Lords Sitting of 8 August 1904

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Middlesbrough, Stockton - on - Tees, and Thornaby Tramways Bill; Clyde Navigation (Works) Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Bridlington Corporation Bill [H.L.]: Bristol Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Buxton Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Trafford Park Bill [H.L.]; Stretford Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Barry Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill [H.L.]; Belfast and North-East Ireland Electricity and Power Gas Bill [H.L.]; Belfast Corporation (Tramways) Bill [H.L.]; Neath, Pontardawe, and Brynaman Railway Bill [H.L]. Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments. The said Amendments
considered, and agreed to.
De Trafford Estate Bill [H.L.]; Newcastle and Gateshead Water Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill; Rotherham Corporation Bill; Selby Urban District Council Bill; Swindon Corporation Bill. Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
Ayr Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13) Bill. Amendments reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill. Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [H.L.] Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]. Commons Amendments considered (according to order), and agreed to.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [H.L.] Order of the Day for the consideration of the Commons Amendment, read, and discharged.

LEEDS CORPORATION (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): My Lords, with regard to the Notice standing in my name on the Paper, I think the House is entitled to a few words of explanation. The effect of the Notice is to authorise the carrying over of the Leeds Corporation (Consolidation) Bill until the commencement of next session of Parliament, and the circumstances under which I make the suggestion to the House, and which seem to me to justify the proposal, are these. The Bill is one of very great magnitude. It contains 372 clauses. There were about sixty new clauses inserted during its passage through the House of Commons, and the Amendments made were so numerous that I really have not undertaken to count them. I do not deny that the Bill was introduced in the House of Commons in the ordinary time. It was sent to the Police and Sanitary Committee, and was considered by them, but not until 28th June; it was reported from that Committee by 19th July; and it was brought to this House on 25th July, about six weeks after the last date for reading Bills of the kind a second time. Now, my Lords, it is absolutely impossible for myself and the officers of this House to examine a Bill of this magnitude in the time that is left to us. As I have said, it has 372 clauses. It is a consolidation of the whole of the municipal law of Leeds. It is divided into twenty - nine different parts, which deal with such important subjects as water, gas, tramways, eletrcicity, markets, public buildings, parks, burial grounds, building regulations, hackney carriages, advertisements, Courts, sanitary matters, infectious diseases, nuisances, lodging-houses, smoke prevention, rating, finance, and a number of other matters under the comprehensive heading "miscellaneous." We are informed by two Government Departments—the Home Office and the Local Government Board—that, as was expected.

1283
they have still supplementary reports to send in. These reports are not in our hands; they could not be presented to us until the Bill appeared in this House, and the Government Departments have not been able to undertake the work in the time at their disposal. In these circumstances, I think it is absolutely impossible for the Bill to pass into law this session, and, as the only way I can suggest for saving the amount of labour which the Police and Sanitary Committee of the other House have bestowed on this Bill, I move to carry it over until next session.
Moved, "That the promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the Bill, if they shall think fit, in the next session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than three o'clock on the day prior to the close of the present session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period be paid.
"That such Bill shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the next meeting of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present session.
"That the proceedings on such Bill shall be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present session, and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages.
"That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present session."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, agreed to, and ordered accordingly. Ordered That a message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them with the said Resolution, and to desire heir concurrence.

BRADFORD CORPORATION ACT, 1903.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH, who had the following Notice on the Paper: "To move, That the Lord Brougham and Vaux, the Chairman of the Select Committee to whom the Bradford Corporation Bill, 1903, was referred, be permitted to make a Report to this House under the provisions of Section 1 of the Parliamentary Costs Act, 1865, and that such Report shall have effect as from the date on which it is laid upon the Table of this House," said: My Lords, It will not be necessary for me to trouble the House at any length in regard to the Motion standing in my name, because, in consequence of its appearing on the Paper, the matter has been arranged. The Report was a Report on a matter of costs which were agreed to by a Committee presided over by Lord Brougham last year, but the Report was not exactly made to the House, and therefore a technical irregularity occurred. Other steps had to be taken in a definite time from that Report, and they were not taken. One or other of the parties, and to some extent both of them, tried to take advantage of the technical irregularity which had been committed. The matter was brought to my notice as Acting Chairman three months ago, and I came to the conclusion that unless it was rectified in some way or another an injustice would be done. Those who would profit by the irregularity refused for a long time to consent to any compromise, and I thought it necessary a week ago to put this Motion down. I have to-day received communications from both parties that they have agreed to a compromise, to leave the matter in the hands of the Taxing Officer of the House and to abide by his decision. In consequence of that agreement, I do not intend to proceed with the Notice which I have placed on the Paper.
PETITIONS
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions for Amendment of; of residents in Dudley; Rural Deanery of Wigton; North Cumberland Primrose League; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition against; of Edward Owen; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
  Petition for restriction of sale of; of inhabitants of Carlisle; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC
  NAVY (HEALTH).
  Statistical Report of the Health of the Navy, for the year 1903.
  SECONDARY EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Report, for the year 1904, by Sir Henry Craik, K.C.B.
  Fiftieth Report of the Postmaster-General on the Post Office.
  Forty-eighth Report of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Customs for the year ended 31st March. 1904.
  Forty-seventh Report of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Inland Revenue, for the Year ended 31st March, 1904.
  PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND).
  Seventy-second Annual Report of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, with appendices, for the year ended 31st March 1904.
  INDIA (RAILWAYS).
  Administration Report on the Railways in India, for the calendar year 1903.
  QUEENS COLLEGE, GALWAY.
  Annual Report of the President, for the year 1903–1904.
  QUEENS COLLEGE, BELFAST.
  Annual Report of the President, for the year 1903–1904.
  MARRIAGES, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS (IRELAND).
  Fortieth Annual Report of the Registrar-General for the year 1903.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3248. Italy (Province of Lecce).
  No. 3249. Italy (South Italy).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  NAVAL SAVINGS BANK.
  Account of deposits in Naval Savings Banks and the payments thereof, and of interest thereon, of all investments under the Naval Savings Banks Act, 1866, and the application of the interest or dividends accruing in respect thereof, and of the proceeds of any sale of any stocks, annuities, or securities during the financial year 1902–1903.
  NAVAL PRIZE MONEY.
  Account showing the receipts and expenditure of Naval prize, bounty, salvage, and other moneys between 1st April, 1903, and 31st March 1904.
  COUNTY COURTS ACT, 1888.
  Order of the Lord Chancellor, dated the 27th of July, 1904, under Section 45 of the Act, ordering that George Walton Walker, Registrar of the County Court of Staffordshire, held at West Bromwich, shall not practice as a solicitor, and that Section 20 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Officers) Act, 1879, shall not apply to the office of the said George Walton Walker.

  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Return for the year ended 31st March 1904, of the Army and Navy Officers permitted, under Rule 2 of the regulations drawn up under Section 6 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, to hold civil employment of profit under public Departments.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie upon the Table.

  CHANTREY TRUST.
  Report from the Select Committee (with the Proceedings of the Committee) made, and to be printed; minutes of evidence, together with an appendix, laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out. (No. 184.)
  SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY BILL [H.L.]
  Minutes of evidence laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out.
  COUNTY OF SUFFOLK BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Moved, "That Standing Order XXI. be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting; and that the Order for receiving the Report of Amendments to the Licensing Bill have precedence of the other Notices and Orders of the day."—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to order).
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of SALISBURY): The first Amendment to Clause 1 standing in my name is to reverse the decision which was come to in Committee, and I therefore think it my duty to explain why I make this proposal. It was on the Motion, I think, of Lord Stanley of Alderley that we put in the words "or refusal" after "renewal." The Government always were of opinion that the question of renewal necessarily involved the question of refusal, and although the words "or refusal," in our opinion added nothing to the efficacy of the clause, we accepted them; but it has since been thought that if the words "or refusal" are left in, you will have to consider putting them in elsewhere whole the word "renewal" occurs. Therefore, as I do not think it makes the least difference in the sense, I hope the noble Lord will allow me to strike the words out.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 1, page 2. line 2, to leave out the words 'or refusal.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid that as he had the assurance of the noble Marquess that the Government draftsman was of opinion that the point would
  1288
  be covered, and as he felt it a dangerous thing for laymen to meddle with drafting, he accepted the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The next Amendment is in fulfilment of a promise I gave that the Government would put down an Amendment to specifically include justices as among the persons interested who might be heard unless quarter sessions thought it unnecessary.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 1, page 2 line 3, after the word 'premises' to insert the words 'including the justices of the licensing district.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  LORD FARRERinquired if the noble Marquess had considered whether this met the question in the same way as the Amendment of Lord Coleridge. As he read it, the Amendment moved by the noble Marquess would have this effect, that the justices could only be treated as anyone else interested and quarter sessions were not bound to hear them. If the Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of Lord Coleridge was adopted, he understood that in any event the justices of the licensing district would have the opportunity of being heard. He thought that made a very great difference, especially as a committee of quarter sessions would undertake this work. There was no mention in the clause that, it was the committee of quarter sessions which was to have the power of considering it unnecessary to hear the justices. He would like to ask whether it was the whole of quarter sessions, or the committee of quarter sessions, which would have the power of deriding whether it was necessary or not?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (The Earl of ONSLOW): The noble Lord is correct in saying there is a material difference between the Amendment now before the House and the Amendment standing in the name of the noble and learned Lord opposite. Surely it would be quite unreasonable to expect that in every case the whole cost and expense

  1289
  of the brewster sessions justices appearing before a committee of quarter sessions should be incurred. The desire is to conduct the proceedings under this Bill as cheaply and economically as possible, and it is quite enough to leave it to the confirming authority, after consultation With the local justices, to decide whether or not it is desirable to hear them.
  EARL SPENCER: I am sorry that the Government are taking this view, because I think there is a very material difference between the two proposals. The noble Earl who has just sat down put it entirely on the point of expense. I do not think that should be seriously considered in a point of this sort. The real point at issue is that the local justices should have a right to be heard in any case where they desire it, whether quarter sessions desire it or not. I think that is an important matter and I trust the House will accept the Amendment of my noble and learned friend rather than the one which has been moved by the noble Marquess. We quite admit that the noble Marquess has come a step forward in our direction, but we do not think he has come far enough.
  LORD BELPER: I think the understanding was that it should be put in the form as set out in the noble Marquess's Amendment, and—
  EARL SPENCER: I am sure it was not actually understood that it should be exactly in these words.
  LORD BELPER: When the noble and learned Lord had moved his Amendment one noble Lord opposite, I think it was Lord Stanley of Alderley, pointed out that if the Amendment was inserted in the place where Lord Coleridge had proposed it would make the appearance of the justices necessary in all cases, and that that was probably unwise. I thereupon thanked the noble Lord and said I quite agreed with him that it should be subject to the saving words "unless quarter sessions think it unnecessary."
  EARL SPENCER: I know that Lord Coleridge feels strongly that the way proposed in his Amendment is the proper
  1290
  way of doing it now at all events, whatever may have been the opinion before.
  Loup STANLEY OF ALDERLEYdiffered from the statement made by Lord Belper. What he (Lord Stanley) had pointed out was that as the Amendment was drafted by Lord Coleridge he did not get what he wanted, the words being inserted too late. It was then said, on behalf of the Government, that the words could not be transposed at that stage, but that the matter should be considered on Report. His noble friend Lord Farrer had expressed the hope that if the local justices were to be at the mercy of quarter sessions they should be at the mercy of quarter sessions as a whole, and not of a committee of quarter sessions. He took it that the power of determining whether the local magistrates would have the right to appear would be among the powers delegated to the committee of quarter sessions. Brewster sessions were, he thought, entitled to have one justice present when their division was under consideration. If that was so, then a representative of the local magistrates would appear as of right.
  LORD FARRERsaid the second part of his Question had not been answered. Did the words "quarter sessions" mean the whole of quarter sessions or a committee of quarter sessions?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think this is one of the powers which quarter sessions must delegate.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNcalled attention to the first line of Clause 2, "Where quarter sessions refuse the renewal of a licence." Surely what was meant was "an existing on-licence" because an existing on-licence was referred to all the way through. If the words "existing on" were not inserted, the provision might conceivably refer to a new licence given under Clause 4.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble Earl will move to insert those words, I am quite willing to accept them.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 2, page 2, line 6, to leave out the word 'a' and insert the words 'an existing on'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  EARL GREYmoved to insert in Subsection 1 the wo ds "and in any case when the value of the licensed premises has been enhanced by a refusal to renew any other licence under this Act as if the value had not been so enhanced" so as to secure that the special profits arising from the monopoly value should not he handed over to the owners of existing licences. He said that the noble Marquess, the Lord Privy Seal, had been good enough to invite him to bring up this Amendment at this stage of the Bill, and his having done so had encouraged him to hope that the Government, after the consideration they had been enabled to give to the point raised therein, would see their way to adopt the principle of the Amendment. He would be glad to substitute other words if there should be any objection to the phraseology of his Amendment. But if the Government did not see their way to accept his Amendment or adopt a kindred one with the same object, and asked the House to pass the Bill in its present form, then, in his humble opinion, and he thought in the opinion of a great many outside the House, His Majesty's Government would prove themselves unfaithful to the speeches which they had made, by directly consenting to the handing over to the owners of existing licences special profits resulting front monopoly values which did not at the present time belong to the owners of existing licences, but which would be created by the passing of this Bill, and which, therefore, belonged to the community. In the speeches that had been made by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House and by the noble Marquess the Lord Privy Seal, the position had been taken up of uncompromising hostility to any action which might make His Majesty's Government responsible for handing over any part of the special profits resulting from monopoly rights to favoured individuals. He, therefore, contended that if it was the case, as he maintained it undoubtedly was the case, that the Bill in its present form did
  1292
  which would be created by the Bill to favoured and privileged individuals, the Government were bound, if they were to be consistent with the speeches that had been made on the most rev. Primate's Amendment by noble Lords who spoke on behalf of the Government, to accept this Amendment.
  Having given prolonged and anxious consideration to this point, he said with confidence that he would prefer no time limit and the power to expropriate existing licences by paying compensation measured by their value at the passing of the Act, rather than a time limit with the condition attached that the compensation to be paid should be measured by the value of the licence at the time of its suppression. The plan of no time limit and compensation as at the time of the passing of the Act was a direct inducement in favour of good management, but a time limit with the obligation to pay a rising compensation measured by the value at the time of the suppression did, he maintained, provide a direct inducement to push the sale of alcoholic liquors. He thought that point was obvious. In the one case the owner of an existing licence knew that so long as he conducted his house properly and did not cause the licensing authorities. to buy him out he would be obtaining more profit every year until the time limit suppressed him by Act of Parliament; but if there was no time limit and when compensated he would only receive the value of the licence at the time of the passing of the Act there was the utmost inducement to him to introduce principles of good management that would cause his house to remain with the full consent of the licensing authorities. The noble Marquess the Lord Privy Seal had described it as an outrage to give brewers any more of these special profits arising from monopoly values than they were now entitled to. He (Lord Grey) naturally concluded, therefore, that when Clause 2 came up for discussion the Government would have shown a readiness to accept an Amendment which was in harmony with their speeches and with the statement of the Home Secretary as to what was the original intention of the Bill. If he had known that the Government would have taken this attitude he

  1293
  if the effect of the Bill was to give existing licence-holders the unearned increment arising to surviving houses by the suppression of others, the sooner that was put an end to by a time limit the better.
  This unearned increment was the property of the public. It would arise from two causes. An increased value would be added to existing licences by the suppression of neighbouring licences, and there would also be an added value resulting from the growth of population. Both values were special profits arising from monopoly rights, and, therefore, should be secured for the public. He had not asked that the unearned increment resulting from the growth of the community should be reserved for the public, but he asked that that portion which was a direct result of the suppression under the clauses of this Bill of neighbouring competing licences should be reserved for the public and not made a present to the owners of existing licences. He would ask the House to consider this position. There was a village in Hampshire with six licences belonging to the same brewer. Supposing the renewal of half of those licences was refused under the Bill, that reduction would not necessitate any diminution in the amount of alcoholic liquor consumed. The trade crossed the street from the suppressed houses to the remaining houses. The result was that the owner got full compensation for the three houses suppressed, and did the same trade as before with only half the administrative expenses. In that way the owner was compensated twice over. He did not think that was fair, or that it could be the intention of His Majesty's Government. The noble Marquess the Lord Privy Seal had said that licence-holders had a pecuniary interest in licences for which they were entitled to compensation if the licences were taken away. That was agreed, but nobody could maintain that they were entitled to that unearned increment in those licences which would be the direct result of the passing of this Bill. The noble Marquess had also said that this was brewers' money, and they must not regard it as if it was a tax levied by the State. He could not look upon this compulsory premium in the light of brewers' money which could not be regarded in the shape of a tax.
  1294
  They all knew that licences were very lightly taxed indeed, and that the money contributed to this compensation fund might very fairly be regarded as money winch the State would have a perfect right to take from the owners of existing licences in the shape of a tax. He hoped the Government would be consistent with their professions and accept the principle of his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 2, page 2, line 10, after the word 'Act' to insert the words 'and in any case when the value of the licensed premises has been enhanced by a refusal to renew any other licence under this Act as if the value had not been so enhanced.'"—(Earl Grey.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should be very sorry if the noble Earl of the House generally thought that the Government were determined to resist any Amendment, and I think your Lordships will find, before the proceedings or to-day are concluded, that that is not at all the spirit in which we think it right to deal with the House of Lords. On the contrary, it is quite clear that it is most proper that Amendments should be pressed upon us, and that if we can find it within our duty to agree with them we should do so. But I think the noble Earl himself must be conscious that the present Amendment is one which it is impossible for the Government to accept. It is neither a practicable Amendment, nor is it, if I may say so, a fair Amendment. Observe the principle with which the noble Earl starts. He says it is unfair and improper that the remaining houses should profit by the increment of custom and trade which they get from the suppression of the licence of a particular house. But the noble Earl does not carry his principle out. He proposes, no doubt, that, if a second house comes up for compensation, the compensation should be reduced by the amount by which it has been enriched through the suppression of the first house. But there are all the other houses; they will all share in the increment, but the noble Earl leaves them undisturbed.
  EARL GREY: Until they are suppressed.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They are not all going to be suppressed. Indeed,

  1295
  I think Parliament and the country would be under a complete misapprehension if they thought that we contemplated suppressing all, or the greater part, of the public-houses. Of course not. We know that these public-houses exist for the benefit of the public, and that whatever mistakes may have been made in regard to licensing laws, or whatever mismanagement there may have been in the licensed trade leading to intemperance, at any rate as a matter of broad principle the public-houses exists for the benefit of the public. In those circumstances we do not propose to suppress half of them, or three-quarters of them. Therefore, there will be an enormous number of public-houses which will get the increased profit and benefit due to the suppression of particular houses and the noble Earl will leave them in that happy position, but he will pick out for this special treatment those houses which afterwards come under the purview of quarter sessions, having been recommended for suppression. He says that those particular houses shall suffer, but the other houses shall continue to have the increment of value which arises from the suppression of a particular house. That is, upon the face of it, unfair, and I suggest it is a system of which your Lordships ought not to approve. It is not only unfair, but it is quite impracticable. After what period of years is this difference to be calculated? Let us say that a particular public-house is suppressed in 1905. Another public-house comes up on the recommendation of brewster sessions to be suppressed in 1910. Are we to to calculate back those five years and see what difference in the then profits of the public-house the suppression of the house five years ago has made? I do not believe that could be done, when you consider that all the time there is considerable change in the profitableness of the trade.
  I cannot assent to the noble Earl's conception of this Bill. An instance has been given of two brewers, each owning three houses, It is said, "If the houses of brewer B are suppressed ought brewer A to take the full benefit of the increment arising from the suppression of brewer B's houses"? It seems to be thought that there has been nothing, in the course of the years which have passed, taken out
  1296
  of the pockets of brewer A to balance against that gain. All the time brewer A has paid very large sums by way of contributions. If you look at the schedule of this Bill and capitalise the sums of money which in the course of a great many years will be thrown upon an average public-house such as we may conceive brewer A possesses, your Lordships will find that it amounts to a very large capital sum indeed. The truth is that if you cast up what the brewer gains under this Bill and what he loses, your Lordships will find that the only thing he gains is the compensation money, whereas on the other side of the account he loses the trade of the particular houses, which is equivalent to the compensation money, he loses all the contributions from his remaining houses, and he loses all the inareased charges which are thrown upon the remaining houses because they have increased in value in consequence of the suppression of the other houses. I say, therefore, that the brewer is entitled to the extra profit from the increment of custom and trade which comes through the suppression of other houses. That will not at all equal the sums of money I have calculated on the debit side of the account. It will, however, be a set-off, and that is the light in which the Government regard this proposal.
  THE EARL OF CREWEexpressed regret that the noble Marquess had not seen his way to accept in any form the Amendment moved by Earl Grey. It was perfectly true that the hopes which the noble Marquess held out to his noble friend on the last occasion were of a vague character. The noble Earl (Earl Grey) was merely encouraged to try the arts of persuasion, and was not given to understand that those arts would be successful. It would be unfair, he thought, to say that the Government had treated his noble friend in the way that a cat treated a mouse, though the general effect of their conduct had rather had that appearance. There were one or two arguments used by his noble friend which the noble Marquess had not answered. His noble friend had pointed out, in the first place, that the remaining licence-holders would get one very important advantage which

  1297
  he did not propose to take away from them, namely, the advantage arising from the steady increase of population. The population of Great Britain was a little over 35,000,000 in 1881, and 41,600,000, roughly speaking, in 1901—an increase of upwards of 6,000,000; and one might assume that the increase would be at any rate as great in the future. He could not for a moment imagine, this Bill being what it was, that the number of new licences granted would increase in proportion to the population, or even as fast as they had during the past ten years, and, therefore, that side of the question to which his noble friend alluded certainly ought not to be left out. The noble Marquess, the Lord Privy Seal, had argued that if Earl Grey's Amendment were adopted it would be unfair, because some of the remaining licence-holders would receive an unfair advantage inasmuch as they would get the benefit of the increased business resulting from the suppression of other houses. That was a matter which was very easily righted in the future by imposing a higher tax on the holders of those licences. Then the noble Marquess argued the case as between brewer A and brewer B. He (Lord Crewe) could not believe it possible that the increased contribution would at all approach in amount the extra profits which would be gained by the suppression of public-houses. The noble Marquess had forgotten one important item on the credit side of the balance sheet, namely, the great saving in the expense of management. He was glad to have detected one hopeful observation in the course of the noble Marquess's speech—the observation that the House would find before the proceeedings closed that the Government were not entirely obdurate to Amendments. It would be interesting to know what Amendments the noble Marquess was prepared to accept.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid he was not much impressed by the population argument that had been adduced. If the population increased all over the country in equal ratio, or if the fund which was created under the Bill was a general fund for the whole country, there might be something to be
  1298
  said for it; but it must be remembered that the population shifted even if it increased, and it was possible to have a decreasing population in certain places and public-houses going down in value, although the general population might be increasing. He had supported His Majesty's Government in resisting Amendments during the Committee stage, but he must say he had considerable sympathy with the Amendment now before the House. He did not entirely agree with all that had been said by its mover in its favour. He was not sure, for instance, that he agreed about the unearned increment belonging to the public. He was not very much impressed by the objections to the Amendment which were made by the noble Marquess the Lord Privy Seal. If there was a difficulty in five or ten years, or whatever the length of time might be, in discovering what the value of a licence was at the passing of the Act, or when the first licensed house had been suppressed, surely that might be got over by having a general valuation of every public-house at the time of the passing of the Act. He did not in the least follow the noble Marquess in what he said about this only affecting the first public-house which was suppressed. No doubt the value of the other houses would go up when the first public-house was suppressed, and when the second house was suppressed the value of the remaining houses would go up one step further. What the noble Earl aimed at in his Amendment was that when any of these houses were suppressed the increased value to the remaining houses should be ascertained, and he (the noble Duke) saw no difficulty in that. But he did see a difficulty, and he confessed it appeared to him an insurmountable one. He could not see, particularly after a course of years, how in very many cases anybody could say how much the value of a licence had been enhanced by the fact that other licences had been extinguished and how far it had been enhanced by other circumstances. He confessed that that seemed to him a great difficulty, and one which it was almost impossible to overcome, and unless some noble Lord who was accustomed to assessing values could assure him that it could be done, he was afraid that with

  1299
  every wish to support the Amendment he would be compelled to vote against it.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid that the moment the Bill became law they would at once have a registered value of every public-house, because under the schedule every public-house would begin its contribution to the fund at a certain definite declared value. If they were to nail the houses to that value, then in the most automatic way they would be able to ascertain the increased value as years went on. The Bill, he was afraid, was certain to become law with all its imperfections, and he thought they must look to another body and to another tribunal to remedy its errors. There was not the slightest doubt that the Bill, when it came to be law, would not be accepted by a large number of people in the country. The people had power, through their representative House, to put on such taxes as they pleased upon licences, and to take the increment value in relief of the general taxes, and as that would be a part of the taxation of the country their Lordships would have no voice in regard to it.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYagreed in spirit with the Amendment now before the House, though he could not go so far as the noble Earl did. He himself had an Amendment on the Paper dealing with this matter, and which provided that when refusing the renewal of a licence in any parish, or the parish adjoining it, previous payments of compensation for licensed premises in those parishes should be taken into account when determining the amount to be paid as compensation for the premises. He agreed with the noble Duke that it would be a very difficult thing to determine the enhanced value, but the course he proposed was to leave it to quarter sessions to consider and determine upon each case when it came up.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My noble friend, Lord Crewe, hinted that His Majesty's Government had not treated the noble Earl below the Gangway quite as fairly as he would have desired in the matter of this Amendment.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I did not say unfairly, nor did I mean unfairly.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: We were impressed by the earnestness with which the noble Earl (Earl Grey) brought this matter before the House, and we did re-examine the whole question with the desire to find, if possible, some way of meeting his criticism, but we came regretfully to the conclusion that it was impossible to accept the Amendment, and I do not think during the course of this evening's conversation anyone has answered what I conceive to be the two main arguments put forward by my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal. What are those two arguments? In the first place, my noble friend pointed out that it was absolutely impossible, after a lapse of time, for any authority so to dissect the then value of a licence as to distinguish that part of its increased value which was due to the suppression of other licences. That was the objection which was supported by the noble Duke behind me, who clearly admitted that it was a valid objection. The increase in the value of the licence may have been due to change in the circumstances of the locality, to a movement of population, or it may have been due to the energy or enterprise of the holder of the licence. How is it possible to say with confidence that such and such a part of the increment is due to those causes, and such and such a part due to the fact that at a certain time adjoining licences were suppressed as redundant? I notice that the noble Earl opposite suggested to the House that where licences were suppressed it was fair to assume that the whole of the value of the trade passed to the surviving houses. If, however, it is true that when you suppress let us say ten out of twenty, licences, the whole of the trade of the suppressed houses passes to the surviving ten, then what becomes of the great argument of the noble Viscount's Commission—an argument which, I think, has been universally adopted—that an inordinate proportion of licences leads to the prevalence of intemperance?
  What was the other argument put forward by the noble Marquess? He pointed out the gross unfairness of the

  1301
  manner in which the Amendment of the noble Earl would operate. Is not that quite clear? Let us take the crudest and simplest illustration. Let us assume there are four licences, A, B, C, and D. You suppress A as redundant. A's trade, according to the noble Earl, passes to B, C, and D. In process of time you proceed to suppress licence B, and, according to the noble Earl, you are to deprive B of any compensation for the trade which came to him owing to the suppression of A. Well, but the remaining two licences, C and D, to each of which has passed ex hypothesi one-third of A's trade, continue to enjoy their share of the cake, and will so continue until they are suppressed. Any attempt to make an arrangement of this kind would operate most unfairly, and, therefore, much as we regret not being able to accept the views of the noble Earl, we are quite unable to agree to his Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid he was lost in astonishment at the argument about unfairness. When they abolished one licence, they thereby increased the value of certain other licences. They then proceeded to abolish one of these remaining licences, and refused to compensate the licence-holder in respect of the increased value which he had derived from the abolition of the first house. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs contended that that would be unfair to the remaining houses, but when they came to abolish those other houses they would treat them in the same way.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Marquess's argument would be excellent if we were going to suppress all the licences.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid the case did not arise until they proceeded to abolish one or more of the remaining houses, and when that time arose the holders of the remaining licences were treated in exactly the same way. Therefore he could not see any unfairness in the matter.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYpointed out that the indisputable difficulties in which the
  1302
  Government were placed on this subject were due to the absence of a time limit. He did not wish to argue that question again, but it might be useful to remember this in future discussions, for it was not to be supposed that discussion would end in the present session of Parliament.
  EARL SPENCER: I do not propose to go into the question of the time limit, though I entirely fall in with the view expressed by the most rev. Primate. In the case of three houses belonging to one brewer and one being suppressed, there is no difficulty. We had the case, which possibly the noble Marquess, the Lord Privy Seal, will recognise, and which was put so ably by my noble friend behind me, of property in the Strand. That is an exact illustration of what might be done in the case of a brewer whose house is suppressed and the value of whose other houses goes up. There is no difficult about that. But it is said that a difficulty comes in where the enhanced value belong to another Owner, and that in such a case it would be exceedingly difficult to assess the enhanced value because it might come not only from the suppression of other houses, but from other circumstances. I admit there is some difficulty in that matter, but it is not an insurmountable difficulty. Surely it could be argued whether the enhanced value came from the suppression of an adjoining house or from other sources. Therefore, in that respect I do not think there would be any serious difficulty. I very much regret that His Majesty's Government seem to be obdurate on this matter. I did hope that they might have made some concession to the noble Earl, but after the statement of the noble Marquess the Foreign Secretary that this point has been fully discussed by the Government, I am afraid there is little chance of their giving way. If the noble Earl goes to a division on the Amendment I shall certainly vote with him.
  *THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Does not all this discussion arise from a misconception of the word "compensation"? If it were compensation out of a public fund there would be a great deal of force in what noble Lords opposite say; but as this fund is provided by the brewers
  themselves and the whole intention of

  1303
  the Bill is that we shall act with as little injustice as possible to them, is it unfair that we should say that if as the result of the suppression of adjoining licences the brewers have to pay increased contributions for a number of years to the fund, then if a further licence is suppressed they should get full compensation for its then value under the Bill? The noble Earl who moved this Amendment said the brewer would get increased business and pay nothing for it; but supposing he has one of these houses which will never be suppressed, he will go on paying for all time, or, at any rate, for such time as quarter sessions imposes it, his contribution to this fund, and the only advan-
  *THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I have now to move an Amendment which is not on the Paper, and which I may perhaps describe as the first twig of the olive branch to which the noble Marquess the Lord Privy Seal referred just now. It is one of those Amendments which the Government hope to incorporate in the Bill in order to meet the wishes of noble Lords opposite. It will be in the recollection of your Lordships that in Committee Earl Beauchamp moved an Amendment to a clause later on in the Bill
  The Earl of Onslow
  1304
  tage he will get out of that contribution, assuming that he is not going to have his house suppressed, will be the increased value that is given to his remaining licence. I really think that, considering the number of years that many of these licensees will have to contribute, it is not unreasonable to give them the advantage of full compensation for the increased value of their premises out of the fund to which they themselves have contributed.
  On Question, "That those words be there inserted"
  with the view of securing to the tenant the value of the trade fixtures in the case of licences not being renewed, and I propose, with your Lordships' consent, to insert in Clause 2, line 10, after the word "Act" the words "and including in that value the amount of any depreciation of trade fixtures arising by reason of the refusal to renew the licence." It will be remembered that Earl Beauchamp suggested that the licence-holder should be paid full compensation for the fixtures, but it is quite possible that when the house

  1305
  is closed the owner of the fixtures may be able to remove them at once to another house. Therefore, the only amount which we think he is reasonably entitled to is the depreciation in their value by reason of the house being closed.
  their Lordships divided:—Contents, 21; Not Contents,46.

  CONTENTS.

  Ripon, M.

  Temple, E.

  Brassey, L.

  Braye, L.

  Camperdown, E. [Teller.]

  Peel, V.

  Denman, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Farrer, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Chester, L. Bp.

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

  Crewe, E.

  London, L. Bp.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Grey, E. [Teller.]

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Spencer, E.

  St. Davids's, L. Bp.

  Stanmore, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensbury.)

  Belper, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Glanusk, L.

  (L. President.)

  Hardwicke, E.

  Hatherton, L.

  Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Leaven and Melville, E.

  Iveagh, L.

  Lonsdale, E.

  Kenyon, L.

  Marlborough, D.

  Northesk, E.

  Killanin, L.

  Northumberland, D.

  Onslow, E.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Ailesbury, M.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Lawrence, L.

  Bath, M.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Rathmore, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Redesdale, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  St. Oswald, L.

  Stalbridge, L.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Kuntsford, V.

  Suffield, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Bradford, E.

  Wemyss, L (E. Wemyss.)

  Cowley, E.

  Addington, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Dartery, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 2, line 10, after the word 'Act' to insert 'and including in that value the amount of any depreciation of trade fixtures arising by reason of the refusal to renew the licence.'"—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid it was difficult to follow an Amendment not on the Paper, but the effect, as it appeared to him, of inserting the words in the Amendment after the word "Act" and not after the word "value" would be that the value of the fixtures would be added to the value as a running concern; that was to say, it would augment the compensation. It seemed to him that the value of a public-house when closed was what it would be sold for, and the Amendment rather suggested that the fixtures were to be valued twice over. The words which the noble Earl proposed to add should, he thought, be inserted after the word "value."
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know whether we are to understand that the Opposition do not wish us to press this Amendment. It was an Amendment suggested by one of their own side, and we have done our best to meet their wishes; but if the noble Lord opposite does not wish to have it, we are quite prepared to withdraw it.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid he was not opposing the Amendment, but only the way it was drafted.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYthen moved the Amendment standing in his name to which he had already referred. He understood the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture to say that it was only fair that if a person had been paying these large sums as insurance they should receive full compensation on a licence being taken away; but if it was provided, as he suggested, that previous payments of
  1306
  compensation were to be taken into consideration the annual payments by the trade to the fund would not be so high. He thought it would be much better to leave to quarter sessions the decision on any case that might be brought up.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 2, page 2, line 12, after the word 'premises' to insert the words 'provided that when refusing the renewal of a licence in any parish, or the parish adjoining it, previous payments of compensation for licensed premises in those parishes be taken into account when determining the amount to be paid as compensation for the premises.'"—(The Marquess of Huntly.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Probably the House will agree in thinking that as we could not accept Lord Grey's Amendment, it is not likely we can accept the noble Marquess's. The principle raised is precisely the same. There are, however, certain limiting words in the noble Marquess's Amendment. I think injustice would probably arise out of the limitations themselves which would be in addition to, and not in diminution of, the objections we had to the Amendment of the noble Earl.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The next Amendment is merely a drafting one. Your Lordships may remember that Lord Davey did not like the form in which the Amendment was proposed to be inserted in Committee. It is evidently a mistake to have the words "for a year or from year to year." Either one or the other must be taken as the standard, and we therefore propose to strike out the words "for a year or."
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 2, page 2, line 28, to leave out the words 'for a year or.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The next Amendment is merely for the purpose of providing for the case where costs are incurred by the Commissioners of

  1307
  Inland Revenue in carrying out the Act. We propose that those costs should be either paid out of the compensation funds or by the parties.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 2, page 2, line 34, to insert as a new sub-section the words: '(4) Any costs incurred by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue on an appeal from their decision to the High Court under this section shall, unless the High Court order those costs to be paid by some party to the appeal other than the Commissioners, be paid out of the amount to be paid as compensation.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYmoved an Amendment limiting the borrowing powers of local authorities for the purpose of paying compensation "to a period not exceeding seven years." His object in moving the Amendment, he explained, was to avert what he believed to be a very real danger by giving to the local authority an unlimited power to borrow. Such an unlimited power might, in certain cases have the effect of tying for many years to come the hands of those magistrates who wished to suppress licences, but who would find that their predecessors had mortgaged the security of the compensation fund. The Amendment suggested seven years as an appropriate term of limitation, but it was not the exact term of years he cared about so much as the fact that there should be a very definite limit laid down to the power given to the local authority. He earnestly hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 3, page 3, line 29, after the word 'borrow' to insert the words 'for a period not exceeding seven years.'"—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  LORD BELPER: As I stated in answer to the most rev. Primate on the Committee stage, the Government are in sympathy with his view that there ought to be some limit placed upon the term of years for which authorities are allowed to borrow, but the Government think seven years in all cases might be too short. As this is merely putting in
  1308
  a maximum which cannot be exceeded, but which in the great majority of cases it will be very undesirable even to come up to, the Government propose that the limit should he fifteen years. Under Clause 6 the House will see that Subsection (b) provides for the enforcement or any security given for borrowed money and for the time within which money borrowed is to be replaced. The Government think that would be the most convenient place to put in the limit. If the House consents to the limit of fifteen years, the sub-section would then read—
  "(b) Provide for the enforcement of any security given for money borrowed and for the time, not exceeding fifteen years, within which money borrowed is to be replaced."
  The Secretary of State has the power under this clause to consider the circumstances of each case. He would probably not make any general limit. It is obvious that the circumstances in each case must vary largely, and that different cases would have to be considered on their merits. It is my own view that in the great majority of cases fifteen years would be a longer period than would be at all necessary. However, the Government propose to put that in as a maximum, leaving the Secretary of State power to say in particular cases what smaller period should be allowed.
  EARL SPENCER: The noble Lord objects to the place where it is proposed to insert the Amendment. I myself am responsible for that, and I say at once that I have no objection to its being transferred. But I must say I do object to the extension from seven to fifteen years. I think that is much too long a time, and it would limit extremely the power of the authorities to reduce licences. It is an important matter that we should not encourage these authorities to borrow to such a large extent as would cripple our hands in the future, and I would urge the Government to accept a limit of ten years as a compromise.
  Loan ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTHsaid the great tendency in these days was for public bodies to borrow almost without limit and without stint. The Government proposed that the term of years should be limited by rules to be made by the Secretary of State, and in all probability the term would be very

  1309
  much less than the extreme limit proposed to be inserted. There was one thing he would like to have made quite clear. How would the interest and sinking fund charges be paid during the time for which the money was lent? Would they be paid out of the rates or out of the compensation fund?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Out of the compensation fund.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANSappealed to the Government to make some concession on the question of the number of years. He hoped they would see their way to accept the suggestion of the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition and fix ten years as the period. There was a great tendency on the part of local authorities to borrow up to their full power, and he was strongly opposed to a longer period than ten years being agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am largely responsible for having laid before the Government the strong view which the most rev. Primate and other noble Lords take on this particular Amendment. We thought it was a point upon which a concession might be made, and it is with a feeling of no little disappointment that I find that our effort has only led to an enlarged demand—
  EARL SPENCER: No.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Well, enlarged above our concession, at any rate, which does not encourage us to pursue these moderate courses. I really do think this is a matter for compromise. As the Government sent the Bill up to this House, there was no limit. We proposed to trust entirely to the rules of the Secretary of State. Then several noble Lords represented to us that they did not trust the Secretary of State, or, rather, that they did not trust future Secretaries of State, and they thought a limit ought to be fixed in the Bill. We have thought it right to make some concession to meet their view, and have offered fifteen years, but it would be asking too much to ask us to go lower than that. We do not desire to indicate for a moment that the limit should be seven, ten, twelve,
  1310
  or fifteen years. We do recognise this, that we cannot allow a local body, even quarter sessions, to pledge futurity beyond a certain limit. We have always intended that a limit should be fixed by rules, and we are prepared to extend our view by transferring it from the rules to the text of the Bill. The fifteen years proposed is the maximum, but it will be quite possible for the Secretary of State to make the term shorter. If your Lordships agree to this Amendment it will, however, be impossible for the Secretary of State to make it longer.
  THE EARL OF CREWEexpressed regret that His Majesty's Government had not been more open to a deal than they had proved to be, but he did not know that it was any use pursuing the subject any further. It seemed to him that this matter had never been thoroughly discussed. Possibly some member of the Government might be able to indicate the sort of cases in which it would be desirable or necessary for the local authority to borrow for such a long period. It meant mortgaging straight away about half their entire capital, which on the face of it seemed extraordinary.
  *MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid they did not distrust the Secretary of State or any particular office, but they thought it was undesirable to leave the detail work of a system of this kind more than was really necessary to any executive officer of the Government. Parliament ought to lay down definite rules so far as it could as to the system on which a Bill of this kind was to be carried out, and leave as little as it could to be regulated by executive regulations. He entered a protest against a policy of this kind in regard to such important matters.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I now propose to leave out Sub-section 6 of Clause 3. That is the sub-section which provides for returns which the Secretary of State may call for from the districts, but we think that the provisions should have a wider scope. We think that Parliament would probably like to have returns not

  1311
  merely with regard to refusals to renew, but also with regard to new licences. Therefore, I propose to strike out the provision here and put it in later on where it will extend to new licences as well as renewals.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 3, page 3, line 32, to leave out Sub-section 6."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  EARL SPENCER: In this Amendment the noble Marquess proposes to strike out the sub-section which deals with returns in regard to old licences, but in the new clause which he is to move later on the provision is confined to new licences. I agree that the more information we have on this subject, both as regards old licences and new, the better. The new clause which the noble Marquess is to move after Clause 6 provides that quarter sessions, with respect to their own action and that of the justices of licensing districts under this Act, and the confirming authority, with respect to new licences granted under this Act, shall in each year make such returns to the Secretary of State as the Secretary of State may require. Does not the striking out of Sub-section 6 of Clause 3 and the insertion of this new clause later on result in the returns being confined to new licences.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The words are:—
  "Quarter sessions, with respect to their own action and that of the justices of licensing districts under this Act."
  That is to say, all their action under this Act. And it goes on—
  "And the confirming authority, with respect to new licences granted under this Act, shall in each year make such returns,"
  so that it covers both returns. But I will take care that it is looked into so that it is quite clear.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The reason of the next Amendment is this. The words as they stand in the Bill would seem to exclude the borough justices. The provision is that—
  "The justices of a licensing district, on the grant of a new on-licence may attach to the grant,"
  1312
  Borough justices act in these respects by committees. Therefore, it is necessary to have words to include the committee as well as the whole body.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 4, page 3, line 39, to leave out the words 'of a licensing district.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, on Sub-section 2, which provides that the justices, on the grant of a new on-licence, may attach to the grant of the licence such conditions as they think proper in the interests of the public, subject to the provisions of the section, moved, after "on the grant of a new on-licence," to insert "or of an order sanctioning the transfer or removal of a licence under Section 50 of the Licensing Act, 1872." He said that unless this Amendment was inserted it would be possible for the magistrate to grant the transfer of a licence in a case in which a licence-holder wished to remove from an unprofitable district to a profitable district. He did not say it would be obligatory, but it would be permissive for magistrates to transfer that licence as a removal. Section 50 of the Act of 1872 gave very wide powers for the transfer of a licence. It enabled magistrates not merely to remove the licence to another part of the brewster sessional district, but actually over the whole of the county. If, for instance, a firm of brewers had a licence in Skipton and wanted to remove it to Rotherham or Doncaster, technically it could be done as a transfer. He was not saying that the justices were likely to avail themselves of this power, but it ought not to be possible under the Act for them to do so. The Government had insisted very strenuously on every advantage which might fairly be claimed for the trade in connection with the closing of public-houses, but nobody could say that, if a man had a public-house which was not yielding any great profit in the place where it was, he had any claim at all to be allowed to migrate to another place and ask the justices to transfer his licence. He thought it important that Parliament should prevent the possibility of that which was obviously a new licence being treated as a

  1313
  transfer of an old licence, and thereby escaping the conditions laid down in Clause 4.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 4, page 3, line 40, after the word 'licence' to insert the words 'or of an order sanctioning the transfer or removal of a licence under Section 50 of the Licensing Act, 1872.'"—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): I do not think it is desirable to place an additional hindrance in the way of magistrates doing what they have a right to do. This is an entirely new idea that magistrates may abuse the power which they have exercised ever since the year 1872. I observe that no one has suggested, either in the discussion the other night or to-night, that there is any instance of magistrates abusing their power in this direction, and I do not see why it should be suggested that they are likely to do so in the future.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYpointed out, in reply to the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, that from 1872 up to the present time there had been no particular reason why anybody should ask for a transfer rather than a new licence in the event of going from one part of the country to another; but after this Bill passed there would be the greatest possible inducement to the owners of public-houses to try by any scheme they possibly could to escape the conditions which, under Clause 4, attached to new licences granted after the passing of the Act. Under that clause new licences were to be subject to a charge for monopoly value, but that condition would not apply to a transfer. He earnestly hoped the House would obtain from the Government some promise that they would not be deprived in this way of what they had hoped had been gained in Clause 4.
  EARL SPENCER: I do not at all follow the argument of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack. We do not desire to show any want of regard for the magistrates. They carry out their duties, no doubt, very properly, and I do not want to impugn their conduct in the least; but an entirely different
  1314
  state of things will arise when the Bill comes into force. There will be a difference between old and new licences, and there will be a great desire on the part of a great many people, particularly the brewers, to avoid the new licences on account of the conditions which, under Clause 4, would attach to them. Under the Act of 1828 a transfer can be made on account of expropriation, or fire, or certain other specified circumstances. We do not wish to interfere with that at We think that in those cases it would be quite fair that a licence-holder should remain in the same position, but the Act of 1872 gives a general power beyond those exceptions in the Act of 1828 which we think ought to be restricted. I hope His Majesty's Government will consider this. The noble Marquess the Lord Privy Seal said this was a trifling thing the other night, but I think it is a very serious matter indeed.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: When I described the Amendment which I moved the other night as a trifling Amendment I did so because it was only designed to make abundantly clear what was pretty clear already, and as the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack told the House, the Amendment I then moved was quite unnecessary. The real question is, how far do you trust the magistrates? It is not asking too much of this House to believe that brewster sessions will not be a party to a palpable evasion of the whole spirit of an Act of Parliament. If brewster sessions are not reliable, at any rate quarter sessions will not be a party to such a proceeding, and, as your Lordships will remember, these transfers cannot have effect until they have been confirmed by quarter sessions, just as in the case of an ordinary new licence. I confess I think it does not do, in passing an Act of this kind, to begin by saying we are going to give enormous powers to quarter sessions, and then say in another part of the Act that we do not trust quarter sessions. That is inconsistent. If you are going to trust quarter sessions at all, you must trust them in that particular, and I think we may leave it to quarter sessions to see that nothing contrary to the public interest is done under the protection of this clause.
  THE EARL OF CREWEsaid it seemed to him scarcely a reasonable charge to bring against them that they did not trust the magistrates in this matter. He was inclined to ask noble Lords opposite, when they talked of a culpable evasion of the Act, what it was they exactly meant. In his opinion, it was not right that compensation should be paid in the case of a transfer unless that transfer was of the sort indicated under the old Act; that was to say, the result of expropriation, fire, tempest, or some natural calamity of that kind. Where a licence was transferred from an old house to a new one they did not consider that a case could be made out for compensation under this Act. If the Bill was left as the noble Marquess desired to leave it, quarter sessions would understand that it was intended that in all these cases of transfer the licence should be regarded as a transferred licence and should not be treated as a new licence. The noble Marquess had given no indication to quarter sessions as to the views of His Majesty's Government on this matter, and it seemed to him that they would, knowing what had passed in Parliament and reading the Act as it stood, undoubtedly assume that in all cases it was intended that the transfer should be treated as an old licence and not as a new one.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANSpointed out that the Amendment would
  increase the power of the local justices; they would attach to the licence such conditions as to payments and tenure and other matters as they might think proper in the public interest, which power they apparently had not. The matter was important, and he implored the Government to consider the Amendment favourably.
  LORD FARRERsaid he should support the Amendment.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDONgave an illustrative case. If a licence which was being given up in say, Bethnal Green because the house was unprofitable was allowed to be transferred say, to the large and rising district of Clayton, that licence would be subject to none of the conditions which would attach to a new licence; and if at a subsequent period the house in Clayton was shut up, it would be compensated for at a value very considerably higher than if the compensation money had been granted in respect of the house in Bethnal Green. It was monstrously unfair that a man should be able to take a valueless licence and put it down in a prosperous district, and then not be subject to the conditions attaching to a new licence.
  On Question "That those words be there inserted," their Lordships divided:—Contents. 26; Not-Contents, 47.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Westmeath, E.

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  Dunboyne, L.

  Ripon, M.

  knutsford, V.

  Emly, L.

  Peel, V.

  Farrer, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Hatherton, L.

  Chesterfield, E. [Teller.]

  Chester, L. Bp.

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

  Chichester, E.

  London, L. Bp.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Crewe, E.

  St.-Albans, L. Bp.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Grey, E.

  St. David's, L. Bp.

  Welby, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Temple, E.

  Braye, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Lansdowne, M.

  Denbigh, E.

  Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Marlborough, D.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Northumberland, D.

  Bradford, E.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Cawdor, E.

  Lonsdale, E.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Cowley, E.

  Northesk, E.

  Bath, M.

  Dartrey, E.

  Onslow, E.

  Selborne, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Rathmore, L.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Belper, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Burton, L.

  St. Oswald, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Stalbridge, L.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Glanusk, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Hardinge, V.

  Iveagh, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Kenyon, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Killanin, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Wolverton, L.

  Addington, L.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kidtore.)

  Allerton, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The next Amendment is a provision for the case of a transfer of a licence of longer duration than the ordinary annual licence. If, for instance, the holder of a seven-years licence died before the expiration of the seven years and a transfer were granted, it would only be a transfer for the remainder of the term, not for a new term of seven years. The provision in the Amendment that any reference to special sessions in any enactment relating to transfers or protection orders shall include a reference to the general annual licensing meeting is an Amendment of the law that has long been needed.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 4, page 4, line 26, at end of line to insert the words 'and (b) any transfer of the licence shall, subject 'to any conditions attached thereto on the grant, have effect for the remainder of the term of the licence, and may be granted at a general annual licensing meeting as well as at special sessions, and any reference to special sessions in any enactment relating to transfers or protection orders shall include a reference to the general annual licensing meeting.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  EARL GREYmoved to amend Subsection (4), which, as the Bill passed through Committee, provided that the payments made under the conditions attached to new licences so as to secure the monopoly value to the public should be "dealt with in the same manner as the duties on local taxation licences within the meaning of Section 20 of the Local Government Act, 1888." The noble Earl proposed that the words quoted should be left out, and that others should be inserted providing that the payments should be allocated to such purposes not properly chargeable to the
  1318
  rates as the confirming authority should determine. He said experience had shown that the appropriation of drink profits to the relief of the rates had worked very badly. He understood his noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, on behalf of the Government, was disposed to look favourably on the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 4, page 4, line 28, to leave out from the word 'collected' to the end of the subsection, and insert the words 'and allocated to such purposes not properly chargeable to the rates as the confirming authority determine.'"
  —(Earl Grey.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Government feel that there is a good deal to be said for the view that the money collected in respect of the new licences should not be devoted to the local taxation account as provided in the Bill; but we have found some difficulty in arriving at a confident conclusion as to the proper substitute. It is not clear what "purposes not properly chargeable to the rates" might be. The phrase is very wide. The Government do not wish to be obdurate, however, and will accept the Amendment on the understanding that on the Third Reading, or in another place, it may be necessary to modify the proposal. There will have to be consequential Amendments; for instance, a provision in the rule clause to give the Home Secretary power to make rules relating to the sub-section.
  EARL SPENCER: I agree almost entirely with the noble Earl, but I am not sure that the Amendment does not go too far, and will therefore require some limitation as suggested by the noble Marquess. For instance, under the Amendment as it stands the money might be handed over to infirmaries or for a variety of objects.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYdoubted whether the Amendment, seeing that it proposed to take away money now allocated to the rates, was not a breach of privilege.
  LORD FARRERsuggested, as a way out of the difficulty, that the money should go to the Imperial Exchequer.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTERwas glad the Government had given way, and said this clause should go down to posterity as Lord Grey's clause. It was his education of the country that had made it possible for the Government to introduce this clause. He had brought home to the mind of the country, in a way that nobody else had ever succeeded in doing, a sense of the vast amount of what ought to be public money which had been placed in private hands by our system of licensing hitherto. When he said that a ring fence ought to be built round all new licences, he had used an expression which had gone home to the public intellect and imagination. He expressed regret, which he knew was widely shared, that the clause seemed in some danger of being outmanœuvred as a result of the vote which had just gone against Earl Grey on another point. He hoped it might not be so.
  THE EARL OF CREWEshared in the pleasure expressed by the right rev. Prelate at the acceptance by the Government of the substance of the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Earl Grey. He thought it would have been the greatest possible misfortune if that Amendment had been rejected. But there was one feature in the Amendment which made him also glad that the Government had not accepted it exactly as it stood, and he believed that it was still capable of some further Amendment. His point was that it seemed to be a very novel principle to hand over to a body of magistrates complete discretion over the allocation of money raised by rates, the magistrates, as such, having nothing whatever to do with the rates.
  LORD BELPER: It has nothing to do with the rates; we simply call them "charges".
  THE EARL OF CREWEadmitted that he was incorrect in using the word rates; he should, of course, have used the word "charges". He hoped that to-morrow, or in another place, the Government would be ready with some proposed Amendment which would enable those sums to be dealt with in a manner more in consonance with tradition and the general custom of dealing with public money.
  EARL GREYsaid that by the courtesy of the noble Marquess he had seen the Amendment to his Amendment, which he understood the Government were prepared to accept. He therefore begged leave to withdraw his own Amendment with the object of inserting that suggested by the Government.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  EARL GREY EARL GREY then moved an Amendment to leave out, in page 4, line 28, from the word "be" to the end of the sub-section in order to insert the following words, "allocated to such purposes of public benefit not chargeable to the rates as the confirming authority determine."
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 4, page 4, line 28, to leave out from the word 'collected' to the end of the sub-section, and insert the words 'allocated to such purposes of public benefit not chargeable to the rates as the confirming authority determine.'"—(Earl Grey.)
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid this was a new Amendment, and it now had a double vice. It affected the privileges of the House of Commons and gave to the magistrates who were not representative the power of spending money raised by the taxes.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have a small drafting Amendment to carry out the same object as that on which I have already moved, namely, to bring the borough magistrates in where, as it stands, only the county magistrates would be. It is, at the bottom of page 4, and at the top of page 5, line 1, to leave out the words "of the licensing district" and insert "authorised to grant the licence."
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 4, page 4, line 41, and page 5, line 1, to leave out the words, 'of the licensing district' and insert the words 'authorised to grant the licence.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE MARQUESS OE SALISBURY: The next Amendment is to take out the words in the second sub-section of Clause 5, beginning in line 9, which provides the power of quarter sessions to make rules regarding their own committee, and to put those words in further down in the page. The reason I submit this Amendment to your Lordships is this: the place in which these words stand in the Bill only brings in these powers inferentially. That is always an undesirable way of legislating. We want a positive enactment, and that is done by leaving out the words at this point and inserting them later.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In Clause 5, page 5, line 9, to leave out from the word 'them' to the second word 'and' in line 11, and insert the words 'under this section.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 5, page 5, line 16, at end of line to insert as a separate paragraph, the words 'Quarter sessions may make rules to be approved by a Secretary of State, for the mode of appointment of committees under this section, and for the number, the quorum, and (so far as procedure is not otherwise provided for) the procedure of those committees.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The next is a small verbal Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 21, to leave out the word 'but' and insert the word 'and.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  EARL SPENCER: I do not think the noble Marquess has any Amendment to Sub-section 4 of Clause 5.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No.
  EARL SPENCER: I rise to ask a Question. I have given no notice of any Amendment, but we have had a great deal of discussion with regard to the justices having the right to appear. In Sub-section 4 there is power given to the justices of any borough, not being a county borough, but having a separate commission of the peace to appoint one of their number to act with reference to the determination of any question as to the refusal to renew, etc. I desire to know whether the Government think it is desirable to allow a justice of the brewster sessions also to be appointed to the committees. That would in some way mitigate the difficulties which we feel will arise by the omission of an absolute right of the justices to appear before them.
  LORD BELPER: May I point out that this committee is a committee of quarter sessions, and it is appointed by quarter sessions. It is laid down that one member of the justices of a borough shall be appointed or that they shall be represented. I do not think that in many counties you could make an enactment that every brewster sessions should be represented. Of course, the magistrates on the committee of quarter sessions are magistrates of brewster sessions, and under the rules and regulations which are to be laid down with regard to their appointment, care would be taken, so far as possible, that the different parts of the county should be fairly represented on the quarter sessions committee. But probably the numbers would be very large in the case of a large country and would therefore prevent a magistrate from each brewster sessions being on the committee. There also might be other reasons why it would not be possible to adopt this suggestion. The point is a little outside the question we were discussing before, which was whether the magistrates from brewster sessions should be always present and enabled to be heard.
  [The subject then dropped.]
  LORD BELPER: I have an Amendment, which is not on the Paper, to

  1323
  Clause 6, in page 6, line 2. This is to carry out the suggestion which I made on behalf of the Government that a limit of years for borrowing should be inserted in this clause. My Amendment is, in Clause 6, page 6, line 2, after the word "time" to insert "not exceeding fifteen years."
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 6, page 6, line 2, after the word 'time' to insert 'not exceeding fifteen years.'"—(LordBelper.)
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYwas of opinion that the hand of the Government was very heavy indeed upon those who had tried to obtain a limitation of time, but of course he knew that they would lose everything if they did not take what they could get. He presumed that they must therefore accept the Amendment, although he earnestly desired that at some future stage of the Bill it might be found possible to make the limit ten years rather than fifteen years. He believed that they would never regret it if they made it ten years and that they would regret it without doubt if they made it fifteen years.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The next Amendments are consequential on the Amendment of the noble Lord Earl Grey. The first is, in Clause 6, page 6, line 5, after the word "fund" to insert the words "and of any sums paid in respect of new licences." The second is, in line 6, after the word "sessions" to insert "and so far as respects sums paid for new licences, and the confirming authority." The object of these Amendments is to place the sum of money which will accrue under the noble Earl's Amendment under the rule-making powers of the confirming authorities.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 6, page 6, line 5, after the word 'fund' to insert the words 'and of any sums paid in respect of new licences.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, line 6, after the word 'sessions' to insert the words 'and so far as respects sums paid for new licences, and the confirming authority.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The next Amendment is, after Clause 6, to insert as a new clause the following—
  "Quarter sessions, with respect to their own action and that of the justices of licensing districts under this Act, and the confirming authority, with respect to new licences granted under this Act, shall in each year make such returns to the Secretary of State as the Secretary of State may require."
  This is an Amendment which I suggested a few minutes ago and which I said would include the power of the Secretary of State to call for returns not merely with regard to new licences but also old licences. I think the noble Lord, Earl Spencer, is satisfied with this proposal.
  EARL SPENCER: I am quite satisfied.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sure that is so. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, after clause 6, to insert as a new clause the words 'Quarter sessions, with respect to their own action and that of the justices of licensing districts under this Act, and the confirming authority, with respect to new licences granted under this Act, shall in each year make such returns to the Secretary of State as the Secretary of State may require."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsuggested that it would make the point clearer if the noble Marquess would agree to say, in regard to the confirming authority, "and also of the confirming authority." No doubt the noble Marquess would remember a difference of opinion arose on that side with regard to the matter. As he (the Earl of Camperdown) suggested, the proposed new clause would read—
  "Quarter sessions, with respect to their own action and that of the justices of licensing districts under this Act, and also of the confirming authority, with respect to new licences granted under this Act, shall in each year make such returns to the Secretary of State as the Secretary of State may require."
  His suggestion was that this would make the matter clear.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment, as it would rather throw the drafting out of gear.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Perhaps the Government will consider it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes, we will do that.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: On Clause 8 I have a little drafting Amendment which is no more than a printing matter. Your Lordships will see the clause reads on page 6, line 32, as follows "to supply suitable refreshments at reasonable prices, other than intoxicating liquors." It is, of course, intended to read "to supply suitable refreshments other than intoxicating liquors at reasonable prices.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, line 32, after the word 'refreshment' to insert the words 'other than intoxicating liquor,' and after the word 'prices' to leave out the words 'other than intoxicating liquor.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  Bill to be read 3a To-morrow, and to be printed as amended. [No. 185.]

  IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
  LORD EMLY: I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the following the Questions:—(1) Whether, having regard to the fact that the staff in many Irish national schools of between forty to fifty-nine children is inadequate, when compared with similarly circumstanced schools in England, His Majesty's Government have advised, and, if not, whether they are prepared to advise, the Commissioners of National Education to amend Rule No. 103 of their "Rules and Regulations," which shows the maximum "Staff of Assistants" at present recognised in national schools; (2) How soon the reduction of the average attendance from sixty to fifty children qualifying an assistant teacher in Irish national schools will come into operation; (3) Whether provision will be made for effecting the reduction of the present average attendance of children required for a second assistant teacher. The first two Questions do not, I think, call for any special
  1326
  remarks. As regards the third Question, however, I should like to call your Lordships' attention to page 141 of the Appendix to the 69th Report of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland for the year 1902. In the General Report on Limerick Circuit, by Mr. Dalton, the senior inspector, we read—
  "It is to be remembered, of course, that the erection of a school-house by means of a Government grant is frequently a big undertaking. It sometimes happens that several years have to be spent in wearisome negotiations about sites and titles with landlords, tenants, agents, Courts, trustees, mortgages, et hoc genus omne. When, eventually, the case is put into official form, legal obstacles of one kind or another are prone to spring up quite unexpectedly, and to prolong indefinitely the inevitable period of correspondence and inquiry that precedes the final and practical stage of the business. A few months ago I heard a manager congratulate himself on having brought to a successful issue a building application that had been reported on some two or three years before. At different times he was about abandoning the case in despair, so many and intricate were the legal difficulties with which it became entangled; but, by persevering tact and patience, he at last succeeded. Meantime the school children of the remote glens and mountains, for which the school is intended, have had to pass winter after winter in a draughty, dilapidated building that is almost uninhabitable."
  I beg to ask the Questions.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): The Answer which I am informed is the proper one to the Questions is this. Rule 103 of the Commissioners' Code provides for the employment of an assistant teacher in schools with an average attendance of sixty pupils. The questions of reducing the average so as to enable an assistant to be employed in schools where the average has fallen to fifty has engaged the attention of the Government for some time past. It has been stated by my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary in another place that the question was one for consideration in connection with the Development Grant Estimate. A revised Estimate making provision for effecting this reduction will be issued without delay, but obviously the provision cannot operate until the Estimate has been voted by Parliament and the necessary funds placed at the disposal of the Commissioners. With reference to the third Question, it is not proposed to make provision for more than one

  1327
  assistant teacher in schools where the average attendance has fallen from sixty to fifty.
  LORD EMLY: Do I understand the noble Lord to say it is not intended to make that provision?
  LORD ASHBOURNE: It is not proposed to make such provision.

  FEMALE INSPECTOR FOR IRISH WORKHOUSES.
  LORD EMLY: I beg to ask His Majesty's Government (a) whether, having regard to the enormous number of children, girls, and women in Irish workhouses, His Majesty's Government will appoint a female inspector, whose duty it would be frequently, and without notice, to visit and inspect these children, girls, and women, and to report upon the conditions under which they live; (b) whether such female inspectors have been appointed in England or in Scotland.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I am informed that the position of the question is this. There are two female inspectors in the service of the Irish Local Government Board whose duties are concerned with the carrying out of the regulations dealing with the boarding-out of children by boards of guardians. There are three such inspectors on the staff of the English Department, but none, so far as I am aware, in the service of the Scotch Local Government Board. It is open to the Irish Local Government Board to assign other duties to the female inspectors of boarded-out children. The opportunity for considering the matter will more properly arise when the Vice-Regal Commission on Poor Law Reform has furnished its report.
  LORD EMLY: There are such inspectors in England?
  LORD ASHBOURNE: Yes, the reply I have given suggests that there are three such inspectors on the staff of the English Department.
  LORD EMLY: And none in Ireland?
  LORD ASHBOURNE: No, but it is competent for the Irish Local Government Board to assign other duties than those at present held by the female inspectors of boarded-out children.

  SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order) Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING (LONDON) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  POST OFFICE BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order) Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
  LEEDS UNIVERSITY BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  WHALE FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]

    THIRD READING.
    Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
    Moved "That the Bill be now read 3a(The Earl of Kintore.)
    Drafting Amendments agreed to.
    Amendment moved:—
    "In Clause 4, page 3, line 36, after the word 'Board' to insert the words 'shall give every assistance in carrying out the provisions of this Act and, where necessary, shall employ their officers to facilitate its execution and.'"—(The Earl of Kintore.)
    Amendment moved—
    "In Clause 7, page 4, line 36, after the word 'Acts' to insert the words 'every case under this Act may be prosecuted in

    1329
    any sheriff Court which the Board may declare by a notice under the hand of the Secretary to the Board to the procurator-fiscal of such sheriff Court to be the Court nearest to the spot where the offence was committed, or otherwise the most convenient for the trial of the case."—(The Earl of Kintore.)
    Moved, "That the Bill do now pass."—(The Earl of Kintore.)
    On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons
    House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.