HC Deb 08 October 1912 vol 42 cc227-51

This Act shall, except as otherwise in this Act provided, come into operation on the expiration of five years from the first day of June, nineteen hundred and twelve.


I beg to move to leave out the word "five," and to insert instead thereof the word "fifteen."

The principle of the Bill having been adopted on Second Reading, we claim that it can only be made equitable by altering the period allowed before it comes into operation, so that licence holders may prepare themselves for the new condition of affairs. In these Debates on Temperance Bills there generally seems to be an idea that the House is divided into two schools of opinion, the extreme temperance reformers and those who are supposed to be tied hand and foot to the licensed trade. We have seen this afternoon, however, that there is a considerable body of opinion on the other side of the House prepared to consider these proposals on their merits, and not merely from the point of view of the extreme temperance advocates. I appeal therefore with some hope to that body of opinion to consider the present Amendment. We claim that a period of five years is entirely insufficient to enable licence holders and owners to meet the new situation. The time has gone by for anyone, however extreme his opinions, any longer to support the monstrous view that the licensee of a public-house is not entitled to be looked upon as carrying on a legitimate trade. There was at one time the idea that the licensee of a public-house was to be-regarded in the same light as the keeper of a disorderly house or a gambling house. By the growth of a more reasonable public opinion that school of thought has practically disappeared, and it is generally agreed to-day that a man carrying on as the holder of licensed premises is as much entitled to fair protection from the State as any other man carrying on a legitimate trade. The only way in which the two sides differ considerably is in the application of this view. We maintain that those who are responsible for this Bill have inserted a perfectly unreasonable time limit. There can be no neutral position in this matter. Either yon must give a man a proper chance to recoup himself, or you must admit that your desire is to kill the licensed trade. In the interesting discussion on the previous Amendment the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Colonel Greig) suggested there had been nothing at all in the shape of a property in the goodwill of a licence in Scotland. He stated that licences had been taken away simply at the caprice of the licensing authority, without the licensees having done anything to merit the loss of their licences.

Colonel GREIG

I said that justices in Scotland have a perfect right and full discretion, which they have exercised; but I did not suggest that they had exercised it without reason.


I understood that the hon. Member's point was that they had taken away licences without reason and without reason given.

Colonel GREIG

No; but without a penny of compensation, which is another matter.


And without the licensee having been guilty of any misdemeanour, without his having had insanitary premises, and without his having misused the premises. I maintain that that is absolutely incorrect as applied to Scotland as a whole. The only place where it has possibly been done is Glasgow. But outside Glasgow, with one or two exceptions, a man's licence has not been taken away except on two main grounds—either the insanitary or unsuitable state of the house or some form of misdemeanour, including drunkenness on the premises. I gather, however, that, broadly speaking, hon. Members opposite agree that in Scotland, by custom, by judicial decisions, and by the action of the Legislature generally, the goodwill of a licence has come to be looked upon as a property. I may say in passing that the value of the goodwill has been taken into consideration in assessing the value for Government Duties and Death Duties. There is a celebrated judicial decision given by Lord Adam in the Court of Session some four years ago, in the ease of the Muirhead's Trustees, in which the judge said:— If there were free trade in the sale of liquors, if a person could open a shop anywhere for their sale, the goodwill of an existing business in the centre of a populous city like Glasgow would be of little or no value. It is the known fact of the objections which the licensing authorities entertain to increasing the number of public-houses which gives to existing public-houses their enhanced value. It is the person who has a right to the possession of the licensed premises, whether as landlord or tenant at the date of the sale, who has a valuable asset to sell. 7.0 P.M.

I am assured that the average value of public-house licences in Scotland is from £1,500 to £2,000, and that nothing under fifteen years will enable the licensee to recoup himself for the possible loss of his licence. That is a conservative estimate. From twenty to twenty-five years would be a more equitable period. Let me give a concrete example of what would happen if the Bill passes as it stands. A owns a property leased as a public-house. He leases it for ten years to B, who has previously purchased a licence and the goodwill of the business from C; and eventually money is borrowed from D for the purchase of the house and the goodwill of the business. Under the Bill in its present form all the persons concerned in that transaction, except C, may have their property taken away without a penny of compensation. There is no tem- perance measure anywhere else in which some provision has not been made to recoup the people so affected. In the case of Tasmania, New South Wales, and, I think, other States of the Australian Commonwealth in which very drastic temperance legislation has been brought forward, there has always been a proposal by which the persons affected can make some provision against the encroachments of the State. I believe under the Act that even if a man laid aside one-quarter of his profits yearly—and everyone who is acquainted with the licensing trade knows that the profits are getting less and less, for two reasons—firstly, because the consumption of alcoholic liquor is going down everywhere; and, secondly, because the taxation of the liquor trade tends to increase all over the United Kingdom—it will be making a very heavy call upon him. Even if he is able to do so under such a system it will take him no less than twenty-eight years before he can recoup himself for the goodwill which he may lose under this Bill.

One further thing I would say on this point. It has been suggested in some quarters, including certainly one temperance newspaper which I read, that a man can recoup himself against the possible loss of his licence by insurance. I know something of insurance, as I happen to be a director of an insurance company, and I assure the House that no insurance company or man in his senses would insure a licence holder against his licence being taken away under the Bill as it stands. If the Clause passes as it is the position simply will be this: that every man who is the licensee of a public-house will be in a position of having the goodwill of his business taken away in five years without a penny of compensation, and without having had any reasonable time in which to lay by and provide for eventualities. I do hope that hon. Members opposite, some of whom showed a tendency to discuss this Bill with a view of treating licence holders reasonably—there is the hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackfriars, who mixes his temperance principles with justice towards licensees—I do hope that they will consider what effect the Bill will have if it is passed as it stands. We have not in the course of Committee discussions had any facts or statistics on the subject from hon. Members opposite, and we should like to have from the promoters of the Bill some reasons given and some statistics brought forward to show that this time limit of five years is equitable from the point of view of enabling a man to lay by a sufficient sum to recoup himself against possible loss. We have had no such facts or statistics in the course of the Committee discussions. Even if you believe in the maxim that it is well to do evil that good may follow, there is no need in the state of the liquor trade at the present time for this Bill to be passed in a hurry. The whole tendency of recent years has been the reduced consumption of liquor, while the statistics of drunkenness show a de crease too. The tendency is clearly proved year by year that the cause of drunken ness and the reason for it is to be found not in the number of open public-houses but in such things as bad food, insanitary surroundings, and bad conditions of living generally.

I maintain, and I believe with justice and right on my side, that if you were to close in a given insanitary area every public-house to-morrow the people of that area would still in some way or other obtain drink, and there would be still drunkenness in that area. The whole tendency of public opinion, outside extreme temperance circles, is in favour of dealing with justice and more lenity with the licensing trade, and to look to other causes rather than to the public-house for the drunkenness which exists. I think recently in the Congress of Hygiene at Washington, United States, a Bill was put forward and widely supported to the effect that so far from its being the fact, as has been supposed for many years, that alcoholism was one of the great causes of insanity, that alcoholism was one of the effects of insanity. I mention this because I think that in the present state of affairs and opinions upon the subject the House should hesitate before it passes a drastic proposal of this kind which is going to do a great injustice to individual licence holders, and cause an immense amount of unnecessary disturbance to the trade. It comes, too, at a time when public opinion is increasingly in favour of temperance legislation, though public opinion should look round and see that the causes of excessive drunkenness and alcoholism generally are to be found in other causes than in open public-houses.


I beg to second the Amendment. I do so really rather unwillingly, because I do not care for Bills which come into operation fifteen years hence. In some cases it may be absolutely necessary. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite had treated the licence holders of Scotland with the slightest thought of fairness or equity at all in the last Clause, I am perfectly certain a great many would have been perfectly willing to consider a shorter period of compensation. He treated the licence holders harshly in the last Clause. This time the licence holder has been treated with absolute dishonesty. To take away his business is sheer robbery. It is what we used to call in the old South African days "jumping." My reason for supporting the Amendment is, as I have said, simply on the score of equity. Surely there ought to be a general idea of equity underlying all legislation, whether it is Liberal or not. Here we have many hon. Members opposite who will probably go into the Lobby and vote for taking away a man's livelihood and making him bankrupt in a business which has hitherto been perfectly legitimate, without giving him a single chance of trying to put himself straight. Surely one would have thought that it would have been very much better for those who wish to see this Bill law to get anomalies out of the way; but you should treat the man fairly. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackfriars, that if you treat the man fairly you take away all the various excuses, and you have some chance of the question being fairly dealt with by what I may call the electorate when the time comes.

If you are going to take away the whole livelihood of a man in five years you are going to prevent him having a single chance to insure himself. In this case I think that anybody who has to vote on the question of temperance is bound to be biassed by that fact. Such an elector might say, "While I am in favour of temperance, and would like to see public-houses lessened or done away with, at the same time I do not see my way to turning the publican out into the street and making him bankrupt, for it is not fair nor British." Apparently, however, that is a Liberal idea of fairness. You will find in consequence of putting this five years in that you have a sort of pivot around which, so far as this Bill is concerned, every single election will be fought. You will find when it comes to the poll that many who have never heard a word about temperance at all will consider the question is one of equity, and ask, "Is it fair to take away a man's livelihood?" and you will never get to the real kernel of the matter. That is what will happen, if I know my country. Many hon. Members opposite are not Scottish and they have no idea of what the feeling may be, but in Scotland we have some idea of fairness, if there is none on this side of the border. You might as well have nothing as five years; it is neither one thing nor the other. It is playing with the matter. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. McKinnon Wood) laughs. He thinks it rather a good joke to ruin a man's business. I cannot see any joke in it.

If you had fifteen years then at least you have some margin of excuse for doing away with the man's livelihood. I do not think fifteen years from an actuarial point of view sufficient, but I think it is something in the right direction. It will show that we recognise that the trade is not wanted, that from a certain point of view it is undesirable, and also that we do realise it is a hardship upon the present individual, to whom we are willing at all events to give something, or, at all events, a chance of getting it under the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman knows well enough that five years will never do it. But he wants to say, when he is confronted by his critics, to those against compensation, "Why are you angry with me; we did the best we could"; and to those in favour of it, "We did as much as we could for you." So far as I can make out with a certain kind of Radical legislation it is not a question of equity. The party opposite have realised that drink is bad. Being superior persons, they know at once what is the proper way of dealing with the matter. They have their nostrum. Nobody else has the slightest idea. But the people of Scotland are not asked whether they want it or not; they have to accept the Bill. It is to be pushed down their throats without their having a single chance of saying at an election whether they want it or not. Of course, the excuse will be made—I see the right hon. Gentleman making a note, and I think I can anticipate what he is going to reply—that the matter was discussed at the last election. A good many other things were discussed too at the last election. Exactly the same' excuse that the right hon. Gentleman may make concerning this Bill may be made at the next election. We will be told that there has been misrepresentation, as we have been about the Insurance Act, although no other question has really had any chance. Equally so on our side we will suggest that nothing has been said on the subject. I was never asked one question about temperance at the last election, or very little. The hon. Gentleman, the Member for East Edinburgh, whose election came a little later, said a good deal about temperance—but we need not go into that question now.

Apparently we have one remedy, which is to be the knife. Whether you kill the patient or not does not matter. You are in such a hurry that you cannot give time for natural and gradual evolution and allow people to get out of their business, and very likely re-invest their money in similar businesses—in perhaps some up-to-date kind of temperance house. Instead of that you will make them bankrupt, and they you will make them bankrupt, and they will have no capital to go on with, either on licensed premises or not. The men in licensed premises are those who know best how to run catering businesses, restaurants, etc., and doubtless they will try and get into them. They are the very people we want to carry on those trades. Instead of making them bankrupt, it would be far better to give them a chance to transfer their money from one trade to the other. Let me put it this way: There are several hon. Members opposite who no doubt are good, keen, business men. I would like to ask any of them if they think it would be fair if they were told, on behalf of the State, by, say, some Socialist Member who came here: "Your business is bad; we are going to do away with it in five years." It does not matter what the business is. Do hon. Members think it would be fair to do away with an old inherited business because somebody possibly suggested that it should be nationalised, without giving proper compensation. Obviously you ought to give compensation and the next best thing to do is to give warning in time to those in the business to get out.

Hon. Members opposite are always talking about monopoly. What would happen, for instance, in the case of the hon. Baronet the Member for Swansea (Sir A. Mond), who has a trust business—I am not saying that it is wrong, it is a very fine business—what would he say if we came to him and said "Trusts are bad, and therefore your business has got to be done away with in five years?" What would happen supposing any business was so treated I There might be hon. Members or even right hon. Members interested in cocoa. That is another monopoly to some extent. Supposing some doctor took it into his head that cocoa was unhealthy and that it was pro- posed to the House of Commons that cocoa should be done away with. Would there not be great alarm in the cocoa Press if the whole of this business was to be taken away in five years. Of course there would be. I do not understand why you should treat publicans differently from anyone else. I do not like a long time limit in one sense, but if you give a short time limit there must be some scheme of insurance, but as I have said you treat the publican harshly and you refuse to allow him to safeguard himself in many ways, and you treat him differently because the Government is in the hands, of a certain number of fanatics, far more anxious to go against the publican than to act in the interests of temperance. It would be very much better if hon. Members would try to look at the equity of the question and give fair legislation rather than try to hit a trade which rightly or wrongly does not side with their political views.


I think everybody will recognise that this is in no w-ay a mild Bill, and I think this should also be remembered: that it was introduced originally by two Members who, without in any way meaning offence, may be regarded as the two arch-fanatics of the temperance party, and was then adopted by the Government. I think every moderate man must realise there are some extreme points in the Bill which require reconsideration. The argument in regard to this Amendment which naturally occurs to me is the one used by my hon. Friend who has just spoken. It is perfectly obvious there is not a business man in the country in any kind of business who could properly make provision in the time laid down in this Bill against confiscation by the State or any other disaster. The very least that any man could in reason demand in any industry would be fifteen years. I believe this Amendment is not put forward because the Noble Lord who made it considers it is adequate, but because he believes it is the very least that could be made the limit without doing real grievous harm to those engaged in this industry.

The Bill is a very strong and very violent Bill, and is the natural consequence of the "scorpions" promised by the Lord Advocate. Do hon. Members opposite fancy that they are doing more than punishing political opponents or that they are doing more than punishing the licence holders under this Bill? They know they are going to ruin those who come under its operations the first time this no-licensing Clause and limiting licensing Clause are put into operation. I hope every body who has the interest of the people at heart will really consider what will be the effect of this Bill as the position is at the present time. It seems to me, now that the Second Beading is passed and that a compensation Amendment has just been refused altogether—and it is well known that many hon. Members who voted against the Compensation Clause would have favoured such a scheme—when you have taken that protection from the licence holder I hope reason will prevail and that there will be some compromise. It will be remembered that in the Bill proposed for England some time ago they had a very different idea of what was just. A far longer period was given to those engaged in what is admitted to be a lawful industry. Here it seems to be the object of the framers of the Bill to find sudden death for the licence holders. I hope everyone who believes the Bill to be good and believes in its operations will not persist in this extreme endeavour to ruin those who, after all, have the law behind them, or otherwise they would not hold their licences at the present moment.


I listened with great attention to the three speeches delivered in favour of this Amendment, in order to form a conclusion as to whether or no its supporters made out a case for the proposal that there should be a time limit of fifteen years. I humbly believe they failed, and I will tell the House why. But first I wish the House to realise what is involved in the Amendment. It involves the delay of temperance reform for fifteen years and the stereotyping for that time of the present system with all its imperfections; because nothing can be more certain than that anybody who brought in a measure of temperance reform in these intervening years would be at once told that a great scheme is gradually maturing, and that it would be quite wrong to legislate until that scheme had matured and was given a fair chance. Consequently I think I am right in saying that the Amendment involves the stereotyping of the present system for fifteen years. If there was property in a licence, if this were an entirely novel proposal, if there was no time limit proposed in the Bill itself, if there was no such thing as insurance, if it was certain that a violent and sudden change in Scotland would immediately occur if this Bill passed into law, something might be said for the proposal now made. But the facts on all these points are the other way. To begin with, there is, of course, no property in licences—everyone who studies the subject knows that; it is common ground—and I associate myself with what was said by my hon. Friend beside me upon that subject, and I do not know where the Noble Lord who moved the Amendment got his information as to the procedure in the Scottish Licensing Courts. I confess that, having had some little experience of the practice in these Courts, my view is quite different from his. He rather suggested, if I understood his argument aright, that licences were not taken away in Scotland unless the premises were insanitary or the licence holder had grossly misconducted himself. That is not so, because anyone familiar with the procedure in the Licensing Courts in Scotland knows that the primary consideration the Court sets before itself is whether or not the licence is required.

There are three points always considered. First, the fitness of the applicant; second, the suitability of the premises; and, third, whether or not the licence is wanted. The last point is constantly given effect to year after year in the Licensing Courts, not only in Glasgow, but all over Scotland. Accordingly you start with this: that a licence is an annual grant, renewable from time to time according as the requirements continue the same. The person applying must be suitable, and the premises also must be suitable. Therefore you start with this: that, it is a precarious grant, subject, I admit, to renewal, if circumstances require its renewal, and subject to withdrawal, if circumstances warrant its withdrawal. Accordingly the first condition I put before the House is not satisfied. There is no right of property in the licence. The second thing I said was that if it was a novel proposal, that fact could be prayed in aid by those who support this Amendment. Everyone knows that the facts are the other way, that this Bill is not a bolt from the blue, and that it required no exceptional prevision on the part of the licence trade to foresee it many years ago. An hon. Member near me referred to his association with the local veto movement thirty years ago. Everyone who knows Scottish Parliamentary history knows that this Bill, or something resembling it, has not only frequently been before the country, but before this House, and that it would in due time come before it again. Fortunately, now this party has the power as well as the will to secure that the Bill shall become law, and we are thus in a more fortunate position than in former years. But to suggest that this proposal came before the House as if it was never heard of before, and came as a great shock to the licensed trade, is obviously to lose sight of plain facts and to be blind to the history of the last twenty or thirty years. Thirdly, I said if there was no proposed time limit in the Bill it would be important to seek for a time limit. The Bill however makes provision for a five years' time limit, and when you consider the procedure and the machinery to be brought into operation, it can hardly be put into effect until the expiry of six years, which appears to be a generous and sufficient time, and that is how it occurs to many of us on this side. I further said, one would think from the arguments used that there is no such thing as insurance. With great respect to the Noble Lord opposite, I beg leave to doubt gravely whether or no any risk to a licence under this new measure cannot be insured even for five years.


I made inquiry, and could not find any company willing to take the risk. If the hon. Member would be good enough to tell me one I will be surprised.


Lloyd's is one, I should say. I thought it was well known that insurance companies insured against practically every risk nowadays. The argument that the Noble Lord and many other Members opposite used that there is going to be absolute destruction of licences in Scotland forthwith I very much doubt. As I said, if you could be certain, or if it were a fair assumption that there would be a sudden and violent change in the licensing system in Scotland in consequence of this Bill, something might be said for the Amendment. I do not think so, knowing something about Scotland. I do not think the risk is so excessive as the Noble Lord and the insurance companies may be inclined to think. All the conditions which would make this a reasonable Amendment are conspicuously absent, and being satisfied that the case for the Amendment has not been made out, I propose to register my vote for the Bill as it stands.


I wish to support the Amendment of my Noble Friend. The last speaker has not put a true ease before the House. I am not aware that there is any law on licensing questions which applies to Scotland other than the law of the United Kingdom. As far as property in a licence goes there have recently been a good many cases which disprove the contentions of hon. Members opposite. The Government by proposing this Bill admit that there is property in a licence by giving five years' notice. Even if there are differences in the licensing laws in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom they are not so different that we can afford to ignore equity and justice. I will give a case which came before the Charity Commissioners showing that there is actual property in a licence. In the town of St. Helens there is a charitable body which handles the interest on some property which has accumulated for 200 years. Part of that property has certain public-houses belonging to it on long leases. I was one of the standing committee when some of these long leases fell in, and it was the decision of those who had to deal with this property that they would close the public-houses. The matter was referred to the Charity Commissioners and they decided that the trustees had no right to close those public-houses, and no right to reduce the capital value of the trust which they administered, showing that there was a property in the licences. The Charity Commissioners ordered certain valuers to go to St. Helens in order to ascertain the difference in the value of those houses with a licence and without a licence and the values were fixed at £2,000 and £6,000, and the Charity Commissioners ordered that sum to be paid into the trust. The Society of Friends subscribed that money and paid it into the trust and those public-houses were closed. That proves that there is distinct property in a licence. I want to know if that same law applies to Scotland. Every Englishman and every man with any sense of justice must have this feeling that he would like to see justice done. I was a strong advocate of temperance principles as far back as 1875, and I have told my temperance friends that they will never succeed unless they are willing either to give this long term of years or find the equivalent in money. If you are so anxious on the temperance question why are you not willing to pay what is reasonable and right? If you desire to have these houses closed, you should be willing to pay the reasonable price which all reasonable men believe is only just for property in those licences. I most heartily support the Amendment that fifteen years be substituted for five years.


I wish briefly to support this Amendment. With regard to the argument used by the hon. Member for Wick Burghs that there is no property in a licence, and that the magistrates have an absolute discretion either to renew or withdraw it, I entirely disagree. The magistrate has not an absolnte discretion, but a judicial discretion. If magistrates do not act in that way they are liable to a mandamus against them to compel them to exercise a judicial discretion. Without going into the almost threadbare arguments for and against there being a property in a licence, I can only say that the Government in the year 1906 introduced a Licensing Bill based on the argument that there was no property in a licence. I am not going to repeat the arguments because I know I shall never convince hon. Members opposite any more than they are likely to convince me, but I can pledge myself that when this drastic Bill, based entirely on the theory that there was no property in a licence, was placed before the constituency at any by-election, the result was the downfall of Government majorities and the loss of Government seats. The people of this country by an overwhelming majority, not guided by legal motives but by the elementary ideas of equity and justice, will never agree to the view so often put forward from the benches opposite that there is no property in a licence in which a man has invested his money and in the carrying on of which he has spent so much of his time.

The hon. Member who has just spoken said he did not think many licences would be affected, but that is not what is said by Scotch temperance reformers on Scottish political platforms, because there they draw a picture so lurid that one would almost believe that the whole of Scotland was panting to have these houses closed and the House of Lords stood in the way. Does Scotland by an overwhelming majority desire to close public-houses or not? The last speaker admits that there would not be many public-houses closed as a consequence of this Bill, but that is not the view expressed by temperance reformers on which they base the drastic proposals of this Bill. Hon. Members opposite come here and ask this House to take away a man's living at the expiration of five years' notice. There is, I know, a large body of opinion in the country con- sisting of people who are always enthusiastic for doing good, but it is invariably at somebody else's expense. If these provisions are necessary, and if you can wait five years, surely you can wait a little longer to give the people deprived of their property something approaching a reasonable opportunity of making other arrangements. The hon. Member for Renfrew said, in a speech upon the Amendment we have just discussed, that this measure would do no injury to the licence holder, because he would have five years to make his arrangements. I have had some experience of the injury and loss which has occurred to persons who have lost their licences, and speaking with greater experience than the hon. Member for Renfrew, I say that a more cruelly callous speech than that which he made I have never heard.

Under the present compensation arrangements of our licensing laws in England I have seen cases of widows who have been deprived of their livelihood, and who are receiving, in nine cases out of ten, cruelly inadequate compensation for the living which has been taken away from them. I speak from my own experience, and I say under the present system of compensation there are many cases of gross hardship which I am sure would appeal to hon. Members opposite if they could only come in touch with them as I have done. Therefore, I think we may dismiss the whole case of taking away a licence at the end of five years as a proposition which ought not to be entertained by any fair-minded man who is guided by principles of equity and justice, and who is not blinded by political prejudice. In these drastic proposals you are hitting the small licencee, who is less able to bear the blow you are inflicting upon him, because as a rule the magistrates do not take away the licences from the large houses. They generally take away the licences from houses which are badly situated in small streets and doing a small trade. Therefore it is the small man you are hitting, and the man who owns the large house is the man who, as a rule, will escape these penalties. I agree that our appeal will probably fall upon deaf ears, because we have long since ceased to look for sympathy for the licensed trade from hon. Members opposite. At any rate, if our appeal does fall on deaf ears, we have the satisfaction of knowing that we have made this appeal not only in the cause of temperance, but in the cause of justice and equity.


I agree with what has been said by the last speaker that almost everything that can be said for and against this principle has been said many times over. I agree with what has been stated in the weighty speech which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wick Burghs (Mr. Munro), and I should like to accentuate and emphasise the argument he used against a longer period of time being allowed. He pointed out that a long period would only have the effect of stereotyping the existing system for a large number of years. Everybody agrees that in every part of the country there is an urgent necessity for the reduction in the number of licences, and we are all agreed that there ought to be such a reduction. If we stereotype the existing state of affairs for fifteen years, then we are standing in the way of a reduction. On the other hand, if you have a reasonable period like five years, the magistrates will probably take the view that they will leave things as they are for those five years. After all, is this proposal such an unreasonable thing I As my hon. Friend has said, it has not been sprung upon licence holders, because some thirteen years ago the Minority of the Peel Commission recommended a limit of five years. The real reason for opposing this proposal is that hon. Members insist, as they really insisted on the last Amendment, upon the principle of compensation. They think there is a moral obligation to compensate the holder of a licence. It is true that the State has granted the licence practically for nothing. They agree that it is a valuable property, but they say if, for the purposes of the State, that licence is taken away the State ought to pay compensation. That principle we do not admit. There is not the slightest doubt the licence holders in Scotland have had this matter before them for many years. This principle of local option has been before the House, whether by Resolution or by Bills, for a good many years. There has been an overwhelming majority of Scotch Members in favour of local option, and those Members have been, in turn, supported by an overwhelming majority of the electors. So really there is no excuse for saying a great injustice will be done. The real reason for a time limit is in order that the licence holder may have an opportunity of turning round and preparing himself for other means of livelihood in case his licence is taken away. Under these circumstances I do not think the provisions of the Bill are ungenerous or confiscatory.


Apparently, there is to be no concession from the Government. Originally, the Bill was adopted from the temperance party, and the Government expect that the limit suggested by the temperance party should be accepted by both sides. That is not a very reasonable attitude to take up. When the right hon. Gentleman says that notice was given so long ago as the Royal Commission he ought to remember there have been a great many additional burdens put upon the trade since then, which makes a time limit of a good many more years than five necessary. We are met, however, by an absolute refusal to make any concession, and so far as I am concerned I shall vote for the Amendment.


I rise to draw attention to the argument used by the Secretary for Scotland. Apparently his only excuse for refusing to modify this term is that the licensee ought to have foreseen this, and that the trade should have understood such legislation was likely to be passed. I venture to suggest a more empty, foolish argument was never submitted by any responsible Minister. Are we to look forward and make provision for all sorts of wild-cat legislation any Radical Government may introduce I These people are to be refused legitimate treatment on the ground that they ought to have foreseen what a Radical Government would do in 1912. A more preposterous, empty, and shallow argument has never been submitted by a responsible Minister to this House. I think it ought to be placed on record that was the argument used that the licence holders in Scotland, or others having vested interests to which they attach importance ought to foresee any sort of wild legislation and make provision against it. We have had plenty of lessons from the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that sort, and I have no doubt many in this country will take steps to put some of their property safely out of all possible reach of such a man. To turn round upon the poor licence holders in Scotland, who have invested all their savings in these licences, and say they ought to have foreseen what this Radical Government would do, is a dastardly and cowardly thing.


I must express my very great regret that the Secretary for Scotland has not seen it his duty to offer any sort of compromise on this matter. There is no doubt a good deal of truth in the statement that we have had for many years Local Option Bills of this character before the House, but it is a new doctrine that because a Bill has been introduced by somebody or other when the Government takes it up you must add the whole of the intervening period to the notice to hand over your property—


Handing over your "property"!


Did I say "property"? Perhaps I ought to say "possession." We often quarrel about words, but let us get rid of cant. It may not be "property" in the legal sense, but, at all events, it has been a "possession" which a man might reasonably expect to hold so long as he behaved himself. Under these circumstances, five years is not only insufficient, but it is so negligible as almost to be derisive. The circumstances under which licence holders carry on their business have wholly changed since the Bill was first introduced, and it will be perfectly impossible for them in that short time and from the balance of funds at their disposal to make anything like even partial insurance against the risk of losing their licences if each licence is to be insured by the licensee himself. The Government has so heavily increased the Licence Duties that it has left these people very little margin of profit, often not enough for them to live upon. Bankruptcies have been frequent during the last two or three years, and many licences have panned out simply because the licence holders could not carry them on, their profits not being sufficient. If in 1907 five years was considered a reasonable notice by the promoters of the Bill, I should say it certainly ought to be something more like twelve years now. He would now, with the sum at his disposal, require twelve years, where then he would only require five years to insure himself by an annual charge. I venture to say with some confidence that neither will the public in Scotland nor the Chamber at the other end of the passage regard this as fair and reasonable treatment.

Some hon. Members have disregarded altogether the fact that the other Chamber have a say in the matter, and they depend no doubt on the Parliament Bill to carry through this Bill, as they hope to carry through their other measures. That may or may not be. I am not a betting man myself, but, if anybody thinks the Government will live long enough to carry their measures, I think I might make an exception in my very strict conduct in that matter and "take on." No one dispassionately regarding this Bill can feel it is meting out fair and reasonable treatment to the licence holders of Scotland. If you are going to have a revolution in the system of licensing in Scotland, you surely ought to effect it with a little less hardship to the interests concerned. It may be true the licence lasts only for a year, but, after all, at present it has to be taken

away in a judicial spirit. The law demands that shall be so. In future you are going to place that power in the hands of a body of people who may vote wholly irresponsibly, and with whom no judicial spirit is likely to prevail. Under these circumstances, it is more than necessary that reasonable and equitable treatment should be meted out to these people.

Question put, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Clause."

The House divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 77.

Division No. 216.] AYES. [7.58 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Lynch, A. A.
Acland, Francis Dyke Flavin, Michael Joseph Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)
Adamson, William Furness, Stephen Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles p. (Stroud) Gelder, Sir William Alfred McGhee, Richard
Armitage, Robert George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Arnold, Sydney Gill, Alfred Henry MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)
Baker, H. T. (Accrington) Gladstone, W. G. C. Macpherson, James Ian
Balfour, sir Robert (Lanark) Glanville, Harold James M'Callum, Sir John M.
Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Barnes, G. N. Goldstone, Frank M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Beck, Arthur Cecil Greig, Col. J. W. Marks, Sir George Croydon
Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George) Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.
Bentham, G. J. Griffith, Ellis Jones Meagher, Michael
Bethell, Sir John Henry Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)
Black, Arthur W. Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Menzies, Sir Walter
Boland, John Pius Hackett, J. Millar, James Duncan
Booth, Frederick Handel Hall, Frederick (Normanton) Molloy, M.
Bowerman, C. W. Hancock, John George Moiteno, Percy Alport
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) Mooney J. J.
Brace, William Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Morgan, George Hay
Brady, Patrick Joseph Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) Morison, Hector
Brunner, John F. L. Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Bryce, John Annan Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Muldoon, John
Burke, E. Haviland- Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Munro, Robert
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Hayden, John Patrick Nannetti, Joseph P.
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.) Hayward, Evan Needham, Christopher T.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) Hazleton, Richard Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Helme, Sir Norval Watson Nolan, Joseph
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) Henderson, Arthur (Durham) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) O'Connor, J. (Klldare, N.)
Chancellor, H. G. Higham, John Sharp O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Chappie, Dr. William Allen Hinds, John O'Doherty, Philip
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. Hodge, John O'Donnell, Thomas
Clancy, John Joseph Hogge, James Myles O'Dowd, John
Clough, William Holmes, Daniel Turner O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Howard, Hon. Geoffrey O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Condon, Thomas Joseph Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire) O'Shee, James John
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. John, Edward Thomas O'Sullivan, Timothy
Cotton, William Francis Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea) Outhwaite, R. L.
Cowan, William Henry Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) Parker, James (Halifax)
Crumley, Patrick Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Cullinan, John Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney) Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Delany, William Joyce, Michael Piric, Duncan V.
Denman, Hon. R. D. Keating, Matthew Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Donelan, Captain A. Kellaway, Frederick George Power, Patrick Joseph
Doris, W. Kelly, Edward Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Duffy, William J. Kennedy, Vincent Paul Pringle, William M. R.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) King, J. Radford, G. H.
Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Raffan, Peter Wilson
Elverston, Sir Harold Lardner, James Carrige Rushe Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) Reddy, M.
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Essex, Richard Walter Leach, Charles Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Esslemont, George Birnie Levy, Sir Maurice Rendall, Athelstan
Falconer, J. Lewis, John Herbert Richards, Thomas
Farrell, James Patrick Logan, John William Richardson, Albion (Peckham)
Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoin)
Flrench, Peter Lundon, T. Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
Field, William Lyell, C. H. Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Robinson, Sidney Sutherland, John E. White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Sutton, John E. Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Roche, Augustine (Louth) Taylor, John W. (Durham) Wiles, Thomas
Roe, Sir Thomas Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Wilkie, Alexander
Rowlands, James Tennanf, Harold John Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. Toulmin, Sir George Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Wadsworth, John Winfrey, Richard
Scanlan, Thomas Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)
Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay Young, William (Perth, East)
Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. Wason, Rt Hon. E. (Clackmannan) Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Sheehy, David Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Simon, Sir John Alisebrook Watt, Henry A. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) Webb, H. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. Croft, Henry Page Malcolm, Ian
Ashley, W. W. Denniss, E. R. B. Newman, John R. P.
Baird, J. L. Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Balcarres, Lord Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Parkes, Ebenezer
Banner, John S. Harmood- Fletcher, John Samuel Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Barnston, H. Forster, Henry William Pollock, Ernest Murray
Barrie, H. T. Gastreil, Major W. Houghton Pretyman, Ernest George
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Goldman, Charles Sydney Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.
Bigland, Alfred Goulding, E. A. Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- Gretton, John Remnant, James Farquharson
Boyton, James Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Bridgeman, William Clive Harris, Henry Percy Sanders, Robert A.
Bull, Sir William James Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire) Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Burn, Col. C. R. Hill, Sir Clement L. Stanier, Beville
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Hills, John Waller Stewart, Gershom
Cassel, Felix Hoare, Samuel John Gurney Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Cator, John Hohler, G. F. Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)
Cave, George Hope, Harry (Bute) Talbot, Lord Edmund
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) Touche, George Alexander
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Houston, Robert Paterson Tullibardine, Marquess of
Clyde, James Avon Hunter, Sir C. R. Walker, Colonel William Hall
Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Cooper, Richard Ashmole Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) Younger, Sir George
Courthope, George Loyd Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)
Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Earl
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Mackinder, Halford J. Winterton and Mr. Fell.
Craik, Sir Henry Magnus, Sir Philip

I beg to move to leave out the words "first day of June, nineteen hundred and twelve" and to insert instead thereof the words "passing thereof."

Of course, it is very obvious why this is done. The meanest understanding can quite well see through it. As a general rule we have a date which synchronises, at all events, with the passing of the Act of Parliament. But in this particular case you have a retrospective Act, because the 1st June, 1912, has already passed. The intention is quite clear. These words have been introduced into this Clause since the passing of the Parliament Act in order that, should this Bill be hung up for a couple of years, the time limit may not be increased. If the Parliament Act can do that, and if it be right that the Second Chamber should be entitled to hold up an Act of Parliament for two years, if it be right that it should have that privilege and power, then I do not think we ought to go behind it. I move my Amendment in order to call the attention of the House to the fact that this is the state of affairs, and I ask the House to accept the Amendment in order to defeat the object which the right hon. Gentleman has had in changing the measure simply to suit the exigencies of the case.


I beg to second this Amendment. This is another example of the chicanery and subterfuge which have characterised the dealings of the party opposite with temperance measures. They go upon public platforms and claim that it is a measure of justice, and that they are going to allow a period of five years from the passing of the Act. But that is all a fraud, because, under this Bill, the date given is June, 1912, which we have already passed. I second the Amendment with some enthusiasm, because I consider it is only fair and just it should be made quite clear that a period of five years will be allowed from the passing of the Act.


The hon. Baronet has put the case most clearly. It is a difference of opinion. We think it is not fair that the period of five years should be extended to seven years if the House approves of this Bill and passes it. The hon. Member who has just spoken was not quite justified in what he said, because he should remember that, speaking only a few moments ago, I said the period would be

nearly six years from the present time. I do not think this is a matter which need! take up the time of the House. We are all agreed upon the merits of the proposal.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 72.

Division No. 217.] AYES. [8.10 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Gladstone, W. G. C. Marks, Sir George Croydon
Acland, Francis Dyke Glanville, Harold James Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.
Adamson, William Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Meagher, Michael
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Goldstone, Frank Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County)
Armitage, Robert Greig, Col. J. W. Menzies, Sir Walter
Arnold, Sydney Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Millar, James Duncan
Baker, H. T. (Accrington) Griffith, Ellis J. Molloy, Michael
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) Moiteno, Percy Alport
Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Mooney, John J.
Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George) Hackett, John Morgan, George Hay
Bentham, George Jackson Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) Morison, Hector
Bethell, Sir John Henry Hancock, John George Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Black, Arthur W. Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) Muldoon, John
Boland, John Pius Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Munro, Robert
Booth, Frederick Handel Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.
Bowerman, C. W. Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) Nannetti, Joseph P.
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Needham, Christopher
Brace, William Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Nicholson, Sir Charles (Doncaster)
Brady, Patrick Joseph Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Nolan, Joseph
Brunner, John F. L. Hayden, John Patrick O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Bryce, John Annan Hayward, Evan O'Connor, John (Kildare)
Burke, E. Haviland- Hazleton, Richard O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Helme, Sir Norval Watson O'Doherty, Philip
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Henderson, Arthur (Durham) O'Donnell, Thomas
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) O'Dowd, John
Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) Higham, John Sharp O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Hinds, John O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh)
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) Hodge, John O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) Hogge, James Myles O'Shee, James John
Chancellor, H. G. Holmes, Daniel Turner O'Sullivan, Timothy
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich) Outhwaite, R. L.
Clancy, John Joseph Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Parker, James (Halifax)
Cough, William Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire) Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Collins, G. P. (Greenock) John, Edward Thomas Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea) Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Pirie, Duncan V.
Cotton, William Francis Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Cowan, W. H. Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) Power, Patrick Joseph
Crumley, Patrick Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Cullinan, John Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) Pringie, William M. R.
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) Joyce, Michael Radford, G. H.
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Keating, Matthew Raffan, Peter Wilson
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Kellaway, Frederick George Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Delany, William Kelly, Edward Reddy, M.
Denman, Hon. R. D. Kennedy, Vincent Paul Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Donelan, Captain A. King, J. Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Doris, W. Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Rendall, Athelstan
Duffy, William J. Lardner, James Carrige Rushe Richards, Thomas
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) Richardson, Albion (Peckham)
Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Elverston, Sir Harold Leach, Charles Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Levy, Sir Maurice Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Lewis, John Herbert Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Essex, Richard Walter Logan, John William Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Esslemont, George Birnie Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) Robinson, Sidney
Falconer, J. Lundon, Thomas Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Farrell, James Patrick Lynch, A. A. Roe, Sir Thomas
Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) Rowlands, James
Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Ffrench, Peter McGhee, Richard Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Field, William Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Samuel, Rt. Hon, H. L. (Cleveland)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South) Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Flavin, Michael Joseph Macpherson, James Ian Scanlan, Thomas
Furness, Stephen MacVeagh, Jeremiah Seely, Rt. Hon. Col. J. E. B.
Gelder, Sir William Alfred M'Callum, Sir John M. Sheehy, David
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Gill, Alfred Henry M'Micking, Major Gilbert Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Sutherland, John E. Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Sutton, John E. Watt, Henry A. Winfrey, Richard
Taylor, John w. (Durham) Webb, H. Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)
Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston) Young, William (Perth, East)
Tennant, Harold John White, Patrick (Meath, North) Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)
Toulmin, Sir George Wiles, Thomas TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander Wilkie, Alexander Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Wadsworth, John Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Ashley, W. W. Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. Neville, Reginald J. N.
Baird, John Lawrence Eyres-Monsell, B. M. O'Grady, James
Balcarres, Lord Fell, Arthur Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Banner, John S. Harmood- Fletcher, John Samuel Parkes, Ebenezer
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Forster, Henry William Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Barnes, George N. Gastrell, Major W. Houghton Pollock, Ernest Murray
Barnston, Sir Harry Goldman, Charles Sydney Pretyman, Ernest George
Barrie, H. T. Goulding, Edward Alfred Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton) Gretton, John Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Boyton, James Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence Remnant, James Farquharson
Bridgeman, William Clive Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Burn, Colonel C. R. Hill, Sir Clement L. Sanders, Robert
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Hills, John Waller Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Cassel, Felix Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Stanier, Beville
Cave, George Hope, Harry (Bute) Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) Stewart, Gershom
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Houston, Robert Paterson Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)
Clyde, James Avon Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. Talbot, Lord Edmund
Cooper, Richard Ashmole Jardine, Ernest, (Somerset, East) Touche, George Alexander
Courthope, George Loyd Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. Tullibardine, Marquess of
Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) Walsh, J. (Cork, South)
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. Winterton, Earl
Craik, Sir Henry Mackinder, Halford J.
Croft, Henry Page Magnus, Sir Philip TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir
Denniss, E. R. B. Malcolm, Ian G. Younger and Col. Walker.