§ "Where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that any premises situated in an urban area are situated in a part of the area which has only a small local population and is essentially rural in character, and that the more populous parts of the district are so remote as not to affect the amount of business carried on upon the premises, the premises shall for the purposes of Scale 3 in the First Schedule to the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910 (which prescribes a minimum duty for publicans' and beerhouse licences), be deemed to be situate in an area which is not an urban area."
§ Mr. S. ROBERTS
I beg to move after the word "Where" ["Where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners"] to insert the words "the boundaries of any borough are extended or the boundaries of a new borough are fixed so as to include any previously existing borough or urban or rural district, or part thereof, the original borough and the included boroughs and urban or rural districts, as previously existing, shall, for such period not exceeding fifteen years, as the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may determine, having regard to the extent to which the amount of any business carried on in fully licensed premises and 2062 beerhouses situate in the original borough or in any of the included boroughs or districts is, or is likely to be, affected by the inclusion of those districts within one borough, be deemed to be separate areas for the purpose of determining the minimum duties payable for publicans' and beerhouse licences under Scale 3 in the First Schedule to the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, and during the same period the closing hours for licensed premises in any of the said boroughs or districts shall remain as they would have been if those boroughs and districts had not been included within one borough and where."
I very much regret that I am bound to move an Amendment of this importance at this early hour of the morning, especially as it is due to the exigencies of the Government in forcing us to pass the Committee stage of the Finance Bill during one day. I will not detain the Committee longer than a few minutes because this point has been raised already this Session more than once. The Clause before the Committee is one to make provision as to minimum duty not to apply to licensed premises situate in outlying parts of urban districts. The reason for my Amendment is that it is considered that this Clause is only a very small step towards remedying the grievance. The Committee will remember that the point was first raised on the Revenue Bill in the case of the borough of Dewsbury. In that case there had been an extension of the borough boundary, and the licensed victuallers of the Dewsbury and the outlying districts saw that by that extension they were going to be let in for a great increased 2063 payment in regard to minimum duty. They approached the Government, therefore, through their Member, now the President of the Board of Agriculture, to obtain relief. The Chancellor of the Exchequer granted that relief, and inserted a Clause giving differential licensing to the town of Dewsbury for the space of fifteen years. When that was brought forward many of us on this side saw at once that if it was right that Dewsbury should have this concession it was equally right that boroughs extending their borough boundaries should have the same concession.
There was the case of Cambridge before the country at that time. Well, the Government saw the point, and they gave way. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General had charge of the Bill, and after discussion, he said, "I take it that it is the general desire of the Committee that an effort should be made to see whether or not general words should be used in this connection." Ultimately he withdrew the Clause, and promised to bring up a Clause to meet the general application. Afterwards the Postmaster-General had to come down, and admit that the Government could not grant that. He said, "We have come to the conclusion that it is not possible in these cases which vary so much to draft any form of words which would do justice to all cases which might arise in the future." Therefore the Clause was struck out of the Dewsbury Bill, and no other place got it. After that the case of Cambridge came on. That case was a Provisional Order Bill. It was referred to a Private Committee upstairs to investigate the merits of the case. It was very fully gone into. The Committee was presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. James Mason).
The Corporation of Cambridge, the United Victuallers of Cambridge and neighbourhood pressed for the Clause, and the Committee unanimously granted it. It was eminently a case where its merits were indisputable. By the extension the borough of Cambridge was increased by about 40,000 to 50,000, and by that extension it jumped the scale of minimum licence duties from those places between 10,000 and 50,000 population to those between 50,000and 100,000 population. The consequence was that the minimum duty inside the borough of Cambridge for a fully licensed house was raised from £20 2064 to £30, and for a beer house from £13 to £20. For the rural districts round Cambridge which were taken in the rate was raised from £5 each to £30 for a fully licensed house, and from £3 10s. to £20 for a beer house. The result was that out of a total of 234 licensed houses in that district 177 came under this minimum provision. The increase amounted to no less than £1,487 for the year, in addition to the sum of £887, which was, I think, created by the increased licensed duties imposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It meant an increase altogether of £2,200, being 40 per cent. for the borough of Cambridge and the extension.
The Committee saw at once that this was a case which ought to be met, and it was a case which the right hon. Gentleman himself also admitted, in the discussion on the Revenue Bill in the spring of this year, ought to be met. But the right hon. Gentleman came down to the House and said the Government were not able to draft a Clause to meet a case of that kind. My Amendment is an attempt to meet such a case and I think it would meet it in a reasonable manner. It would give power to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise in all extensions of borough boundaries to determine the question having regard to the extent to which the amount of any business carried on in fully licensed premises and beerhouses situate in the original borough or in any of the included boroughs or districts is, or is likely to be, affected by the inclusion of those districts within one borough. The Clause which the Government have put down does not do anything of the kind. It simply gives power to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to pick out a house in a part of an area in an urban district where they consider that the population is a small one and is essentially rural in character, and that the more populous parts of the district are so remote as not to affect the amount of business carried on upon the premises. That would not meet the case of Cambridge. There you have a borough where the population is increasing very slowly indeed; and I believe it is not possible within the old boundaries that the population of Cambridge could increase so as to bring it up to a higher scale than the minimum of Licence Duties.
The Clause of the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not touch such a case, but leaves those boroughs absolutely where they are at the present time. On the other hand, if my Clause 2065 were adopted it would meet the case of those boroughs. On the general principle I wish to ask is it just and right, where these extensions are made, that the licensed victuallers should have to pay more because of the extension? Why should they? They get no benefit. They get absolutely nothing in return for the extra duties they have to pay. On the contrary, very likely they will have to pay more in rates, especially after the period of differential rating is over. I repeat that they get absolutely no benefit from the extension, and on grounds of public policy I do not think it is a good principle to go upon. Surely it is a principle of the Local Government Board to encourage districts to extend their boundaries for purposes of local government, but if you put a penalty on people like the publicans you will be inducing them to cast all the weight of their influence against extension where an extension of boundaries ought properly to take place. The case has been stated more than once this Session, and I will not, therefore, detain the Committee further at this late hour.
§ Sir J. SIMON
The hon. Gentleman has told us that he put down this Clause because he understood from a declaration of the Postmaster-General earlier in the Session that the Government's advisers, after considering the matter, did not feel themselves equal to drafting a Clause to deal with the point. That is the position, and while we are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for applying his own mind to it and putting the suggestion on the Paper, I am sorry to say the proposal he makes is one which appears to us not sufficiently apt for the varying circumstances which might arise. The hon. Gentleman has very fairly stated the course of events. When the matter was considered in the spring of this year in the House, the Postmaster-General, in explaining what is known as the Dewsbury Clause, indicated his willingness to withdraw the Clause and see if it was possible to frame a general form of words to meet these cases. He went on to say that if it was found possible to do so, then the Government would see in what form words to give effect to that principle should be embodied in the Bill. My right hon. Friend consulted very carefully with the authorities who advise the administration on this matter, and with the best will in the world it was not found possible to devise a Clause in general language which would be really appropriate to the case. 2066 It was on that ground that on the 30th March last my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General again intervened in Debate, and said:—We have considered carefully, with the authorities of the Customs and Excise, and we have come to the conclusion that it is not possible in those cases, which vary so much, to draft any form of words which do justice to all the cases which may arise in future; and further we should have to consider whether such words, if they were adopted, ought not to have retrospective validity.The hon. Gentleman will understand that, while there is no absence of sympathy, the position indicated by my right hon. Friend is one in which, I am afraid, we find ourselves still. I think it will be obvious to the House that in each case where there is a proposal to extend the boundaries of a borough you have a number of circumstances, which are bound to vary very greatly in character in individual cases. You may, for instance, have circumstances varying greatly merely on geographical grounds—that is to say, because of the character of the neighbourhood you are taking in. The hon. Gentleman said something about the publicans in a particular area which is being brought hi by an extension of boundaries having to pay a higher duty in consequence. But is there not something to be said on the other side? Let the hon. Gentleman consider. These publicans may, in some cases for many years, have had the great advantage of being close up to the borders of so-called urban areas, and have had all the advantages of urban association, though technically they have all the time been in a rural area. I could, if necessary, give the Committee an example of that in my own Constituency. I only want to show how each case has to be considered on its merits, and that it would be extremely difficult to find a general form of words to cover all the varying circumstances which may be encountered. Our proposal is limited to the rare class of cases where you find on the rural boundary of an extended borough a particular house which, in the circumstances, may fairly be given the relief which our Clause provides. It is true that is a much more limited concession than the one suggested by the hon. Gentleman, but I think it will be admitted that it is one which is much more easy to apply, and also, I believe, to justify.
§ Mr. J. F. MASON
The learned Solicitor-General in the latter part of his speech admits that Clause 5, as proposed by the Government, does not meet the case which my hon. Friend has put forward on behalf of Cambridge. I should like to point out 2067 to the hon. and learned Gentleman that similarly Clause 5 would not have met the cases of Stoke and Dewsbury which the Government themselves attempted to deal with on a former occasion. The hon. and learned Gentleman in the earlier part of his remarks confirmed the statement made some time ago by the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General to the effect that the Government after attempting to draft a general form of words to deal with all cases had been unable to find any suitable form of words. The hon. and learned Gentleman has repeated this evening the statement that that very fact necessitated dealing with each case on its merits. That is exactly what the Private Bill Committee was obliged to do in the summer in the case of Cambridge. I maintained then and still maintain that the whole action of the Government in regard to this matter was a distinct invitation to Private Bill Committees to deal with each case on its merits for the simple reason that the Government found no other way of dealing with it. In confirmation of that I should like to point out that when the inspector went down to Cambridge to report for the Local Government Board on the whole of this question, the Cambridge and District Licensed Victuallers' Protection Association, after his visit, wrote to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, and in the course of the letter they reported, speaking of the inspector's inquiry, that—The Inspector has informed us, however, as may be seen by the Report, that it was not in the power of the Board to insert such a covering Clause in their Order, and advised that our proper course was to appear by counsel before the Parliamentary Committee on the consideration of the Confirmation Bill.To that letter only a formal acknowledgment was received, and I think that that association was fully justified in interpreting the fact that no answer was received, as we also interpret it, as a distinct invitation to a Private Bill Committee to deal with the matter. It is quite obvious that this injustice cannot be allowed to remain. It is acknowledged on
§ behalf of the Government that an injustice of this kind remains. A certain class of people is being taxed out of all proportion, and not for any particular benefits they get, because it is not maintained for a moment that they do any more business because they are included in a bigger borough than before. The two cases which we have heard so much about—Dewsbury and Stoke—were brought forward on the plea that the provisions of the Finance Act were not fully known at the time, and of course the deduction from that is that if the provisions of the Finance Act had been known these extensions might not have taken place. If that is the case, it is quite obvious that extensions which are desirable and legitimate from other points of view are liable to be hampered because the people who are going to ask for these extensions in fact know that the only way to get them is by inflicting upon a particular class of their ratepayers a very great hardship and injustice. The whole of this, if left as it is, must necessarily tend to prevent extensions which are justified and desirable in other ways, and unless the Government are prepared to sit down and calmly accept the position—that is to say, admit there is a gross injustice, and that they have not the desire to raise a finger to remove it—unless they are prepared to take up that attitude, in which case there is very little more to be said, I see no way for them except to agree to this Amendment, or suggest in what way the Amendment could be altered so as to meet the general run of cases, or else go back upon what they did in the summer, and acknowledge that the only way in which this injustice can be removed is by allowing Private Bill Committees in future to deal with each case as it arises, and in that way remove an injustice which is perfectly intolerable to the people of this country.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 74; Noes, 111.2069
|Division No. 441.]||AYES.||[1.25 a.m.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Boyton, James||Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)|
|Aitken, Sir William Max||Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell||Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Bridgeman, William Clive||Croft, Henry Page|
|Ashley, W. W.||Burn, Col. C. R.||Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.|
|Baird, J. L.||Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Gilmour, Captain John|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Cassel, Felix||Goldsmith, Frank|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Castlereagh, Viscount||Goulding, E. A.|
|Bathurst Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Cave, George||Greene, Walter Raymond|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.||Gretton, John|
|Bigland, Alfred||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)||Hambro, Angus Valdemar|
|Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)||Courthope, George Loyd||Helmsley, Viscount|
|Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Newman, John R. P.||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Hope, Harry (Bute)||Paget, Almeric Hugh||Stewart, Gershom|
|Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Parkes, Ebenezer||Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)|
|Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)||Talbot, Lord Edmund|
|Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr||Peto, Basil Edward||Thynne, Lord A.|
|Kerry, Earl of||Pole-Carew, Sir R.||Tobin, Alfred Aspinall|
|Larmor, Sir J.||Pretyman, Ernest George||Tullibardine, Marquess of|
|Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)||Pryce-Jones, Col. E.||Walker, Colonel William Hall|
|Lewisham, Viscount||Remnant, James Farquharson||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)||Salter, Arthur Clavell||White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)|
|Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)||Sanders, Robert A.||Younger, Sir George|
|Macmaster, Donald||Sandys, G. J.|
|McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)||Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'pool, Walton)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Samuel Roberts and Mr. James Mason.|
|Malcolm, Ian||Smith, Harold (Warrington)|
|Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)||Stanier, Beville|
|Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||O'Malley, William|
|Adamson, William||Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)||O'Shee, James John|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)|
|Baker, H. T. (Accrington)||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||Pollard, Sir George H.|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Haworth, Sir Arthur A.||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Barton, William||Hayden, John Patrick||Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Henry, Sir Charles S.||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)|
|Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)||Higham, John Sharp||Reddy, M.|
|Bentham, G. J.||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Bryce, John Annan||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)||Rowlands, James|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)||Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Clough, William||Keating, Matthew||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)|
|Clynes, John R.||Kellaway, Frederick George||Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||King, J.||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Cotton, William Francis||Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)||Shortt, Edward|
|Crumley, Patrick||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)||Simon, Sir John Allsebrook|
|Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)|
|Dawes, J. A.||Lundon, T.||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)|
|De Forest, Baron||Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)|
|Doris, W.||Macpherson, James Ian||Taylor John W. (Durham)|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow In-Furness)||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Tennant, Harold John|
|Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of||M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)||Toulmin, Sir George|
|Falconer, J.||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Ffrench, Peter||Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Gelder, Sir William Alfred||Menzies, Sir Walter||Webb, H.|
|George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd||Munro, Robert||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Gill, Alfred Henry||Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.||White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)|
|Gladstone, W. G. C.||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|Glanville, Harold James||Nolan, Joseph||Wiles, Thomas|
|Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)|
|Hackett, John||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Hancock, John George||O'Doherty, Philip||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||O'Dowd, John|
§ Mr. C. ROBERTS
I beg to move to add at the end of the Clause,
"Provided that any premises in respect of which an abatement of duty is allowed under this Section, shall in England and Wales for the purposes of the Sixth Schedule to The Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910 (which prescribes general closing hours), be deemed to be premises situate not in a town or populous place; and in Ireland for the purpose of Section seventy-eight of The Licensing Act, 1872, to be premises not situate in a city or town.
"(2) Any determination of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise under this Section shall take effect for such period not exceeding three years as they may think fit, and at the end of the period for 2070 which an abatement is allowed, the character of the area and the amount of the business carried on upon the premises affected shall be reconsidered by the Commissioners."
This Amendment deals with a simple point and I venture to think it is agreed really between both sides of the House. This Clause deals with certain licences included in an urban area and treats them as though they were rural licences for purposes of taxation. If you do that it stands to reason that you should treat them as rural licences for purposes of hours of sale. You cannot possibly justify treating them as rural for purposes of taxation and urban for purposes of sale. If you are going to give them the privileges of rural licences you should not 2071 give them the legal hours which they would get if they were regarded as urban.
§ Mr. S. ROBERTS
I submit as a point of Order that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman is included in the latter part of my Amendment which the Committee has rejected.
§ Mr. C. ROBERTS
When this point was discussed on the Cambridge case the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for East Worcestershire, expressed his agreement with the principle, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's (Hanover Square) said: "I can see it would be fair that if a rural area was exempted from further taxation these houses should revert to the original state of rural licensed houses." Now I wish to make it perfectly plain that you are not imposing any licensing restrictions, which would not of course be suitable to a Finance Bill; but you are taking a rural licence and treating it as though it had the concomitants of a rural licence. You are taking a licence which, before this Clause comes into force, is an urban licence, with the concomitants and appurtenances of an urban licence, and you are transmuting that into a rural licence with its proper appurtenances in the matter of hours. If this is accepted I shall say no more, but I shall move my Amendment without Sub-section (2), which is unnecessary.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
If the Amendment is to be moved in that form may I again call your attention to the last words of the Amendment of my hon. Friend which has just been negatived: "During the same period the closing hours for licensed premises in any of the said boroughs or districts shall remain as they would have been if those boroughs and districts had not been included within one borough." I venture to submit that the Amendment as now altered by the hon. Member covers exactly the same ground as the Amendment which the Committee has just negatived.
§ Sir J. SIMON
I do not think that is so. The Amendment which the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. S. Roberts) moved dealt with the case where boundaries were extended so as to cover new territory. 2072 The case we are dealing with now does not deal with the extension of boundaries of boroughs, and the hypothesis on which it is proposed to graft this proviso is a different hypothesis. I submit, therefore, that one Amendment does not cover the other.
§ Sir J. SIMON
Apart from the question of order, on the merits of the matter I do not think there is much difference of opinion. We agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. C. Roberts) when he says that if you are going to deal with licensed houses on the basis of taxation in a rural area they must accept the results of that hypothesis. Sub-section (2) of his Amendment does not apply. We accept it as he confines himself to the other part of the proposal.
§ Mr. GRETTON
I am not going to oppose this Amendment. The only objection I have is to the principle of grafting licensing legislation on to the Finance Act, which deals with taxation. It is a very objectionable practice. It makes it very difficult for those who have to interpret the law in their daily work. But as regards the actual merits of the proposal I have no objection to offer. I regard it as a reasonable proposal.
§ Question, "That the following words be added to the Clause, 'Provided that any premises in respect of which an abatement of duty is allowed under this section, shall in England and Wales for the purposes of the Sixth Schedule to the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910 (which prescribes general closing hours), be deemed to be premises situate not in a town or populous place; and in Ireland for the purpose of Section seventy-eight of the Licensing Act, 1872, to be premises not situate in a city or town,' put, and agreed to."
§ Sir CHARLES HENRY
moved after the words last inserted to add the words, "and this provision shall apply to all the premises both as regards publican and beerhouse licences situated in the borough of Wenlock."
The object of this Amendment is to obtain for the borough of Wenlock the advantages offered in this Clause. This 2073 is an exceptional case, and should have exceptional treatment. The borough of Wenlock covers a very large area. It has a length of ten to twelve miles, a breadth of four to five miles, and a population, in spite of that immense area, of under 16,000 persons. Under the Finance Act of 1909–10 the full-licensed houses have to pay a duty of £20 per annum, whereas the average total rateable value of these houses is £22 18s. Then as regards beerhouses, they have to pay a duty of £13, whereas the average rateable value is £16 13s. It must be admitted that these duties are out of proportion to what the rateable value is. I think my right hon. Friend will agree this is an anomaly which should receive his consideration, and if he cannot accept this Amendment I hope he will see his way to remedy the matter on some future occasion.
§ Mr. STANIER
I should like to support what the hon. Member for Wellington (Sir C. Henry) has said, because I find I supported an Amendment to this effect twice before. This borough has got very exceptional needs for us to consider. The area is absolutely rural, and the population is also rural. Why it should be penalised for being rural simply because of the technicalities of the 1909 Budget I think is absolutely unfair to the district. This area has exceptions in other cases. There is the Education Act of 1870, and also the Local Government Act of 1880, both of
§ which give it exceptions. I do hope the Government will give this Amendment sympathetic consideration.
§ Sir J. SIMON
I hope my hon. Friend will not press this matter to a Division, because it is not possible to accept the proposal he makes. The Clause to which he proposes this Amendment is a general Clause, and it is not desirable that we should add to a general Clause some provisos to cover some specially named locality. I notice the hon. Member proposes that the benefits of this Clause should apply to fully licensed houses and to beerhouses of the Borough of Wenlock. That alone would justify me in resisting the Amendment. It may or may not be that there are houses in the borough which satisfy the conditions of Clause V. If they do they will come within the Clause; if they do not they will not. I hardly think, however, that we should bring in every single public house and every single beer house which happens to exist in that area.
§ Sir C. HENRY
I do not desire to press the Amendment to a Division if I can get some assurance that the matter will receive consideration.
§ Question put, "That those words be there added."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 68; Noes, 105.2075
|Division No. 442.]||AYES.||[1.50 a.m.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Goldsmith, Frank||Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.|
|Aitken, Sir William Max||Goulding, E. A.||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Ashley, W. W.||Greene, Walter Raymond||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Baird, John Lawrence||Hambro, Angus Valdemar||Rothschild, Lionel de|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Helmsley, Viscount||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Sanders, Robert A.|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Hope, Harry (Bute)||Sandys, G. J.|
|Bigland, Alfred||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (Liverp'l, Walton)|
|Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid.)||Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)||Smith, Harold (Warrington)|
|Boyton, James||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell||Kerry, Earl of||Stewart, Gershom|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Larmor, Sir J.||Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Lewisham, Viscount||Thynne, Lord A.|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)||Tobin, Alfred Aspinall|
|Cassel, Felix||Macmaster, Donald||Tullibardine, Marquess of|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Cave, George||Malcolm, Ian||Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)|
|Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Courthope, George Loyd||Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)||White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Newman, John R. P.||Younger, Sir George|
|Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)||Paget, Almeric Hugh|
|Croft, Henry Page||Parkes, Ebenezer||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir Charles Henry and Mr. Stanier.|
|Eyres-Monsell, B. M.||Peto, Basil Edward|
|Gilmour, Captain John||Pele-Carew, Sir R.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)||Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Bryce, John Annan|
|Adamson, William||Barton, William||Carr-Gomm, H. W.|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Beck, Arthur Cecil||Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Bentham, George Jackson||Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)|
|Baker, H. T. (Accrington)||Bowerman, C. W.||Clough, William|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)|
|Cotton, William Francis||Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)||Reddy, M.|
|Crumley, Patrick||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)|
|Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)||Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Dawes, J. A.||Keating, Matthew||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Doris, W.||Kellaway, Frederick George||Rowlands, James|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||King, J.||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of||Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Falconer, J.||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)|
|Ffrench, Peter||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumbr'ld, Cockerm'th)||Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.|
|Gelder, Sir William Alfred||Lundon, Thomas||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd||Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)||Shortt, Edward|
|Gill, Alfred Henry||Macpherson, James Ian||Simon, Sir John Allsebrook|
|Gladstone, W. G. C.||MrKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)|
|Glanville, Harold James||M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)|
|Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)|
|Gulland, John William||Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||Menzies, Sir Walter||Tennant, Harold John|
|Hackett, John||Munro, Robert||Toulmin, Sir George|
|Hancock, John George||Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Webb, H.|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Nolan, Joseph||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)|
|Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||O'Doherty, Philip||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||O'Malley, William||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)|
|Haworth, Sir Arthur A.||O'Shee, James John|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Higham, John Sharp||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Pollard, Sir George H.|
|Illingworth, Percy H.||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tyvdil)||Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry|
Question put, and agreed to.