hours to their duties, starting early in the morning and sometimes working very late at night. He thought £1,200 per annum was quite sufficient for any man. The Commissioners ought to be in a position to keep themselves in decent comfort, and on this ground he was entirely opposed to paying £1,200. His friends on that side, it appeared, had turned a complete somersault in the last few minutes, because if it had been decided that the Commissioners should be paid out of the compensation fund no doubt they would have been in a position to move a reduction. But simply because the salaries were to be paid from the National Exchequer they wanted to increase the amount. If the men were worth more than £1,200 a year and had to be paid out of the compensation fund they should be worth more if they were paid out of the National Exchequer; but if they were not worth more when paid out of the compensation fund they were not worth any more if paid out of the Exchequer.
*MR. G. D. FABERsupposed that what the hon. Member meant by saying they had turned a complete somersault was that if the salaries of these gentlemen had to be paid out of the compensation fund they would not be arguing that there ought to be more Commissioners with higher salaries but fewer with less. He was not aware that he had turned any somersault. He hated the Commissioners 581 root and branch, and thought it was a wholly mis-conceived and mistaken idea. But they had got beyond that, and the immediate question was what salaries these gentlemen were to receive. He would be perfectly happy on £1,200 a year, but whether he would care to be called upon to discharge such onerous duties for that salary was quite another thing. The President of the Local Government Board once said that £500 a year was enough for any man, but circumstances altered cases. Comparing the salaries of public officials holding similarly responsible positions he painted out that County Court Judges received £1,500 a year, Lunacy Commissioners £1,500, and Lunacy Visitors £2,000 a year. He himself was once offered the position of Master in Lunacy, but at the time he had not been long enough at the Bar, and consequently the lunatics were spared his attentions. That fact, however, showed that he was peculiarly qualified to keep an eye on the front Government bench. He believed the Irish Land Commissioners were paid £3,500 per annum. They ought to consider the salaries proposed to be paid to the Licensing Commissioners in relation to other salaries paid for similar services. It should moreover, be borne in mind that they were not now dealing with a permanent appointment, because the tenure was only for thirteen or fourteen years. That seemed to him to make a great difference, because it might be easier to find a better man if this were made a permanent appointment carrying a pension. But it was nothing of the kind, for at the end of the reduction period the appointments would cease. If he were offered such an appointment, the first thing he would ask after ascertaining the salary would be how long the appointment was for, and if it was only for thirteen years, and he had to give up good permanent work, he would conclude that it was not good enough. On that account the salary ought to be larger. Considering the multifarious duties they would have to perform he thought they ought to receive a salary at least as large as that of a County Court Judge.
§ SIR S. EVANSsaid that with a great deal that had fallen from the hon. Member for Barkston Ash he was entirely in sympathy. When very responsible duties were placed upon the shoulders of men, 582 they ought to be compensated accordingly. But he assured the hon. Member for Barkston Ash that these salaries were not fixed with reference to the fund from which the money was to come. The matter had been carefully considered by the Government, and no doubt, if it were the wish of the House, the matter would be reconsidered by the Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister would also have to look at it from his position as First Lord of the Treasury. There would probably be no lack of fit and competent men at the salaries fixed. But the effect of carrying this Amendment, so far from increasing the salaries, might be that the Commissioners would receive nothing.
§ MR. FORSTER (Kent, Sevenoaks)said he did not agree with the Solicitor-General that the effect of this Amendment would be to deprive the Commissioners of their salaries altogether. The Committee had already decided that the expenses of the Licensing Commission were to be paid out of the moneys provided by Parliament. He thought his hon. friend had made out a good case for increasing these salaries. The duties and responsibilities of the three Commissioners would be far more arduous than those of the Railway Commissioners, and surely they ought to receive a larger salary. He hoped the Government would consent to such a salary as would enable them to get the services of first-class men.
§ *MR. REMNANTexpressed the hope that the Amendment would be carried. He had protested against the whole Bill because, to use the words in which the Prime Minister had described the judgment of one of His Majesty's Judges, he regarded it as vicious from beginning to end. His view was that if they must have a Commission, they ought to have the best men they could possibly get. The President of the Local Government Board had stated that the highest that ought to be paid to any man for his services was £500 a year. An hon. Member below the Gangway had stated that in his view £1,200 a year was as much as any man ought to have. There was distinct progress shown in these different estimates by hon. Gentlemen 583 who were proved to belong to the Radical and Socialist Party. He did not believe that £1,200 a year for gentlemen who were likely to be called upon to do this work was too much. They wanted men with the best brains and they had to pay the full market value for them. If they wanted to get the best men they must not hesitate to pay for them. He was sure nobody who had seriously considered the subject would disagree with that. The Commissioners would be called upon to adjudicate on a vast number of intricate technical schemes. There would probably be 993 different schemes brought before them. If the schemes were not brought before them, it would be their duty to prepare schemes themselves and compel the justices to carry them out. They were to be their own judges. The Solicitor-General denied that they would be called upon to adjudicate, but he had not answered the contention that their duties would be judicial under subsection (3) of Section 1 which said—
If it appears to the Licensing Commission appointed under this Act that the grant of any new licence has been confirmed in contravention of this section, they shall declare that that licence is invalid. Any excise licence granted in pursuance of a licence so declared invalid shall be void.Under that section the duties were more than purely administrative. The gentlemen who would have to adjudicate in these matters ought not to be paid less certainly than County Court Judges. He should like to see them even more highly paid. The Committee had had a curious side-light thrown on what might influence the Government in their appointments in the last division which was solely to decide whether the political followers of the Government, or any Member of this House, should be eligible for the Commission. They knew what had taken place in the last three years since the Government had been in office. Hon Gentlemen opposite had always apparently laid great stress on the appointment of magistrates. They went so far as to call in question the conduct of the Lord Chancellor because he had not appointed sufficient Liberal and Radical magistrates.
§ *MR. REMNANTsaid that if the Government were going to appoint political partisans and supporters to these posts, the proposed salaries were far too high, but if they were going to appoint really good, experienced, and impartial men, they would have to pay largely increased sums to those proposed. The appointments made by the Government since they had been in office led to the suspicion that they would appoint those whom they believed to be political supporters.
§ *MR. REMNANTsubmitted that what he had said had a great deal to do with it. If they were going to get the best men, the salaries proposed were not big enough, but if partisans were to be appointed the salaries were too high. If partisans were to be appointed, no salaries should be paid, for if they believed hon. Gentlemen on the other side they would be only too glad to devote their time to the smashing and crushing of the liquor trade.
§ MR. JAMES HOPEsaid he wished to ask a question on a point of order, namely, whether, if this Amendment were carried, it would be competent for anyone, Minister or otherwise, to propose another subsection suggesting higher salaries for the Commissioners. This subsection ran—
There shall be paid to the Chairman of the Licensing Commission such salary, not exceeding twelve hundred pounds a year, and to the ordinary members of the Commission such salary not exceeding one thousand pounds a year, as the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury directs.It might be argued that if that were deleted it merely meant the Committee had decided that the Chairman should not have £1,200, and that the others should not have £1,000. If the Committee voted against this subsection, did it mean that the Commissioners were not to be paid at all?
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIf the subsection were negatived it might imply that they were not to be paid at all, so far as this Bill is concerned.
§ MR. JAMES HOPEasked whether another Amendment providing for payment could not be moved.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIf competent, it might have to come as a new clause, but in that case it might never be reached. He, however, thought it better to give no opinion on the point, as any proposal to reinstate, with increased salaries, a subsection which had been negatived or to move a new clause on the same subject, was better left to be dealt with by whoever was in the Chair when the proposal was brought forward.
§ MR. JAMES HOPEsaid if this subsection were deleted, he was sure the Government would take care that the new clause was put down as one of their own Amendments. He would, therefore, have no hesitation in supporting the Amendment now before the Committee.
§ *MR. LANE-FOXsaid he moved to omit the subsection without moving to insert other words—as it was not competent under the rules of the House for a private Member to move to increase a charge on the Exchequer, believing that, if it were carried, the Government would put the matter right in another section.
§ MR. JAMES HOPEsaid he repented the opinion he had expressed that afternoon, that it might be possible to find gentlemen who would be willing to carry out these functions at the salaries indicated in the subsection. He had been converted by the Solicitor-General, because when he heard the hon. and learned Gentleman recite what the duties of the Commissioners would be he became convinced that they would have be to paid at rates higher than those proposed by the Government. The mixture of judicial and administrative duties which the Commissioners were to perform should not be entrusted to men except of first class ability, and they should be paid at first class rates. The Chairman of the National Telephone Company was paid £5,000 a year, and he did not believe that his work was more onerous than that to be imposed on the Chairman of the Commission. Under the first section of the Bill the Commissioners had judicial duties; under the 586 second section they had to decide questions mainly judicial, though partly administrative, about the exemption of hotels in the case of new licences; and, under the sixth section, they had to undertake the duty of revising schemes and that, though no doubt largely an administrative matter, was at the same time affected by judicial considerations. Whether they looked upon the work from the administrative or the judicial point of view, there were enormous rights of property involved in the revision of schemes. A County Court Judge could not adjudicate in cases where the sum involved was over £100. When he considered the enormous powers the Licensing Commission would have he concluded there was really no comparison between the responsibilities they would undertake, and the responsibilities imposed on County Court Judges. Then the Commissioners had to be financial experts. Under Clause 9 they had to consider the effect of possible schemes of extra reduction under Welsh local option. That he should have thought would have taxed the intellect of the keenest wits at Lloyd's. Then the Commissioners had to frame a budget, and they were directed to frame it in such a way that they would be able to make their assets and liabilities balance at the end of fourteen years. That was a matter which would tax the efforts of the most expert financiers. Under Clause 13 the Commissioners were apparently to be their own auditors. That imposed another obligation on the Commissioners. They should be completely free from suspicion, because they would be entirely independent of the Auditor-General. Further, they were to decide whether a licence was extinguished on account of public improvements or not. What kind of men were efficient to discharge all those duties and to bear all those responsibilities? Obviously they must have the services of the best men and those they could not get unless they paid them the best market salary. He knew that attacks were often made on Civil servants and those who administered the law, because it was said they acted in a very unbusinesslike manner. Well, in the Civil Service did they offer the same inducements to the best men as did the world of business outside? He was afraid they did not. That arose 587 because in Order to get the best market value they did not offer the best market price. They were starting a very dangerous experiment in conferring these enormous powers on the Commission, and they could not by the operation of economic law get the best men for the salaries offered. He would vote for the Amendment.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid that the hon. Gentleman opposite said that they on that side of the House were inconsistent because they were now going to vote for increased salaries for these Commissioners, whereas they had before said that the salaries were too big. He had no recollection of anybody on that side of the House saying that the salaries were too high. The real point before the Committee was, could they get really good men for the salaries which the Government had put into the Bill? He was the last man to think that they could get a good man merely by paying a large salary, although he knew that that opinion was held by many people. There could be no doubt that the salaries of the County Court Judges were larger than those offered under the Bill. Under those circumstances what would ensue? The work put on these gentlemen would be of an extremely arduous character of a quasi-judicial nature, and they naturally wanted a lawyer for one of the posts. Could a good lawyer be got for £1,200 a year? The hon. and learned Solicitor-General said he could, but, with all deference, he did not think so. This was not a permanent appointment; it was only for fourteen years, and he believed no pension would be carried with it. When they came to consider that these three men were going to deal with properties variously estimated at £200,000,000 to £300,000,000 value, it seemed absurd to pay them such small salaries as £1,200 and £1,000. His hon. friend said that he did not suggest that there would be corruption, though remarks had been made about the wealth of the brewers. He happened by accident to see in the Temperance Record that the income of the Temperance Society was £382,000, and that disposed of the argument that the temperance people were poor and utterly incapable of using money for the 588 purpose for which unfortunately it was sometimes used. In advocating an increase of the salaries he did not for a moment go in for extravagance. But supposing they paid the Chairman £2,000 and the other gentleman £1,500 for fourteen years that would not amount to a very enormous sum when it was remembered how vast was the amount of money and how vast the interests they had to deal with. He thought the Government in their own interest would be wise to accede to the proposal, because the operation of the Bill, if it became an Act, would be followed by great criticism from, every sort of person—whether teetotaller, temperance reformer or brewer—and if by any chance the Commissioners did not do their duty well the odium which would result would fall on their backs, though it was not his duty to save the Government from the effects of their mistakes. For these reasons he should support the Amendment.
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELwas surprised that the hon. Baronet should have taken the line he had done and had advocated higher salaries for these officers and pensions.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid he did not advocate pensions for the gentlemen. What he said was that they were not going to receive pensions and, therefore, higher salaries should be given on that account.
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the hon. Baronet must be well aware that if any Member was chosen for the office, he himself was exceedingly likely to be mentioned for that purpose. As the self-denying ordinance proposed earlier in the evening had been rejected that eventuality became all the more possible. In the view of the Government should such an appointment be offered and accepted it would have the double advantage that the finances of the Commission would be in capable hands and that in future Government business would be expedited to an extent which hitherto had been found impossible. He should watch with interest whether the hon. Baronet went into the division lobby in favour of the Amendment seeing that he himself might be so closely concerned.
§ MR. BONAE LAWsaid that in view of the alarming contingency that his hon. friend should disappear from the House and others with him they could not do better than begin at once. He thought, however, that this Amendment was a serious one if the Bill was to be treated seriously at all. The question as to the character of the Commissioners would, to a large extent, depend upon the remuneration they received. He ventured to say that they could not get a good lawyer upon the salary named in the Bill, although the Solicitor-General disputed that. He did not for a moment contend that there were not many young lawyers who would be glad of the office and would be quite ready and capable of doing the work well. One of his most intimate friends quite lately told him that he was a far better man and doing better work when he was young than he was doing now. In other words, he was living on his reputation, which many other lawyers besides him were doing. He maintained that such appointments were made on reputations which individuals had earned and not on future capacity. Judged by that test they could not possibly get good men at the salaries offered, certainly not good business men. He was certain they would not get a good business man to take the position. A business man who had been engaged in business for any length of time would not be tempted by such an emolument as this. There was another point which he thought was really a serious one, and which ought not to be left out of account. His hon. friend behind him had pointed out that Civil servants at present did not get salaries equivalent to those which men of the same ability would get outside. They all knew that was true, but they obtained rewards in another direction and were either paid in malt or in meal. A man could be paid either in money or in social position, and our Civil servants undoubtedly enjoyed a social status far higher than they would have if they were in business and received two or three times the salary they did. He did not think that would apply to the Commissioners, because their position was not a permanent one, or one which could be looked upon as a life position. He agreed that the best way to get a 590 good man was not by any means to pay a good salary. Boards of directors, he knew, jumped at the conclusion that if they offered a good salary they got a good man, but that was not true. One must use great discrimination, but this was certain, that unless they gave a remuneration which was comparable to the rewards in other professions they would not get men who were fit to discharge the duties of Commissioners under this Bill. If the Government meant business and intended to appoint a Commission in which the public would have confidence, they should appoint one which would have a higher remuneration than that given in this Bill.
§ *MR. REES (Montgomery Boroughs)said that all the zeal of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London for economy had gone by the board and as his own appointment was on the cards he seemed to be in favour of as high a salary as possible. In all seriousness the hon. Baronet said that it had been represented that the temperance party was a poor one, but he believed that if any people saved any money, it would be those who, at every meal, saved half of the cost by not having wine.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid the hon. Member was mistaken. The statement that the temperance party had no money was made by an hon. Member on his own side of the House. He thought they had money.
§ *MR. REESsaid in that case he agreed. The hon. Baronet also represented that they were generally incapable, but that was not so. The epithet incapable was generally used with another, which was quite inappropriate to temperance folk. For these reasons he disagreed with the views of the hon. Baronet. Then the hon. Baronet said that barristers and lawyers appointed to these offices would exercise quasi-judicial functions. So far as the attitude of their minds should be judicial, that was true, but that was not a thing which they had to pay for so highly. If by quasi-judicial functions the hon. Baronet meant that the Commissioners would have to display a knowledge of the law and to possess high legal acumen, he 591 said that was not required, and in that sense high judicial qualities were not wanted by these Commissioners. The hon. Member for Dulwich practically pointed out that the best lawyers they had were paid at the rate of £1,200 a year, and that they got worse and worse when they received later in life large salaries, and lived upon their reputations. For himself he thought that a very good lawyer could be got for £1,200 a year for the public service.
§ MR. JAMES HOPEsaid he did not gather from his graduated scale at what the hon. Member would appraise the proper salary of Law Officers.
§ *MR. REESsaid that if his hon. friend wished him to express in any terms the value of his hon. and learned friend the Solicitor-General, he should be quite unable to do so. He thought his services were beyond price. If he desired him to institute a graduated scale he asked him to perform a task for which he was not fitted. It was not a question of Law Officers of the Crown, but of Licensing Commissioners.
§ MR. JAMES HOPEobserved that the hon. Member had said that good lawyers obtained £1,200 a year, but as they rose in their profession, their value became less. He wished to know what they were worth when they were law officers. Was the figure about £250?
§ *Mr. REESsaid he was simply referring to an argument of the hon. Member for Dulwich, but he did not say he adopted it. He was going to point out that certain arguments that had been used by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were mutually destructive, but he did not adopt them. He did say, however, that lawyers often occupied judicial positions all through the British Empire, in some cases that of Chief Justice, for something very like £1,200 a year. On the question of whether the money would be forth-coming to pay higher salaries he understood from hon. Gentlemen opposite that there was to be a difficulty about making both ends meet. He believed for himself however that there would be no difficulty whatever in getting Commissioners at the 592 figure in the Bill, and he thought that everybody would agree that they could get three competent gentlemen for £1,200 and £1,000 apiece. Then the hon. Member for Dulwich said they had to take the standard of the salaries paid in the Civil Service and that although that might be relatively lower, the social status which these servants possessed made up for the difference. There was no profession, however, which gave such an undoubted social status, and which was one of the highest to be connected with, directly or indirectly, as the brewing trade. He could quite easily prove that there was no class of persons who had greater social status, greater rank and position than those connected with the brewing trade, and these gentlemen, the Commissioners, would be indirectly connected with it. He did not think they should be paid more because their status was lower then that of servants of the Crown. Upon the whole, having reviewed briefly the arguments that had been presented by hon. Members opposite, he had to submit that if this Commission was to be set up the salaries proposed by the Government were quite sufficient.
§ MR. W. THORNEcalled the attention of the Chairman, as a point of order, to the fact that there were some ladies in the Ladies' Gallery.
§ THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. CALDWELL,) Lanarkshire, Midtook no notice of the interruption.
§ MR. RAWLINSONsaid he thoroughly agreed with the contention that certainly this was not the time to add any burden to the national menage, in the way of a number of salaried officials. It was for that reason he objected to this clause, and the appointment of a paid Commission of this sort. But if the Government once insisted upon having such a Commission, with all the expense, it was very bad economy to save a few pence. What, he asked, had these people to do? They had to be constituted as a court of appeal from every licensing bench in the country, and the decisions of the magistrates were to be overruled by this extraordinary tribunal. The justices in other words were to be overruled by Civil 593 servants who, from a financial standpoint, were in an inferior position to that of a County Court Judge. Did the Government seriously contemplate setting up a tribunal which was to be a court of appeal upon such a salary as this? Then again, look at the large interests they had to control. The question of whether a particular hotel was to retain its licence involved sometimes many thousands of pounds, and the decisions of these Commissioners upon that sort of question was to be absolutely without any sort of appeal. Was it so unimportant whether the Government obtained the proper type of men for this position? The Under-Secretary, in a very chaffing and amusing speech, suggested the appointment of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, who was an excellent business man; but that only showed, as he had pointed out the night before, that the Government did not appoint members of a Licensing Commission as they did a Judge, knowing that the eyes of the profession were upon him and them and that there were safeguards about the position. But there was generally some little arrière pensée at the back of the mind of the Government, as was shown by the Under-Secretary stating that they were going to appoint the hon. Member for the City, because he was the very best man and they would be able to get business through more rapidly if he went. That showed that other things besides suitability might enter into the matter, and that a post might be given because of
§ private advantage to a Party. There were different ways of paying men, and, as had been pointed out, in addition to money there might also be social status. The question was whether they were going to make these men dependent upon the Government and upon the off chance of getting something more when their duties finished. They were not to be given any fixity of tenure, which was a degrading position for those who had to perform judicial duties of this kind. It was no defence for giving them an inadequate salary, because they might hope to get some social status. That was thoroughly bad. He had always objected to this Commission, as he thought they should not go on adding to the number of salaried officers every year. It was a bad time to do this, but if the Government intended to carry it out, let the people responsible for this work be paid a salary so that they could be independent of the Government, and be in a position to inspire confidence amongst those whose decisions they would have to overrule, and amongst those whose property they would have to deal with in every part of the Kingdom. These people should be of the highest capacity and character, and though he thought he knew one or two men who were fitted for this work he was not sure whether the House would agree with him in the matter.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 223; Noes, 63. (Division List No. 306.)
597| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Boulton, A. C. F. | Cory, Sir Clifford John |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Bowerman, C. W. | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. |
| Agnew, George William | Brace, William | Cox, Harold |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Bramsdon, T. A. | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Branch, James | Crooks, William |
| Armitage, R. | Brigg, John | Crossley, William J. |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Bright, J. A. | Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) |
| Astbury, John Meir | Brocklehurst, W. B. | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Bryce, J. Annan | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Barker, John | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Dobson, Thomas W. |
| Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) | Cameron, Robert | Duckworth, James |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) |
| Barnard, E. B. | Cheetham, John Frederick | Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Clough, William | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) |
| Beale, W. P. | Clynes, J. R. | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Erskine, David C. |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. | Essex, R. W. |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Levy, Sir Maurice | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Lewis, John Herbert | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Lupton, Arnold | Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne) |
| Ferens, T. R. | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Sears, J. E. |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Lyell, Charles Henry | Shackleton, David James |
| Findlay, Alexander | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.) |
| Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Maclean, Donald | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Furness, Sir Christopher | M'Callum, John M. | Snowden, P. |
| Gill, A. H. | M'Crae, Sir George | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Glover, Thomas | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Maddison, Frederick | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) |
| Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Mallet, Charles E. | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Markham, Arthur Basil | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Hall, Frederick | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale | Marnham, F. J. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Massie, J. | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Menzies, Walter | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr) |
| Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) | Micklem, Nathaniel | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E. |
| Hart-Davies, T. | Molteno, Percy Alport | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Tomkinson, James |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Morse, L. L. | Toulmin, George |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Verney, F. W. |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard. | Villiers, Ernest Amherst |
| Hedges, A. Paget | Myer, Horatio | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Hemmerde, Edward George | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r | Walton, Joseph |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) |
| Henry, Charles S. | Nussey, Thomas Willans | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Nuttall, Harry | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Higham, John Sharp | O' Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid | Watt, Henry A. |
| Hodge, John | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Holt, Richard Durning | Parker, James (Halifax) | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Hooper, A. G. | Partington, Oswald | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N. | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Horniman, Emslie John | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P. |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Hudson, Walter | Radford, G. H. | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Hyde, Clarendon | Rainy, A. Rolland | Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n) |
| Jackson, R. S. | Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne | Williamson, A. |
| Jacoby, Sir James Alfred | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro') | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Rees, J. D. | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n) | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Risdale, E. A. | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.) |
| Jowett, F. W. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Kekewich, Sir George | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Kelley, George D. | Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Lambert, George | Robinson, S. | |
| Lamont, Norman | Roe, Sir Thomas | TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Mr. |
| Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. | Joseph Pease and Master of |
| Lehmann, R. C. | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Elibank. |
| Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex, F. | Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Forster, Henry William |
| Ashley, W. W. | Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm) | Gardner, Ernest |
| Balcarres, Lord | Courthope, G. Loyd | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Craik, Sir Henry | Goulding, Edward Alfred |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Doughty, Sir George | Gretton, John |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Du Cros, Arthur Philip | Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.) |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan) | Halpin, J. |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Faber, George Denison (York) | Hamilton, Marquess of |
| Cave, George | Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Fell, Arthur | Hill, Sir Clement |
| Clark, George Smith | Fletcher, J. S. | Hills, J. W. |
| Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Ratcliff, Major R. F. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Houston, Robert Paterson | Remnant, James Farquharson | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Hunt, Rowland | Renton, Leslie | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| M'Arthur, Charles | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Salter, Arthur Clavell | Young, Samuel |
| Nield, Herbert | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | |
| Oddy, John James | Stanier, Beville | TELLERS FOR THE NOES, Mr. |
| Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | Lane-Fox and Mr. Rawlinson. |
§ MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid the Amendment he now moved would make it obligatory upon the Licensing Commission to appoint a secretary who should be a barrister or a solicitor experienced in licensing law. At present there was no obligation to appoint a secretary at all. Earlier in the afternoon he had ventured to move an Amendment that one of the Commissioners should be learned in licensing law. That was resisted by the Solicitor-General, but having regard to the expression of willingness by the hon. and learned Gentleman to accept reasonable Amendments he hoped he would not resist this Amendment. Under the Act for the establishing of the Lunacy Commission they were bound to have a barrister of seven years standing who should be established as a Civil servant of the State. It was that precedent he wished the Government to follow. There were many matters connected with this Licensing Commission upon which it would be necessary for them, if they had not a secretary of legal experience, to consult a legal adviser which would entail great expense on the country, but if they had a secretary of legal experience the expense would be largely covered by his salary. He begged to move.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 9, line 20, to leave out the word 'may,' and to insert the word 'shall.'"—(Mr. Samuel Roberts.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'way' stand part of the clause.'"
§ SIR S. EVANSresisted the Amendment on the grounds, first, that it would tie the hands of the Commission, and, secondly, that there was nothing in the Bill to prevent them appointing a secretary who would answer to the description mentioned in the Amendment if they wished to do so. Further than that, he did not think a close acquaintance with the 598 licensing law was at all necessary. It was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition that a knowledge of past licensing law was not necessary for the administration of this Bill. It was not in the least degree necessary that any of the three Commissioners should have any knowledge of the licensing law in order to approve or not of schemes Submitted to them by the licensing justices. He was not decrying the advisability of everybody having some knowledge of the law, or saying that the members of the Commission should not have a knowledge of the licensing law, but it was not necessary, because, in so far as any knowledge of the law was necessary, there was nothing to prevent them from appointing as their secretary a barrister or a solicitor answering to the description of the hon. Member. The main objection to the Amendment was that it would tie the hands of the Commission with reference to the appointment of a secretary. The hon. Member had referred to the case of the Lunacy Commission, but they had to deal with all sorts of questions where it was advisable and even essential that they should have the advantage of legal knowledge. On the other hand, there was the case of the Railway and Canal Commission, a body which had rights dealing with property under the Board of Trade. There was nothing in the Act which made it necessary for that Commission to appoint any secretary. If they had appointed one, he had no doubt they had appointed a man quite capable of filling the office. The Commission would for their own sakes take into consideration the suggestion in the Amendment, but it would not be right to hamper them at all.
§ MR. CLAVELL SALTER (Hampshire, Basingstoke)regarded the Amendment as an obviously reasonable one. The Committee differed on a good many 599 points, but there was one point on which they could all agree. The licensing law was somewhat complicated and intricate, and it would be the function of this Commission, which would occupy a position of such great authority and responsibility, to administer that law from day to day. He therefore ventured to suggest that the Commission must have upon it some very competent legal element or it must have daily and almost hourly recourse to competent legal advice. An attempt had been made to ensure that one of the three Commissioners should be an accomplished lawyer. That would have been a very desirable course, but it was not accepted by the Committee, and the Commission ran the risk if the Amendment were not accepted of being without any permanent legal assistance or they would have to have constant recourse to outside legal advice. He did not agree with the Solicitor-General that this Commission, having no lawyer upon it and conscious of its limitations, would be ready to take legal advice. His experience was that the more ignorant, the more self-satisfied people were. He thought, therefore, it was extremely probable that they would have three self-satisfied laymen, knowing nothing of the licensing laws which it was their business to carry out, but imagining they knew all about it, who would carry out their important work without any trained legal assistance. For these reasons, he thought the suggestion of his hon. friend highly reasonable, and that it should be made obligatory upon the Commission to appoint a legal secretary.
§ MR. NUSSEY (Pontefract)thought it was beyond controversy that the Commissioners would have to act in a quasi-judicial capacity on many matters of importance. They might, however, be appointed entirely from lay members of the community and they might elect a lay secretary. If any legal point arose for their determination, and they required legal advice, to whom would they apply? Would they be able to apply to the law officers or to the Home Secretary, or where would they get the advice? In some cases, at any rate, it might be necessary for them to have legal advice to enable them to discharge their difficult duties.
§ MR. CARLILE (Hertfordshire, St. Albans)said there were two principles in connection with the work of the Commission which rendered it highly desirable that the Amendment should be adopted. It was, in the first place, essential that the decisions of the Commission should be consistent. If they had no secretary with a knowledge of the licensing laws beyond the anomalies contained in this Bill, then they would have to have advice from outside. It might come from many sources and it might consequently be wholly inconsistent. Then it was equally important that there should be continuity of policy, which would be almost certainly wanting if casual and outside advice were obtained from time to time as questions arose. There should be some person attached to the Commission who would know what their decision had been and who would therefore be able and qualified to see that continuity of policy was maintained. If there was to be that public confidence which alone could make the Act work successfully, then the decisions of the Commission must be consistent and there must be continuity of policy. He should therefore support the Amendment if his hon. friend went to a division.
§ MR. COURTHOPEsaid there was one point which he wished to press upon the attention of the Solicitor-General. In how many cases out of the 993 schemes which would be sent up to the Commission did he imagine there would be proposals which would be ultra vires, or of a character going beyond the provisions of the Licensing Bill? Surely the Solicitor-General had sufficient knowledge of human nature to be quite convinced that a large number—not necessarily a large proportion—of items contained in these schemes would be illegal in some way or other. It would be in the public interest that there should be somebody on the Commission or working in connection with it able to detect these illegalities at once. He did not think that in every case the licensing justices or even their clerks could be absolutely relied on to see that there was nothing that want beyond the law. There should, therefore, be attached to the Commission, somebody 601 with the legal knowledge calculated to ensure that difficulties of the kind should not arise.
§ SIR S. EVANSsaid he could not conceive that there would be any cases where the schemes would be ultra vires, or where there would be any difficulty on the part of the Commissioners in dealing with them; and, even if, here and there, there should be a case where the justices had not taken proper care or legal advice, he could not conceive that the Commission, whatever its personnel might be, would not be able to detect it. If they had any legal difficulty, they would be able to go to the Home Secretary, who would be able to consult the law officers. It might very possibly be that one Commissioner would be a lawyer himself, and if the Commission thought it advisable they could of their own free will appoint a lawyer as secretary. It was merely because they did not think it desirable to compel them to appoint a secretary that they could not accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ SIR S. EVANSsaid it was agreed on all sides of the House that the remuneration was to be payable out of moneys provided by Parliament in order that Parliament might have a right to review the proceedings of the Commissioners. This had been done in pursuance of a pledge given as far back as March last by the Prime Minister. He therefore moved the Amendment of which he had given notice.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 9, line 26, at the beginning, to insert the words 'The remuneration and expenses of the Licensing Commission shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, and.'"—(Mr. Solicitor-General.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. JAMES HOPEmoved the insertion of the words, "Every decision of the Licensing Commission shall be subject to an appeal by any person affected to the King's Bench Division, on the grounds of a biassed or unreasonable exercise of 602 their powers under this Act." He said the powers of the Commissioners were vast and affected very large interests; there were very large questions as between man and man and between one interest and another, as to which was to be affected, and which was not, which was to suffer and which was to survive. Apart from that there were various nice questions of a judicial or semi-judicial character to be determined. It was not right or fair to give these enormous powers to a set of men without an appeal. Of course, there was the Parliamentary appeal, but they knew how little that was worth—a Parliamentary appeal which could perhaps only be exercised once a year. A number of conflicting cases came forward; it was quite impossible to form anything like an impartial view of even the most important, and in the end the thing was debated and decided on party lines. There ought to be some judicial appeal from the irresponsible judgment of the Commissioners. He did not think there ought to be an appeal in their purely discretionary office. He did not suppose they would find a body able to sit in judgment on their wisdom or as to the expediency of their policy, but on the two grounds of bias and unreasonable exercise an appeal ought to lie. He hoped and trusted that the Commissioners would be men without bias, but such men were very difficult to find in this world. Even with the best intention there was often a latent bias which revealed itself when the moment of action came. When they came to unreasonable exercise, he admitted he was rather influenced by the provision of Section 6 that the schemes should provide for the statutory reduction being distributed reasonably over the reduction period. Who was to be the judge of "reasonably"? Nobody but the Licensing Commissioners. Once they decided that a scheme was reasonable it must be held to be reasonable, yet if they held it to be reasonable a quite excessive reduction might take place within the first few years with very serious financial results to those affected by the compensation levy. There was an enormous interest involved, and it all depended on the construction of the word "reasonably." These three gentlemen ought not to be the sole and final judges of the meaning 603 of the word "reasonably." He trusted the Government would see that it was not fair and safe to entrust this enormous weight of work, involving both big questions of policy and nice questions of law, to the sole judgment of these three. In other cases there was a series of appeals up to the highest Court of the realm, and there ought to be at least one here. His legal friends told him that it was an innovation to make bias a ground of appeal, but the whole Licensing Commission was a grave innovation on the rights and property of His Majesty's subjects, and some change in the ordinary legal procedure might be requisite to meet it.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 10, line 2, at end, to add the words '(10) Every decision of the Licensing Commission shall be subject to an appeal by any person affected to the King's Bench Division on the ground of a biassed or unreasonable exercise of their powers under this Act.'"—(Mr. James Hope.)
§ Question proposed, That those words be there added."
§ *MR. CLAVELL SALTERexpressed surprise that the Solicitor-General had not replied to the Amendment. He would have thought that a lawyer of his eminence would have had something to say on this Amendment, and would have experienced some difficulty in finding anything to say against the proposal. If the Amendment were carried the Government would be taking a real step towards reconciling the moderate opinion of the country to the Act. Of the many features that were regarded with dislike and distrust, that which excited the greatest dislike and distrust, perhaps not altogether reasonable, but very strongly 604 felt, was that these enormous and novel powers should be vested in this new body of three, not sitting in the localities, but stretching out a long and very powerful arm from London. The Under-Secretary for the Home Department had asked—Why should they not be three in number, why should they not be paid, and where else should they sit except in London? But he believed people did not like the idea, for all that there was an air of reason about it. Their functions were of enormous importance, and they would control and affect enormous pecuniary interests. It seemed strange that anyone who considered himself wronged of 2d. could go to the House of Lords, whereas in this case the vast interests dealt with had no right of appeal. He did not think much of the point, but it might be that there was some novelty in giving the High Court an appeal on the question of reason. He imagined large interests went to the High Court of Justice every day, to the Railway and Canal Commissioners, upon questions whether railway rates, and so forth, were reasonable in amount, which was certainly very analogous to the functions proposed to be entrusted in this matter. This was very different from a proposal to give a general right of appeal. The onus would lie upon the aggrieved person. They need not very seriously consider bias. It was not likely to be proved. The point was unreasonableness, and the applicant would fail unless he could establish to the satisfaction of the Court, not merely that it was a decision which they should not have arrived at, but that it was unreasonable, which was a very difficult thing to prove. This Commission was not trusted in the country, and there was a great dislike to giving one man a right 605 to exercise power over another, especially in large matters, without any right of appeal to a higher authority. On the other hand, if there was an institution in this country which was trusted it was the High Court, and he believed if the Commissioners were placed to this extent under its jurisdiction a considerable amount of the feeling which existed against the Bill would be greatly modified.
§ MR. WYNDHAM (Dover)said he was sure the Solicitor-General had refrained from enlightening the Committee on the Amendment, because he thought in all sincerity it had no great substantive importance. He would especially direct his attention to the bearing upon this question which he thought was to be found in the short speech he had made on the last Amendment. He had said that the expenses of the Licensing Commission were to be borne out of Votes passed in the House, and that that was in pursuance of a promise made in March. The reason given for the promise was that the House, since it voted the money, should have the power of criticising the action of these Commissioners. That was to say that in making that promise, and in fulfilling it, the Government recognised that the Licensing Commission was a judicial tribunal. But it would be also an administrative body. He had had some experience in connection with Ireland of bodies set up by the House, who exercised a judicious blend of judicial and administrative functions, and it had been a matter of debate ever since he had been in the House whether any such body was acting in a particular case in its administrative or in its judicial capacity. There were two well-known 606 avenues of redress. If a judicial body failed to give satisfaction to any person, he had an appeal to the law, and if an administrative officer failed to give satisfaction to any person in the exercise of his duty or was held to have inflicted wrong or damage upon any of His Majesty's subjects, his conduct could be reviewed in that House. When they created a body with both judicial and administrative powers, if any of His Majesty's lieges felt aggrieved and complained they would be told that it was a mere administrative Act, and they ought to bring up their case before Parliament; and if some hon. Member brought their case before Parliament the Minister would probably reply, "You forget that this body is judicial and your remedy is to go to a Court of law." It would be far simpler to put into the Bill some kind of appeal upon certain limited grounds. Whether the ground should be limited to biassed or unreasonable action they could consider later. There ought to be an appeal, and this was necessary if this body was to be held to account either in a Court of law or in the House of Commons. The Government would probably reply that this concession might open up a large field of litigation, but he did not think it would. The persons interested in the trade were subject under its provisions to so many occasions for finding money that he did not think they would go out of their way to spend more money upon a number of fictitious appeals. What might happen was that appeals would be heard and some definition would follow from the judgment in the King's Bench as to what were the judicial functions of this Commission. After a case had been carried to the 607 House of Lords it would put an end to a great deal of unredressed injury to a number of their fellow-subjects.
§ *MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked what the Solicitor-General, as a commonsense man, would say if he were called upon to assure an audience in Wales that this proposal was a just one. He would have to tell his audience that the Licensing Commission controlled practically between £1,000,000 and £2,000,000 of other people's property. They possessed almost absolute control, because the safeguard named about the review in Parliament, amounted to nothing. The debate in Parliament might never come on, and even if it did they could only criticise. The other safeguard mentioned was that the Commissioners had to report to Parliament, but that was in regard to work done. The Commissioners had almost unlimited power to make levies to any extent. The Solicitor-General said the schedule was a check, but it was no check whatever. If the Government really thought that the schedule was a check on the Commissioners in making the levie why did the Solicitor-General reject the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kingston which sought to make the schedule of that nature? Supposing the licensing justices prepared in a locality a scheme for so many public-houses to be closed. Being local men they would be the best people to ensure that the scheme would be a fair one. The scheme would be sent on to the Licensing Commissioners who could tear it up if they liked. If the Commissioners, instead of adopting the scheme of the licensing justices, decided to impose another scheme they had power to do it, and they would be doing a grave injustice to that 608 locality. Surely there ought to be a right of appeal on the part of those aggrieved. It was very unjust that this right of appeal from the decisions of an autocratic body of Commissioners in London, who had powers over such vast amounts of property, should be refused. After all, there was amongst the people of this country a love of justice and fair-play. Suppose this appeal did create litigation, that was better than injustice. Under this clause, whatever injustice was done, the people affected were refused the Englishman's right of appealing to a higher authority.
§ SIR S. EVANSreplied that he had no doubt he would be able to persuade a public meeting that the Government proposal was just. The Committee had decided there should be no appeal against the decision of the justices as to the reduction of licences within the statutory number, but there was a right of appeal against refusal to renew under Section 4, and no right of appeal that now existed would be taken away. There would be no appeal against the scheme of the justices, and the Commissioners receiving it would consult the justices upon any modification they might desire to make. There was no reason for an appeal against their action, which would be that of an administrative, not a judicial body, though in the performance of their duties they would act judicially.
§ MR. WYNDHAMsaid that what he asked was whether this body would exercise certain judicial functions, and he understood the Solicitor-General to assent.
§ SIR S. EVANSreplied that they were an administrative body, but no 609 doubt in the performance of their duties they would act judicially. He had never said they were a judicial tribunal, and he challenged the right hon. Gentleman to point out a thing they had to do which could be characterised as the act of a judicial tribunal.
§ MR. WYNDHAMAll administrative actions are subject to review in this House. Will the actions of the Commissioners be subject to review?
§ SIR S. EVANSMost certainly. He thought that had been made perfectly clear. The hon. Member for Basingstoke had said that if the Government would accept the Amendment they would go far to reconcile moderate opinion in the country, but he did not say whether it would reconcile his opinion which was diametrically opposed to that of the Government. The words proposed in the Amendment were very unhappy. Supposing the scheme affected a hundred houses, was each one of those houses to have an appeal? To whom? Was it to be to the King's Bench, and, if so, was it to be to one Judge or a divisional Court? What could the Judges know of the local circumstances affecting the scheme prepared by the local justices? It had been said that everybody who was affected to the extent of 2d. had a right of appeal to the House of Lords. That was totally inaccurate, and it was calculated to mislead those to whom it was addressed. Let him make an appeal to lawyers on the other side of the House. Could anybody cite a precedent for the kind of appeal proposed in this Amendment? No appeal had ever been allowed upon a question of fact; and no question of law could arise in the decisions of the Commissioners. 610 Moreover, there was no case in which Parliament had provided an appeal from the "biassed or unreasonable" decision of any Court it had ever set up. He was convinced there was absolutely no necessity for giving an appeal, and certainly he objected most strongly to the grounds given in the Amendment for asking for an appeal.
§ MR. BONAR LAWsaid the Solicitor-General began by saying that he would put before the Committee the arguments which he would be prepared to put before a public meeting. It depended upon the kind of public meeting what effect the arguments would have, but if it consisted of people who examined his arguments, he would wish that he had not addressed them at all. The licensing justices could, if they chose, make themselves the assistants of the assistants of the Commissioners, but if the Committee brought the matter down to hard fact, they would find that the justices had absolutely no power of any kind under the Bill. If they prepared a scheme, the Commissioners might alter it, and there was no appeal from them. If the justices did not prepare a scheme, the Commissioners might prepare one and override them entirely. The Commissioners were to act as judge and jury, and the only power left to the justices was that of acting as executioners. If the justices declined to act in that capacity, this precious Commission would take upon themselves the duty of executioners as well. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that there was no instance in law of an appeal except on a question of law, and that here no question of law could be raised. Let the Committee 611 consider what the conditions were. This was a tribunal which, under the powers given to them by the Bill, whether they were judicial or administrative, involved the interests of men in large sums of money, and though its decisions were to be given in secret and without hearing the parties concerned, yet no appeal was to be allowed. It would be an absurd injustice that these great interests should be taken away by men receiving £1,000 a year, and without any right of appeal. The word "democracy" had been used very frequently in this House of Commons. He used to think that one of the essences of democracy was decentralisation. But what was the essence of this Bill? In every way the Government had concentrated power in a few hands. The Government were acting in this matter as they had acted in everything else. They had taken the power away from the House of Commons and put it in Downing Street. Seldom had a big Bill like this been piloted through the
§ House without a Minister being in attendance. The Prime Minister set up the guillotine and then left.
§ MR. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland, Appleby)asked whether the hon. Member was in order in discussing the guillotine on this Amendment.
*THE CHAIRMANHe is only in order in discussing this Amendment which applies to the question of an appeal from the Commission.
§ MR. BONAR LAWsaid the fact that the Committee had had no opportunity of discussing this question was an additional reason why there should be some right of appeal from the arbitrary decision of this centralised dictatorship which the Government were setting up.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 98; Noes, 292. (Division List No. 307.)
615| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F. | Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon | Hunt, Rowland |
| Ashley, W. W. | Doughty, Sir George | Kerry, Earl of |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H. | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Keswick, William |
| Balcarres, Lord | Du Cros, Arthur Philip | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | Lane-Fox, G. R. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond) | Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Fardell, Sir T. George | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham |
| Barnard, E. B. | Fell, Arthur | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Fletcher, J. S. | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Forster, Henry William | Lowe, Sir Francis William |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Gardner, Ernest | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | M'Arthur, Charles |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Magnus, Sir Philip |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Marks, H. H. (Kent) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Gretton, John | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Cave, George | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.) | Nield, Herbert |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Hamilton, Marquess of | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid |
| Clark, George Smith | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford | Oddy, John James |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm | Hill, Sir Clement | Percy, Earl |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Hills, J. W. | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Houston, Robert Paterson | Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne |
| Ratcliff, Major R. F. | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) | Warde, Col. G. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Remnant, James Farquharson | Stanier, Beville | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Renton, Leslie | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Ronaldshay, Earl of | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | Young, Samuel |
| Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ. | |
| Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) | Thorne, William (West Ham) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. |
| Salter, Arthur Clavell | Valentia, Viscount | James Hope and Mr. George |
| Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) | D. Faber. |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Hazel, Dr. A. E. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Crooks, William | Hedges, A. Paget |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Crosfield, A. H. | Helme, Norval Watson |
| Agnew, George William | Crossley, William J. | Hemmerde, Edward George |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Dalmeny, Lord | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Dalziel, James Henry | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan | Henry, Charles S. |
| Armitage, R. | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Higham, John Sharp |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. |
| Astbury, John Meir | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Hodge, John |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Holt, Richard Durning |
| Balfour, Robert | Dobson, Thomas W. | Hooper, A. G. |
| Barker, John | Duckworth, James | Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N. |
| Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Barnes, G. N. | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Hudson, Walter |
| Beale, W. P. | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Hyde, Clarendon |
| Beauchamp, E. | Erskine, David C. | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel |
| Beaumont, Hon. Hubert | Essex, R. W. | Jackson, R. S. |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Esslemont, George Birnie | Jacoby, Sir James Alfred |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Jardine, Sir J. |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd | Everett, R. Lacey | Johnson, John (Gateshead) |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Fenwick, Charles | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Ferens, T. R. | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Findlay, Alexander | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire |
| Brace, William | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Jowett, F. W. |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Fuller, John Michael F. | Kearley, Sir Hudson E. |
| Branch, James | Furness, Sir Christopher | Kekewick, Sir George |
| Brigg, John | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Kelley, George D. |
| Bright, J. A. | Gill, A. H. | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Laidlaw, Robert |
| Brodie, H. C. | Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) |
| Brooke, Stopford | Glover, Thomas | Lambert, George |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Lamont, Norman |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Leese, Joseph Sir F. (Accrington |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Lehmann, R. C. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Gulland, John W. | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich |
| Cameron, Robert | Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Hall, Frederick | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Chance, Frederick William | Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Lupton, Arnold |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes |
| Clough, William | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Clynes, J. R. | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh | Lynch, H. B. |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Hart-Davies, T. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Mackarness, Frederic C. |
| Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. | Maclean, Donald |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Harwood, George | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | M'Callum, John M. |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | M'Crae, Sir George |
| Cox, Harold | Haworth, Arthur A. | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) |
| M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E. |
| M'Micking, Major G. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton |
| Maddison, Frederick | Ridsdale, E. A. | Tomkinson, James |
| Mallet, Charles E. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Markham, Arthur Basil | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Toulmin, George |
| Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Marnham, F. J. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd | Verney, F. W. |
| Massie, J. | Robinson, S. | Villiers, Ernest Amherst |
| Masterman, C. F. G. | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Vivian, Henry |
| Menzies, Walter | Roe, Sir Thomas | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Micklem, Nathaniel | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Walton, Joseph |
| Molteno, Percy Alport | Rose, Charles Day | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent |
| Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Waring, Walter |
| Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan |
| Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Morrell, Philip | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Morse, L. L. | Scarisbrick, T. T. L. | Watt, Henry A. |
| Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Myer, Horatio | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r | Sears, J. E. | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Norman, Sir Henry | Seaverns, J. H. | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Seely, Colonel | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Nussey, Thomas Willans | Shackleton, David James | Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P. |
| Nuttall, Harry | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) | Wiles, Thomas |
| O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Sherwell, Arthur James | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| O'Grady, J. | Silcock, Thomas Ball | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John | Williamson, A. |
| Partington, Oswald | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Snowden, P. | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Soares, Ernest J. | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton) | Spicer, Sir Albert | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.) |
| Pollard, Dr. | Strachey, Sir Edward | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Sutherland, J. E. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Radford, G. H. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Raphael, Herbert H. | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury | |
| Rea, Russell (Gloucester) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) | Mr. Joseph Pease and Master |
| Rees, J. D. | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | of Elibank. |
| Rendall, Athelstan | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr |
§ And, it being after half-past Ten of the Clock, the Chairman proceeded, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 17th July, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded this day.
616§ Question put, "That the Clause as amended, stand part of Bill."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 293; Noes,96 (Division List No. 308.)
619| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Astbury, John Meir | Bellairs, Carlyon |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) |
| Agnew, George William | Barker, John | Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) | Boulton, A. C. F. |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Bowerman, C. W. |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Barnes, G. N. | Brace, William |
| Armitage, R. | Beale, W. P. | Bramsdon, T. A. |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Beauchamp, E. | Branch, James |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Beaumont, Hon. Hubert | Brigg, John |
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry | Beck, A. Cecil | Bright, J. A. |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. | Montagu, Hon. E. S. |
| Brodie, H. C. | Harwood, George | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) |
| Brooke, Stopford | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Morrell, Philip |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Haworth, Arthur A. | Morse, L. L. |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Hedges, A. Paget | Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Helme, Norval Watson | Myer, Horatio |
| Cameron, Robert | Hemmerde, Edward George | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Chance, Frederick William | Henry, Charles S. | Nussey, Thomas Willans |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Kon., S.) | Nuttall, Harry |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) |
| Clough, William | Higham, John Sharp | O'Grady, J. |
| Clynes, J. R. | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Hodge, John | Partington, Oswald |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. | Holt, Richard Durning | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Hooper, A. G. | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N. | Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton) |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John | Horniman, Emslie John | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Cox, Harold | Hudson, Walter | Pollard, Dr. |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Hyde, Clarendon | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) |
| Crooks, William | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Jackson, R. S. | Radford, G. H. |
| Crossley, William J. | Jacoby, Sir James Alfred | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Dalmeny, Lord | Jardine, Sir J. | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro') |
| Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan) | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Rees, J. D. |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Richards, T. F. (Wolderh'mpt'n |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N. | Jowett, F. W. | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Kearley, Sir Hudson E. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Kekewich, Sir George | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Duckworth, James | Kelley, George D. | Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall | Laidlaw, Robert | Robinson, S. |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Lambert, George | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Erskine, David C. | Lamont, Norman | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Essex, R. W. | Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) | Rose, Charles Day |
| Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Lehmann, R. C. | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Levy, Sir Maurice | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Ferens, T. R. | Lewis, John Herbert | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Scarisbrick, T. T. L. |
| Findlay, Alexander | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Lupton, Arnold | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne |
| Furness, Sir Christopher | Lyell, Charles Henry | Sears, J. E. |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Lynch, H. B. | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Gill, A. H. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Seely, Colonel |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Shackleton, David James |
| Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W. | Maclean, Donald | Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick, B.) |
| Glover, Thomas | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | M'Callum, John M. | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | M'Crae, Sir George | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Snowden, P. |
| Gulland, John W. | M'Micking, Major G. | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton | Maddison, Frederick | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Mallet, Charles E. | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) |
| Hall, Frederick | Markham, Arthur Basil | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Marnham, F. J. | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Massie, J. | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) | Masterman, C. F. G. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh | Menzies, Walter | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury |
| Hart-Davies, T. | Micklem, Nathaniel | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Molteno, Percy Alport | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | Waring, Walter | Williamson, A. |
| Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr) | Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton | Waterlow, D. S. | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Thorne, William (Hest Ham) | Watt, Henry A. | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Tomkinson, James | Wedgwood, Josiah C. | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Torrance, Sir A. M. | White, Sir George (Norfolk) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.) |
| Toulmin, George | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Trevelyan, Charles Philips | White, Luke (York, E. R.) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Verney, F. W. | Whitehead, Rowland | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Villiers, Ernest Amherst | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Vivian, Henry | Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P. | |
| Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) | Wiles, Thomas | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. |
| Walton, Joseph | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) | Joseph Pease and Master of |
| Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n | Elibank. |
| NOES. | ||
| Ashley, W. W. | Gardner, Ernest | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Percy, Earl |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond) | Gretton, John | Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston) | Ratcliff, Major R. F. |
| Barnard, E. B. | Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hamilton, Marquess of | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford | Renton, Leslie |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Hill, Sir Clement | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hills, J. W. | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Cave, George | Houston, Robert Paterson | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hunt, Rowland | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Kerry, Earl of | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Clark, George Smith | Keswick, William | Stanier, Beville |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ. |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Doughty, Sir George | Lowe, Sir Francis William | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Du Cros, Arthur Philip | M'Arthur, Charles | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | Magnus, Sir Philip | Young, Samuel |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | |
| Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | Morpeth, Viscount | Alexander Acland-Hood and |
| Fell, Arthur | Nield, Herbert | Viscount Valentia. |
| Fletcher, J. S. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | |
| Forster, Henry William | Oddy, John James |
§ Clause 15:
| The Committee divide: Ayes, 291; Noes, 94. (Division List No. 309.) |
| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Armitage, R. | Balfour, Robert (Lanark) |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Barker, John |
| Agnew, George William | Ashton, Thomas Gair | Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry | Barlow, Percy (Bedford) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Astbury, John Meir | Barnes, G. N. |
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
623| Beale, W. P. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | M'Callum, John M. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | M'Crae, Sir George |
| Beaumont, Hon. Hubert | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Gulland, John W. | M'Micking, Major G. |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd | Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton | Maddison, Frederick |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Mallet, Charles E. |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Hall, Frederick | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Marnham, F. J. |
| Brace, William | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Massie, J. |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Branch, James | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh | Menzies, Walter |
| Brigg, John | Hart-Davies, T. | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Bright, J. A. | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. | Montagu, Hon. E. S. |
| Brodie, H. C. | Harwood, George | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) |
| Brooke, Stopford | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Morrell, Philip |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Haworth, Arthur A. | Morse, L. L. |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Hedges, A. Paget | Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Helme, Norval Watson | Myer, Horatio |
| Cameron, Robert | Hemmerde, Edward George | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Chance, Frederick William | Henry, Charles S. | Nussey, Thomas Willans |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Nuttall, Harry |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) |
| Clough, William | Higham, John Sharp | O'Grady, J. |
| Clynes, J. R. | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Hodge, John | Partington, Oswald |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. | Holt, Richard Durning | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Hooper, A. G. | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N. | Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John | Horniman, Emslie John | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Cox, Harold | Hudson, Walter | Pollard, Dr. |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Hyde, Clarendon | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central |
| Crooks, William | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Jackson, R. S. | Radford, G. H. |
| Crossley, William J. | Jacoby, Sir James Alfred | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Dalmeny, Lord | Jardine, Sir J. | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' |
| Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Rees, J. D. |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N. | Jowett, F. W. | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Kearley, Sir Hudson E. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Kekewich, Sir George | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Duckworth, James | Kelley, George D. | Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Bobertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall | Laidlaw, Robert | Robinson, S. |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Lambert, George | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Erskine, David C. | Lamont, Norman | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Essex, R. W. | Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington | Rose, Charles Day |
| Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Lehmann, R. C. | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Levy, Sir Maurice | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Ferens, T. R. | Lewis, John Herbert | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Scarisbrick, T. T. L. |
| Findlay, Alexander | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Lupton, Arnold | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne |
| Furness, Sir Christopher | Lyell, Charles Henry | Sears, J. E. |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Lynch, H. B. | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Gill, A. H. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Seely, Colonel |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Shackleton, David James |
| Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W. | Maclean, Donald | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B. |
| Glover, Thomas | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Silcock, Thomas Ball | Toulmin, George | Wiles, Thomas |
| Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | Verney, F. W. | Williams Llewelyn (Carmarthen |
| Snowden, P. | Villiers, Ernest Amherst | Williamson, A. |
| Soares, Ernest J. | Vivian, Henry | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Spicer, Sir Albert | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Stanley, Albert (Stags, N. W.) | Walton, Joseph | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Strachey, Sir Edward | Waring, Walter | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.) |
| Sutherland, J. E. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Waterlow, D. S. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | Watt, Henry A. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E. | Wedgwood, Josiah C. | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) | |
| Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. |
| Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E. | White, Luke (York, E. R.) | Joseph Pease and Master |
| Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | Whitehead, Rowland | of Elibank. |
| Thorne, William (West Ham) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) | |
| Tomkinson, James | Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P. |
| NOES. | ||
| Ashley, W. W. | Forster, Henry William | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. | Gardner, Ernest | Percy, Earl |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham | Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne |
| Balfour Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.) | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Ratcliff, Major, R. F. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gretton, John | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Barnard, E. B. | Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.) | Renton, Leslie |
| Beckett, Hon. Garvase | Hamilton, Marquess of | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd) | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hill, Sir Clement | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Hills, J. W. | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Cave, George | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Houston, Robert Paterson | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Hunt, Rowland | Stanier, Beville |
| Clark, George Smith | Kerry, Earl of | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Keswick, William | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm. | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ. |
| Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Doughty, Sir George | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Du Cros, Arthur Philip | M'Arthur, Charles | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | Magnus, Sir Philip | Young, Samuel |
| Faber, George Dension (York) | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | |
| Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | Morpeth, Viscount | Alexander Acland-Hood and |
| Fell, Arthur | Nield, Herbert | Viscount Valentia. |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Parkes, Ebenezer |
§ Clause 16:
| The Committee divide:—Ayes, 291; Noes, 91. (Division List No. 310.) |
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Findlay, Alexander | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Lupton, Arnold |
| Astbury, John Meir | Fuller, John Michael F. | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Furness, Sir Christopher | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Lynch, H. B. |
| Barker, John | Gill, A. H. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Hebert John | Mackarness, Frederic C. |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) | Maclean, Donald |
| Barnes, G. N. | Glover, Thomas | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Beale, W. P. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | M'Callum, John M. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | M'Crae, Sir George |
| Beaumont, Hon. Hubert | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Gulland, John W. | M'Micking, Major G. |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'd) | Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton | Maddison, Frederick |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Mallet, Charles E. |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Hall, Frederick | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Marnham, F. J. |
| Brace, William | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Massie, J. |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.) | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Branch, James | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh | Menzies, Walter |
| Brigg, John | Hart-Davies, T. | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Bright, J. A. | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. | Montagu, Hon. E. S. |
| Brodie, H. C. | Harwood, George | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) |
| Brooke, Stopford | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Morrell, Philip |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Haworth, Arthur A. | Morse, L. L. |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Hazel, Dr. A. K. | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Hedges, A. Paget | Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Helme, Norval Watson | Myer, Horatio |
| Cameron, Robert | Hemmerde, Edward George | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Chance, Frederick William | Henry, Charles S. | Nussey, Thomas Willans |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Nuttall, Harry |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) |
| Clough, William | Higham, John Sharp | O'Grady, J. |
| Clynes, J. R. | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Hodge, John | Partington, Oswald |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. | Holt, Richard Durning | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Hooper, A. G. | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N. | Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton) |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John | Horniman, Emslie John | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Cox, Harold | Hudson, Walter | Pollard, Dr. |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Hyde, Clarendon | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central |
| Crooks, William | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Jackson, R. S. | Radford, G. H. |
| Crossley, William J. | Jacoby, Sir James Alfred | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Dalmeny, Lord | Jardine, Sir J. | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Rees, J. D. |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th) |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N. | Jowett, F. W. | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Kearley, Sir Hudson E. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Kekewich, Sir George | Robert, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Duckworth, James | Kelley, George D. | Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall | Laidlaw, Robert | Robinson, S. |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Lambert, George | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Erskine, David C. | Lamont, Norman | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Essex, R. W. | Layland-Baratt, Sir Francis | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) | Rose, Charles Day |
| Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Lehmann, R. C. | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Levy, Sir Maurice | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Ferens, T. R. | Lewis, John Herbert | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Scarisbrick, T. T. L. |
| Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Scott, A. H. (Ashton under-Lyne | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Sears, J. E. | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E. | Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P. |
| Seaverns, J. H. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton | Wiles, Thomas |
| Seely, Colonel | Thorne, William (West Ham) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Shackleton, David James | Tomkinson, James | Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n |
| Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B. | Toulmin, George | Williamson, A. |
| Sherwell, Arthur James | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Silcock, Thomas Ball | Verney, F. W. | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John | Villiers, Ernest Amherst | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | Vivian, Henry | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Snowden, P. | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Soares, Ernest J. | Walton, Joseph | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.) |
| Spicer, Sir Albert | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) | Waring, Walter | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Strachey, Sir Edward | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | |
| Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | Waterlow, D. S. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. |
| Sutherland, J. E. | Watt, Henry A. | Joseph Pease and Master of |
| Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. | Elibank. |
| Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury | White, Sir George (Norfolk) | |
| Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| NOES. | ||
| Ashley, W. W. | Fletcher, J. S. | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H. | Forster, Henry William | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gardner, Ernest | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.) | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Ratcliff, Major R. F. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Barnard, E. B. | Gretton, John | Renmant, James Farquharson |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Renton, Leslie |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hamilton, Marquess of | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Hill, Sir Clement | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Cave, George | Hills, J. W. | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Houston, Robert Paterson | Stanier, Beville |
| Clark, George Smith | Hunt, Rowland | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Kerry, Earl of | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Keswick, William | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxford Univ. |
| Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham) | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Waldron, Hon. Lionel |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Doughty, Sir George | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Du Cros, Arthur Philip | M'Arthur, Charles | Young, Samuel |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | Magnus, Sir Philip | |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir |
| Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Alexander Acland-Hood and |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | Morpeth, Viscount | Viscount Valentia. |
| Fell, Arthur | Nield, Herbert |
§ Clause 17 agreed to.
§ Committee report progress; to sit again To-morrow.
| Adjourned at eleven minutes after Eleven o'clock. |
§ Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 31st July, adjourned the House without Question put.