§ This Act shall, except as otherwise in this Act provided, come into operation on the expiration of ten years from the first day of June, nineteen hundred and twelve.
§ Lords Amendment After the word "of" ["on the expiration of"], leave out the word "five," and insert instead thereof the word "ten."
Mr. McKINNON WOOD
I beg to move, "That the House do disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment[...]
I think the remark made [...] my hon. Friend (Mr. Barnes) is a very fair one. I 71 can understand that it would influence the votes of a good many Members of the House if they knew what line is to be taken, not so much by the Government, as in another place, and that would be a very "relevant consideration." Unfortunately I am not in a position to say what would happen in another place, and I can only tell my hon. Friend with regard to the news of the Government, that I do not think I have anything to add to what I said just now, that we do not think that either the scheme of insurance or the scheme of disinterested management are schemes for which the Government can take responsibility. The House is aware that Clause 6, which was inserted in the interest of the licence holders, provided that the magistrate shall not order any structural alterations of public houses, however desirable they may be, in the interval between the passing of this Bill into an Act and the time when the first vote will be taken. I think the House will generally agree that it would be most disadvantageous to make this disability of long duration. And there is a still larger consideration. I cannot help thinking that the majority of the people in Scotland, and especially in the great towns, will agree that a reduction of the number of licences is urgently necessary in the interests of the people. That was frankly admitted in another place. Lord Balfour of Burleigh laid great stress upon it, as did other Members of the Upper House, and the effect of passing this Bill with a long time limit would, I think, be extremely harmful. The Licensing Courts would be extremely slow to interfere with a licence when they knew that it must be for the popular vote to decide the question with regard to the number of public houses. Therefore I think you would be practically stereotyping the existing state of affairs for a long period if you accepted the Lords Amendment as it stands. The period we have given in the Bill is practically six years from the time of the Second Reading. The Second Reading took place in April, and no licence would really be taken away from anybody until May, 1918; so that practically there is six years of time Limit between the Second Reading of the Bill and the time when anything effective will be done with the licence. That is a very considerable period of time. Lord Peel's Report, issued about fourteen years ago, recommended that Scotland should Jae allowed to vote on the principle of local option with a time limit of, five years.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD
I cannot help thinking that the safeguards put in the Bill requiring three-fifths for no licence is a very substantial safeguard. Under these circumstances I ask the House to disagree with this Amendment. I think it is a great misfortune, in the existing state of affairs in regard to the number of licences in many of the crowded towns in Scotland, that we should preserve them for so long a period as ten years.
§ Sir G. YOUNGER
The right hon. Gentleman has advanced certain reasons for the rejection of this Amendment, all of them very feeble, and he bases practically the. whole of his case on the fact that Clause 6 appears in the Bill. I am quite willing to make him a present of Clause 6, and if he thinks this ten years is too long, let him take out Clause 6. That would be a very simple way out of his difficulty, and it answers his main objection to the proposal. During the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks he left entirely out of consideration the interests of the licence holder. For him the right hon. Gentleman has no bowels of compassion. I do not expect it; we know what he is exactly; we know how he has dealt with this measure; we know how thoroughly ruthless he has been in connection with the proposed modifications of the extreme proposals of the Government. We have seen him refuse reasonable suggestions made by the authors of the Bill. The right hon. Member for Leith Burghs (Mr. Munro-Ferguson) in Committee, as one of the authors of the Bill, most distinctly stated that, the circumstances being wholly altered, owing to the Budget of 1909 having been passed since the Bill was introduced, he thought a reasonable extension of time should be allowed—I think he said eight or ten years. The Secretary for Scotland took no notice of that, but he did not know Scotland, and Scotland did not know him, and it is a pity that they do know him in the capacity in which he now acts. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, oh!"] I do not pretend to withdraw what I have said. It is a proper Parliamentary expression of opinion. I state it for the reason that I think it is very desirable that the Secretary for Scotland should be a man who thoroughly knows Scotland, and that he should be a Scotchman, born and bred, and who has lived in that country.
73 The right hon. Gentleman does not pretend to know Scotland as does Lord Balfour of Burleigh. He quotes Lord Balfour of Burleigh when it suits him, and he takes care to ignore him when it is convenient. Lord Balfour of Burleigh knows the situation of Scotland, and almost without exception those who are familiar with the circumstances of that country think that the right hon. Gentleman is imperilling his measure by the hard-and-fast attitude he has assumed in dealing with all these proposed modifications. One of the most prominent, if not the most prominent Liberal newspaper in Scotland, told him that he ought in these matters to give way to some of the proposals of the Lords, and be reasonable and fair. If he does not it is almost certain that he will lose his Bill. Let the right hon. Gentleman make no mistake about it, and do not let him imagine that the House of Lords Amendments are at all likely to be repudiated by the people of Scotland. Do not let him suppose that the passage of the measure will be made any the easier if he does riot give way on some of these moderate proposals. Why the people of Scotland should he legislated for according to the extreme opinions which the right hon. Gentleman holds, and not according to the reasonable views which have found expression through the right hon. Member for Leith, I do not know, but I think it is a very great misfortune. Personally, I think the House of Lords have gone a long way in accepting the whole principle of the Bill. They have extended the time limit without any interference with the principle, and they have added another option without interfering with the principle. It gives a more extensive choice—an extended choice, backed up by Members sitting on the bench opposite, by the Prime Minister, by the Lord Chancellor. by the late Lord Chancellor, and by the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate. The Secretary for Scotland says that he will not accept this Amendment, and in doing so I think he is really going very far indeed to contradict and render perfectly inconsistent the declarations that have been made on this subject by Ministers sitting on that bench, and by those who preceded him.
I think that if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to get his Bill passed into law he will require to alter his attitude on this particular Amendment, on which I am quite certain the Second Chamber lays very great stress and regards as most im 74 portant. No one wants to behave either unjustly or harshly to the licence holders, except, perhaps, the right, hon. Gentleman himself, who has very little tenderness towards them. He does not want to alter the time limit in any way. It was suggested that he might alter it with regard to the no-option licence. But that he does not alter. In my view, the alteration of the time limit, and an extension of it in connection with the no-option licence, is far less important than the extension of the time limit with regard to the limitation of number. I do believe that the latter is much more likely to be carried in certain districts than the former, and therefore it. is more important to have a time limit with regard to The limitation of number than it is with regard to the no-option licence. I can promise the right hon. Gentleman that this Bill is not at all likely to go through if lie retains Clause I in the form to which we object, and I do not think it is at all likely that the House of Lords will accept a measure which includes a provision such as that which the right hon. Gentleman supports. I think that a reasonable modification of the time limit should be allowed, and that some adequate opportunity should be allowed these unfortunate people to ensure themselves against loss. I am perfectly certain that you are not going to turn men out into the streets simply because of the extremist views of the right hon. Gentleman. I regret that he does not see his way to accept. some limitation of the time limit, and I am perfectly sure that he is endangering his Bill by the attitude which he has taken up.
§ Mr. MUNRO
In the observations I desire to address to the House I shall endeavour to avoid the rhetorical extravagance which characterised the speech just made by the hon. Baronet, whose observations as a rule are marked by geniality. I do not think the occasion warrants his observations. I propose to confine my observations to the question before the House, namely, whether the time limit should be five or ten years. I read very carefully the debate in another place, and so. far as I can judge the proposal to extend the time limit was bared on the warning thought to be due to the licence holder and on the compensation to which it was supposed that he was entitled. So far as a warning is concerned, I venture to suggest that such a warning to the licence holders of Scotland is at this time of day entirely 75 superfluous. The House must not forget the history of measures of this sort, which is quite different, so far as Scotland is concerned, from England. During the last fifteen years at least there has been a time notice of the most clear and emphatic character given to the licence holders of Scotland by reason of what has transpired in this place. Licence holders are by no means simpletons; they are very wise, far-seeing men, and they must have been able to recognise the writing on the wall, and to have foreseen this day many years ago. It seems to me under those circumstances there is not a man amongst them who did not fully understand within recent years when he took up a licence that he took it on a much more precarious tenure than those who had preceded him. Looking to the history of this Bill and of previous Bills of an identical character, I think that such a time limit as is proposed is perfectly fair, and that the notice of ten years proposed is quite unwarrantable.
So far as compensation is concerned, I would remind the House that Earl Grey in another place, speaking of that subject, said that he could not conceive a worse form of compensation than extending the time limit, and he dilated on that subject in the course of a speech which hon. Members have probably read. On those two grounds it seems to me, and those are the only two grounds so far as I have read the Debate on which the House of Lords bases this proposal, I submit the argument failed. Our case is quite a simple one. As I understand it, it is this: The time limit proposed is the time limit which was proposed in the Minority Report years ago, namely, five years. On this side of the House we respectfully decline, as I understand our position, to sterilise temperance legislation in Scotland for a decade, and to paralyse the administration of the licensing laws. As was said in another place, a time limit of fourteen years would be a public calamity, and I venture to think that a time limit of ten years would not be much better, but would be a national disaster.
§ Mr. GRETTON
I entirely agree with one remark made by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. It has always been the view of those who have investigated this subject, and of the licensed trade, at any rate in England and the rest of the United Kingdom, that as a form of compensation any time limit was an absolute 76 farce. We have always objected to it as being any form of adequate compensation for taking away property from a class of traders on whatever pretext. As a form of compensation it has now become even more ludicrous than it was when we were discussing the Licensing Bill before the Budget of 1909–10. The means of accumulating a reserve fund out of the business has been destroyed by the excessive taxation proposed by the Finance Act of 1909–10. Therefore all idea that any time limit of five, or ten, or fourteen years is of any value whatsoever as a form of compensation may be set aside and is not relevant to the arguments. With regard to the question of warning, I do not agree with the hon. Member. I do not think five years' warning is sufficient. I think that a longer period is necessary, and certainly, so far as the proposed Amendment sent down from another place goes, I believe the extended warning will be of great benefit to the trade in Scotland, and that they desire it. At any rate, it gives the opportunity for a new state of political circumstances to arise, when the whole matter may be revised and reconsidered by a more able House of Commons—from the practical point of view, if not from the sentimental one. On the general subject I may say none of the Amendments which we are asked to consider to-day in any way alter the character of the Bill, and in that I entirely agree with the remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger). The Bill is as objectionable and as injurious, and I think as immoral, as it was when it was sent up from this House to another place. The Amendments do not alter its character and do not mitigate the circumstances, and do not make it in any way more acceptable to the licensed trade, and do not do away with the harsh injustice of confiscating property without compensation and without consideration for those who hold it. Therefore I, personally, am very indifferent as to the fate of these Amendments. The only one of value to which the licensed trade of Scotland attach any value is the one which we are now considering, and on that ground I shall vote with the Scottish licensed traders, who desire ten years instead of five.
§ Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON
I entirely disagree with the hon. Member who has just spoken. I think that the Bill in its general principles is a good Bill, and that it will effect what has long been required 77 and urgently needed in the public interest, and that is legislation to break down the tyranny of the liquor traffic over local administration and the conduct of public business. Whether the Bill itself will be as effective as its promoters think may be a matter for dispute, but, where I think the hon. Member opposite spoke without the slightest vestige of ground was in describing this Bill as a bad Bill. It is a very good Bill in principle, although I think in some details it might have been made more effective from an administrative point of view. I have not read the Debates which took place in another place, and I do not propose to do so, and I did not hear them. I have been familiar with this subject for a very long time. I have had my name on the back of a Bill promoted by Mr. McLagan in 1884 which provided for no time limit., and which was a very arbitrary measure. As I say, I look upon this matter from the administrative point of view and as to what the effect of the Bill will be in operation. The great difficulty we have in administering the present licensing law as to reductions is not having any power of time notice, there being no provision of time notice in which we could carry out reduction. We would have to take away licences in the same way as Mr. McLagan's Bill proposed, and in consequence no reduction of licences were effected. We have had varied experience in this matter of time notice, and many people still hold, along with the late Mr. McLagan, that no time notice is required, and there are persons of great authority who hold that view. Lord Loreburn holds the view that no time notice is necessary; he is a high authority, and I could name others. I do not agree with them. I think it would be extraordinarily difficult.
As it has been impossible in the past for benches to reduce licences, so I think it would be very difficult to reduce licences under a popular vote unless there is general agreement that the time notice is a fair notice. I think once it is accepted that the time notice is fair that at its expiry there will be no difficulty whatever in either reducing or abolishing licences. I think in some parts of the country that the total abolition of licences would be an extremely good thing in the public interest. Once, as I say, this question of the time notice is settled, then I think either abolition or prohibition or reduction will be frequently resorted to, at any rate the second, and in some cases the third. Originally we had no time notice; 78 then we had five years' notice inserted. I have said I thought eight years' notice was about right, and I would even go the length of ten years to get a settlement by agreement. I think from such experience as I have had in dealing with this matter and from the experience of disinterested management and the working under that system, which at any rate gave me some practical insight into the matter, I should have thought about eight years' notice would have met the circumstances of the case. I think that it would be unwise, therefore, to adhere to the five years' notice, and I should support either eight years, or, as I have said, even ten years. Many of the Amendments which have been made in the other place are, I think, unnecessary or unworkable, but this is really the vital point if we are to get the Bill. I should like to get the Bill, because I think from the point of view of administration later on we shall have much less difficulty in applying the Act if we could have a settlement by agreement. I attach some importance also to disinterested management, and I look upon this as a matter of the very first importance.
I would like to see this matter, if possible, settled. No doubt it would be better still to be able at once to have prohibition, but the only way in which that could be done in my opinion would be by making a money payment, and to make a money payment would, I think, be found impracticable. I do not think it would be possible to get that principle accepted in Scotland even if it was considered expedient. There is much to be said against it; but to have any immediate application of the principle of prohibition or of the reduction of licences, there would have to be some financial provision made, and you would have to pay in hard cash instead of delaying the objects aimed at through the operation of a time notice. I think that is the real point of view from which this matter should be approached, and not from the point of view of the Debates here or in another place, but, from the point of view of practical experience and difficulties of administration, of the surest way of getting effective remedy for the great evils from which we suffer. Undoubtedly excess in drink is the great curse of Scotland. In my own county of Fife I see from the report of the Chief Constable that sixty-five per cent. of the crime in Fife is caused by drink. In addition to those crimes there is all the poverty and helplessness and sorrow that is wrought on the community by the curse—
§ Mr. SPEAKER
The right hon. Gentleman is now discussing the Bill as a whole. We cannot go back on that discussion, but must limit ourselves to the Amendment under discussion.
§ Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON
I apologise. I was trying to remind the House of the immense objects to be gained, and I was going to conclude by showing how immense the interests are that are at stake, and that an extension of three years or even of five years in enabling the magistracy or the community to deal effectively with those evils is a very small point as compared with the results which may be obtained.
§ Sir HENRY CRAIK
I am sorry I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Munro-Ferguson) as to the merits of this Bill as a whole. It embodies principles of legislation which I am sorry to see adopted. But I am glad to welcome the right hon. Gentleman's practical help on this particular Amendment. Evil as the Bill may be, I think it would be made, to a certain extent, more tolerable if the Amendment of the Lords with regard to the time limit were accepted. The hon. Member for the Wick Burghs (Mr. Munro) gave two reasons against accepting the Amendment. The first was that the Scottish licensee has had ample warning. It is a totally new principle to lay down that a man is to be assumed to have had warning as soon as any body of politicians preach the doctrine that he is holding property wrongfully, and that he ought to be dispossessed. For instance, is a landowner, because there are certain politicians who think he ought to be dispossessed of his property, to be assumed to have had warning, and in consequence to be liable to be dispossessed hereafter without any compensation? The second argument of the hon. Member was that a time limit is a bad principle of compensation. We all agree that it is a very bad principle of compensation; but it is the only one that you have. I admit that if you attempt to strip people of their property and of their means of livelihood, and simply give them permission to carry on for a number of years, that is not an ideal way of telling them how they may compensate themselves. It is not likely that a public house would be managed any better on that account during the ensuing five years. But if you have nothing else, I do not see how you can in justice deny something to these people whom you would deprive of their property and means of livelihood.
80 I defend this principle of a decent time limit upon much broader grounds. I, at any rate, am not speaking in the interests of any trade association. The trade has no effect whatever upon me, either politically or personally. I do not think that any hon. Member can assert that I am moved in any way by that consideration. I am speaking on the broad principle of what is right and what is wrong in legislation. When we abolished slavery we did not do it at the expense of the slave owners. If you want to promote temperance you must do it at your own expense and that of the nation, and not at the expense of the man whom you wish to make the scapegoat and to whom you apply your unselfish, beneficent legislation. If this is to be done it ought to be by means of the public compensating the man whom you have placed in the position of being an ally of the State, who pays large taxes to the State, who is authorised by the State, who is trusted with certain duties by the State, and who acts under the supervision of the State. It is not at his expense that it is just to carry out this wide-reaching scheme of temperance reform. I do not believe in the particular scheme proposed in this Bill, but if you do carry it out, the least you can do is to exercise a fair, just, and righteous system of honourable conduct towards these licence holders.
§ Mr. EUGENE WASON
The hon. Member opposite objects to this Bill altogether in principle, but, so far as the bulk of the Scottish Liberal Members are concerned, we heartily support it. It has been passed on three separate occasions by the Scottish Grand Committee, once with this very same kind of time limit included. But if to get this Bill it was necessary to give a slightly extended period, although Members opposite do not appear to care about it, as the price of getting rid of the other. Lords Amendments—disinterested management, insurance, and so on—I do not think that many of us would stand in the way. That, at any rate, would be my feeling if it would satisfy the gentlemen known as the trade, and get rid of these other Amendments, I think most of us would be quite prepared to agree. But if we are not to have a "deal" in this matter, if we are not able to conciliate the trade in any shape or form, we are bound to resist any extended Amendments such as those put in by the House of Lords, and the great bulk of Scottish Liberal Members will stand by the Bill as it left this House, including the five years' 81 notice, which in the opinion of most of us is ample and sufficient.
§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSON
I do not understand the attitude of hon. Members opposite who take up the position assumed by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I thought that whatever our views as to alternative proposals might be, our duty was to endeavour to secure what we considered would be a good and fair Bill, and that the idea of effecting a deal was not the attitude in which we should approach the question. Personally, I have always claimed to be a friend of temperance in Scotland, and I can appeal to my record in this House to bear out that contention. I think also that on this very Bill the position taken up by the Opposition has not been that of opponents of temperance reform. The House will remember that, although there was a reasoned Amendment moved, the Second Reading was carried without a Division. If hon. Members Will consider the action taken in another place on this question of a time limit, they must agree that the consideration of the question was approached in a judicial frame of mind, and with the desire to get a period that was fair for all parties concerned. It is quite true that they struck out five years and inserted fourteen, but it was quite understood that that was not the final word, and they ultimately accepted a ten years' period. I agree that you cannot say that five years is right and fourteen years wrong. or rice versâ, and that there must be give-and-take in this matter. The right hon. Member for Leith Burghs (Mr. Munro-Ferguson) has indicated that quite distinctly. The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes) also has shown that he regards the question as to the period which is to elapse before the Bill comes into operation as a most material point in connection with the future progress of the measure. For my part, I ask the House to support the ten years' period, because I honestly believe that if that were accepted it would do a great deal to facilitate the progress of the Bill.
I regret that neither in another place nor in this House has there been the slightest suggestion made from the Government Bench that any concession was possible—not even the "deal" to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite referred. Their attitude is—the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. I do not think that that is the manner in [...] 82 temperance legislation can be forwarded, or one which is likely to enable you to turn your Bill into an Act. I have no warrant or authority to speak for the trade, but I believe that they attach importance to this extension of the time limit. The ground upon which I attach importance to it is that I think it would largely affect the votes when the question was put before the electors if they had the feeling that they were giving a period sufficiently long to prevent injustice being done to individual traders. The suggestion has been made not from the Treasury Bench, I admit—that you should allow a ten years' period for a no-licence resolution, and a five years' period for a restricted licence resolution. That will not stand consideration. A restricted licence resolution reducing licences from a hundred to seventy-five would, so far as the 25 per cent. who lost their licences were concerned, inflict just as great an injustice as if it were a no-licence resolution. Therefore that suggestion seems to me to have no logical basis at all. With regard to the point that this is a form of compensation, I agree that in a sense it is. I think that many of those who support the Bill regard it as such and object to it on that ground. With regard to the warning which is said to have been given, if a trade or an individual is to take warning because a Royal Commission reported fourteen or fifteen years before and private Members had introduced Bills Which never proceeded further, that is one thing. If the warning dated from the time when the Government took up the Bill I could understand it. But that was only this year.
§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSON
The hon. Member knows more about that than I do. I was under the impression that this was the first time. If the hon. Member says this is the second, I will accept his statement. It is, at any rate, the first time that we have had a Government Bill dealing with the matter, and that makes a difference, if there is any force in the argument at all. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Leith Burghs on the wise, discreet, and statesmanlike position which he has taken up. He believes that an extension of the period to eight or ten years would do a great deal to facilitate the passage of the Bill. I agree with him. I think that the out-and-out supporters of 83 the Bill are making an enormous mistake. from the point of view of their own policy in rejecting this proposal. There is an enormous difference between eight or ten years' purchase and eight or ten years' notice. We are not proposing to take eight or ten years' purchase. That, indeed, would startle even those of us on this side of the House. I do not know how the confusion between "purchase" and "notice" came about. In conclusion, I only desire to say that I am honestly desirous to see this Bill pass into law, and I do submit to hon. Members opposite that they will do a great deal to facilitate it passing into law if they can see their way to accept the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leith, and allow this Amendment of the Lords to stand.
§ Mr. PIRIE
Hon. Members of this side of the House will welcome the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Central Division of Glasgow that he is as anxious as any one of us that this Bill should become law. I do not see why the word "deal" should be used, "settlement" or "compromise" would be better. However, perhaps there is no need to quibble about words. I think that most Members on this side of the House will be anxious to see, and glad to know, that this long-desired measure is in such an advanced stage in this House. May I personally express the hope that it will not be the last time this Session that it will be seen before the House? I hope that on March 6th, which is the date that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that this House was again to discuss this Bill, that we may arrive at a settlement of this long outstanding question—this Session if possible. This is the only opportunity one is allowed of putting suggestions in regard to this time limit before the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland, and before the House. We know perfectly well what the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland said, that the Government are not going to accept, and are very strongly opposed, to two of the chief Amendments which the Lords have put into the Bill, namely, that relating to "disinterested management" and that relating to compulsory insurance. Therefore, if there is to be a compromise or an arrangement, this is the Amendment on which such a compromise can take place The hon. Member for Rutland attached 84 most importance to this question of the time limit. I think that it might be met in this way: When the Bill was first before the House it was very nearly being divided into two parts—on the question of local option as regards licences, and on the other distinctly and entirely apart question contained in one single Clause—I think Clause 7—the later opening of public-houses. That Clause 7 comes also under this time limit—five, eight, or ten years, as the case may be—
§ Mr. PIRIE
Well, then, it is my mistake. Anyhow, if it is not possible, I still hope the suggestion of compromise on this question may be carried out. I myself should willingly, in order to see this Bill become law without having been brought under the operation of the Parliament Act—a course which, I think, would be very detrimental to the best interests of temperance on both sides of the House—like to see it come into operation on this occasion by agreement. I would ask hon. Members, especially on this side of the House, to remember that, though this House has the power that the Parliament Act gives it, that there must still be wisdom in its deliberations and in what it enacts. We have power to enact, and to force our enactments upon the minority, but wisdom should accompany those enactments. Personally, as I should like very much to see the Bill become law, I would go the length of those who prefer a time limit of eight years, or even ten years, if we could get this Bill settled by agreement and passed into law this Session.
§ Mr. BARNES
I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his Friends are unnecessarily afraid of the operation of this Bill, if it ever becomes an Act. There is also the assumption underlying all their speeches that the Bill is to become operative, so far as reducing the number of public houses goes, at the end of five years. I do not think the Act is likely to work so harshly as they think, but after all, if it becomes an Act, it will only give to the people themselves the right which is at present held by licensing justices, or rather it gives the people themselves the right to reduce in the as the bench at present. reduces in single cases. Therefore I think hon. Gentlemen opposite are unnecessarily alarmed as to what the Bill will do. It is quite right, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite says, that I have expressed myself rather in favour of show- 85 ing more consideration to public-houses. I am in a rather peculiar position, because I do not like the extension of time beyond five years, and I have always said so; at the same time, I have also said upstairs, where I proposed a scheme of compensation, that I should prefer the publicans to be given the opportunity of compensating themselves out of funds subscribed by themselves. I am in this position: the Bill, as it is presented to us, contains such a scheme. I should like before the vote is taken to-day, to know the intention of the Secretary for Scotland in regard to that scheme? If it is to remain part of the Bill, I shall have no hesitation in voting for the five years.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman behind me that if it were possible to get this Bill through with something like the goodwill of the other side, at the same time slightly lengthening the time limit that should be given, I should heartily support that. I appeal to hon. Members on both sides not to be too virtuous. A good many of these things are arranged behind the scenes. It would be far better if we could arrange them now on the floor of the House, and before we leave this Amendment. My own position simply is this: that if the Government have any intention of retaining the compensation scheme in the Bill I stick to the five years. If, on the other hand, they do not intend to retain that compensation scheme, I shall be inclined to go a long way in getting this Bill through with something like the goodwill of both sides.
§ Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR
I should like briefly to say that the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland has taken up, and also foreshadowed in regard to the other Amendments of the Bill, is one which I believe will commend itself very largely to the people of Scotland. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench has been in receipt of resolutions from the City of Glasgow and other parts of the country which have indicated to him, and to other Scottish Members in the House, how strong the feeling is upon the subject of this Bill. In these resolutions reference is made to the time limit, and the generous period which is already given in the Bill in the opinion, I believe, of a very large section of the Scottish people. When this measure was debated in another place, I was very glad to find that some recognition was being 86 given at last to the wishes of Scotland, as expressed to their representatives in the House of Commons. Lord Balfour of Burleigh indicated in these words his view of the matter:—I agree quite ungrudgingly that the time has come when my fellow countrymen in Scotland may fully be trusted in this matter to manage their own affairs:I put it that the Scottish people, through their representatives, have made it perfectly clear already that they desire to stick by this time limit in the Bill, because that matter was raised in Scottish Grand Committee. I find that there was only one Scottish Member who sits on this side of the House, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leith Burghs, who voted for the extension of the five years' time limit. All the other Scottish Members voted against it. I am bound to say I was not greatly impressed by his argument, when the right hon. Gentleman, after referring to the great evils of intemperance in his own county, urged that there were reasons—so far as I could judge—for the extension of the time limit. This was to my mind, rather a reason for trying as soon as possible to do away with the evils. I do not desire for a moment to suggest that my right hon. Friend put that as his main argument, but he did suggest that it was desirable to offer a longer period as a time limit.
§ Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON
May I put what. I did suggest? What I did suggest—and I will put it in still plainer language so that no one may misunderstand—was that in order to bring this Bill into operation one has to ignore the fanatic.
§ Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR
The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt himself be in a position to judge of the strength of feeling in Scotland on this subject. I am prepared to accept the views of my fellow countrymen in Scotland. I believe that they are preponderatingly in favour of the Bill in the form in which it stands to-day. So far as the other arguments which have been adduced are concerned, I do not desire—no one desires—to see injustice done to the holders of licences. I do think that there is a great deal of misapprehension on the part of hon. Members as to what this proposal amounts to. Lord Balfour of Burleigh, in another place, indicated his view that at present, for Death Duty purposes, the period was taken of six years' profits of licensed businesses. There was a Return issued in the House of Lords dealing with that subject. The Noble Lord in referring to that Return 87 referred to one case which was given of the case of a public-house where six years was the period taken. In the Return there were two other cases, in the one three and a half years, and in the other two years, was taken. At the foot of the Return it was stated:—It may be added, however, that in the great number of cases, especially when the deceased was a mere yearly tenant, the value of the goodwill is small or even nominal.I put a question in the House to the Secretary to the Treasury in regard to the average period on which the valuation of licensed businesses was calculated for Death Duty purposes. He told me so far as the figures were available, in cases where note was taken of the profits earned in the larger businesses, it was something like four years, but that did not take account of the great number of cases where it was merely nominal. I submit, therefore, three years at the outside would be the average period which would be taken for Estate Duty purposes, and that a five or six years' time limit is a generous allowance to give in these circumstances. I hope that the House will adhere to the Bill in the form in which it has already passed through the Scottish Grand Committee, and I feel sure in doing so that we shall receive the support of the people of Scotland.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Mr. A. C. MORTON
I am satisfied, from the evidence I can get, that we should stick to this Bill as it left the House of Commons. Of course, I am aware we are only now considering the question whether it should be five or ten years. I think five years is a fair term. I know hon. Members opposite do not think so; they do not want temperance, and they say that if we are to have it we must pay for it. I do not believe in doing so. Then we are told we must look to what the House of Lords are going to do as between five and ten years. We know that hon. Members opposite will tell the House of Lords exactly what they should do. We have been considering this question, not for five years, but for fifty years, and we always announced that we would do something in the direction of the limit in the Bill. Of course, I am aware that many hon. Members opposite do not want to stop drink; they do not want temperance; it is contrary to the interests of their pockets. What they want to do is to sell as much as they possibly can, and on the question as between five and ten years their object is to get as long a period 88 as they possibly can without any regard to morality or anything else.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
It is not in order to impute unworthy motives to hon. Members. The action they have taken is taken upon the general principle of what they consider to be right in the interests of the State. The hon. Member is not entitled to impute motives to them.
§ Mr. MORTON
I do not desire to discuss that question further. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I will withdraw anything Mr. Speaker likes. I was trying to show that, at any rate, we want temperance very much, and whether the period is five years or not, what we want to do is to stop excessive drinking, and to do that we must remove the temptation from people. I trust therefore we shall insist in doing something in that direction. We should not be frightened by any threat of what the House of Lords or anybody else will do. I know, of course, as far as they are concerned, it is largely a question of electioneering, but I am very pleased to know that the Liberal party in Scotland are prepared to take all the risks of electioneering and to stick to the period of five years. As the law stands, the licence must end at the end of a year, and therefore no one could claim to be treated badly or illegally or in any way wrongly, because the licence has not been renewed. I hope we shall have no more compromises. We compromised and spoiled our Small Landholders Bill; we do not want a bad Biil, and if it comes to that we had. better make use of the Parliament Act and get our Bill at the end of two years, and by and by we may get the Bill carried with a smaller limit. All I say is that in the interests of the people of Scotland I am anxious to promote temperance, and therefore I would rather have five years than ten.
§ Mr. J. M. HOGGE
There are one or two points, I think, that want to be emphasised before we divide upon this particular Motion. I have listened to the speeches made on this side of the House and on the other and I find myself in a quandary as to how to make up my mind upon the arguments brought forward. My hon. Friend who sits for the Wick Burghs has made the point that the trade in Scotland has had sufficient notice of what the time limit would be and that this period of five or ten years need not be taken into account in considering whether or not it will disturb the position of the trade. Now it so happens that my hon. Friend the 89 Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt) has introduced a Bill in which it is sought to deprive the profession of barrister to which the hon. Member for Wick Burghs belongs of the emoluments which attach to offices now only open to advocates in Scotland. Supposing the Government makes itself responsible for the Bill of my hon. Friend some years hence, will the hon. Member for Wick Burghs accept this as sufficient notice of a time limit? That seems to me to be a cardinal argument to the one which is used in opposition to the time limit being further increased. I also want to ask the hon. Gentleman, the Member for North-East Lanarkshire (Mr. Duncan Millar), who pretended to speak for the people of Scotland, a question. I am very much more humble than my hon. Friend, and I do not profess to speak for the people of Scotland as I prefer to allow the people of Scotland to speak for themselves, and the people of Scotland have Spoken very plainly for themselves in the past few weeks.
There has been a plebiscite of the city of Glasgow which has a population equal to one-fourth of the whole of Scotland and that plebiscite consisted of a reply postcard being sent to each elector in Glasgow asking him if he were in favour of one of three options. This postcard had behind it the full authority of the corporation and the Lord Provost, magistrates and councillors of the city of Glasgow. All each elector had to do was not to come to the poll as he would have to do if this Bill became law, but simply to take the reply postcard, marked, and drop it into a pillar-box. My hon. Friends behind me seem to think that. might be a hazardous undertaking, and that some of these postcards might never reach their destination, but my point is that the only trouble the elector was put to was to drop this postcard into a pillar-box after having recorded his vote upon it. The plebiscite was on three things. First, whether they wanted to reduce the licences; second, whether they wanted any change; and, third whether they wanted an increase.
§ Mr. EUGENE WASON
May I ask, Mr. Speaker, what a plebiscite has to do with the time limit in this Bill?
§ Mr. J.M. HOGGE
I will tell you, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Lanark pointed out in his 90 argument that the people of Scotland were in favour of this Bill.
§ Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR
The point I made was this: That resolutions had been received by hon. Members from all parts of Scotland, and that we had reason to believe that the great. mass of the people were in favour of the limited time limit.
§ Mr. J. M. HOGGE
What I want to do is to show the House that there were further resolutions by plebiscite which my hon. Friend omitted to mention. This plebiscite was taken inside the last fortnight at the instance of the temperance party, and disproves altogether the contention of my hon. Friend that the people of Scotland, as a whole, are in favour of this Bill. The result was this: That out of an electorate representing one-quarter of the entire population of Scotland only 55 per cent. took the trouble to record their votes, and of that 55 per cent., 53 per cent. or 30 per cent. of the whole population voted in favour of reduction, the rest of the people were in favour of no change or increase. My deduction from that is this: If there had been an actual poll under the Bill in Scotland it is obvious that while the temperance organisations and a great many of the Scottish Liberal Associations—and I am the first to admit it—are in favour of the provisions of this Bill, that is a different thing from saying that the people in Scotland are in favour of it. It has been suggested in the Press and in the house this afternoon that, unless there is compromise on the point of the time limit, the fate of this Bill in the House of Lords is dubious, which I understand to mean that unless some agreement is come to on the time limit, the House of Lords will reject the Bill and place this House under the necessity of passing the Bill under the Parliament Act. Some want this limit of five years; others want it increased to ten years, which is more than I should like to see, but I should be quite willing to compromise upon a figure between five and ten. If this Bill is passed under the Parliament Act it. will be eight years.
§ Mr. J. M. HOGGE
Very well, then, I say add an extra two years. If our Friends opposite will agree to a compromise of that kind they will find a very large number of us on this side of the House, who 91 while recognising that it is true that those who are of our political colour in Scotland, and of our political organisations, have declared themselves in favour of the principle of this Bill, are not blind to the fact that there are a great many other people in Scotland indifferent about the Bill, and that there are a great many other people opposed to the Bill, and therefore if it becomes law it will be to a large extent inoperative, certainly in our large industrial centres, and will defeat the common object which this House has to promote temperance in Scotland.
§ Mr. C. E. PRICE
I should like at once to state my resentment of the observations which were made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger). We have, however, got somewhat accustomed to such remarks in the Committee upstairs. It is an extraordinary thing that when we had the Land Bill
§ before us an hon. Member opposite referred to the late Secretary for Scotland as "the curse of Scotland." It is a great pity that we are not to be allowed to get legislation without listening to such observations as those. Under these circumstances I think we should be very chary before we talk about any compromise on this point. On each occasion when this Bill has been before the Committee we have been frequently asked, "What are you prepared to give?" Now we are discussing again the same Bill, and we are again asked what we are going to give. What I want to know is whether we are going to get the Bill, and unless we have some definite assurance that we are going to get this Bill I do not think we ought to make any change whatever in it.
§ Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 257;. Noes, 153.95
|Division No. 578.]||AYES.||[5.19 p. m.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Crawshay-Williams, Eliot||Harvey, W. E.(Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Crooks, William||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Addison, Dr. Christopher||Crumley, Patrick||Hazleton, Richard|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Cullinan, J.||Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork. N.E.)|
|Alden, Percy||Daiziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)||Helme, Sir Norval Watson|
|Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)||Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)||Henderson, J. M.(Aberdeen, W.)|
|Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.||Davies, E. William (Eifion)||Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)|
|Baker, H. T. (Accrington)||Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Higham, John Sharp|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Dawes, James Arthur||Hogg, David C.|
|Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)||Delany, William||Holmes, Daniel Turner|
|Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)|
|Barnes, G. N.||Dickinson, W. H.||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey|
|Barton, W.||Donelan, Captain A.||Hudson, Walter|
|Beale, Sir William Phipson||Doris, W.||Hughes, S. L.|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Duffy, William J.||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus|
|Beck, Edward Cecil||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)|
|Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)||Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)||John, Edward Thomas|
|Bentham, G. J.||Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)|
|Bethell, Sir J. H.||Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)|
|Boland, John Pius||Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Elverston, Sir Harold||Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)|
|Bowerman, Charles W.||Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||Jowett, Frederick William|
|Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Esslemont, George Birnie||Joyce, Michael|
|Brace, William||Falconer, J.||Keating, Matthew|
|Brady, Patrick Joseph||Farrell, James Patrick||Keilaway, Frederick George|
|Brocklehurst, William B.||Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||Kennedy, Vincent Paul|
|Bryce, John Annan||Ffrench, Peter||Kilbride, Denis|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Field, William||King, J.|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Fitzgibbon, John||Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)||Ginnell, L.||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Gladstone, W. G. C.||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)|
|Carr-Gomm, Robert||Glanville, Harold James||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)|
|Chancellor, H. G.||Goldstone, Frank||Levy, Sir Maurice|
|Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Greig, Colonel J. W.||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Lundon, Thomas|
|Clough, William||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||Lyell, Charles Thomas|
|Clynes, John R.||Hackett, John||Lynch, A. A.|
|Collins, G. P. (Greenock)||Hancock, John George||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||McGhee, Richard|
|Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)||MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)||Macpherson, James Ian|
|Cotton, William Francis||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||M'Callum, Sir John M.|
|McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Outhwaite, R. L.||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding),||Palmer, Godfrey Mark||Snowden, Philip|
|M'Micking, Major Gilbert||Parker, James (Halifax)||Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert|
|Markham, Sir Arthur Basil||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)|
|Martin, Joseph||Pearson. Hon, Weetman H. M.||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Mason, David M. (Coventry)||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)||Sutton, John E.|
|Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)|
|Meagher, Michael||Pointer, Joseph||Tennant, Harold John|
|Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||Thomas, J. H.|
|Millar, James Duncan||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Molloy, Michael||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)||Toulmin, Sir George|
|Molteno, Percy Alport||Radford, G. H.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz||Raffan, Peter Wilson||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Money, L. G. Chiozza||Rea. Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)||Wadsworth, J.|
|Mooney, J. J.||Reddy, M.||Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)|
|Morgan, George Hay||Redmond. William (Clare, E.)||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Morrell, Philip||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)||Ward, W. (Southampton)|
|Morison, Hector||Rendall, Athelstan||Wardle, George J.|
|Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)|
|Muldoon, John||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay|
|Munro, R.||Roberts, G. H.(Norwich)||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Needham, Christopher T.||Robertson, John M.(Tyneside)||Webb, H.|
|Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster)||Robinson, Sidney||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Nolan Joseph||Roch, Walter F||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Norton, Captain Cecil W.||Roche, Augustine (Louth)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Nugent, Sir Walter Richard||Roe, Sir Thomas||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Rowlands, James||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|O'Brien, William (Cork)||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Wiles, Thomas|
|O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Russeil, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.||Wilkie, Alexander|
|O'Doherty, Philip||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|O'Donnell, Thomas||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|O'Dowd, John||Scanlan, Thomas||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|O'Grady, James||Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)||Winfrey, Richard|
|O'Malley, William||Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Clas.)|
|O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)||Sheehy, David||Young, William (Perth, East)|
|O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Shortt, Edward|
|O'Shee, James John||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.|
|O'Sullivan, Timothy||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)||Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Dewar, Sir J. A.||Larmor, Sir J.|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major William||Dickson, Rt. Hon. Sir C. Scott||Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)|
|Archer-Shee, Major Martin||Faber, George Denison (Clapham)||Lewisham, Viscount|
|Astor, Waldorf||Faile, Bertram Godfray||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col, A. R.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)||Flannery, Sir J. (Fortescue)||Long, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Fleming, Valentine||Lonsdale, Sir John Browniee|
|Barnston, Harry||Fletcher. John Samuel||Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)|
|Barrie, H. T.||Forster, Henry William||Mackinder, H. J.|
|Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)||Gardner, Ernest||Macmaster, Donald|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Gibbs, G. A.||Magnus, Sir Philip|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Giazebrook, Captain Philip K.||Mallaby-Deeley, Harry|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Goldsmith, Frank||Mason, James F. (Windsor)|
|Beresford, Lord C.||Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.|
|Bird, A.||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Blair, Reginald||Greene, W. R.||Mills, Hon, Charles Thomas|
|Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)||Gretton, John||Mount, William Arthur|
|Boyton, James||Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)||Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.|
|Bull. Sir William James||Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)||Neville, Reginald J. N.|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Newdegate, F. A.|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Haddock. George Bahr||Newman, John R. P.|
|Butcher, J. G.||Helmsley, Viscount||Newton, Harry Kottingham|
|Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield).|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)||Herbert. Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)||Nield, Herbert|
|Campion, W. R.||Hewins, William Albert Samuel||Orde-Powiett, Hon. W. G. A.|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Hickman, Colonel T. E.||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William|
|Cassel, Felix||Hill, Sir Clement L.||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Cator, John||Hill-Wood, Samuel||Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)|
|Cautley, H. S.||Hoare, Samuel John Gurney||Perkins, Walter F.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy||Peto, Basil Edward|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)||Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)||Pole-Carew, Sir R.|
|Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.||Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)||Hume-Williams, William Ellis||Quilter, Sir William Eley C.|
|Clay, Captain H. H. Spender||Hunt, Rowland||Randles, Sir John S.|
|Clyde, J. Avon||Hunter, Sir C. R.||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Craig, Charles (Antrim, S.)||Ingleby, Holcombe||Rawson, Col. Richard H.|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Crack, Sir Henry||Kerry, Earl of||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian||Keswick, Henry||Rothschild, Lionel de|
|Dairymple, Viscount||Kimber, Sir Henry||Royds, Edmund|
|Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)||Knight, Captain E. A.||Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)|
|Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)||Wills, Sir Gilbert|
|Sanders, Robert A.||Talbot, Lord E.||Winterton, Earl|
|Sanderson, Lancelot||Thynne, Lord Alexander||Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)|
|Sassoon, Sir Philip||Tobin, Alfred Aspinall||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)||Tryon, Captain George Clement||Wortiey, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Smith, Harold (Warrington)||Valentia, Viscount||Wright, Henry Fitzherbert|
|Spear, Sir John Ward||Walker, Col. William Hall||Yate, Col. Charles Edward|
|Stanier, Beville||Walrond, Hon. Lionel||Yerburgh, Robert A.|
|Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)||Watt, Henry A.||Younger, Sir George|
|Starkey, John R.||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Stewart, Gershom||Williams, Cot. R. (Dorset, W.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.|
|Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud||Eyres-Monsell and Captain Gilmour.|
Lords Amendment agreed to.