Sitting of 5 August 1904

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.
MR. SPEAKER'S INDISPOSITION.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker owing to indisposition. Where-upon Mr. JAMES WILLIAM LOWTHER, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Bridlington Corporation Bill [Lords]. (King's Consent signified), Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Bristol Corporation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Buxton Urban District Council Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified). Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Trafford Park Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Bristol Tramways (Extensions) Bill [Lords]. As amended. considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Oakengates and Dawley Joint Water Board Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; a Clause added; an Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time.

PRIVATE BILLS.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 220 and 246, relating to Private Bills, be suspended far the remainder of the Session.
Ordered, That as regards Private Bills to be returned by the House of Lords with Amendments such Amendments (if unopposed) be considered forthwith.
Ordered, That as regards Private Bills returned, or to be returned, by the House of Lords with Amendments such Amendments (if opposed) shall be considered at such times as the Chairman of Ways and Means may determine.
Ordered, That when it is intended to propose any Amendments thereto, a copy of such Amendments shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office, and notice given on the day on which the Bill shall have been returned from the Lords.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means).
Stretford Urban District Council Bill [Lords]. Ordered, That Standing Order 243 be suspended, and that the Bill he now read the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [Lords]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]; Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Aberdeen City Improvements Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

PETITIONS.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Blyth, against; to lie upon the Table.
  VALUATION BILL.
  Petition from Bolton, against; to lie upon the Table.
  VALUATION BILL.
  Petition from Honiton, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS ACT, 1897.
  Petition from East Ham, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS (EXPORTATION) (UNITED KINGDOM AND CONTINENTAL COUNTRIES).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 19th July; Mr. Crombie]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 313.]
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Proceedings at the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of Representatives of Authorities under The Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888, 16th June, 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3246 and 3247 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BRAZIL (No. 1, 1904).
  Copy presented, of Award of His Majesty the King of Italy with regard to the Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Brazil [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Disturbances at Temperance Meetings at Dudley.
  MR. J. W. WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for
  1212
  the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the methods adopted to break up public temperance meetings at Dudley on the 20th and 21st July; and whether he will ascertain if the police are taking any, and, if so, what, steps to prevent a repetition of such conduct.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I have been in communication in this matter with the chief constable of Worcester, who is the authority responsible for the action taken by the police. It appears, from his report, that the disturbances at the meetings referred to were caused partly by the provocative language of the speakers and partly by the action of two holders of public licences. and he informs me that the Mayor of Dudley has withdrawn his permission for further meetings to be held in the Vegetable Market; and that, if the further inquiries he is making show that it is necessary, he will report the conduct of the licence-holders who took part in causing the disturbance to the licensing justices.

  Compensation to Sorters in East Central Section of General Post Office for Loss of Overcoats.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has received memorials from certain sorters of the East Central section of the General Post Office requesting compensation for the loss of overcoats stolen from the official retiring rooms during November and December, 1903, and February, 1904; and whether a decision has yet been arrived at in the matter.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Complaints were received during the period mentioned from certain sorters in the Eastern Central section of the General Post Office of the loss of articles of private clothing, and special inquiry was made in each case, but unfortunately without result. It is not the practice to give compensation in such cases. I regret that the officers in question were not informed to this effect at the time.

  Payment of Cottagers for Boarded-Out Children.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the

  1213
  cottagers who receive children boarded out by boards of guardians, through the agencies of committees, require to be paid weekly, while the advances made to the committees are only three-quarters of the total amount required for such purpose for a given period, and that the remaining quarter is often not paid for some weeks after it is wanted by the committees to pay the cottagers; and, if so, whether, in view of the inconvenience resulting to these committees in consequence, he proposes to take any, and, if so, what, steps to provide a remedy.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have received representations on this subject. I propose to make certain amendments in the Boarding-Out Order, and in connection with them I hope to make some provision which will remove the inconvenience referred to by my right hon. friend.

  Care of Orphan Children and Destitute Poor by Egyptian Government.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a report as to the provision made by the Egyptian Government for the care and housing of orphan children and the destitute poor, his yet been received; and, if not, will he state the cause of the delay.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) Lord Cromer has reported that the Mussulman religious foundations in Egypt dispose of con-siderable revenues for the maintenance of the poor and aged, and large sums are granted yearly by the Mussulman Benevolent Society. There is also a foundling home which receives children irrespective of creed, and the various religious communities have funds devoted to the relief of their poor. There is, at present, no need of any further institutions of this character.

  Parochial Medical Officers (Scotland) Return-Alleged Inaccuracies.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the Return, Parochial Medical Officers (Scotland), is inaccurate in stating that the post of medical officer for Harris was vacant only once during the seven years prior to 1903, inasmuch as Dr. Macdonald
  1214
  was appointed to North Harris early in 1897, and during the end of 1898 Dr. Fletcher was appointed, in South Harris a Birmingham doctor was appointed to succeed Dr. Robinson in 1898, and Dr. Fraser was appointed in 1900; and will he take steps to have the accuracy of the Return tested, in so far as Barra and South Uist are concerned.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The Local Government Board have communicated with the inspector of poor of Harris in regard to the Return of Medical Officers furnished by him, and they find that, since July, 1896, there has been a change in the medical officership of South Harris five times and in that of North Harris twice. It appears that there has been some misunderstanding as to the meaning of the Return. The inspector explains that he understood the inquiry to mean the number of times that the parish was without a medical officer, and did not regard as vacancies those occasions on which one medical officer succeeded another without an interval of time. The Board are inquiring into the details of the Returns received from Barra and South Uist.

  Fires caused by Sparks from Locomotives.
  MR. TALBOT: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the injury caused to vegetation and crops on the sides of railways by the fires proceeding from engine sparks; and, if so, whether he will communicate with the railway companies and urge them to adopt whatever measures may tend to the diminution of such injuries.
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) My right hon. friend has asked the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to reply to this Question. Our attention has frequently been called to cases in which vegetation and crops have been injured by fire arising from sparks and cinders emitted by railway locomotives. It is clearly the duty of the companies concerned to do everything that is practicable to prevent occurrences of the kind, and our view has always been that it would be in the interest of the companies themselves to deal in a liberal and equitable spirit with any claims for

  1215
  damages which may be presented to them. We have, however, no statutory powers in the matter, and it is doubtful whether any advantage would be gained by our issuing any circular or other communication to the companies at the present time. My noble friend will, however, be happy to give further consideration to the suggestion.

  Rule of the Road at Sea—Single Vessels and Squadrons of Warships.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the President of the Board of Trade were the Board of Trade advisory circulars of April, 1897, and July, 1900, whereby British mariners are warned that when single ships are approaching a squadron of warships so as to involve risk of a collision, it would be in the interests of safety to keep out of the way of, and avoid passing through, a squadron; do the notices apply to a single ship authorised and enjoined by the rule of the road at sea to hold her course, and do they advise her not to do that in this case; is the rule as to keeping out of the way different for a single ship in a squadron from that for a single ship not in a squadron; and, if not, will the Board of Trade communicate with the Admiralty in order to remove any misunderstanding, and will it issue a further notice to make it clear that the rule of the road at sea applies to all ships alike, whether in squadron or not.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) (1.) The notices are advisory, and their object is to induce masters of British ships to keep so far from squadrons as to avoid all possibility of collision. (2,) The notices do not in any way alter or modify the regulations, which must be adhered to in any case, in which ships approach each other so as to involve any risk of collision. (3.) The Board of Trade understand that the Admiralty concur in this interpretation of the notice, and they do not think it necessary to take further action.

  Scotch Education—Equivalent Grant.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the loss of the Education Bill, he now proposes to utilise
  1216
  the Equivalent Grant (1903) for education instead of the rating relief.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I apprehend the hon. Member refers to the General Aid Grant appearing in the Estimates for 1904–5. That grant is already regulated by Minute, of date 25th April, 1904. It is true that payments under the provisions of that Minute will not exhaust the whole grant, it having been intended that the balance should be dealt with under the Bill. That balance will require to be dealt with next session, either by Bill or by Minute lying on the Table of the House, and will be so dealt with according to the legislative progress of next session. But it is not possible to deal with it now, nor can I accept as accurate the statement that the money already disposed of was given in rating relief.

  Government Borrowings—Fall in Consols.
  MR. BRIGHT: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the fact that the proposed issue of Exchequer Bonds has occasioned a fall in the price of Consols; and whether any further borrowings, other than those already announced, are in contemplation by the Government.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I have observed the recent fall in the price of Consols. I do not anticipate that it will be necessary to make an issue of Exchequer Bonds under the provisions of the two Bills now before the House before November next, and it is not anticipated that the amount to be raised in this way during the current financial year will exceed six or seven millions. There are no further borrowings now in contemplation beyond those already authorised and the usual temporary borrowings to supply the needs of the Exchequer pending the receipt of revenue.

  Royal Irish Constabulary—Age Limit Retirement.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state under what circumstances members of the Royal Irish Constabulary holding the rank of head constables and sergeants, stationed

  1217
  in county Down, are permitted to remain in the service for a period extending over the completion of their full service; and whether, in the interest of the public service, he will cause inquiry to be made with the view of having such men to retire forthwith.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The power vested in the Inspector-General, by Act of Parliament, to compulsorily retire members of the force under the rank of district inspector after they have completed twenty-five years service, is exercised only in cases of inefficiency or for some other sufficient reason, and not on account of length of service alone.

  Police and Testimony as to Character of Prisoners.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the conviction of a man who was charged recently at Newcastle, county Down, with being drunk and disorderly and assaulting the police, and was fined in £2 with 8s. compensation; and to the fact that Head Constable Smith wrote a letter testifying to the good character of the person convicted; and, if so, will he say if this action is in accordance with police regulations.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am informed that the accused was an entire stranger at Newcastle, and that the head constable, who had known him for sixteen years, wrote a letter to the effect stated. It is the constant practice to examine constables as witnesses to character in criminal Courts, and they are bound to give to the Court the assistance of their testimony if appealed to by the accused. The head constable would have acted more regularly, however, had he attended as a witness for the accused before the magistrates; but such letters as this are often written by others. There is no regulation in the force prohibiting the course taken, and, at worst, the head constable was only guilty of a very trifling indiscretion.

  Religious Denomination of Poor Law Officials in Armagh.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-
  1218
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that all the officials in Armagh, with one exception, are Protestants, not-withstanding the fact that a majority of the ratepayers and inmates are Catholics; and, if so, whether he will instruct the Local Government Board not to sanction the appointment of any other Protestant until such time as at least half-a-dozen Catholic officials are appointed.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Board has no information in respect of the religious denominations of Poor Law officials, with the exception of chaplains of workhouses and of nuns employed in the capacity of matron, schoolmistress. or nurse in various workhouse infirmaries. Questions of religion are not considered by the Board in determining whether its sanction shall be given or withheld in the case of an appointment other than that of chaplain. The reply to the second inquiry is, therefore in the negative.

  Female Catholic Teacher in Armagh Union.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Armagh Board of Guardians granted a pension of £9 a year to Miss M'Kee, a Catholic assistant teacher, which the Local Government Board refused to sanction: that she was afterwards dismissed without any fault being found; and, if so, whether, seeing that the rules of the workhouse prescribe that prayers should be read to Roman Catholics by a person of their own denomination, and that when Miss M`Kee was dismissed an undertaking was given to the Catholic guardians that the prayers would be read by a pauper inmate pending a fresh appointment, he will state whether the Local Government Board will take steps to have a Catholic female teacher appointed.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Local Government Board did not refuse to sanction a pension to Miss M`Kee. The guardians proposed to abolish the offices of schoolmistress and assistant teacher, and to grant these officers superannuation allowances, it being understood that the workhouse children should be

  1219
  sent to extern schools. The Board pointed out that, in its opinion, the proposed arrangement was objectionable unless it were satisfactorily shown how children were to be superintended before and after school hours. The guardians subsequently dispensed with the services of Miss M'Kee as assistant teacher and catechist. The Board had no power, however, to prevent them from doing this, and has no power to require them to appoint a successor.

  POLICE AND SANITARY COMMITTEE.
  Leave to the Committee to make a Special Report.
  Special Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 314.]
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 314.]

EDUCATION (LOCAL AUTHORITY DEFAULT) BILL.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Instruction standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the Barnstaple Division of Devonshire to divide Clause 1 into three clauses is, I am authorised by Mr. Speaker to say, in his opinion, out of order on the ground that it is mandatory.
MR. SOARES: Of course, Sir, I accept your ruling at once, but perhaps I may ask as a point of order when the important point raised by the Instruction can be brought before the House. I presume it would not be in order to bring it up on a Motion to postpone Clause 1, and I really cannot see what opportunity there can be if it is refused now. It involves a constitutional point of the greatest gravity, because if the Government are entitled to roll three clauses into one for the purpose—
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, order ! The hon. Member is not entitled to argue the Question or to make a speech.
MR. SOARES: Then, Sir, will you answer the Question I have put to you?
* MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid I can give no other Answer than that the Instruction is out of order because it is mandatory.

EDUCATION (LOCAL AUTHORITY DEFAULT) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 1.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Anglesey is not admissible. It is not open to him to move to postpone a sub-section; he can move to postpone a clause.
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I will amend my Amendment accordingly.
*THE CHAIRMAN: That means to postpone the whole Bill.
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHthen moved that the whole of Clause 1 be postponed. His reason for so doing was that three absolutely different matters which ought to have been dealt with in separate clauses were included in the clause. If they were included by mistake it was a serious error, but if they were included by intention it was a scandal. Were all these matters included in one clause in order that Clause 1, which was the whole Bill, might be obtained by one Motion of the closure? (Cheers.) If that were so, it was an abuse of drafting which he thought the Prime Minister, once his attention was called to it, with his sense of fairness would not countenance. He moved the Amendment in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity even at the twelfth hour to make amends. The first section dealt with transfer of powers; the second with financial matters and the deduction under certain circumstances of money from Parliamentary grants; and third, did what had never been done before—it made the Act retrospective. The right hon. Gentleman in a moment of caution and frankness admitted—
*THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. The point the hon. Member is now raising is not relevant to his Motion. The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman was not in order. Clause 1 could not be postponed because there was nothing to postpone it to, the clause being the whole Bill. The only other clause, Clause 2, deals with the title of the Bill.
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: With great respect I am giving reasons for postponing the clause so that the Prime Minister may put things right.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The Motion cannot be made. The only effect would be to put the Short Title first.
MR. SOARES: Are we to understand this important point cannot be debated at any time?
*THE CHAIRMAN: I can only find instances where it has been done by general consent.
MR. MOSS: The result of your ruling is that when a Bill contains only one clause there can be no Motion to postpone it.
*THE CHAIRMAN: That is perfectly obvious. There is nothing to postpone the clause to. To make the Short Title first and the operative part second would be to invert the usual order of drafting a Bill.
MR. WHITLEYasked whether there was any remedy under the rules of the House. Was there not power in the Chair to protect the House against drastic action of this kind on the cart of the Government?
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that perhaps the object of the hon. Member for Anglesey could be attained by moving to omit Sub-section 1, and if the Amendment were successful the sub-section could be brought up as a new clause.
MR. WHITLEY: But is there no power in the Chair to protect the House against proceedings of this kind?
*THE CHAIRMAN: The draftsman-ship of Bills is a matter which rests with
1222
the Government or hon. Member introducing them. The Chairman has no power to deal with that.
MR. McKENNAsaid it was clear that the clause dealt with three entirely different matters and he ventured to believe that had any private Member proposed to do such a thing, or to add to one clause two entirely different matters the Chairman would have refused permission. He submitted that it was in the power of the Chair—he would go further and say it was the duty of the Chair—to protect the House against this abuse of drafting. Cries of ["Order."] Yes and he made that statement with all respect for the Chair. He had not the least desire to be disrespectful, but he submitted that acting on the principle which had guided his decisions in the past the Chairman ought now to rule that Sub-sections 2 and 3 should be brought up in separate clauses.
*THE CHAIRMAN: As I have already stated the drafting of a Bill rests with the Government who brings it in. The hon. Gentleman wants me to split up Clause 1 into three separate clauses. There is no inherent power in the Chair to do anything of the sort.
MR. McKENNA: Then I ask leave to move that the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot accept that Motion.
MR. McKENNA: Will you allow me to say one word on the point before you decide not to accept the Motion. Assuming that you have not power to compel the Government to divide this clause into three clauses, may I submit that it is only on a Motion to report Progress that the Opposition can call attention to the abuse of drafting on the part of the Government. Surely that is a sufficient ground why you should accept the Motion.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot accept the Motion. I have already pointed out to the hon. Member for Anglesey that he can raise the question by moving to omit Sub-section 1 with the avowed object of bringing it up again as a new clause.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Could that Motion be put in such a way as not to interfere with the Amendment on the Paper?
*THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I cannot say anything as to that.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it surely was the duty of the Chairman to protect the minority in this respect. It was obvious that the object in thus drafting the Bill was so as to be able to closure it in one Motion. He quite accepted the ruling that it was not in the power of the Chair to divide the clause into three clauses, but he submitted that the Committee had the right, by a Motion to report Progress, to protest against this most scandalous abuse of the power of the Government.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESdrew the attention of the Chairman to the marginal notes. These notes were required to be attached to a Bill by the orders of the House so that the Speaker or Chairman should have some guidance in ruling the proceedings of the House. Now this marginal note did not cover all the proposals of the clause, and surely it was open to the Chair to insist that the clause should be divided so that proper marginal notes could be inserted.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I can alter the marginal note, and if the hon. Member will suggest an alteration I will make it.
MR. MOSSinquired whether, if the Motion to omit the sub-section was defeated it would cut out all Amendments to the clause.
*THE CHAIRMAN: We must follow the usual course. I will endeavour so far as I can to save the Amendments which hon. Members have put down on the Paper. There are one or two which would have to be sacrificed under any circumstances.
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHmoved to omit Sub-section 1, in order to give the Prime Minister an opportunity of justifying so gross a scandal as this. Three substantial matters were crowded into one clause with an object which was per-
1224
fectly transparent. It was clearly done for the purpose of bringing the closure to bear on the clause as a whole. The Welsh Members were anxious to start the proceedings at any rate in a conciliatory spirit, and he appealed to the Prime Minister to meet them. If the right hon. Gentleman refused the opportunity, the responsibility would rest upon him.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 5, to leave out Sub-section(1)."—(Mr. Ellis Griffith.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'The Board of Education' stand part of the clause."
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)desired to respond to the wish to discuss the Bill in a conciliatory spirit, but if he might be allowed to say so, the theory of drafting which the hon. Member advocated was absolutely novel. If one took up the statutes lying on the Table he would find twenty, forty, or eighty cases in which a larger variety of matter was dealt with in one clause, and in particular he instanced, Clause 7 of the Education Act of last year and Clause 8 of the Local Government Act, 1894. In the latter case, the clause extended to one and a half pages, and the first sub-section alone dealt with such diverse matters as the power of parish councils to acquire land and buildings, to deal with recreation grounds, to utilise wells, springs, and streams, to deal with ponds, open ditches, and drains, to accept and to hold property, and many other subjects. In the drafting of the subsection the Government had not departed by one iota from the traditions handed down to them, and the hon. Member on this occasion had evidently forgotton his great acquaintance with the statute law of the country.
MR. BRYCEwas far from saying they had not gone a long way in recent years in putting matters diversi generis into one clause, but if they looked at the statutes of twenty or thirty years ago it would be seen that this was not an immemorial practice. It was a dangerous practice, and one which had been abused in the present case. As

1225
to the clause in the Act of 1902, to which reference had been made, there were so many objections to be taken to details that it was not to be wondered at if this particular objection was not insisted upon. But, after all, the whole clause dealt with the powers of the managers, and the subjects were such as might very fairly be embodied in one clause. But the practice of putting diverse matters into one clause was a dangerous pratice; it circumscribed the liberties of the House, and ought, therefore, to be resisted.
MR. SOARESexpressed his surprise that the Leader of the House should have adopted such a line upon this great constitutional question. Under the so-called Constitutional Party the liberties of this House were being gradually taken away. [MINISTERIAL laughter.] It was all verb well for hon. Members opposite to laugh, but in course of time the position would change, and then they would strongly object if a measure for, say, the taxation of land values was compressed into one clause and forced through the House.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEcontended that the argument of the Prime Minister was altogether inadequate, because Clause 7 of the Education Act dealt really with one matter, the powers of the managers. But the procedure here adopted was part and parcel of the whole method of the Prime Minister to dragoon the House of Commons and prevent discussion. He had decided that Wales was to be coerced. Very well; let him try it. It would take greater intelligence than that of the hon. Member for St. Pancras who cheered the idea. All the powers conferred by this Bill would not be sufficient for the purpose. But let the Government proceed; the people of Wales were prepared to meet them. Before it was done, however, the whole thing ought to be fairly discussed in the House of Commons. But the right hon. Gentleman did not think the House of Commons ought to discuss any of his decrees. This was deliberately done in order to prevent discussion. The Prime Minister relied on his authority and influence over the Chair to do it.
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I rise to order. Is the hon.
1226
Member in order in stating that any Member in this House relies on influence and authority over the Chair?
*THE CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether the insinuation relates to me or the Prime Minister. If it relates to the Prime Minister, I think it is in order; if it is directed against me, I think it is not in order.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he would put himself in order by attributing it to the Prime Minister. There was, as he thought, no doubt about it. It was a matter of common talk in the whole House. Everything had been compressed into a single clause in order that the matter might be rushed through. But it was no use arguing with the Prime Minister; he knew perfectly well why it had been done. He warned the right hon. Gentleman that it was a very dangerous course to pursue. If, in the face of the strong feeling and the state of exasperation which had been aroused, the Prime Minister was going to give the House of Commons no fair opportunity of discussing any of the details of the Bill, he would rush the Government in to a position which he would regret in the course of six months.
THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,)thought the Committee would agree that it was much better drafting that these matters should be dealt with in one clause rather than it should be broken up. This was a clause which dealt essentially with one matter, and if hon. Members would look at the clause they would see that it conferred certain powers upon the Board of Education with regard to deductions from the Parliamentary grant. No doubt it would have been possible with some ingenuity to have manufactured several clauses, but undoubtedly it was much better drafting that it should be dealt with in one clause.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the Attorney-General had made out that this was simply a question of draftsmanship. He wished to know if when the clause was drawn, instructions were given to draw

1227
it as shortly as possible and put everything in one clause. It appeared to be the object of the Government to apply the closure and have one division at a certain time in the afternoon when in their opinion the discussion ought to be closed. That was the object of putting all these three questions into one clause. These questions were totally distinct matters to those which had been quoted as precedents by the Prime Minister.
*SIR JOSEPH LEESEsaid that he desired to say just one word about this matter. He would say nothing for the moment about the intention of drafting a Bill like this in one clause, but would rather call attention to the initial object of drafting a Bill in separate clauses. The reason of separate clauses being inserted was that they had in those clauses matters which were clearly distinguishable one from another and therefore must be dealt with separately. That ought to have been the case in the present Bill. But in the first sub-section of this one clause Bill powers were given to the Board of Education to manage education in Wales, and in the second sub-section they had given to them powers to deal with the recovery of the payments so made in respect of such management. The two sub-sections were entirely different, and ought, he submitted, to be dealt with in separate clauses.
MR. McKENNAsaid that with regard to what the Attorney-General had said he would like to call his attention to the actual wording of Sub-section 2. It was not anywhere stated in that clause what the Parliamentary grants referred to, and it must mean all the grants given for education.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYnodded assent.
MR. McKENNA: It is only the Parliamentary gran's for education. The Attorney-General has just admitted our point. Continuing, he said that the local education authority was the county council and therefore this included all Parliamentary grants paid to the county council. [Cries of "No."] The Attorney General would agree with him on the point that the county council being the
1228
local education authority, Parliamentary grants payable to the local education authority meant grants payable to the county council. But a wholly different body was brought in under Sub-clause 2. The sub-clause did not give any power to the Board of Education, after deducting the amount which they had paid for educational purposes, to pay the money over to the Crown, but as the sub-section stood it gave the Local Taxation Commissioners power to deduct the sum of money from the local taxation fund, and although it was not expressly stated, it was implied that that sum should be handed over to the Crown to pay debts incurred under this Bill. He submitted that the powers there given were not powers handed over to the Board of Education at all, but they were powers handed over to the Local Taxation Commissioners. That being so the Attorney-General could hardly deny that Sub-section 2 dealt with a totally different matter from Sub-section 1, and that it ought to be dealt with separately.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid he did not think the Attorney-General had fully considered the effect of Sub-section 2. He admitted that Clause 1 of this Bill was intended to deal with the powers of the Board of Education, and that was in exact accordance with the marginal note. The right hon. Gentleman went on to argue that Sub-sections 2 and 3 were natural corollaries to the main proposition, and ought to be included, according to the rules of good draftsmanship, in Clause 1. He desired to call attention to the fact that under Sub-section 2 no powers were given to the Board of Education, but to some other body, and he did not know exactly what body. The first power given under Sub-section 2 was that—
"Any sums paid by the Board of Education under this Act shall be a debt due to the Crown from the local education authority."
Who was going to sue for a debt due to the Crown? He would not give an off-hand answer, but he apprehended that the Attorney-General would not advise the Board of Education to be the plaintiffs in any action against a local authority. Therefore this power was not given to the Board of Education but to some other authority. Then with regard to the

1229
deduction from any sums payable to that authority who was going to deduct that? The powers to deduct were given to some other body. Having regard to the logical evolution of this measure, and according to the principles of sound draftsmanship, the matters dealt with in these three sub-sections were distinctly different and ought to have been dealt with in separate clauses.
MR. LOUGHreminded hon. Members that it might be necessary to apply a similar Bill to London next year. The first sub-section raised a great difficulty, because the education authority had got no money and no resources, and had no Parliamentary authority to make these payments. Where was the money to come from? These were all totally different matters, and ought to have been dealt with in entirely separate clauses. The Prime Minister had failed entirely in the precedents he had quoted. Their complaint was that the matters dealt with in this clause were three absolutely different subjects, and ought to be dealt with in entirely different clauses.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that in order to find out the meaning of the term "Parliamentary grant" it was necessary to refer to Section 24 of the 1902 Act, and to previous statutes. So far as he could gather the term "Parliamentary grant" meant a grant in aid of an elementary school, either annual or otherwise, out of moneys provided by Parliament.
MR. EDWARDSsaid that was not a Parliamentary grant within the meaning of Clause 7 of the Act of 1902.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he observed that the Attorney-General nodded assent to the exposition of the law given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University. But the hon. and learned Gentleman had not said so.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the sub-section was really absolutely clear
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLjoined with the Welsh Members in protesting against the manner in which the
1230
Government were attempting to force the Bill through the House of Commons. He said that nothing could be clearer than the object of the Government in drafting the Bill and placing in the clause three distinctly divergent questions. It had no doubt been done to interfere with the liberties and convenience of the House. The attacks on their liberties had been made by various methods and lines. They had had blocking Notices, very late hours, all sorts of important subjects brought on at late hours, and closure by guillotine. This was the first time in this session they had had an attempt to curtail discussion, not by previous methods, but by an entirely new invention—through the method of drafting a Bill, and lumping together conflicting ideas in a particular clause in order to get a simultaneous closure on the whole clause. This was an entirely new departure on the part of the Prime Minister, and did great credit to his Parliamentary ingenuity, though whether it reflected equal credit upon his Parliamentary reputation was quite another question. Was either the Prime Minister or the Attorney-General prepared to say on his
honour—[laughter] was the honour of either Gentleman to be laughed at?—[renewed laughter]—was either prepared to give a personal assurance that he had no idea in his mind when the clause was drafted, except the convenient and excellent methods of drafting, and that there was no sort of consideration that this was a convenient method of curtailing discussion?
MR. MOSSsaid they had now in the Bill under discussion evidence of the, disastrous effect of attempting to legislate in a panic. The Act of 1902 was forced through the House, and it was being interpreted differently from whit was understood at the time.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now dealing with the Bill as a whole. He must confine himself to the particular Amendment before the Committee.
MR. MOSSsaid he would bow to the ruling. The Attorney-General had said that the whole clause dealt with the powers of the Board of Education. That might be correct in regard to Sub-clause

1231
(a), but how the hon. and learned Gentleman could suggest that the other sub-clauses dealt with these powers passed his comprehension. These sub-clauses introduced entirely new legislation, and he certainly thought the Prime Minister should give Members of the House an opportunity for the discussion of the proposals. They did not wish to obstruct the measure, but they were entitled to demand that the various sub-sections should be threshed out
on their merits. He moved that the clause be divided into three separate clauses.
Mr. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 146; Noes, 74. (Division List No. 311.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

Percy, Earl

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Pierpoint, Robert

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

Gretton, John

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'derry

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Baird, John George Alexander

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Purvis, Robert

Balcarres, Lord

Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th

Pym, C. Guy

Baldwin, Alfred

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Randles, John S.

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r

Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.

Rankin, Sir James

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

Helder, Augustus

Reid, James (Greenock)

Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Horner, Frederick William

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Hoult, Joseph

Round, Rt Hon. James

Blundell, Colonel Henry.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Bond, Edward

Howard, John(Kent, Favers'm

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Bousfield, William Robert

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Bowles,T. Gibson (King'sLynn

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Brassey, Albert

Hunt, Rowland

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Jeffreys,Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Jessel,Captain Herbert Merton

skewes-Cox, Thomas

Campbell,Rt.Hn.J.A.(Glasgow

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

Smith, Hon. W. F. D.(Strand)

Cazendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Keswick, William

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Kimber, Sir Henry

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Knowles, Sir Lees

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Chamberlain, RtHnJ. A.(Worc

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Stroyan, John

Chapman, Edward

Lee, Arthur H.(Hants.,Fareham

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Charrington, Spencer

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Thornton, Percy M.

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Loder. Gerald Walter Erskine

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

Tully, Jasper

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Long, Rt Hn. Walter(Bristol,S)

Valentia, Viscount

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Walker, Col. William Hall

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth)

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Davenport, William Bromley

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Davies, Sir HoratioD(Chatham

Majendie, James A. H.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Dickson, Charles Scott

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Wills, Sir Frederick

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H.(Yorks)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Morrell, George Herbert

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J(Manc'r

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Mount, William Arthur

Wylie, Alexander

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Flannery, Sir Fortesque

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway,

Sir Alexander Acland Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Flower, Sir Ernest

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Forster, Henry William

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Gardner, Ernest

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Parkes, Ebenezer

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Brigg, John

Broadhurst, Henry

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Bright, Allan Heywood

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Higham, John Sharpe

Philipps, John Wynford

Burns, John

Holland, Sir William Henry

Rea, Russell

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Horniman, Frederick John

Reckitt, Harold James

Caldwell, James

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Cameron, Robert

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Channing, Francis Allston

Jacoby, James Alfred

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Jones, David Brymnor(Swansea

Shipman Dr. John G.

Crooks, William

Jones, William (Carnarvronshire

Slack, John Bamford

Cullinan, J.

Joyce, Michael

Sullivan, Donal

Davies Alfred (Carmarthen)

Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavvan, W.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Lambert, George

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Delany, William

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Thomas,David Alfred(Merthyr

Donelan, Captain A.

Leese,Sir Joseph F (Accrington

Tomkinson, James

Edwards, Frank

Levy, Maurice

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Elibank, Master of

Lewis, John Herbert

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Ellice, Capt. E C (S.Andrw's Bghs

Lloyd-George, David

White, George (Norfolk)

Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

Lough, Thomas

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Fuller, J. M. F.

Lundon, W.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

Lyell, Charles Henry

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

M`Hugh, Patrick A

Yoxall, James Henry

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

M Kenna, Reginald

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

Moss, Samuel

Mr. Ellis Griffith and Mr. Soares.

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Dowd, John

Question put accordingly, "That the words 'Board of Education' stand part of the clause"
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 150; Noes, 68. (Division List No. 312.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Keswick, William

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Dickson, Charles Scott

Kimber, Sir Henry

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Knowles, Sir Lees

Arnold-Forster,Rt Hn Hugh O.

Dinning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Fergusson,Rt Hn Sir Manc'r

Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Legge, Col. Hon. Henry

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Baird, John George Alexander

Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Balcarres, Lord

Fitzroy, Hon. EdwardAlgernon

Long,Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Baldwin, Alfred

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Long, Rt Hn Walter(Bristol, S)

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r

Flower, Sir Ernest

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W.(Leeds

Forster, Henry William

Lowe, Francis William

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Gardner, Ernest

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portstm'rh)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

Majendie, James A. H.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Mel ille, Beresford Valentine

Boland, John

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Bond, Edward

Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

Morrell, George Herbert

Bousfield, William Robert

Gretton, John

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Bowles, T. Gibson(King'sLynn

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Mount, William Arthur

Brassey, Albert

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Murray, Rt. Hn.A.Graham(Bute

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hamilton,Marq of(L'nd'nderry

Murray, Charles J.(Coventry)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Helder, Augustus

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury).

Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire

Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Parkes, Ebenezer

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Horner, Frederick William

Percy, Earl

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hoult, Joseph

Pierpoint, Robert

Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A.(Worc.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Chapman, Edward

Howard, John(Kent, Faversham

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Charrington, Spencer

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Hozier, Hon. JamesHenryCecil

Pretyman, Ernest George

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Hunt, Rowland

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Purvis, Robert

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Pym, C. Guy

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Randles, John S.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Joyce, Michael

Rankin, Sir James

Davenport, William Bromley

Kennedy,Vincent P(Cavan, W.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T (Denbigh)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Wills, Sir Frederick.

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Stroyan, John

Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Thornton, Percy M.

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Wylie, Alexander

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Tully, Jasper

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Valentia, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Walker, Col. William Hall

Sir Alexander AclandHood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Smith, Hon. W. F. D.(Strand)

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Stanley,Hon Arthur (Ormskirk

Whiteley, H.(Ashton undLyne

Stanley,Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Philipps, John Wynford

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Rea, Russell

Brigg, John

Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

Reckitt, Harold James

Bright, Allan Heywood

Hayter. Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Broadhurst, Henry

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Higham, John Sharpe

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Holland, Sir William Henry

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Burns, John

Horniman, Frederick John

Slack, John Bamford

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Sullivan, Donal

Caldwell, James

Hatton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Cameron, Robert

Jacoby, James Alfred

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Channing, Francis Allston

Jones, David Brymnor (Swansea

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Tomkinson, James

Crooks, William

Lambert, George

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

White, George(Norfolk)

Delany William

Levy, Maurice

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Edwards, Frank

Lewis, John Herbert

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Elibank, Master of

Lloyd-George, David

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Ellice, Capt E. C.(SAndrw'sBghs

Lough, Thomas

Yoxall, James Henry

Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

Lyell, Charles Henry

Fuller, J. M. F.

M'Kenna, Reginald

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Mr. Ellis Griffith and Mr. Soares.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Moss, Samuel

MR. J. H. LEWISsaid that he had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out "Board of Education" and insert "Treasury." He thought that under the circumstances he might be allowed to move it.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Member was too late in asking to move his Amendment, but in any event the same point could be raised under Sub-section 1.
MR. J. H. LEWISsaid that under these circumstances he would withdraw his Amendment.
MR. WHITLEYsaid he wished to move the Amendment standing in his name. This Bill was a Bill which did not affect Wales alone; they in Yorkshire were quite as much interested in it. If it went through unamended, it would enable the Board of Education to condemn local authorities without inquiry
1236
and without any process of law. Could anything be more un-English than that? Why, they would not treat the commonest beggar in that way. The entire matter was to he withdrawn from a Court of law and public inquiry and put into the hands of the Board of Education. The hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Board of Education was not, however, the kind of stuff of which dictators were made, yet he wanted to set aside the law of the land, and say that he, and he alone, should decide that a borough council or a county council was in default. He did not think the House of Commons would pass such a Bill without the most drastic amendment. Section 16 of the Act of 1902 provided that if a local authority failed to carry out its duties, the Board of Education might, after holding a public inquiry, make such Order as they thought fit. The Board had not tried the remedy provided by the Act of 1902; and vet they now proposed to abolish the right of inquiry

1237
and any process at law, and put what he would call Russian power into its hands. Speaking for Yorkshire, he said that they would not trust the Board of Education in this matter. If they did wrong, let them be brought before a Court of law, and let them have the rights of Englishmen, as provided by the Act of 1902. There might be a great many circumstances connected with a case which could only be brought out properly by a public inquiry. Under this Bill, a manager or a clergyman might creep round the corner to the Education Office in Whitehall, and say that he could not get this or that, and that he wanted the local authority punished. All they asked was that these people should come out into the open; they did not want any backstairs business going on in the Education Department, and they had sufficient confidence in their case to lay it before a public inquiry or a Court of law. He moved the Amendment, confident of the support of those who believed in the common right of the individual to justice.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 5, at beginning, to insert the words 'After holding a public inquiry at which all persons interested have been heard.'"—(Mr. Whitley.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. HALDANEsaid that the Amendmen traised rather an important principle. As the Secretary to the Board of Education knew, he was not one of those who had taken a hostile view of the foundations of the Bill of 1902. He always looked upon it as capable of being built upon and improved; and as containing the germ of what might be made a very good system. The main principle was that education should be put in the hands of the local authorities, under, it was true, restrictions, the removal of which he had always looked forward to with confidence. This Bill, however, cut into the foundations of the Act of 1902. It provided that, if the Board of Education were not satisfied with what the local authorities were doing, they should be at liberty to take the matter into
1238
their own hands. That was quite inconsistent with the foundations of the Act of 1902; and was a confession of failure on the part of the Government. It might have been that there was friction which could have been avoided; but what he wished to insist upon was that they should not cut down the power of the local authority without the gravest reason; and, certainly, no such step should be taken without some kind of judicial inquiry, unless they intended to throw overboard altogether the main principle of the Act of 1902.
* THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,)said that the right hon. Gentleman appeared to regard this Bill as a confession on the part of the Government of the failure of the Act of 1902. He did not agree with him. If the Committee bore in mind that the Act had been submitted to the closest criticism, that it had now been for many months in operation, and, if they considered the large area over which it extended, they would agree that, on the whole, the Act was working very smoothly and satisfactorily in the interests of education. He denied that the Act had been anything but a success. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill would cut down the power of the local authorities; they did not propose anything of the kind. They had been in constant communication with the local authorities, which was conducted on the most friendly terms; and it was to the interest of the Board, as well as to the interest of the local authorities, that such friendly relations should continue. His own belief and hope was that the Bill would affect comparatively few areas; and that it would be to the general interest that when it was brought into operation it should operate as speedily as possible. Teachers in certain areas were anxious to leave for their holidays, and their salaries had not been paid not merely up to date, but for the preceding quarter. In the winter the Board had complaints that schools were kept without fuel and without school-books. Was procedure by mandamus, the appropriate remedy for lapses of that sort on the part of the local

1239
authority; obviously they wanted something speedier, and something which would interfere as little as possible with the general action of the local authority.
MR. HALDANE: If you have to choose between two evils, is it not the greater evil to alter the basis of your Act for the whole of England, where, on your own showing it is not necessary?
* SIR WILLIAM ANSONdid not admit that they were altering the basis of the Act. They were anxious to maintain every power which the local education authority had. But in individual cases of pressing hardship the Board of Education ought to have the power to step in and administer a prompt and effectual remedy. Would they under a system of public inquiry have anything like that prompt remedy which common humanity demanded in such cases?
MR. WHITLEY: Do you accept camplaints without proof?
MR. TREVELYAN: Yes; provided they come from the clergy.
* SIR WILLIAM ANSONchallenged hon. Members to produce any case in which the Board of Education had acted without reference to the local authority on the complaint of a clergyman. The hon. Member for Carnarvon had pointed out in a speech delivered last year what endless opportunities for delay the requirement of a public inquiry offered. And yet these remedies were necessary to meet cases of pressing hardship. The Bill merely proposed that the Board of Education should have power to step in and do one particular thing in one particular school if by chance the local authority had left it undone. To proceed by mandamus would be a penal proceeding.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The powers given to the Board are all penal powers.
* SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid this remedy would not interfere with the action of the local authority over a great part of
1240
its area, and it would certainly not interfere a moment longer than that interference was necessary. The Board of Education did its utmost to be fair to both sides, and he repudiated with contempt the suggestion that it had ever departed from rigorous impartiality in the very wearisome and troublesome business of carrying the Education Act into operation.
MR. BRYCEsaid the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education had taken the opportunity afforded by the Amendment for pronouncing a panegyric upon the Act of 1902, but he should like to ask him, as a student of English history and the English Constitution, whether any Act had been a greater failure than that which failed to carry with it the sentiment of the people. The severest condemnation to be passed upon a piece of legislation was that it excited the general disapproval of the people and that it created unprecedented difficulty in working. The hon. Gentleman said the Act had worked very smoothly and satisfactorily. Where had he been living since the Act was passed? He supposed, like the Prime Minister, he never read the newspapers.
*SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The greater part of the time I have been at the Board of Education.
MR. BRYCEsaid this was exactly his case. The Board of Education, he supposed, as was said of another place, had been up in a balloon. The Board of Education had never heard of passive resistance. It thought this Act had worked smoothly and satisfactorily, and did not take account of what was said in the country, and what happened in the Police Courts where cases of passive resistance were brought up.
*SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Every complaint of anybody as to the working of the Act, and all newspapers containing complaints, come to the Board of Education, the latter regularly and the others when they arise.
MR. BRYCEcontinuing, said they knew from a very remarkable example that documents sometimes went to an

1241
office without being read. The reports of the Intelligence Department, for instance, went to the Secretary of State for War, but they were never read nor was any action taken upon them. He was not up in the latest statistics, and he did not know whether passive resisters were numbered by the 10,000 or by the 50,000, but at any rate they were numerous, and he was very much surprised, considering what had happened in regard to this movement and in regard to the resistance of local authorities, that the hon. Baronet should be able to say that the Act was working very smoothly and satisfactorily. He said they were not going by this Bill to cut down the powers of the local authorities, but what were those powers? This Bill gave power to the Board of Education by its own fiat to determine all questions of dispute at the expense of the local authority. There were a great many points in the Act of 1902 which were open to the greatest possible doubt, and the Board of Education was to come in in an autocratic manner and say that its view was the only right one. Were the local authorities not to be heard? Were they to be the only people to be debarred from going into Courts of law and asking whether their interpretation or that of the Government Department was the correct interpretation? The hon. Baronet said that it was in the interest of his office that its power should be applied considerately and in as small a number of cases as possible. But it would not rest with the Board entirely to say how it would exercise this power. Supposing the Board began to interfere with local authorities, was it not possible the local authorities might say, "We are not going to do this thing by halves; if the Board supersedes us at all they must supersede us altogether, we are not going to be parties to doing things imperfectly." It was possible that other authorities which hitherto had been trying to carry out the Act would sympathise with neighbouring authorities in what they considered to be the oppression that was practised upon them, and would refuse to do even what they were doing now. He was not at all sure that the Board would not be raising up for itself a far greater difficulty, and bringing
1242
a far larger number of local authorities into the field than they had any idea of.
The only argument that the Secretary of the Board had advanced in favour of this provision and against the Amendment, was that it would result in delay, but there was one thing more important than promptitude, and that was justice. They wanted some security and safeguard. which nothing less than the decision of a Court of law or public inquiry could give. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to be able to act promptly and at once; he wanted a naked sword, and did not want to wait to see what a Court of law thought. He was satisfied with his own judgment. He (Mr. Bryce) was satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman would endeavour to administer the Act fairly, but he was not the only person at the Board of Education. He did not know what the view of the permanent officials at the head of the Department might be, and all his confidence in the fairness and judgment of the right hon. Gentleman was not going to induce him to put the local authorities at the mercy of the Board. They must have some safeguard for the exercise of this power, and it could only be found either in requiring the Board to take the case before a Court of law to show and prove to the satisfaction of that Court that there had been default, or to make good its case by public inquiry, where all persons would have an opportunity of being heard. They would then be able to judge the Board of Education and to call the attention of the country to the circumstances under which the Board proceeded. He conceived, therefore, that the Amendment could he justified, and that the House would, by its rejection, create a new and very dangerous departure in all established principles of legislation.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he had been induced to rise not so much by the merits of the Amendment as by the arguments with which it had been resisted, and the amazing pretensions set up on behalf of the Board of Education. The hon. Baronet had spoken as though the holding of a public inquiry before the extraordinary and almots unparalleled powers conferred by this Bill were exercised was a procedure monstrous and unknown.

1243
But it was most common for such inquiries to be held before action was taken by public Departments. A public inquiry was always held before any action was taken under the Fisheries Acts, and such inquiries often produced great results, and taught the Departments concerned something they did not before know. Managers and local authorities probably knew many things about education of which the hon. Baronet had not yet dreamed, and inquiries might prove of the greatest possible value not only as regarded the knowledge they would impart, but also as regarded the difference of tempesr they might import. He had been throughout a friend of the Act of 1902, but he recognised that there had been regrettable and surprising occurrences since the passage of that Act. One would hardly have believed that so many people would break the law for conscientious reasons, and he was strongly of opinion that sooner or later some compromise would have to be arrived at. At first sight he could not see why such animosity should be shown by the hon. Baronet to this harmless and ordinary Amendment. Everybody recognised the impartiality of the hon. Baronet, and no one would question his devotion to the public service or the cause of education. But while they recognised his personal qualities, his arguments against this Amendment were pitiable, and suggested most alarming views as to the functions of the Board of Education. The hon. Baronet said the Act had been completely successful.
*SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I said that we always heard of the cases in which it was not successful, and that as they were so few and extended over so limited an area, we might regard the Act as having been, on the whole, successful.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked why, if that were so, this Bill was required? The Bill was to remedy the cases in which the Act of 1902 had not been successful, and those cases, according to the hon. Baronet, were few and insigificant.
*SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Not insignificant.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsubmitted that if the cases were few but significant they ought to be dealt with under the orginal Bill. Every private citizen who was aggrieved had to go to the Courts and submit to the law's delay. Why should the Board of Education be superior to all the incidents and proceedings of the Courts? The fact that the cases were significant made it the more necessary that they should be settled by the Courts. The assertion by the hon. Baronet that the local authorities had, or would, put obstacles in the way of the carrying out of the Act of 1902 was a serious condemnation of that measure. The local authorities were the basis of the Act, but they were now practically to be abolished and the Board of Education substituted. Notwithstanding the remarks of the hon. Baronet, the provision was penal in the respect the local authorities would most feel. The ninnies paid out by the Board of Education were to be, debts due to the Crown, and, as such, were given a peculiarly sacred character. They could not be forgiven to the defaulting authority except by an Act of Parliament, preceeded by a money Committee of the whole House. The Bill gave to the Board an absolute and overriding power. Year by year the ambition of Departments had been growing until it had now reached the most inordinate dimensions. They had grasped after more work, because work had meant power, and power importance. He would not object so much if the power was in the hands of the hon. Baronet, but the authority of the Department was usually exercised by a second or third-class clerk. He begged the hon. Baronet not to follow the course pursued with the latter part of the Act of 1902, and closure the whole thing, not to make himself the mere mouthpiece of the Department or to lend himself to its aggrandisement, but to accept as far as he could any reasonable Amendments that might be proposed.
MR. EMMOTTthought the genesis of this Bill was that some ingenious person in the Board of Education, desirous of getting round a very real difficulty, had tried to devise a method of, so to speak, painless dentistry by which the Act might be remedied with

1245
the least possible trouble. He believed, however, that the whole scheme would be too clever by half. He could not see what possible effect the Bill would have upon the real difficulty presented by the problem in Wales and elsewhere. The local authorities would probably be able to carry out their wishes in spite of the Bill. The fact of the matter was that the Government in 1902 committed a gross political blunder in asking local authorities to carry out an Act which was fundamentally in some respects antipathetic to their views. When such a course was adopted, trouble was bound to arise. With regard to the Amendment, he thought if the hon. Baronet gave way on this point he would do much to help the working of his Bill. Personally he did not want the Bill; he did not think it was the proper way to deal with the matter at issue; but from the hon. Baronet's point of view the Bill would act infinitely better if he gave way to this demand for a public inquiry. In the long run he would probably find that the other local authorities would fall into line with Wales rather than Wales with the other local authorities. If a public inquiry were allowed, any real grievance would be discussed, and the opinion of the locality thereby affected; but if the inquiries were merely conducted by the Board without any publicity the local authorities would have no confidence in them, and would be hostile to the conclusions, whatever they were. Thus matters would go from bad to worse, and therefore, because he thought something might be done by this Amendment to soften the effect upon the local authorities, he should support his hon. friend.
Ma. LLOYD - GEORGEsaid the hon. Baronet had overlooked the fact that under the Act of 1902, with regard to a Mandamus the first step was an inquiry, so that the Government by their present proposal were simply worsening the original Act. He fully admitted that an inquiry would take time. Personally, he would use every possible weapon to frustrate both the Act of 1902 and the present Bill, and the hon. Baronet had better not be too sure that he was not making matters
1246
worse. Upon that point they would probably have another talk about six months hence. The hon. Baronet was very likely doing a great disservice to the schools he wished to protect by insisting on these arbitrary powers being put into operation without even a preliminary inquiry. The Welsh county councils refused to be parties to oppressing their fellow religionists and forcing them by means of legal procedure to teach doctrines to which they conscientiously objected, or to allow the expenditure of public money on education without public control. If the Board of Education insisted on administering a part of the Act themselves the county councils would say, "You must also administer the rest of it." As to the question whether fuel was provided or not for the schools, that could easily be inquired into; and as to whether a school was under- staffed or not, the local education authorities might say it was as good as it was before the Act came into operation. When the burden was upon the parson, wonderful was the indulgence of the Board of Education; but the moment the burden was cast upon the ratepayers their zeal was marvellous to behold. The local education authorities might say, "Before we do anything, let us see what the other schools are doing, and therefore let us have an inquiry into the whole of the circumstances of the county;" but without any inquiry the Board of Education would proceed to act probably upon letters they had received, not altogether from parsons, but from Bishops. He was not saying that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education was doing anything that was deliberately unfair. No doubt he had a great sense of justice, but he was taking his case from the parsons instead of acting according to his own mind. This Act was, in fact, the result of Episcopal pressure.
Of course, the object of the Government was to get the Bill through without amendment in order to save a Report stage. It was not a question with them of the best methods of draftsmanship or of improving the Bill. They had always their eyes upon the political situation; they were always looking at the clock and at the thermometer. But all these things were irrelevant to an Act

1247
of Parliament. When once the Bill was passed, he was quite sure that the thermometer would be in a much worse condition. The method of the Government was arbitrary and unknown in English law. It was borrowed from Siam—it was Oriental and ought not to be introduce into a free community like this. He had brought forward cases which the Parliamentary Secretary had never heard of. Inquiry followed and was conducted in a very judicial manner. Then it was found that the facts were very much understated. Suppose there had been no inquiry the Parliamentary Secretary would have been guilty of a gross act of injustice quite unconsciously. The moment the Parliamentary Secretary went into the facts he would see there was an equity behind. Were the brewers to be the only people to have an equity in that Parliament? There was only equity for brewers but not for Nonconformists. The Government had got into all these troubles from lack of thought. They must not be led away by the parsons and certainly not by the Bishops. They had muddled everything they had taken up. All the prophecies uttered about what would happen when the Education Bill was passed had come true. The Government by the present Bill virtually admitted that, but what could they say of a Government that could neither rule nor resign? Welsh Members had done their best to keep pease in Wales. If they had not done so there would be worse trouble over the Education Act than there was now. If the present Bill passed the responsibility would be off the hands of the Welsh Members. The Government did not quite realise what they were doing and therefore he urged them to make inquiry.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the hon. Gentleman had stated that the difficulties which existed now were nothing to the difficulties which would arise when the present Bill came into operation. If the hon. Gentleman took that view of the effect of the Act, he would have expected him to help it to become law as speedily as possible.
MR. EMMOTT: Did you do that with Home Rule?
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that he thought the remark he had made was a fair comment to make upon the observations of the hon. Member for Carnarvon. He had found fault with the statement that some of the county councils had taken a course which had borne very hardly upon children and teachers. In Montgomeryshire there were fifteen schools in which the teachers had not received any salary since the beginning of April. The Parliamentary Secretary had stated that there were schools in which it had not been possible to provide fuel or books and apparatus. The prosecution of the war against the Act clearly compelled the county councils to be indifferent to the sufferings entailed on teachers and children. The Board of Education would take no step under this Act without the most careful inquiry. What the Opposition wanted was a public inquiry which would involve endless delays. Would any one tell him that one did not often get at the truth most thoroughly by sifting statements made and making inquiries in private?[An HON. MEMBER: A Star Chamber.] The hon. Member for King's Lynn had insisted that the second sub-section was a penal section. Surely it was not penal to ask that a man should pay the money was tine from him. The hon. Member for Carnarvon said this clause was unexampled and must have been borrowed from Siam. It was not, however, necessary to seek an example further away than the Education Act of 1870, under the 66th Section of which the Department had the power, if they were of opinion that there had been default on the part of a school board, to suspend all the members. There was no provision for inquiry. And yet the hon. Member for Carnarvon told the House that they had to go to Siam for a parallel case. As a matter of fact all they needed to do was to go to the Act of Parliament passed by a Liberal Government in 1870.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that was simply a provision for suspension. It was without precedent to find that a debt was due from an individual or local authority without first examining the evidence.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYcontended that if there was a difference it was that the procedure under Section 66 was much more penal than in the other case, because they could order that the members should vacate their seats.
MR. WILLIAM JONESasked if the Attorney-General could give them an instance where a board was suspended without an inquiry.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that what he was pointing out was that, in addition, Section 63 empowered the Education Department to supersede the school board and appoint another board, and these drastic powers were to be exercised after such inquiry as the Department thought sufficient. The whole thing was left to the discretion of the Education Department, and it was well known that they would not proceed to exercise these powers without adequate inquiry. He thought a considerable number of instances of this kind could be found. The question, however, before them was not in how many cases this power had been exercised, but whether it was necessary to go to Siam to find a precedent. The hon. Member for Carnarvon demanded a public inquiry, but no doubt he would recollect that the ultimate resort in case of a mandamus was that the members of the council who refused would have to go to prison.
MR. WHITLEY: Yes, after a trial.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that here there was no question of going to gaol at all. [An HON MEMBER: Nor of a trial.] The only proposal in the Bill was that these expenses which ought to have been borne by the county council should be defrayed, with power of recovery, and in case of default should be made good. Was it even tolerable to contemplate that they should have a separate public inquiry every time a teacher's salary got into arrears, or when coals or school books were required. He asked the Committee to look at this matter not so much in the interests of the teachers or education generally but in the interests of the children.
*MR. WILLIAM JONESsaid he wondered whether the Attorney-General
1250
would dare to make a speech like that in Scotland. Wales had done more for education comparatively than either Scotland or England. He could not understand the Attorney-General saying that this provision was necessary in the interests of the children, as if the Welsh nation could be charged with any disposition to neglect the education of its children. What they wanted was simply a moderate form of public inquiry. How could they expect cases to be fairly dealt with unless there had been a fair inquiry. He would mention one out of two or three that might be cited. Under Section II of the Education Act of 1902 the Board of Education in December last issued a series of Draft Final Orders providing for the appointment of four "foundation managers" for each non-provided school in Wales. The County Council of Carnarvonshire thereupon served formal notices of objection, and departmental inquiries were held by a most competent commissioner on behalf of the Board of Education. There were some astounding results. In one case the Board of Education had been informed that religious instruction distinctive of the Church of England had been given for thirty years past. It transpired that nothing but simple biblical teaching had been given. There was also an instance in which the functions of the Acting Managers had been usurped on the appointed day by the clergyman. This gentleman, in conjunction with other churchmen, had appointed interim foundation managers—a privilege belonging really to the Acting Managers, who, in this case happened to be, with one single exception, noncomformists. What happened? Why, the Board of Education cancelled the Draft Final Order in each of these instances. Surely what was wanted was a system of full and impartial investigation throughout Wales, otherwise how could the people be expected to have confidence in the action of the Department? The Welsh people who had sacrificed so much for their educational system were determined to direct and conduct that system in accordance with their national genius and conviction.
MR. WALLACEsaid this discussion seemed a most extraordinary one.

1251
The House could not find time to pass an Education Bill for Scotland which was approved by every Scotch Member on either side, but it was asked to pass a so-called Education Bill for Wales to which almost every Welsh Member was opposed. This proposal to override the judgment of the county councils without inquiry was one of the worst attacks on local government they had yet seen. How could the Board of Education be satisfied that a county council was in default unless there was a public inquiry? The Government admitted that there must be some inquiry, but the inquiry they favoured was a backstairs inquiry in which the Department was informed through gossip and letters from persons whose names were not disclosed. The Attorney-General in his calmer moments would be the last to suggest that that was a method by which the truth could really be arrived at. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that there was a precedent for what was now proposed in the action of the House in the past in connection with the Education Act of 1870, and he referred to two clauses of that Act. He did not think that bon. Members from Wales would much object to what these clauses laid down. What was prescribed was not that the Education Department should act on its own initiative after a school board had been dissolved, but that it should have the power in certain circumstances to declare that a school board was dissolved, and that in its stead a new school board should be elected. What was the true construction of that? The section went on to state that the position was to be the same as if a member had died. What was the position of a member of a school board who died. (Laughter). He had no desire in discussing this Education Bill to enter into the merits of theology at all. What became of the seat of a member of a school board when it was vacated by death? He ventured to say that the invariable practice was that where a school board was in default it was not by appointment from the Education Department that the vacancy was in fact filled up.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the 63rd section of the Act of 1870 prescribed the procedure in such cases,
MR. WALLACEdid not admit that the Attorney General's view was the right one; but assuming that it was, what was the action of the Education Department in dealing with them? It was dealing with school boards elected specifically to deal with the education question only. What was proposed by this Bill was not to deal with small obscure school boards in different parts of the country, but to deal with the regularly elected county councils in Wales, overriding their judgment and insisting on their carrying out whatever the Education Department prescribed. What they were asking for in this connection was that a complaint should be verified by a public inquiry and that an opportunity should be given for hearing evidence on the other side. They did not ask that in the event of default the penalties should not be imposed. He could not understand the position the Government had taken up. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that local inquiry would lead to great delay. Would the private inquiry take less time than a public one? Would it take less time to send an inspector down to hear evidence at one place than to have day by day letters dribbling into the Education Department from different persons in the county? If it was a question of delay the proposal of the Government was the worst that could possibly be made.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that what was, asked was not that the county councils should have an opportunity of putting their case before the Board of Education, but that the Board in every case should be under an obligation to send an official down to the spot to hold a local public inquiry. He could assure the Committee that in the past there never had been any idea on the part of the Education Department of avoiding the most careful inquiry into the facts and the most careful attempt to induce the local authority to perform their duty before any interference took place. He did not think a single school board had been declared in default until the whole circumstances were most accurately known at headquarters. In the present case there was no dispute about the facts; the local authorities simply declined to administer the law. There was, therefore, no need for a local public inquiry. He was not a defender of the arbitrary power of bureaux in

1253
London. But in a case of this kind he did not believe the House would incur the slightest danger in entrusting these powers to the Board of Education, who would certainly never use them in any case where there was the slightest doubt about the facts.
MR. PHILIPSstrongly supported the claim for a local inquiry. In such a question as education they got in the country districts strong sectarian prejudices, and excellent men with the best intentions thought they were absolutely right, while the other side thought they were absolutely wrong and it was impossible to get a reliable fact or figure, people took such opposite views. The point was vividly illustrated some time ago in a controversy on the disestablishment question, in which the hon. Member for Carnarvon Borourghs took one side and the Bishop of St. Asaph was on the other. Someone summed up the controversy by saying that the Bishop of St. Asaph was the biggest liar in Wales, but that the hon. Member for Carnarvon was more than his match. The hon. Member was wondering even yet whether it was intended as a compliment. Of all the questions which demanded a public inquiry, this question demanded it most. This Bill, after all, was a financial Bill. It was a Bill which was going to lead to the expenditure of
large sums of money. It was a commonplace that one of the great abuses of the day was the reckless expenditure of local authorities. What encouragement would this Bill give the local authorities con-concerned to be accurate in their accounts? They might make estimates, but if the grants were stopped how could they reckon what they would have to spend? If a county council had an inquiry and knew that they were going to have some of their money stopped, they would know what rate they had to levy. But if it was done in a hole-and-corner way by some person writing to London, then it was obvious that the county council finance was going to be upset. If their money was going to be taken away and they had to have heavier rates in consequence, they should have a chance of representing their point of view at a local inquiry.
Several Members rose to continue the discussion.
Mr. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 153; Noes, 89. (Division List No. 313.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner,James Tynte

Cecil, Evelyn(Aston Manor)

Flower, Sir Ernest

Anson,Sir William Reynell

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Forster, Henry William

Arkwright,John Stanhope

Chamberlain Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc,

Gardner, Ernest

Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. Hugh O.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Gordon, J.(Londonderry,S.)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Chapman, Edward

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

Charrington, Spencer

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Coates, Edward Feetham

Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

Bain. Colonel James Robert

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Greenc, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

Baird, John George Alexander

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Grenfell, William Hemy

Balcarres, Lord

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Gretton, John

Baldwin, Alfred

Colomb, Rt. Hon Sir John C. R.

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Balfour, Rt. Hon A. J. (Manch'r

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Balfour Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

HamiltonMarq. of(L'nd'nderry

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Davenport, William Bromley

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Davies, Sir HoratioD(Chatham

Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Dickson, Charles Scott

Helder, Augustus

Bill, Charles

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Bond, Edward

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Hoult, Joseph

Brassey, Albert

Dyke, Rt Hon. Sir William Hart

Howard John(Kent Faversham

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

Fetgusson Rt Hn. Sir J.(Manch'r

Hozier, Hon James Henry Cecil

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Hunt, Rowland.

Campbell Rt. Hn. J. A.(Glasgow

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatvne

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Flannery, Sir Forteseue

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

Nicholson, William Graham

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Kimber, Sir Henry

Nolan, Col. John P (Galway, N.)

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Knowles, Sir Lees

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Lee, Arthur H(Hants, Fareham

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Legge, Col. Hon. Hercage

Percy, Earl

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Leveson-Gower FrederickN S.

Pierpoint, Robert

Talbot, Rt. Hn J G (Oxf'd Univ.)

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Thornton, Percy M.

Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Long Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol,S)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Tufnell, Lieut-Col. Edward

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Pretyman, Ernest George

Valentia, Viscount

Lowe, Francis William

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Lowther, C. (Climb., Eskdale)

Pym, C. Guy

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Lucas Reginald J.(Portsmouth

Randles, John S.

Whiteley, H (Ashton und.Lyne

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Rankin, Sir James

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Maconochie, A. W.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Wills, Sir Frederick

Majendie, James A. H.

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks.

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Milvain, Thomas

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Morrell, George Herbert

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Mount, William Arthur

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

Scoett, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Harcourt, Lewis V (Rossendale)

Rickett, J. Compton

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Harwood, George

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Asher, Alexander

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Higham, John Sharpe

Runciman, Walter

Boland, John

Holland, Sir William Henry

Samuel, Herbert L(Cleveland)

Brigg, John

Horniman, Frederick John

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Bright, Allan Heywood

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Slack, John Bamford

Broadhurst, Henry

Hutton. Alfred E. (Morley)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Jacoby, James

Alfred Soares, Ernest J.

Burns, John

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Sullivan, Donal

Caldwell, James

Labouchere, Henry

Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

Cameron, Robert

Lambert, George

Tennant, Harold John

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Causton, Richard Knight

Leese, Sir Joseph F(Accrington)

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Channing, Francis Allston

Levy, Maurice

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Lewis, John Herbert

Wallace, Robert

Crooks, William

Lloyd-George, David

Wason, John C. (Orkney)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Weir, James Galloway

Davies, M. Vaughan(Cardigan)

M'Kenna, Reginald

White, George (Norfolk)

Devlinn, Charles R. (Galway)

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Edwards, Frank

Moss, Samuel

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Elibank, Master of

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Ellice, Capt E C (S.Andrw'sBghs

Norman, Henry

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

Emmott, Alfred

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary,Mid

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd.

Fuller, J. M. F.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Yoxall, James Henry

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Dowd, John

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Partington, Oswald

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Philipps, John Wynford

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 82, Noes, 166. (Division List No. 314.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Brigg, John

Burns, John

Asher, Alexander

Bright, Allan Heywood

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Broadhurst, Henry

Caldwell, James

Cameron, Robert

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Causton, Richard Knight

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Slack, John Bamford

Channing, Francis Allston

Jacoby, James Alfred

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Soares, Ernest J.

Cremer, William Randal

Labouchere, Henry

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Crooks, William

Lambert, George

Sullivan, Donal

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Tennant, Harold John

Edwards, Frank

Levy, Maurice

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorg,an, E.)

Elibank, Master of

Lewis, John Herbert

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Ellice, Capt E C(S.Andr'w's Bghs

Lloyd-George, David

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Emmott, Alfred

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Wason, John C. (Orkney)

Fuller, J. M. F.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Weir, James Galloway

Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

White, George(Norfolk)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Moss, Samuel

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Norman, Henry

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Gordon, Sir W. Brampton

Partington, Oswald

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Philipps, John Wynford

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Harecourt, Lewis V (Rossendale)

Rea, Russell

Woodhouse, Sir J T(Huddersf'd

Harwood, George

Rickell, J. Compton

Yoxall, James Henry

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whitley and Mr. Wallace.

Higham, John Sharpe

Roe, Sir Thomas

Holland, Sir William Henry

Runciman, Walter

Horniman, Frederiek John

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Davenport, William Bromley

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chathm)

Lee, Arthur H (Hants.,Fareham

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Devlin, Charles RamsayGalw'y

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Dickson, Charles Scott

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn Hugh O

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol,S.

Bagot, Capt. JoscelineFitzRoy

Darning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Lowe, Francis William

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Baird, John George Alexander

Fergusson, Rt. Rn. Sir J(Manc'r

Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

Balcarres, Lord

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Baldwin, Alfred

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Maconoehie, A. W.

Balfour, Ht. Hn. A J. (Manch'r)

FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W(Leeds

Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

Majendie, James A. H.

Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Flower, Sir Ernest

Milvain, Thomas

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Forster, Henry William

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Bill, Charles

Gardner, Ernest

Morrell, George Herbert

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Boland, John

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Mount, William Arthur

Bond, Edward

Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

Brassey, Albert

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Grenfell, William Henry

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

Gretton, John

Nicholson, William Graham

Bull, William James

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A(Glasgow)

Hamilton, Marq of(L'nd'nderry

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Hare, Thomas Leigh

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

O'Dowd, John

Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

Helder, Augustus

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hope, J. F(Sheffield, Brightside)

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J A (Worc.

Hoult, Joseph

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Howard. J. (Kent, Faversham)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Chapman, Edward

Howard, J. (Midd.,Tottenham)

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

Charrington, Spencer

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Percy, Earl

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Hunt, Rowland

Pierpoint, Robert

Coates, Edward Feetham

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Coghill, Douglas Hairy

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T (Denbigh)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R.

Kimber, Sir Henry

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Knowles, Sir Lees

Pym. C. Guy

Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile

Law, Andrew Bonar(Glasgow)

Randles, John S.

1258

1259

Rankin, Sir James

Smith, Hon. W. F.D. (Strand)

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Stanley,Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Wills, Sir Frederick

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H (Yorks.)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Stroyan, John

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'd Univ.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Thornton, Percy M.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland - Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Shaw-Stewart, Sir H(Renfrew)

Valentia, Viscount

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Question put, and agreed to.

Whereupon Mr. A. J. BALFOUR claimed to move, "That the Question 'That the words of the clause to the word "make," inclusive, in line 10, stand part of the clause' be now put.'"
Question put, "That the Question 'That the words of the clause to the word "make," inclusive, in line 10 stand part of the clause' be now put.'"
The CHAIRMANnamed the Tellers.
Tellers for the Ayes, Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Adwyn Fellowes. Tellers for the Noes, Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.
The Division bells were rung, and the Members sitting on the Ministerial Benches left their seats, entered the Division Lobby, ready to record their votes. A number of Members gathered behind the Bar and at the doors leading into the Division Lobbies, evidently in anticipation of a demonstration by the fifty or sixty hon. Members on the Opposition Benches above and below the Gangway, who persistently kept their seats. There was an almost dead silence for some minutes, when,
THE CHAIRMANinvited hon. Members to leave the House and enter the Division Lobbies.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEseated, and with his hat on, said: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I ask you whether under the Standing Orders a wholesale closure of this character can be applied as long as there is a substantial Amendment on the Paper to be discussed. I call your attention to one Amendment amongst others. This
1260
is the Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dewsbury—
"To insert after 'satisfied' in line 6 of page 1,'that all the requirements of the local authority in regard to ventilation, lighting, sanitary arrangements and cubical space have been complied with, and.'"
I ask if that is not a substantial Amendment which ought to be discussed in the interests of the children about whose care we have heard so much? Are we only to be allowed to discuss questions connected with catechisms, and not points as to the provision of decent air for the children? I say that under the Standing Order the closure ought not to be applied when an Amendment of that character is on the Paper. It is a disgraceful thing that the closure should be applied in this way. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Order," and OPPOSITION cheers.]
*THE CHAIRMAN: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that the Standing Order does not say anything with regard to that. But it says—
"When a clause is under consideration, Motion may be made (the assent of the Chair as aforesaid not having being withheld) that the Question that certain words of the clause defined in the Motion stand part of the clause, or that the clause stand part of, or be added to, the Bill, be now put."
With regard to the substance of the Amendment to which the hon. Member has called my attention. I am not now in a position to say whether it is a substantial Amendment or not; but it seems to me that the matters referred to are governed by the general law.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: On that point it is a question whether the law has been carried out. I submit that if the law be enforced against the country councils to compel them to pay rates, why should not

1261
the law be enforced against persons in order to secure pure air for the children?
*THE CHAIRMAN: I should say most certainly.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Then why should one side be discussed, and not the other?
*THE CHAIRMAN: It is for the Board of Education to see that the law is being properly carried out. [OPPOSITION cries of "They do not."]
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: But they do not.
*THE CHAIRMAN: You must not blame me for it.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am blaming you for not giving us an opportunity of discussing a question of this sort.
*THE CHAIRMAN: It is a question of general law.
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: May I ask whether we are to understand from your ruling that the substantiality of the Amendments did not affect your judgment in accepting the closure, and whether it is not the case that you are aware that your ruling accepting the closure rules out four-fifths of the Amendments on the Order Paper?
*THE CHAIRMAN: I have to regard the substantiality of the Amendments in deciding whether I would accept the closure or not, and also other circumstances.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: What circumstances? The exigencies of the Government ! [MINISTERIAL cries "Obstruction."] The exigencies of Cecil family ! [MINISTERIAL cries of "Order, order !"]
MR. WHITLEY: Are you aware, Mr. Chairman, that we have only discussed one
1262
Amendment out of four pages on the Paper? [MINISTERIAL, cries of "Too much."]
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not quite correct. We have only discussed two Amendments in four hours. The Question is "That the Question that the words of Clause 1 after 'Board of Education' down to 'make' stand part of the clause, be now put."
HON. MEMBERS on the MINISTERIALBenches proceeded to the division lobby. The Welsh Members and other Members on the Opposition Benches above and below the Gangway, however, retained their seats. After an interval.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I must ask hon. Members to be good enough to proceed to the division lobbies.
MR. WHITLEY: What ! After this !
MR. LLOYD - GEORGE: I do not see any object in taking part in a farce of this kind—absolutely none. It is a perfect farce that we should not be allowed to discuss a question of light and air for the children. I think it is monstrous.
MR. WHITLEY: These are the local authorities who are to be entrusted with the education of the children !
MR. GUEST: What are the general principles, you, Mr. Chairman, have given for the application of the closure in this case?
*THE CHAIRMAN: I will not enter into any argument with the hon. Member. I ask hon. Members to be kind enough to follow the usual course, and to proceed to the division lobbies. If they decline to do that, I must take other steps. Hon. Members have made their protest.
MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: You have shut out the most important Amendments on

1263
the Paper, Mr. Chairman, why not put the whole Bill?
MR. EMMOTT: I consider it grossly unfair that we are not allowed to discuss these questions.
MR. BRYNMOR JONES: You have, I think, shut out the, most important Amendment on the Paper, which stands in my name, by your ruling.
MR. McKENNA: If you accept the closure on the Motion of t he Prime Minister there is nothing more to be said; but if you tell us that you have exercised an independent discretion, that you have decided in going through the Amendments, not to exclude the Amendments, which ought to he discussed, by accepting this closure Motion—if you tell us that on your authority, it will be a different matter.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I have exercised the best discretion I possess. It is extremely difficult, as the hon. Member will see, to make up one's mind with regard to every Amendment which appears on the Paper as to the different degrees of substantiality. I can assure hon. Members that I have exercised the best of my discretion in accepting the Motion, and I consider that in accepting that Motion I have not excluded any Amendments which were really of a substantial character. I would ask hon. Members who have now made their protest, and made it, if I may say so, in a dignified way, whether they will not allow the usual course to be followed and take a division in the ordinary way.
AN HON. MEMBER: I am not going to divide. I ant bound to make a protest.
*MR. WILLIAM JONES: We are most unwilling to disobey your ruling, Mr. Chairman, hut in the interests of education in Wales we think these Amendments ought to be discussed, and not be sacrificed in the interests of a week-end holiday.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I can assure hon. Members that I quite recognise the feelings which actuate them. I can assure them of that; but I am placed in a very difficult situation. It is my duty, as far as possible, to safeguard the rights of the minority.
MR. EMMOTT: May I respectfully ask you, Mr. Chairman if you think it is a proper and reasonable thing that a Bill like this should be rushed through at a Friday sitting?
MR. WHITLEY: May I ask whether that would have been done if it had not been at the end of the session?
MR. HARWOOD: Why should not the same course of procedure be taken with the remaining stages of any English Bill?
MR. GUEST: Why should we have any discussion at all?
*THE CHAIRMAN: The rules of the House are well known to hon. Members, and I am afraid that this is not the first occasion on which a Bill has been dealt with in this way. I can only hope that, under the circumstances, those hon. Members who protest will follow the usual course.
MR. MOSS: Do you think it fair, Mr. Chairman, to block out 50 per cent. of the Amendments at this time of the afternoon?
MR. BRIGHT: This is in the interest of liberty, and a protest should be made. I beg of you, Mr. Chairman, to re-consider your decision.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I repeat my request to hon. Members that they now consent to go into the lobby. Otherwise I shall have to take such steps as are provided. for under the Standing Orders.
MR. GUEST: Will you give us any undertaking that we shall be allowed

1265
to discuss the further stages of the Bill at reasonable length?
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must see that it is impossible for me to enter into bargains of that kind. I have said that I will do my best to secure such discussion as is reasonable.
MR. GUEST: We have discussed only two Amendments out of four pages.
*THE CHAIRMAN: Do I understand that hon. Members decline to proceed to the division lobbies?
MR. GEORGE WHITE: I refuse distinctly; I have had no opportunity of discussing the Bill.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I direct your attention to Standing Order 162a, which provides that in case of grave disorder arising in the House the Speaker may adjourn the House without Question put. I submit that a deadlock has arisen leading to the possibility of grave disorder, and that the power under the Standing Order should be put into operation.
*THE CHAIRMAN: That rests with the discretion of the Chairman entirely. I am compelled to name certain hon. Members for disregarding the authority of the Chair. I name Mr. Guest, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Harwood, Mr. Alfred Davies, and Mr. Lloyd-George. I shall have to report these hon. Members and others to the House for having disregarded the authority of the Chair.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Why pick and choose? You did that once before.
MR. ALFRED DAVIES: Will you tell the reason why we refused to obey your order?
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Are you going to ask the House to suspend from the service of the House all the
1266
Members who are taking part in the discussion of this Bill, and so practically disfranchise Wales?
*THE CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members, must conform to the rules of the House.
The House resumed.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: In the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, through illness, I have to take the Chair as Deputy-Speaker. I have to report to the House that during the division that was recently called in Committee a number of hon. Members refused to leave the House when called upon by me, as Chairman of Committees, to do so. The names of the hon. Members who refused to leave when I called upon them to do so are as follows:—Mr. Guest, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Harwood, Mr. Alfred Davies, Mr. Lloyd-George, Sir Alfred Thomas, Mr. Moss, Mr, Herbert Lewis, Dr. Shipman, Mr. Levy, Mr. H. J. Wilson, Mr. Whitley, Mr. Ellis Griffith, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Abraham (Rhondda), Mr. George White, Mr. Philips, Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Brynmor Jones, Mr. William Jones, and Mr. Herbert Roberts. As regards those Members whom I have just mentioned I have now again to ask them to leave the House.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: We are exceedingly sorry to disobey the rulings of the Chair. But we are doing it from a keen sense of public obligation. Does any hon. Member really suppose that we would do this unless we were compelled? I am sure there is not a single man who does not do this with deep regret. But this has gone too far. We must make a most emphatic protest against the action which you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have taken at the instigation of the Prime Minister. We consider that you ruled out questions of vital importance to our constituents, and we cannot, consistently with our sense of duty, take any further part in this farce of a Parliamentary session.
*MR. WILLIAM JONES: There is not a man in this House who would less wish to show any discourtesy to the

1267
Chair or to the House than I would. But I am interested in the education of my country. I have consistently supported the main lines of the policy of the Education Act; and it is only because this Bill is directed to coercing Wales and because it will practically paralyse education and cause a deadlock in our great work that I am taking this course.
MR WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I have been in this House nearly twenty years, and this is the first time in my history as a Member of Parliament that I have felt compelled by the exigencies of the case to defy the Chair in the interests of education. Sorry as I am, in the interests of education—[HON. MEMBERS laughed]—if hon. Members had come here without having been educated they would not laugh. If they had known what it was to start work in a colliery at ten years of age without education they would not laugh. I am now becoming one of the oldest Members of the House, but I will protest even though I have to be carried out.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Hon. Members have always treated me with the greatest courtesy, and I feel that they are deeply moved in the action which they are taking. They have made a protest, and I have said that it is a dignified protest and worthy of them in the difficult circumstances in which they are placed. But I appeal to them not to compel me to have recourse to the enforcement of the rule. I therefore submit to hon. Members that I should resume my place at the Table as Chairman of Committees; that the Question should be again put; and that a division should take place in the ordinary way. I only wish to make a suggestion. If hon members will not, take that course then I shall be compelled to ask them to leave the House for disregarding the authority of the Chair.
MR. GUEST: Do I understand that we are to leave the House for a division or as being suspended from the service of the House, because I may say that I desire to make this protest against your decision in the interests of Parliamentary discussion. I do not desire to offer any
1268
personal violence, but I wish to make my protest against the decision you have given as Chairman of Committees, for in my view that decision was entirely subversive of Parliamentary discussion. But, having made that protest, if you suspend me I am prepared to leave the House at your bidding.
MR. EMMOTT: The situation may be relieved if the Prime Minister will give an undertaking that he is not going to push this Bill through the House to-day. Personally I have not felt, able to go as far as my hon. friends and to refuse to leave the House; but we do think that this thing ought not to have been done.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I feel that we cannot take any further part in a discussion of this character. I and my hon. friends do not want to appear to defy the rulings of the Chair; but we shall absolutely refuse to take any further part in the proceedings. We shall walk out and wash our hands of the whole business.
*MR. ASQUITH: I do not know that we are strictly in order; but I am quite certain that, we all feel that it would be desirable to avoid any of the unseemly scenes which we have witnessed in the past. Therefore. I am glad to hear what my hon. friend said. I entirely sympathise with him and those who are associated with him in the protest he has made, and if my hon. friend takes the course he has suggested, we on these Benches shall leave the House also and take no further part in the discussion.
And then the House again resolved itself into the Committee.
(In the Committe.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

SHOP HOURS BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee) considered.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I wish to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House. I venture to think that after what has taken place it would be quite impossible to go on taking other business this afternoon. It is true that the measure now called on is one over which no very controversial feelings are entertained, but the scene we have just witnessed is one which renders it quite impossible for the House of Commons to proceed with the discussion. I would ask the Prime Minister whether he himself really desires that we should go on. Surely after a scene like this the right hon. Gentleman does not want to snatch the paltry advantage of getting a few Bills smuggled through. I am sure that it would not be a dignified thing for the right hon. Gentleman to do, and therefore I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid the Motion of the hon. Member is not in order, because it is not according to the Standing Order as there is no Motion now before the House. If the hon. Member will allow an Amendment to be moved, it will then be open to move the adjournment of the debate.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: I move the new clause standing in my name.
A clause (Exemption of Shopkeeper.)—(Sir Frederick. Banbury.) Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made. and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I will not repeat my arguments; but will simply move that the debate be now adjourned.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Winston Churchill.)
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Ma. A. J. BALFOUR,): I do not quite follow the reasoning of the hon. Gentleman. The Shop Hours Bill is one which, I think, is generally desired by the House, and if it has critics at all those are to be found on this side of the House rather than on the other. In these circumstances I should have said that this occasion, however unfortunate in its inception—everyone knows what my views on that will naturally be—is an occasion or proceeding with the Bill.
MR. ASQUITH: I should be very sorry myself if the Shop Hours Bill did not pass into law, and, although it does not go so far as some of us wish, it is no doubt a valuable measure. But of course we are placed in very unusual and unexpected circumstances, and I think, if the right hon. Gentleman assures us that when this Bill has been disposed of no other business. will be taken, we might come to a conclusion.
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: An undertaking was given that this Bill should not be taken to-day. I am very anxious that the Bill should pass, but a relative of mine, a member of the House, as representing the Jewish community, had an Amendment which he was very anxious to move, and which he would be prevented from moving if the Bill were taken now. He understood from the Patronage Secretary that the Bill would not in any circumstances be taken to-day.
MR. LOUGH: I think we may be able to secure our object

1271
by giving the Government an effective promise, so far as the Opposition is concerned, that when the Bill is taken again we will facilitate its
passage into law. But, as far as the present situation is concerned, it would be utterly beyond all precedent to ask the House to proceed with any business, however important. The House is not in any condition to do so now. If hon. Members opposite would try to put themselves into the position of the Opposition they would find that the most reasonable thing was to accept the Motion.
MR. J. H. LEWIS: I hope that the Government will accede to this Motion. We on this side have received repeated appeals from the Chair to take a certain course, and we have done our best, at any rate, to maintain the traditions of the House. I think that some hon. Gentlemen opposite, at all events, will accept my view in that respect. In the circumstances I would appeal to the Prime Minister to treat us in a manner more befitting the office he holds in the exceptional position which we occupy this afternoon. The debate on the Bill which we have just been discussing would in ordinary circumstances have undoubtedly lasted for the whole of the rest of the evening, and in these circumstances the Prime Minister might, I think, meet us by adjourning now.
MR. CHAPLIN: How has the position in which we are placed arisen? It has arisen solely and entirely because a certain number of Members, after full warning, chose deliberately to set at defiance the ruling of the Chair. If they are placed in a position of difficulty in consequence, they have no one but themselves to blame.
MR. CALDWELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman in order in referring to a debate which has been closed?
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is out of order for doing so, for the reason that the adjournment has been moved by reason
1272
of those circumstances. At the same time I am sure he will exercise great discretion in the way he treats the matter.
MR. CHAPLIN: I hope that I have not in any way exceeded expressions which are courteous. If I have exceeded the limits of discretion I am quite willing to withdraw; but as an old Member of the House it is my opinion that to accede to a request of this kind would be to offer nothing but a premium on disorder.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD,): I saw late last night a prominent Member of the Opposition, who asked me not to take this Bill to-day. I promised him that the Bill should not be taken. I think that the debate might now be adjourned, and that the House might go on with the next business.
MR. McKENNAsaid he agreed with a great deal of what the right hon. Gentleman opposite had said, and if the right hon. Gentleman wished to discuss this Bill he was quite willing to stay as long as the right hon. Gentleman pleased. The only thing he would say with regard to the right hon. Gentlemen himself was that he was not at all sure that he had not procured an early pair, and that when he had made his protest he would not go off comfortably to his dinner and leave the House to discuss the measure without him. It was easy under those circumstances to come down and deliver Phillippics against the debate being adjourned. He did not think the suggestion made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury ought to be accepted. If this Bill were put down first on the Paper it ought to be taken first. If they were going to take this Bill, and the discussion upon it was to be adjourned then he thought they should take no other business. They came down to the House prepared to discuss certain questions. They went through the Paper, and the Bills that stood first on the Paper were the Bills the House was ready to discuss. It was not for the Government to press the House for this and the other Bills, and offer to the House for discussion a

1273
measure which in ordinary course would not be taken. He, for one, was quite ready to discuss any measure, but he did not think it was right to ask the House to pass to this other business. If the Government insisted upon going on with the business, they ought to go on with this Bill, but having regard to what had taken place, and the feeling of irritation roused by the Prime Minister, he did not think it was desirable for the House to continue sitting.
MR. GUESTasked whether, in the event of this debate being adjourned, it was possible to go on with other business. They were now discussing the adjournment of the debate on the Shop Hours Bill, and in the event of the debate being adjourned he submitted other business could not be proceeded with.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that the only possible course, if the House adjourned this debate, would be to proceed with the other orders.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that, as one to whom the rights of the House were very dear and to whom the rights of every Member were equally dear, he might perhaps be allowed to say a few words. In the first place he regretted to see that a large number of Members of the House had left. They had taken the weakest course. When one had one horse killed under him he should at once get another and continue the fight.
AN HON. MEMBER: We did not ask your opinion.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Possibly not, but I venture to give it. The hon. Member, continuing, said: The question before the House was the adjournment of the debate, and the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury had admitted that what had been alleged on the opposite side of the House was well founded and he stated that he had agreed not to take this particular Bill on this particular occasion. He had agreed with the other side to adjourn
1274
this debate. As the Chairman had ruled, that would not preclude the continuance of the debate on all other Government business until it was concluded. After this Question had been disposed of, and the debate adjourned on this particular Bill, all the rest of the Government business had to be taken, and when that was concluded Mr. Speaker would leave the Chair. But under the circumstances he would suggest to his right hon. friend the Prime Minister that, inasmuch as it was clearly only intended to deal with the Education Bill, and inasmuch as it had been completely and amply proved by the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury that he did not intend to take this Bill, the purpose of the Government had been fulfilled. They had got their first Bill, and inasmuch as they had not seriously intended to take the second, he suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that he might now agree to the adjournment of the House.
MR. BROADHURSTsaid that if the Shop Hours Bill were finally withdrawn for that day he was very sorry, because it would have gone through with very little debate. But if it was really withdrawn he appealed to the Prime Minister to adjourn the sitting. A feeling of a very undesirable nature had been roused in the House, and in the interest of Parliamentary proceedings it would be wise of the Prime Minister to allow the House now to adjourn.
Debate to be resumed on Monday next.

POST OFFICE SITES (EXPENSES).
Order for Commiteee thereupon read. and discharged.

POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
MR. TREVELYANsaid he thought it was very unfortunate that the Government should

1275
treat the House in this manner. It was thought that after dropping the Shop Hours Bill the Government would not have attempted to do any more business. A good many Members who had occasioned the trouble just now had not been in the Chamber since that unfortunate occurence took place, and he thought if this debate were to continue now and those Gentlemen were to return, and a little more excitement such as was shown by hen. Members opposite during that debate took place, the right hon. Gentleman would see what an unfortunate step he was taking in continuing the sitting. He trusted that in the interests of the peace and dignity of the House the Government would be content with the business already done, and would accept the Motion which he now moved, to report Progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Trevelryan.)
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,)hoped he might make an appeal for this Bill.
MR. J. H. LEWIS: Why should we grant the appeal? We made an appeal, and it was not listened to.
LORD STANLEY: As soon as the Prime Minister returns we can discuss it.
MR.J. H. LEWIS: Why is he not in his place?
LORD STANLEYsaid the Bill was purely uncontroversial, and it was necessary that it should go up to the other place as soon as possible.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OR THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)said he had not been able to speak twice on the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate. He had not the least desire to press upon the
1276
House in the somewhat exceptional circumstances in which they found themselves anything in the nature of a controversial measure. Hon. Members would observe that he had mentioned a future day for the discussion of those Bills which he thought would rouse any feeling. These were interests which all had in common, which really raised no question at all, and he thought perhaps the House would allow this Bill to be considered [OPPOSITION cries of "No"] for which there was a peculiar public reason. If they would consent to that he would immediately move the adjournment of the House.
MR. SOARES: Surely the Prime Minister understands, that every Bill is controversial after what has taken place.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid the Government had made it totally impossible for a large section of the House to assent to any further business being transacted during the present sitting. He suggested that if this Bill had to go to another place, the other place as well as they would have to sit a little longer. Under the circumstances the Government would be well advised to withdraw this Bill like the others.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he would not press this Bill.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for the Second Reading read.
  MR. McKENNAexpressed the hope that the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to press on this Bill. It was a Bill that raised most controversial questions. It was a curious

  1277
  fact that for years and years the Isle of Man Customs had been almost identical, but this year they varied. This Bill raised a most important question in connection with the tobacco duties. He moved the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. McKenna.)
  MR. BRYCEhoped that in the interests of peace the Motion would be accepted.
  MR. TREVELYANpointed out that the hon. Member for North-West Lanark had a Motion down on the Paper that this Bill should be read a second time this day three months. Under these circumstances, as it raised most controversial matters, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press the Bill.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid that if these Bills were not controversial they could slip through at any time. It was not the question of imperilling the fortunes of any particular Bill. The question was whether they ought to proceed further that day after the feelings of the House had been so stirred, and he warned the Prime Minister that after the way in which the feelings of the House had been outraged no Bill would be regarded as non-controversial. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman not to take advantage of the feelings of the House after what had been so deeply felt and so deeply resented.
  MR. J. H. LEWISsaid this Bill was as controversial a Bill as any that could be put before the House. The tobacco duties had been debated at considerable length in this House, and surely in the application of these duties to the Isle of Man this Muse had a right to express it views. However that might be, it was impossible, after what had occurred that afternoon, to go on with any legis-
  1278
  lation. The right hon. Gentleman had forced the Welsh Bill through in a very cowardly way and he should be content with that.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid this Bill raised matters of great controversy, re-opening, as it did, the whole of the discussion on the question of stripped and unstripped tobacco.
  *MR. H. J. WILSONsaid he had been in the House for twenty years and had witnessed many of these scenes, and everybody who had any experience in these matters knew that no good ever came of any business that was attempted after such a scene. After the way in which the House had been treated by the Prime Minister during the last few weeks, culminating in the scandalous scene that day, it was ridiculous for the Prime Minister to adopt his dulcet tone and ask them to go on as if nothing had happened. To-day nothing could be regarded as uncontroversial. No prowess whatever would be made, as the right hon. Gentleman must know.
  MR. WALLACEsaid he desired to join in the appeal that had been made to the Prime Minister. He was not naturally obstructive but he could not help feeling that after what had taken place no further business should be done that day. If the right hon. Gentleman realised the strength of feeling shown by those who had been always regarded as moderate men he would not proceed further. They had been treated in a manner in which they did not think they ought to the treated in the House of Commons, and feeling as they din they could give no facilities. It was with the bitterest pain and grief that they refused to the Postmaster-General the facilities which he desired, but they did so because they felt it was necessary to make the protest they now made.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)said he did not

  1279
  think hon. Gentlemen were treating him in a very reasonable spirit. He did not desire to ask the House to proceed with controversial measures. [An HON. MEMBER: This is a controversial Bill.] Now it was alleged that the scene they had just passed through was of so irritating a description that it was impossible for the House to treat even the most uncontroversial Bill in an uncontroversial spirit. There was a certain amount of business to be got through before the end of the session. If these measures were to be treated as controversial, not only now but on every day, then they had better go on with them in daylight. But if it was understood that these formal Bills were to be treated as such on future occasions, he would be quite ready to come to an arrangement not to take them that afternoon. If, however, it was to be a fight always, then let them fight now. He could assure the House that such scenes as they had had were probably quite as painful to him as to hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  MR. BLAKEpointed out that the Prime Minister wanted something more to be done as if no scene had occurred. All that had been said by the Opposition was that the state of feeling was such that no further business could be taken that day.
  MR. CROOKSasked the Prime Minister for one moment to consider the position. He had secured his Bill, although had it been discussed in the ordinary way he would not have got it until three or four o'clock the next morning. Then even his own supporters would have refused to do any more business. Surely the right hon. Gentleman ought to be satisfied with the victory he had gained in obtaining his Bill, though it was gained at the expense of an injury to a highly-strung nation. If the right hon. Gentleman went on with business they would oppose everything through pure cussedness. He admitted his vocabulary was limited, but he did not know any better word. Let the Prime Minister be content with what he had already secured.
  MR. CALDWELpointed out as an additional reason for not taking this particular Bill that it embodied a proposal with regard to the tobacco duty which differentiated it from the rest of the United Kingdom.
  MR. EMMOTTsaid it was clear from what had fallen from the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark that this could not be treated as an entirely uncontroversial measure. It was not the intention of the Opposition to obstruct night and day in order to prevent anything getting through. All they said was that their nerves and tempers were not in a state to transact business that evening and the Prime Minister must have sufficient knowledge of human nature to realise that that was the case.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURadmitted there was something in the contention of hon. Gentlemen opposite that the action of the Government looked like taking advantage of an accident which the Government regretted deeply, though it had had the corollary advantage of allowing the House to rise earlier than it could otherwise do. His object in pressing that business should go on was that he supposed the Opposition for the remainder of the session intended to regard every Bill in its most controversial form. But he understood from the remarks of hon. Gentlemen who had last spoken that he had been mistaken in his general diagnosis. If he might refer to the English of the hon. Member for Woolwich, he would say that his word was very appropriate. "Cussedness" exactly described the situation. He did not wish to press the matter further and in the circumstances he would agree to the adjournment of the debate.
  Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 2nd day of August, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock till Monday next.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiner that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 5). The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Loch Leven Water Power Bill; Leyton Urban District Council Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [H.L.]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill [H.L.]; Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill. Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill. Amendments reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with an Amendment. The said Amendment to be considered on Monday next.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]; Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments to be considered on Monday next.
Ilford Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Saddleworth and Springhead Tramways Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Glasgow and South-Western Railway (Darvel and Lanarkshire Railway Transfer) Order Confirmation Bill (No. 181); Perth Corporation Order Confirmation Bill (No. 182); Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act,1899), deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Kintore
(E. Kintore), and reported from the Committee.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Glasgow Corporation (Tramways, etc.)Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Commons Amendment to each Bill considered (according to order), and agreed to.
Ayr Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Glasgow Corporation (Sewage) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to order), and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been reported from the Committee. Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order).
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2.
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3.
*THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I rise to move that Sub-section 1 of Clause 3 be omitted. I am very well aware of the extreme inconvenience, on an evening like this, of introducing any matters of contention on a private Bill; but my apology for doing so is that it is quite unavoidable. The whole story which I wish to lay before your Lordships is this. The city of Newcastle brought in a Bill to extend its boundaries into the county of Northumberland. The County Council of Northumberland has not opposed that extension, but it thought that in consideration of the extension it ought to get some benefit, and one of the benefits which it asked Parliament to confer upon it was the abolition of a certain

1087
toll of a very curious and exceptional character, which has been enjoyed by the city of Newcastle from, I believe, time immemorial. I am not going to trouble your Lord ships with the pros and cons of this toll and the reasonableness of the county council's contention that it should be abolished. That, of course, is a matter which it is impossible for your Lordships to go into.
But I may tell you that in another place the abolition of the toll was given in a clause so framed, and clogged with such conditions, that the county council felt that it was far more disastrous to accept it than to allow the toll to remain as it is. However, after protesting in the strongest way against the clause, it reserved itself for this House. The question was brought before a Committee of your Lordships' House, and that Committee was informed by counsel for the county council that we, the opponents of the Bill, would much rather not have the toll abolished than have the clause in the form in which it stood. The Committee considered the whole question, and came to the conclusion that the clause which had been framed in the Lower House was a proper clause, and that if we wished for the abolition of the toll were to take it with those conditions attached. So far the Committee was entirely within its rights. I am not asking your Lordships to review that decision—that would not be right—but when this decision of the Committee was announced the County Council of Northumberland asked to withdraw the clause. The Committee, however, refused to allow them to withdraw it, insisting that the clause should remain in the Bill with conditions a tached which the party who had asked for the clause said were more disastrous than not having the clause at all.
That is a position which, as far as I can ascertain, has never been before assumed by any Committee of your Lordships' House. I do not ask your Lordships to take that on my ipse dictum, because, although I have served on a good many Private Bill Committees in this and the other House, my experience cannot possibly justify such a statement. I have made inquiries of those whose business takes them constantly into the Committee Rooms of both Houses of Parliament, and they say there has never been an instance
1088
in which the opponents of a Bill asking for certain concessios, and having those concessions forced upon them clogged with conditions which make them no concessions, have been refused the right of saying they would rather not have the clause at all. If that is the case, I say this is against Parliamentary practice. I go further than that, and say it is against public policy, because it is evident that if opponents when asking for some modification of the provisions of a Bill, some concession which may make the Bill more palatable, are liable to be saddled, against their will, with conditions which are very onerous, which never would have been forced upon them if they had never asked for these concessions—it is evident that if this is done parties will be very careful in coming to Parliament for a remedy of those grievances for which, I submit, they have a right to ask in such circumstances as these. I am not for one moment asking your Lordships to reconsider the decision of the Committee that this clause, if given at all, should be given subject to these conditions. What I do ask your Lordships to say is that the liberty which has always been given to opponents to a Bill to withdraw a clause if it does not suit them should be extended to us in the present instance. I beg to move that Sub-section 1 be omitted from the Bill.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, to leave out Sub-section 1."—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
THE EARL OF KINTORE: My Lords, as I was Chairman of the Private Bill Committee to which the noble Duke refers, perhaps I may be allowed to reply to him. Let me at once say that any criticism falling from the noble Duke on the decision of any Private Bills Committee of this House must properly command the deepest respect alike from that Committee as from the House at large, coming as it does from one of its most experienced chairmen. On a question of public policy I imagine we are all in general agreement with the noble Duke. Certainly my Committee was so, and I can assure the House that, were the history of this case what the noble Duke believes it to be, we should no doubt have done that which he asks your Lordships to do now. But I cannot admit that it is so.

1089
The case, shortly stated, was this. Since so long back as the reign of Edward III. the city of Newcastle has enjoyed the right of levying what is called a through toll on various articles coming in there from, or going thence into, the county of Northumberland. When the Provisional Order came before Parliament for confirmation the opportunity was taken by the County Council of Northumberland to press forthe abolition of that toll without any compensation to Newcastle. The Bill was under the consideration of the Commons Committee for, I think, over eight days, and their decision was that the toll should be abolished in two years, or at the most in four, but that on the question of compensation, which was not free from difficulty, it should be left to the Local Government Board to say, after proper inquiry on the spot, whether compensation should be payable at all, and, if so, to what amount; and the Committee proceeded themselves to frame a clause to give effect to this decision.
When the Bill came up this clause was embodied in it. The noble Duke's county council opposed it, seeking to have the last four lines struck out, the effect of which would have been, by undoing the Commons' decision, to free the county from toll without any liability to pay compensation. Their counsel and witnesses were fully and attentively heard, and my Committee had the advantage of hearing the noble Duke's own evidence and that of his vice-chairman; and in the end it came to this, that Newcastle would only accept the clause if it remained as printed, and Northumberland only if the question of compensation was decided in their favour. My Committee, in the end, arrived at the unanimous opinion that the decision of the Commons Committee was a reasonably fair and proper decision, and we determined to maintain it. It sçemed to us that the effort of Northumberland to free themselves by a Provisional Order Confirmation Bill from the possibility of being found liable to make Newcastle reasonable compensation for the loss of this toll, was in effect an effort, by a side wind, to get behind the general law as enacted in the Local Government Act of 1888. To that proceeding we would be no party. We con-
1090
sidered that in all the circumstances the proper course was to free the county from toll, and leave the question of possible compensation to be settled under the provisions of the general Act. I venture to think that our decision was a right one, and I hope your Lordships will not disturb it.
*THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: What the noble Earl has argued is whether the Committee was, or was not, right in saying we should not get this clause unless we paid the corporation compensation. That is not the question which I am asking your Lordships to consider. I am quite willing to admit, for the sake of argument, that we were wrong, and, that the Committee was right in placing us in that position if this toll is to be abolished. But I say he Committee had no right to deprive us of the liberty, if we were not prepared to accept that, of withdrawing the clause altogether and leaving the whole matter in status quo.
LORD GLENESK: My Lords, I rise, as a member of the Committee, to say only one word. As the noble Earl, the chairman of the Committee, has already informed your Lordships, we were absolutely unanimous in the decision at which we arrived. We considered the matter most carefully, and were surprised, after our decision, that the learned counsel representing the Northumberland County Council should have made this extraordinary demand, for which we could not see the slightest justification.
*THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH)My Lords, I think that probably the House will expect me to say a few words on this matter. This, of course, is not an ordinary private Bill in which there are promoters and opponents. This is a Bill to confirm a number of Provisional Orders affecting certain large towns and cities in the North of England. Therefore, technically, the Local Government Board are the promoters of the Bill. In the other House the Northumberland County Council opposed the Order and made certain requests. The Committee of that House proposed to put in a clause which they thought was for the protection

1091
of the County Council of Northumberland. The latter council, however, did not like the clause, and they therefore exercised their right, and withdrew from the discussion on the clause, so that they might not be precluded from raising any matter of principle in the second House. When the Order came up to this House the county council opposed the clause. They were heard by a Committee of this House and the Committee confirmed the decision of the House of Commons.
The peculiarity of the matter is this, and to this extent it is, so far as I can find out, without precedent. The noble Duke lays stress on the point that it is very hard to force a body to take a clause which is supposed to be for their protection, but which they do not like, and I think he is right in saying that there has been no case—at least I have been unable to trace a case—in which such a clause has been forced upon those for whose protection it is ostensibly put in. But in this case, as I have said, the Local Government Board are the real controllers of the Order in the shape of being promoters. They think, as I understand it, that the clause is a good clause This matter was brought before me as Chairman of Committees, but I said I was not a tribunal of appeal over and above a Committee of this House, and that it was perfectly obvious that this was a Committee point, and not a point of Parliamentary practice which should be decided by me in virtue of any instructions of the House. Therefore I told the County Council of Northumberland that if they wished to move the omission of the clause they must do it at some stage in the House.
The point in dispute is this. This through toll is a very ancient toll levied by the Corporation of Newcastle upon all goods, wares, merchandise, articles and things passing in and out of the city of Newcastle, and therefore it is a tax upon food and affects all the districts surrounding Newcastle. The Corporation of Newcastle raise about £8,000 a year in this way. There will be only one opinion in your Lordships' House as of this tax. It is a tax which ought to be abolished, and, of course, apart from the particular points which the
1092
County Council of Northumberland raise' I am sure the House would be very sorry to continue a thoroughly bad tax as a matter of policy. All that is imposed on the County Council of Northumberland is this. It is distinctly stated in the clause that they shall not have to pay compensation to the Corporation of Newcastle. But there are these words—
"But in the adjustment between the County of Northumberland and the city regard shall be had to the exemption therein provided."
Your Lordships know that when a great city extends its boundaries, there are questions of rating and adjustment of expenses which have to be considered, and under the Act of 1888 the Local Government Board appoints an arbiter to take these matters into consideration. The proposal in the clause is to leave this matter as one to which regard is to be had by the arbiter. I confess that if I was arbiter I should pay very little regard to it. It seems to me an extraordinary thing that the county council should not want to get rid of this toll, and I hope, even at this late hour, the noble Duke will not persist in his objection. If, however, he does, it is one which is perfectly fair for the House to decide, having heard the statement of the noble Duke and of the noble Earl who presided over the Committee.
*THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I am sorry to again trespass on your Lordships' time, but, with all due respect to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, I submit that he has raised an entirely different question, viz., the merit of the clause itself and the demerits or otherwise of the toll. If we are to go into that I must give him an answer. This is a toll which is paid by those who bring goods into Newcastle from a very small district around the city; it is an onerous tax on that small district of which the county council think it ought to be relieved. Whatever words you use, the payment for the removal of this toll is to fall on the rates. The rates of Northumberland are paid over a district sixty miles long and forty miles broad, and nine-tenths of the people who would have to pay for the abolition of the toll have no more interest in it than your Lordships. That was one of the reasons why we thought that to put upon

1093
the rates the compensation for the abolition of a local toll was unjust, and we resisted it. I did not raise that point before. To come back to my original proposition, I say, with all due respect to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, that it does not seem to me to make one bit of difference who are the promoters. Petitioners who ask for a favour have a right to withdraw a clause if it can only give them that favour acompanied by conditions which they think disastrous.
LORD KENYON: My Lords, I am instructed by the Local Government Board to say that, in their opinion, when a decision has been come to by Committees of both Houses, it should be upheld in this House. They therefore instruct me to resist the Amendment of the noble Duke.
EARL CAWDOR: My Lords, this is a very important question. It affects the right of opponents putting forward
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to; Standing
a clause for their protection to withdraw that clause when such obligations are imposed by it which make it inadvisable to accept it. I understand that on all sides it is admitted that there is no precedent for such a course. If so, I think we ought not to establish that precedent to-day. The noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has given reasons why he thinks the County of Northumberland should accept this clause. That is a matter for the county council. In this case they have a clause put upon them, as opponents, with obligations so onerous that they think they cannot accept it, and all persons in that position up to now have had an opportunity of withdrawing the clause. I hope the noble Duke will take the sense of the House on his Amendment.
On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," their Lordships divided—Contents, 38; Not-Contents, 46.

CONTENTS.

Marlborough, D.

Drogheda, E.

Davey, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Farrer, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Onslow, E.

Glenesk, L.

Camden, M.

Selborne, E.

Kenyon, L. [Teller.]

Hertford, M.

Spencer, E.

killanin, L.

Ripon, M.

Waldegrave, E.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Errol.)

Colville of Culross, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.) [Teller.]

Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.)

Hrtchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Monkswell, L.

Clarendon, E. (L.Chamberlain.)

Rathmore, L.

Bathurst, E.

Balfour, L.

Redesdale, L.

Carrington, E.

Brassey, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Crewe, E.

Burghclere, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Denbigh, E.

Coleridge, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Saint Germans, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Stanhope, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Argyll, D.

Tankerville, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Northumberland, D. [Teller.]

Churchill, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Wellington, D.

Cross, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Knutsford, V.

Glanusk, L.

Bristol, M.

Sidmouth, V.

Hampton, L.

Winchester, M.

Hylton, L.

Zetland, M.

Lichfield, L. Bp.

Kinnaird, L.

Camperdown, E.

Peterborough, L. Bp.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Cawdor, E. [Teller]

Newton, L.

Chichester, E.

Addington, L.

Ravensworth, L.

Derby, E.

Allerton, L.

Robertson, L.

Grey, E.

Armstrong, L.

Sinclair, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Barnard, L.

Wolverton, L.

Lathom, E.

Belper, L.

Wynford, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Burnham, L.

Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next:

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BRAZIL, No. 1 (1904).
  Award of His Majesty the King of Italy with regard to the boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Brazil.

  TRADE REPORTS(ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3246. France (Bastia);
  No. 3247. Spain (Galicia, Asturias, and Leon).

  SEA FISHERIES.
  Report of proceedings at the fourteenth annual meeting of representatives of authorities under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888, Thursday, 16th June, 1904.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  RE-VACCINATION BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to order); Amendments (Privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING (LONDON) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
  UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  LEEDS UNIVERSITY BILL. WHALE FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order). Bills reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived and Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.

  THE BREAKWATER AT MALTA.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: My Lords, I rise to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Papers can be laid on the Table showing the progress made in the construction of the breakwater at the entrance to Malta harbour. As your Lordships must be aware, this is a most important
  1096
  work, and it is recognised as such by all those who have any cognisance of naval matters or the harbour at Malta. Owing to the increased size of vessels of modern construction, the harbour, which has never been sufficiently large, is now contracted in its dimensions, and I should like to know how soon we may hope that the breakwater will be sufficiently constructed to allow of a larger portion of the harbour being used. I wish to ask the noble Earl also whether it is anticipated that after the completion of the breakwater, Bighi Bay will afford safe anchorage for His Majesty's ships of war. This portion of the harbour is now practically useless, but it might be made available for ships of the largest size. I speak with some experience, having passed six years in service in the Mediterranean. Finally, I wish to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any measures are being taken, or are in contemplation, for deepening and improving the anchorage in Quarantine or Marsamaseet harbour. This harbour is so shallow at present that it is only available for ships of light draught, but if thoroughly dredged it would be useful for vessels which cannot be accommodated in the harbour. There is another harbour lying higher up which, if properly dredged, would be available for merchant vessels.
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The Earl of SELBORNE): My Lords, I can answer my noble friend briefly. There are no Papers which can be conveniently laid on this subject. Good progress is being made with the breakwater, but I cannot name a date when it will be completed. It is hoped after completion that Bighi Bay will afford safe anchorage for His Majesty's ships. A considerable amount of dredging has already been done in Quarantine Harbour, and further work is in progress.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the Question standing in my name—namely, whether they will communicate to the House the uses to which the deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank have been put.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of SALISBURY): The deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank are invested by the National Debt Commissioners, and a Return of the securities held by them on account of the Post Office Savings Bank on 31st December is printed annually in the Postmaster - General's Report—a Parliamentary Paper. The Report for this year will be issued in a few days, and I shall be glad to send the noble Earl an advance proof if he wishes to see it. The securities must be Government stock or securities guaranteed by Government. The policy of extending the area of investment is considered and condemned in Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Report of the Select Committee on Savings Banks Funds, presided over by Sir Michael Hicks Beach in 1902.

  MACEDONIA.
  LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I rise to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the case that the Russian and Austrian Governments have intimated to the Porte that they intend to increase the number of their officers in the Macedonian International Gendarmerie; whether this step has been taken without consultation with the other Powers; and whether it has been assented to by the Turkish Government. Since this Question appeared on the Paper an Answer has been given in another place, from which I infer that the reply is in the affirmative. Reading between the lines of this Answer I am disposed to think my inference is correct, namely, that the Austrian and Russian Governments have made this application behind the backs of the other Governments interested. If this is the case, it is only one more proof of the correctness of the view which is entertained throughout the Balkan Peninsular, that Austria and Russia have been, and are, working for their own ends, with the ultimate and eventual object of dividing up that country between themselves when the proper moment arrives.
  It is hardly necessary for me to point out, because we know that His Majesty's Government are well alive to the fact, that we possess quite as much right as Austria or Russia in that part of the world, and i they
  should take upon themselves to insist upon an increase in the number
  1098
  of their officers, it is perfectly plain that we have the right to do the same should we desire to do it. I understand, however, that the officer who is responsible for the British section does not require any additional assistance at present. But should it be necessary to imitate the example of Austria and Russia and send additional officers out, I suggest they might be profitably employed in the Adrianople vilayet. Additional officers do not mean additional expense so far as this country is concerned, because the Turkish Government is made to pay for them.
  I should like to utter one word of warning before I sit down against the view that, because everything at this moment appears to be calm, therefore there is no danger to be apprehended in the future. If the noble Marquess asserts that everything is going on all right, and if I, on my part, assert that everything is going on all wrong, I am afraid the noble Marquess is more likely to be believed than I am. His source of information ought a events, to be more correct than my own; but I must confess that from my own experience and from information which I constantly receive, I do not myself in the least believe that a satisfactory settle-men is assured. I admit the success of the international gendarmerie scheme, and it is especially satisfactory that the work of the British officers has been conspicuously successful. But what I desire to point out is this, that if that country is quiet, it is not quiet solely on account of the presence of a few foreign offices. It is quiet, first of all, in consequence of the exhaustion from which the people are suffering after the proceedings last year, and, in the second place, in consequence of the presence of a large number of Asiatic soldiers, who live under conditions which long ago would have promoted mutiny among the forces of any other nation. When I hear of the departure of the vast numbers of Asiatic soldiers who are now in Macedonia, I shall believe that a satisfactory settlement is in sight; but under present conditions, I still hold the view that a general outbreak, followed by war, in that part of the world is merely a question of time, and that unless very close attention is paid to the movements of the Austrian

  1099
  and Russian Governments, we may find some day that this outbreak which I foretell may have been anticipated by some arrangement between these two Powers under which they will appropriate and divide the country.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, before the noble Marquess rises to answer the Question which has just been put to him by the noble Lord opposite, I should like to supplement it to some extent, as this is probably the last occasion on which we shall have an opportunity this session of referring to this important subject. The Question of the noble Lord merely refers to the Austrian and Russian demand for increasing the number of their officers in the Macedonian International Gendarmerie; but the matter is so important, and has excited so much feeling in the country, that I would ask the noble Marquess to state to the House the present position in Macedonia. We would like to know whether the convention between Bulgaria and Turkey has had any effect, and whether the general condition of the country is such that we may hope that peace may reign there for some time.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, the noble Earl has very considerably extended the scope of the Question put to me by the noble Lord behind me. I dwell upon that point because it may explain the comparative meagreness of the Answer which, on the spur of the moment, I am able to give to the noble Earl. It is true that within the last few days the Austro-Hungarian and Russian Ambassadors have applied to the Porte for permission to appoint more officers, six in the one case and five in the other, and I believe the Porte has raised objections to the proposal. The noble Lord suggested that this step has been taken behind the backs of the Powers and with some sinister object which he indicated plainly. There is nothing in the information before us to show that the step taken by the two Ambassadors was taken in such a manner. The question has been discussed by them with their colleagues at Constantinople, and I may take it upon myself to say that it is admitted by all concerned that this question of appointing officers is one which
  1100
  from the first has concerned not only Austro-Hungary and Russia, but the whole of the Powers who were signatories to the treaty of Berlin. We hold strongly to that position, and claim for ourselves the right to increase the number of our officers in proportion as an increase is made by other Powers. Originally there were to be sixty of these officers appointed by the Powers, and that number for a time was reduced to twenty-five.
  Of course the question of the number of officers must in common fairness have sonic reference to the requirements of the different districts to which they are appointed, and when my noble friend suggests that we need not greatly exercise our minds over the question of expense because it was Turkey that pays the bill, I feel bound to reply to him that we must have some regard for the financial position of Turkey, and that it would be grossly unfair to impose upon her officers who were clearly superfluous. But there is ample room in Macedonia for officers who might be considered superfluous so far as the particular districts allotted to the different Powers are concerned. Such officers might be well employed outside these districts; possibly in extending similar measures to the vilayet of Adrianople, as my noble friend suggested, or in other ways assisting the Turkish authorities in the work of administration.
  The noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition invited a statement on the position of the whole Macedonian question. That is a very large order. The noble Lord behind me begged me not to imagine for a moment that no danger lay below the surface of the present calm, and I am well aware of the truth of that proposition. It would be an exaggeration to say, using my noble friend's words, either that things were "all right" or "all wrong." My own impression is that there has been considerable amelioration in the position of affairs in Macedonia; it has been slow and gradual as might have been expected, but I believe it has nevertheless been substantial. The gendarmerie officers have undoubtedly done excellent work, and their presence has been most useful, not only because they have been able to make some progress in the duty of reorganising the gendarmerie, but also because their presence has inspired a

  1101
  feeling of confidence which was lacking before. I have heard nothing but praise of the manner in which General De Giorgis Pasha has performed his duties and conducted his relations with the gendarmerie officers, including those sent from this country. I have also within the last few hours received information through the Austro-Hungarian Embassy of the progress made by the civil agents; I have scarcely had time to examine the documents, but I gather from them that the civil agents have been able to make tours of the country, a point about which my noble friend remembers there was at one moment a doubt, and that the effect of these tours has been to put a better face on the situation of affairs. I do not know that it is in my power to make any further statement, for I had no idea that the larger question would be raised; but I can assure the noble Earl that His Majesty's Government are anxiously watching the Macedonian problem, and that if we regard it more hopefully at the moment than my noble friend (Lord Newton) does it is not because we ignore the very serious dangers that always underlie the surface of affairs in that country.

  TRANSVAAL AND ORANGE RIVER COLONIES.
  LORD COLERIDGE: My Lords, I rise to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government contemplate making any and what, changes in the Constitutional Government of either the Transvaal or the Orange River Colony; and, if so, whether Parliament will be consulted before such changes are made. My Question arises out of a statement made in another place a short time ago by the Colonial Secretary, from which it would appear that His Majesty's Government contemplate making some changes in the Constitutional Government of the Transvaal, and possibly of the Orange River Colony. I cannot help coupling that statement in my mind with the reflection that the Government have hither-to continually asserted that the opinion of the Transvaal is in favour of their policy with regard to the Chinese.
  I do not think I should be prophesying in hazardous manner if I ventured to
  1102
  prophesy that the first question that will arise before the new constitutional authority, whatever it may be, in the Transvaal will be this question of imported Chinese labour. There are only two ways of getting a genuine opinion from the colony. You may either grant to it complete self-government, or you may refer any particular question, such as the Chinese labour question, to a referendum. Those are the only two ways in which you can genuinely test the feeling of the country. I am not stating that I advocate the immediate grant of self-government. That is another question altogether, and I quite understand that the Government are not prepared to take that step. But is there any reason why they should not adopt the principle of the referendum? It was suggested some time ago by the Colonial Secretary, and it was refused by Lord Milner, not on any ground of principle, but on the ground of time. Time pressed; the Chinese must come, and there was not time to take the opinion of the country by that method. But there is no such pressure with regard to time now. It was said that a referendum would take six months. Well, six months may easily elapse without any harm arising to any policy of Hi Majesty's Government.
  Is it to be said that the referendum is a modern or unconstitutional manner of obtaining the views of a colony? In 1896 the Colony of New South Wales decided by referendum a whole group of educational questions. In 1899 the same colony decided a franchise question by referendum. In New Zealand—and this, I think, ought to attract your Lordships' attention, having regard to the nature of the debate that is to follow tonight—there is every three years a referendum on licensing; and in New South Wales lately there has been a referendum to decide on the number of the members of the legislative body. Last of all, the important question of the Australian Commonwealth was decided by referendum. Therefore, it cannot be said that there are not precedents for recourse having been had to it. But if His Majesty's Government, without consulting Parliament, are going to give the Transvaal a representative Government which does not represent the majority of the white people in that country, and if that

  1103
  Government so far approves of Chinese labour, and His Majesty's Government then claim that in view of that approval the Transvaal has given its consent to that policy, then I say I do not think they will be believed in this country, and the charge will be brought against them that they are trying to believe what they know, or at any rate suspect, to be untrue.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Duke of MARLBOROUGH): My Lords, I am sure the noble and learned Lord will not wish me to enter again into a discussion on the merits or demerits of Chinese labour, or whether His Majesty's Government were wise or unwise in not calling upon the population of the Transvaal to record in the form of a referendum whether they were in favour of the importation of Asiatics or not. The noble and learned Lord is anxious to know what the changes in the Constitution are which are contemplated by His Majesty's Government with regard to the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony. Let me deal first of all with the Transvaal. I do not think I can convey the information which the noble and learned Lord requires better than in the words of the Secretary of State himself. The Secretary of State, on the occasion of the Colonial Office Vote in another place, said, in connection with this matter, that—
  "The decision of His Majesty's Government is to substitute for the present nominated element in the Transvaal Legislative Council an elective element."
  We believe that when they are elected the representatives will be able to express adequately their views as regards the action of the Transvaal Legislature in the importation of Chinese labour, and it is our belief that they will endorse and support the action of Lord Milner and the Executive in this matter. The noble and learned Lord will understand that the statement of the Secretary of State is simply a general statement. A general principle is laid down of an elective element, and the details will, of course, be the subject of full consideration between the Secretary of State, Lord Milner and the local authorities. The noble and learned Lord will see that it is impossible for us to give him any information upon what the decision as to
  1104
  those details will be until full consideration of them has taken place between the Secretary of State and the authorities in the Transvaal.
  Now, with regard to the Orange River Colony, I have nothing further to add to what was stated by the Colonial Secretary in another place. The right hon. Gentleman said, speaking of the Orange River Colony, that no final conclusions had yet been arrived at by His Majesty's Government. The noble and learned Lord next asked whether Parliament will be consulted before any changes are made. If full responsible Government were going to be granted to any colony, in all probability that would be a subject for discussion in Parliament; but the noble and learned Lord knows perfectly well that that is not the intention of the Secretary of State. All he has said is that he proposes to substitute for the nominated element an elective element, and this change can be effected and carried out, according to the precedents of Mauritius and Cyprus, by a simple Order in Council. The details in connection with this change of Constitution have not yet been decided upon, and I hope the noble and learned Lord will see that it is impossible for His Majesty's Government to lay Papers dealing with the details of the scheme until they have been adequately discussed with Lord Milner and until a decision has been arrived at. I do not think I need I say anything further, beyond telling the noble and learned Lord that it would be impossible for His Majesty's Government to delay action in arriving at a decision on the details of this scheme in order to give Parliament an adequate opportunity of discussing them.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I would press upon the noble Duke and His Majesty's Government the very great importance in this matter of letting Parliament know what they do mean. I do not ask them to tell us now what they are going to do, but I do ask them and press earnestly upon them that they should let Parliament know before the matter is finally settled; that is to say, before the Order in Council has been finally passed they should let Parliament know what they intend to do, and give us an opportunity of discussing the question. There is no more difficult

  1105
  task than to frame a sort of half-and-half Government, which I understand to be contemplated. It is a system in which, from some experience, I am bound to say I have no confidence. But, be that as it may, it is a question of such importance that it ought not to be finally settled, so far as it can be finally settled by an Order in Council, without Parliament when it meets again having had an opportunity of discussing and considering the question.

POST OFFICE BILL

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY): My Lords, the Bill that my noble friend the Postmaster-General has asked me to submit to Your Lordships is of a simple character. It is to remove a grievance which has long existed, and which has been frequently complained of by the public, with regard to charges that have been made on postal orders. When I had the honour of occupying the position of Postmaster-General this grievance was frequently brought before me, and I understand it also came before my successor, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. We could not at the time, owing to certain difficulties, remove the grievance; but my noble friend the present Postmaster-General has succeeded in doing so, and I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2."—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

LICENSENG BILL.
House again in Committee (according to order).
Clause 2.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he wished to ask a Question with regard to
1106
the words which the noble Earl beside him had proposed to leave out the previous night. He wished to know how the words found their way into the Bill. They were not discussed, and owing to the application of the closure were inserted in the Bill without any information being given to the other House upon them. As the Bill was introduced the words were—
"Calculated as if this Act had not passed."
The Bill in that form passed the Second Reading and through Committee, and a member of the Government stated in the House of Commons that the difficulty which the noble Lord had alluded to the previous night could not arise. But on Report Stage the words—
"Calculated as if the licence were subject to the same conditions of renewal as were applicable immediately before the passing of this Act".
were introduced. Sub-section 1 now read as follows—
"Where quarter sessions refuse the renewal of a licence under this Act, a sum equal to the difference between the value of the licensed premises, calculated as if the licence were subject to the same conditions of renewal as were applicable immediately before the passing of this Act, and the value which those premises would bear if they were not licensed premises. shall be paid as compensation to the persons interested in the licensed premises."
He contended that the words which the Government had substituted in that sub-section completely revolutionised that particular proposal. No information had been given as to the reason for these words being adopted, and he ventured to ask the Government to explain why this fundamental change was made.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marguess OF SALISBURY): I feel that I am placed in a position of some difficulty, because I am not sure that it is quite regular for me to dilate upon what happened in another place. But with the leave of the House I might perhaps go so far as to say that the reason the change was made was that the late. Attorney - General, Sir Robert Reid, thought the words as they stand in the Bill now were clearer than he words in the Bill as introduced. So far as I know, there is no difference in the meaning of the words, which the Government inserted out of deference to the wish of Sir Robert Reid.
EARL GREYmoved an Amendment with the object of providing that in any case where the value of the licensed premises had been enhanced by the refusal to renew any other licences the compensation should be assessed as if the value had not been so enhanced; in other words, he proposed that where the renewal of a licence was refused a sum equal to the difference between the value of the premises licensed and unlicensed should be given, subject to a deduction of the amount by which the value had been enhanced owing to the refusal to renew any other licences in the neighbourhood. The noble Earl said his object was to give the noble Marquess opposite another opportunity of repeating the offer he made the previous night, that His Majesty's Government would be prepared to consider on the Report Stage an Amendment to the same effect as that he had moved late the previous night. The noble Marquess's offer apparently did not reach the ears of the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues, but it was of such importance that he desired, as no report of it appeared in the newspapers, that the noble Marquess should make another statement to the same effect. He did not propose to repeat the arguments he used the previous night, but he believed the clause as drafted was quite out of harmony with the spirit of the Bill, inasmuch as it gave to existing licence holders that monopoly value which arose from the suppression of competing houses. He could not help hoping that the Government would be able between now and the Report stage to consider favourably an Amendment which would prevent that monopoly value which resulted to existing houses from the suppression of other houses being given to private individuals.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 8, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'and, in any case where the value of the licensed premises has been enhanced by the refusal to renew any other licence under this Act, as if the licence had not been so enhanced.'"—(Earl Grey:)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Amendment which the noble Earl has just moved is not on the Paper, and there is a manifest inconvenience in discussing
1108
an Amendment of this character, the terms of which are not in print before us. I am quite willing to repeat what I said last night, though not at such length. The Government feel that this provision deals with the most intricate part of the machinery of the Bill, the basis of compensation, and I endeavoured to the best of my ability to explain to the House how I thought the matter stood, and I stated that, as at present advised, the Government could not accept the Amendment the noble Earl moved. But I did suggest to the noble Earl, and I repeat the suggestion, that his opportunities are not exhausted on this stage, and that if he will bring the matter up again on Report the Government will carefully consider it.
*THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid the extreme modesty of the noble Marquess the Lord Privy Seal had landed the House in considerable difficulty. The noble Marquess was so afraid to allude to anything that had passed in the House of Commons that he absolutely refused to give a clear and distinct explanation upon many points. He ventured to say, having had longer experience of their Lordships' House than the noble Marquess, that the noble Marquess was quite wrong. Any changes made in a Bill after it had been introduced into the House of Commons might be alluded to in their Lordships' House for the reason that a copy of the Bill was in the Library of the House. Therefore, there was no need for the great reticence displayed by the noble Marquess. But what was more important than that was, What was the real meaning of this clause? He understood the noble Marquess to say the previous night that the clause as it originally stood in the Bill laid down that the valuation was to be taken as from the date when the Bill became law. The amended words which had been inserted were, he understood, for the purpose of indicating that the valuation should be taken as at the time when the licence was refused, but upon the basis of what would have been the value of the licence under the system which it was now proposed to alter. The two things were totally different. One could easily be done, and, as his noble and learned friend Lord Coleridge stated the other

1109
night, had been done, though the noble Lord opposite thought it could not be done. There was a Return in existence, and the value was there; but, if they were going to take the valuation upon the supposition that the existing Act was in force, but upon a state of things existing six or seven years hence, there was no telling how much that valuation might have increased, and, therefore, to what extent the compensation money would be augmented. He believed the original intention of the Government was as stated by Mr. Lyttelton, and they had not been told why the original intention was abandoned and a new system set up.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Though the noble Marquess has very properly told your Lordship that Bills as introduced in the House of Commons are to be found in the Library yet he has not given himself the trouble to go into the Library and read this Bill as it was introduced. If he had aken that elementary step he would have found that the meaning of the Bill as originally introduced was the same on this point as now, though it was not so well expressed. A considerable change in the drafting has no doubt taken place, but if he noble Marquess will look at the Bill as introduced he will find that the words were then, that the valuation was, to be a sum equal to the difference between the value of the licensed premises, calculated as if this Act had not passed, and the value which those premises would bear if they were not licensed premises. And the intention of the Government when the Bill was drafted was precisely what it is to-day. The noble Marquess also aid that it was proved that the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord yesterday was a perfectly possible and reasonable suggestion, because your Lordships hold in your hands a Return which gives the value of licensed premises. I am not quite sure how far it is right for me to discuss the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, seeing that it has been considered and rejected; but I feel that if I follow the example of the noble Marquess, who is so experienced a Member of your Lord ships' House, I cannot go wrong. Therefore, may I be allowed to say
this: that the Return which
1110
has been presented to your Lordships deals with the value of the premises as they are licensed now, but not as they would be without licences, which is a very different thing. To obtain the value of them as they would be without licences would be a most elaborate and almost portentous project. It can be done in regard to individual houses coming up for consideration under he operation of this Act where brewster sessions recommend that the licence be suppressed, and quarter sessions agree to that course; but to go into all the licensed house now and calculate what their value would be unlicensed would necessitate a general valuation of licensed premises throughout he country. There are 100,000 licensed houses, roughly speaking, in the country. It would, I suggest, cost £5 to value each house, and that would bring the total cost up to £500,000. Where is that £500,000 to come from? Is it, to come out of the Exchequer or out of the compensation fund? I mention these figures to show that the suggestion which has been made is a most unreasonable one.
LORD COLERIDGEthought the difficulty arose through persons believing that the original words in the Bill were—
"Calculated as if the Act had not passed."
That was very different from taking a valuation as it stood at the time of the passing of the Act. That was never contemplated, he quite agreed. The words that had since been introduced did not seem to him to do more than to make that clear.
Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
LORD COLERIDGEmoved the addition of a proviso at the end of the first subsection which, he said, involved the same principle as the Amendment moved by Earl Grey. In a case where the withdrawal of one licence would increase the value of another licence belonging to the same man it was surely unfair that compensation should be paid for such increased value. If the noble Marquess in considering his matter felt any difficulty about the principle and how to assess it and would look at the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, Section 38.

1111
Sub-section 8,he would see that, in the case of obstructive buildings, where a building was pulled down and compensated for, and where the pulling down of that building increased the rateable value of other buildings, there were provisions for the assessing of those other buildings at an improved rate. Therefore, there was a precedent for this, and he hoped the noble Marquess would give the point his attention.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 10, after the word 'premises' to insert the words 'deducting from the sum payable by way of compensation to each person or persons so interested as aforesaid respectively, any increased value attaching to any other licensed premises in which such person or persons are interested respectively, and accruing to such person or persons respectively in consequence of the refusal to renew the licence.'"—(Lord Coleridge.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will consider it; but I would point out that in the case which the noble and learned Lord has put the other houses do not pay any contribution.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYreminded the noble Marquess of another illustration in which a set-off was allowed. In connection with the great Shaftesbury Avenue and other mprovements there was important property in St. Martin's Lane where the frontage was taken and where the background of the same owner became frontage. It was held that the owner was not entitled to get compensation on the land as if it was totally taken, but was to be debited with he increased value of the land which was back land and which became frontage.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANSsaid that licensed premises were, as a rule, in few hands, and there were many cases in which the same brewery company owned public-houses close to each other. It was absolutely certain that when one house was suppressed the other houses in the neighbourhood would have a considerable proportion of that trade. He did not Lay the whole of it, because he believed here would be some reduction in the amount of alcoholic liquor consumed; but a considerable portion of the trade would go to the other houses; and more than that, it would go to the other houses
1112
with a very slight additional expense of management. The magistrates hereafter would be able to ascertain precisely what was a fair basis of compensation, and the result of the Amendment would be that the magistrates would be able to reduce a considerably larger number of houses.
THE EARL OF CREWEpressed upon His Majesty's Government the consideration of this Amendment. His contention and that of other noble Lords on the Opposition side of the House that compensation was not legally due but only morally due, was admitted by the noble Marquess. If it were a question of a legal debt it clearly ought to be paid in due proportion to everybody who claimed, but if it were merely a moral debt to the owners of licences it surely was reasonable that it should be allotted on the merits of the case and not according to strict rule.
LORD DAVEYagreed that the object of the Government in altering the drafting of the clause had been to make clear the meaning which it had when it was originally introduced, but he did not think they had succeeded. In valuing the licensed premises at the time when the compensation had to be paid, they would value them as they were at that date with this exception—and how any valuer was going to do it he did not know, but that was another thing—that they must suppose that the conditions of renewal as regarded that licence were the same a those which now applied. But in the meantime, as the right rev. Prelate had pointed out, other licences in the same town or in the same district would have been extinguished, the consequence of which would be that the value of the licensed premises would be enhanced to a considerable extent. He understood, when he originally read the Bill, that they were to have regard to what the licensed premises would have been worth in 1904. In that case the licensed houses the extinction of which would have enhanced the value of the remaining houses would not have been extinguished, and therefore, the value of the premises would not have been so enhanced. He agreed that it was very difficult to hit upon any form of words which would carry out what he thought was the intention of the Bill and would, at the same time, be easy to work.

1113
As the provision at present stood a valuer, it might be twenty years hence, would have to enter into an historical inquiry as to what the value of the premises was on the conditions of renewal at the date of the passing of this Act. It seemed to him that that was a difficult task to impose on a valuer, and one of a rather speculative character, and he would not be surprised if it led to a certain amount of litigation.
THE EARL OF LYTTONasked for an answer to this Question—If an increased value attached to a house by reason of the suppression of another house, would the contribution to the compensation fund be larger because of that increased value? and, if so, would that be taken into consideration when the compensation was paid?
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYasked what steps it was proposed to take if the owner or other person interested in the licence was to have the full benefit of any increased value, year by year, to get an increased contribution year by year.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is perfectly correct that, if there is an increased value of any considerable amount to the remaining houses, it will affect the charges in the schedule to the Bill. The valuation of the house will rise as it gets more valuable, and it will be liable to pay increased charges, or vice versa. I am not sorry that the noble Lord has called attention to this, because it does illustrate one of the immense perplexities of the problem with which we are dealing. If there is an increment of value by the suppression of one house, then there will also he an increment of the annual charge within certain limits.
LORD COLERIDGEwished to point out how that would work. Let them take, say, four houses rated at £100 each. They would contribute each £20. One of those houses, or, say, two, were abolished, and the rateable value of the two remaining was increased 50 per cent. The two remaining houses would then be assessed at £150 each instead of £100, but neither of them would pay a penny more in compensation.
EARL SPENCER: I would suggest that the discussion on this Amendment should be postponed until the Report stage.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: May I offer one practical suggestion to His Majesty's Government? The noble Marguess has said that he is deterred by the vast cost from making a valuation of licensed premises. To many of us that seems a very grave statement, because, of course, the value of these houses will go on increasing until compensation will almost become prohibitive in scale. A sum of £500,000 is a large one, but I am not sure that it would not be well spent in the way the noble Lord suggests. Will the Government consider the propriety of giving an option to any local authority within a certain number of years, say two or three, to have a valuation of the licensed premises within their jurisdiction made at their own expense? There may be many local authorities which would wish to have that done, and which would feel seriously aggrieved by the refusal of the Government to consider it. I do not ask for an immediate answer, but that the noble Marquess will consider it.
Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ARRANmoved to add, at the end of the first sub-section, a proviso to the effect that in estimating the value of the licensed premises there should not be included as an element of value the value of the exclusive right of supplying intoxicating liquors for sale on the licensed premises. The object of the Amendment, he said, was to secure that when a tied house was refused the renewal of its licence under the provisions of the Bill, in assessing the value for compensation no addition should be allowed for the fact that its value might be greater because it was a tied house. There could be no doubt that when such a case occurred, and when claims were made for compensation, it would be contended that a tied house was of more value to the owners and the persons interested, because it was an exclusive channel for the sale of the liquor of that particular firm of brewers, and also

1115
because of the double profit that accrued from the sale, first of all, of the beer to the public-house, and, secondly, from the sale to the consumer. There was nothing in the Bill as it at present stood to show that there was any intention that on estimating the value of the licensed premises, the value of a house as a tied house should be included, but, on the other hand, there was nothing in the Bill which said that this valuation should not be allowed. He ventured to suggest to His Majesty's Government that this should be definitely settled one way or the other, and he hoped the Government would settled it in the way proposed in his Amendment. He did not propose to enter into the difficult subject of tied houses, which had been dealt with the previous day, but he ventured to say that the question as to whether the tied-house system was for the advantage of the country or not was an open one, and up to now the members of the trade under the tied-house system had not shown that they were entitled to receive more favourable conditions of compensation than the more humble members of the trade who owned their own houses.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 10, after the word premises, to insert the words 'Provided always, that in estimating the value of the licensed premises, there shall not be included as an element of value the value of the exclusive right of supplying intoxicating liquors for sale on the licensed premises.'"—(The Earl of Arran.)
EARL BEAUCHAMPsupported the Amendment on the ground that it would place public trusts and private individuals on an equal footing with brewery companies when they purchased public-houses.
LORD BELPER: I understand that the Amendment is intended to exclude from the assessment for compensation any value which attaches to the house as an outlet for trade. Under the Bill a brewery company owning a house would not get compensation for the loss of a house as an outlet for trade. But the fact that a house may be of more value or a particular reason to a particular person must and will be considered in he valuation. It would be difficult to eliminate any value of that sort. The
1116
value of a house goes up because there are different reasons why different people want to buy it, and that fixes more or less the value of the house. Therefore, you cannot entirely eliminate the element that a brewer buys the house for the purpose of getting an outlet for his trade. It is perfectly evident that if you are to fix the value in the way proposed, consideration must be given to all the elements which would induce different buyers to, purchase. With regard to the valuation which is made, I think the House may trust the Inland Revenue authorities to put the proper value on a house, and not to place upon it an inflated value. I know that many of these houses have reached, under competition, a value far above what they can possibly bear at a proper valuation, and that this is the case is patent from the fact hat even in the last few year many of the purchasers on those terms have found that they have made very bad bargains, and that the houses are worth nothing like the price that under competition they have been obliged to give for them. That is why I say the Inland Revenue authorities can be trusted to put a proper value upon them; but, obviously, the fact that the house may be used by the brewer as an outlet for his trade will be in most cases an element in the valuation.
LORD BURGHCLEREsaid this raised the important subject which he had endeavoured to raise the previous night on the Earl of Wemyss's Amendment to add "market" before "value," and on that occasion he received an assurance from the Government—
LORD BELPER: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I gave no assurance. I only made the statement that "value" was, in our opinion, the same as "market value," and that it was unnecessary to put in the word "market" because it was made clear under the Finance Act that the word "value" covered the words the noble Lord wished inserted.
LORD BURGHCLEREsaid they now knew for the first time that it was the intention of the Government, not only to compensate the retailer, but also to compensate the brewer for the loss of a licensed

1117
house, for its additional value as a tied house, and for the curtailment of the sale of his beer owing to the suppression of the house. If that was so, they would considerably limit the amount of the compensation fund available for the redaction of redundant licences. There was this further injustice, that a man who owned his own house, but did not brew his own ale, would have a charge levied upon him to compensate the big brewing companies because they had suffered a loss in their tied houses, or because they did not brew so much ale as formerly owing to a number of tied houses having been suppressed.
LORD BELPER: That is not the intention of the Government.
LORD BURGHCLEREsaid in that case he hoped the Government would accept an Amendment which he would move at a later stage in order to make the matter perfectly clear.
*THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (The Earl of ONSLOW): This discussion seems to be based on the supposition that the compensation is to be in the nature of a compensation to be paid by a public authority for the expropriation of an individual from his property. It is not that at all. It is a compulsory compensation fund, and the amount of the contribution to that fund is fixed upon the value of the house. If the value of the house is inflated by reason of its being a tied house, the levy will be proportionately increased; but it would be manifestly unfair to ask the owners of these houses to pay the levy upon a certain value, and then to say that they shall be compensated on a less or inferior value. It is perfectly obvious that if you are to have a levy in the nature of an insurance fund you must fix it on the value which the house would be likely to fetch in the open market. There may he two or more brewers competing for a particular house, but its price is the market value of the house. It is preposterous to suppose that you can, in an insurance scheme, eliminate certain qualifications of value from these houses because they happen to be an outlet for the manufactures of brewery companies. These houses are valued constantly by the Inland Revenue authorities for the pur-
1118
poses of death duties; the value is based on what the houses would fetch in the open market, and it is on that basis that the Bill lays down that the levy shall be fixed and the compensation paid.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that until this discussion arose it had never occurred to him that the phrase "persons interested" was intended to include persons who supplied beer.
*THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The compensation is fixed on the basis of the value of the house. It has nothing whatever to do with persons behind who may have an interest in the supply of beer.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNthought it was desirable to have in the Bill some definition of the persons interested. The noble Lord who had moved the Amendment imagined, apparently erroneously, that the brewer who owned the house would be compensated, not only as the owner of the house, which was perfectly right, but also as a person who supplied beer which would no longer be wanted. If that definition was right they ought to go further; they ought to go on to the hop-grower and say that he, too, was an interested person, because he used to grow hops which, owing to the abolition of the house and the reduction in the amount of beer consumed, would no longer be wanted. The discussion appeared to him to prove the desirability of inserting in the Bill some definition of the persons interested, so as to make it clear that they were only those persons interested in the house and in the sale of beer in the house.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): It seems to me that the clause is perfectly plain. The value of the house is that which has got to be assessed, and in what proportion and to what degree other persons may be interested is a totally different question.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD BURGHCLEREthen moved the Amendment which he had indicated his intention of moving in order to make the matter perfectly clear.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 10, after the word 'premises' to insert the words 'but in calculating such compensation no account shall be taken of any profits arising from the manufacture, as distinct from the sale by retail, of intoxicating
liquors, nor from the sale by wholesale of such liquors.'"—(Lord Burghclere.)
On Question, "That those words be there inserted," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 112.

CONTENTS.

Ripon, M.

Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Peel, V.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Beavchamp, E.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

Farrer, L.

Camperdown, E.

Chester, L. Bp.

Kinnaird, L.

Carlisle, E.

Durham, L. Bp.

Monkswell, L.

Carrington, E.

Hereford, L. Bp.

O'Hagan, L.

Chesterfield, E. [Teller.]

Lichfield, L. Bp.

Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

Crewe, E.

London, L. Bp.

Sandhurst, L.

Grey, E.

Peterborough, L. Bp.

Sherborne, L.

Kimberley, E.

St. Albans, L. Bp.

Shuttleworth, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Spencer, E.

Brassey, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Temple, E.

Burghclere, L.

Thring, L.

Coleridge, L.

Welby, L.

Cobham, V.

Davey, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Leven and Melville, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) (L. President.)

Londesborough, E.

Deramore, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Dunboyne, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Lyttor, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Malmesburv, E.

Estcourt, L.

Argyll, D.

Northesk, E.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Grafton, D.

Onslow, E.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Marlborough, D.

Saint Germans, E.

Forester, L.

Northumberland, D.

Selborne, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Wellington, D.

Stanhope, E.

Glanusk, L.

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Tanker ville, E.

Glenesk, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Hampton, L.

Bath, M.

Wharncliffe, E.

Hatherton, L.

Bristol, M.

Yarborough, E.

Hylton, L.

Camden, M.

James, L.

Hertford, M.

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Kenyon, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Colville of Culross, V.

Killanin, L.

Winchester, M.

Cross, V.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Zetland, M.

Halifax, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Lawrence, L.

Pembroke and Montgomery,E. (L. Steward.)

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Knutsford, V.

Methuen, I

Glarendon, E. (L. Cqtamberlain)

Sidmouth, V.

Newton, L.

Bathurst, E.

Ormathwaite, L.

Bradford, E.

Addington, L.

Raglan, L.

Cawdor, E.

Allerton, L.

Rathmore, L.

Chichester, E.

Amherst of Hackney. L.

Ravensworth, L.

Dartrey, E.

Ardilaun, L.

Rayleigh, L.

Denbigh, E.

Armstrong, L.

Redesdale, L.

Derby, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Robertson, L.

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

Barmaid, L.

Rossmore, L.

Belper, L.

Rothschild, L.

Drogheda, E.

Biddulph, L.

Sinclair, L.

Eldon, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Stalbridge, L.

Essex, E.

Burnham, L.

Teynham, L.

Feversham, E.

Burton, L.

Ventry, L.

Haddington, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Hardwicke, E.

Cloncurry, L.

Windsor, L.

Harewood, E.

Colchester, L.

Wolverton, L.

Lathom, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Wynford, L.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYmoved an Amendment to provide that the compensation, instead of being ertained by the Inland Revenue Commissioners as if valued for estate duty, should bear a definite ratio to the contribution made by the licence-holder to the compensation fund. He said that, as a rule, from eight-tenths to nine-tenths of these houses never came under the death duties at all, because they belonged to limited companies. The noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture had said that it would be most unjust to make them pay the levy at one rate and to compensate them at a less rate. He presumed the noble Earl would agree that it would be equally unjust that they should pay a levy at one rate and be compensated at another and a higher rate. His desire was to secure fair play for the various people contributing to the fund. He quite agreed that if he struck out the provision of the Bill as proposed, words would be needed to set up a basis of value; but he suggested that that basis of value might very well be found by adopting the schedule upon which they paid, and taking so many years purchase on that schedule.
Amendment moved—-
"In page 2,line 11,to leave out from the word 'paid' to the word 'shall' in line 18.'"—(Lord Slanley of Alderley.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the noble Lord will see that his Amendment is quite impossible. I think when he put it down he intended it to be consequential on the other Amendment. The other Amendment has been rejected, and it is quite impossible to take the consequential Amendment, as there would then be no means of ascertaining what the amount was.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: Not without further words.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Government could not assent to an Amendment of this kind unless they saw the further words. But the further words which the noble Lord adumbrated would not be consistent with the first sub-section of this clause, which has already passed.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved to amend Sub-section 2, which provided that, in the case of the licence-holder, regard should be had, not only to his legal interest in the premises, but also to his conduct and to the length of time during which he had been the holder of 'the" licence. The noble Earl moved to substitute "a" for the word "the." The object of the Amendment was that licence-holders should be compensated for the full term during which they had been licence-holders and not for the term during which they might have held the particular licence in question. He thought it was distinctly to the advantage of the public that these houses should be managed by people who had had previous experience in managing smaller houses. In the event of the licence of a large public-house not being renewed, the licence-holder under the Bill would only receive compensation for the time he had held the licence of the arger house, and would not receive any compensation in respect of the longer period spent in smaller houses. The object of the Amendment was to encourage people who had succeeded well in managing small public-houses to undertake the management of larger ones. If there were any other words which would better meet the case, he would be glad to accept them from noble Lords opposite.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2,line 24,to leave out the first word 'the' and insert the word 'a.'"— (Earl Beauchamp.)
*THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The Amendment of the noble Earl though it has an appearance of great innocence, covers a wide ground. The noble Earl is anxious to encourage the professional public-house keeper, and to say that he should be specially compensated if he has conducted public-houses all his life in an exemplary manner. That really is going a very long way. I confess I think the Bill already goes very far in saying you shall give compensation to a man who has been disturbed in his business; but now the noble Earl asks us to say that any man who has conducted

1123
any public - house well and for a long period of years shall receive special compensation when the licence of a particular house is abolished. I think that is going beyond the bounds of all reason, and I am sorry I cannot accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved an Amendment with the view of securing to the tenant on the division of the compensation money the value of his fixtures. He said that in the case of any other trade emoved for public purposes and compensated, the tenant was able to use his fixtures again wherever he happened to go, but in the event of a licence not being renewed on the ground probably that there were too many public-houses the various fixtures would be no longer needed. An auctioneer coming in and selling them would not succeed in getting anything like their proper value, and the object of his Amendment was to compensate the licence-holder, whose property the fixtures generally were. The Amendment would not have the effect of increasing the amount of compensation which would be paid. The question was the division of the compensation between the various parties interested, and therefore the Amendment would in no way increase the charge on the compensation fund, whilst it would ensure that the licence-holder was paid for the fixtures which would probably be entirely lost when a house was suppressed.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 24, after the first word 'licence' to insert the words 'and to the diminution in value consequent on the non-renewal of the licence of any trade fixtures or any other property owned by him and used for the purposes of his business as a licence-holder.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
*THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I venture to think that the intention of this Amendment is in the direction of the spirit of the Bill, and, so far as I read the Bill, it is covered by the provisions made for the division of the compensation money among the different parties interested. The noble Lord thinks otherwise. I am, of course, anxious to give to the Bill that character which the Government
1124
intended, but there is always the legal difficulty that if you specify certain things that are to be taken into consideration, the presumption is that you meant to exclude certain other things. I think there are a great many more matters for consideration in dividing the compensation, besides the question of the tenants' trade fixtures. If the noble Earl will postpone his Amendment, I will promise to consider between now and the Report stage whether the trade fixtures are not properly part of the interest entitled to compensation which quarter sessions would have to take into consideration in assessing the various interests.
LORD DAVEYexpressed his satisfaction that the noble Earl had regarded the Amendment with a favourable eye. He thought the Government would find, on looking into the matter, that trade fixtures were not properly part of the interest entitled to compensation as the Bill was now framed. The compensation was only for the premises, and trade fixtures were not part of the premises. They were removable by the tenant and were his personal property, and therefore some words would be required to be placed in the Bill if the valuer was to be enabled to take trade fixtures into account.
EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid that in the circumstances, and on the understanding that the Government would look into the matter, he would withdraw his Amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have an Amendment to move in the provision that—
"The holder of a licence, if a tenant, shall, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, in no case receive a less amount than he would be entitled to as tenant for a year, or from year to year, of the licensed premises."
I move to insert after the word "as" the words "a yearly," and to leave out the words "or a year, or from year to year." It will then read that he should in no case receive a less amount that he would be entitled to as a yearly tenant. The meaning is the same, but the Amendment is better drafting.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 26, after the word 'as' to insert the words 'a yearly'; and in lines 26 and 27, to leave out the words 'for a year or from year to year.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD DAVEYsaid a tenant for a year and a tenant from year to year were quite different. He assumed that the words "a yearly tenant" meant a tenant from year to year. It certainly could not mean both. "A yearly tenant" did not convey any exact legal meaning.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The words "a yearly" are intended to cover both alternatives.
LORD DAVEYsaid they certainly did not cover both.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble and learned Lord thinks they do not, I will not press the Amendment now, but will bring it up on Report.
Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The next Amendment is of a drafting character. The intention of it is to make clear the meaning of Sub-section 3, which reads—
"If on the division of the amount to be paid as compensation any question arises which quarter sessions consider should be referred to the determination of a Court, they may refer that question to the County Court in accordance with the rules of Court to be made for the purpose."
The words as they stand have the effect of practically implying that quarter sessions is not a Court. That was not intended. The phrase used in the Amendment is more suitable, and I hope the House will allow me to substitute it.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, lines 29 and 30, to leave out the words 'should be referred to the determination of a' and insert the words 'can be more conveniently determined by the county.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF WEMYSSmoved, on behalf of the Earl of Rosslyn, to add at
1126
the end of the sub-section which had just been amended, the words "or may state a case for the consideration of the High Court."
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 32,after the word 'purpose' to insert the words 'or may state a case for the consideration of the High Court.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I hope your Lordships will not accept this Amendment, which appears to me to be very undesirable. The County Court is quite competent to deal with such questions, and can deal with them simultaneously all over the country, if necessary. I do not think it is at all desirable to use the High Court, which has quite enough to do already, to perform this sort of function. I hope your Lordships will not accept the Amendment.
LORD DAVEYasked the noble and learned Earl, the Lord Chancellor whether, in his view, as the sub-section had been amended, there would be an appeal from the County Court.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: No.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL GREYmoved to insert a new subsection providing that for the purpose of calculating the value of licensed premises under this section occupiers of all licensed premises to which the Act applied should once in every month make a return to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue showing the amount of alcoholic liquor sold on the premises during the preceding month. He said that under the law as it stood at present a licence-holder was obliged to make a return of the amount of spirits consumed on his premises, but not of the beer and wines. There would be no more difficulty in making a return of all the liquors. Whenever a new public-house trust company was formed they were flooded with suggestions that they should buy up unremunerative houses. Their first step was to find out the amount of all the liquors consumed in the house, and so get at its gross revenue. Then it was easy to ascertain the net revenue, and from that the number of years purchase that

1127
should he given for it. He held that it was very desirable, in the interests of future legislation, that the normal amount of business done by a house should be easily ascertained.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 32, after the word 'purpose," to insert as a new sub-section the words:
"(4.) For the purpose of calculating the value of licensed premises under this section, occupiers of all licensed premises to which this Act applies shall once in every month make a return to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue at such time and in such form as the Commissioners determine, showing the amount of alcoholic liquor sold on the premises during the preceding month."—(Earl Grey.)
*THE EARL OF CARLISLEsaid there was a precedent for this proposal in Lord Kitchener's regulations for the sale of liquor in Khartoum, in which it was required that a weekly return should be made. He understood that this had been productive of most excellent results in enabling the authorities to know how the sale of liquor was proceeding.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am afraid I cannot say what the regulations established by Lord Kitchener in Khartoum may be. I have no doubt they are adequate; but I do not think the noble Lord is correct in saying that such returns could be demanded under the present law on renewal. One objection to this Amendment is that it is inconsistent with the proposal made by the noble Earl last night, that the compensation should depend on the value of the premises before the passing of this Bill.
EARL GREY: But I was not fortunate enough to get my Amendment accepted last night.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If I understand that my noble friend has abandoned the other proposal, that objection would fall to the ground; but another objection, and a stil more important one, is that the Amendment is inconsistent with the plan of His Majesty's Government. The noble Earl begins his Amendment with these words, "For the purpose of calculating the value of licensed premises under this section—"
EARL GREY: I will gladly strike out those words. They are quite unnecessary to the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: By the words we have already passed we have enacted that the method shall be to take precisely the difference in value between a house as it stands with its licence and the value of the house as it would stand without a licence. It does not follow that the returns of what drunk on the premises would correspond with the value so laid down. For example, a public-house might be held by a professional cricketer, whose celebrity in the locality might largely increase the amount of beer drunk on the premises, but the enhanced value would be due to the cricketer's reputation, which he would carry away with him if he removed to other premises, and I do not think that should be a matter for compensation. We are of opinion that the quantity of liquor sold is not a proper criterion. I cannot accept the Amendment.
EARL SPENCER: I would suggest to the noble Earl that he should postpone his Amendment until the Report stage, when he would know the fate of his main Amendment.
EARL GREY,acting on this suggestion, withdrew his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDONmoved an Amendment to omit the words "not exceeding, and" in the first sub-section, so that the maximum charge levied might exceed £100. The Home Secretary had originally held out the hope that the maximum rate would be £150, but when the Bill was printed the amount fixed by the schedule was £100. If these words were removed each quarter sessions would be left to work out its own salvation in its own county, having local knowledge. There were not a few who had privately expressed their surprise that it was possible to assert, as he did in the course of his speech on the Second Reading, that

1129
only 1,855 houses in London would be closed under the Bill, whereas 2,038 would be closed without it. He thought it was due to the House to explain on what that estimate was based. The Parliamentary Committee of the London County Council had said that £3,000 would be the average cost of closing each house in London. They had been promised that 25 per cent. of the houses would be suppressed in the first year, which would cost £5,565,000 borrowing at 4 per cent. The levies of London, according to the last reckoning, would be £250,000 a year. To acquire that sum would require forty-eight years of those levies. If they divided £3,000 into £5,565,000 it gave 1,855. Then in thirteen years 552 houses had been suppressed, and at that rate in forty-eight years 2,038 would be suppressed without the operation of any Bill. If, instead of borrowing £5,565,000, they spent £250,000 annually, which would, at first, close eighty-three or eighty-four houses a year, it would be far more expensive. As time went on the remaining houses would increase in value and £250,000 might suffice only to reduce forty houses a year. It was said he had not taken into account the number of houses closed for other reasons than those contemplated in the Bill, but these were covered by the difference between 2,038 and 1,855, and London was the most favourable town they could take for the working of the Bill. In the country it all depended on whether quarter sessions used all their powers in all the counties to raise the sum, and there were varying conditions all over the country. If it were said that the raising of a higher levy would be trampling on the trade, he would remind their Lordships that brewers paid in London £275,000 a year, whereas, if they were taxed on the scale of New York, they would pay £2,600,000 a year. To describe the Amendment as "pillage," therefore, hardly represented the facts.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 37, to leave out the words 'not exceeding and," and in line 38, to leave out the word 'maximum.'"—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: When I used the word "pillage," in replying to the most rev. Primate, I was pointing out that, although enormous
1130
profits have been made in the liquor trade, it by no means followed that the people who would be affected by the Bill would be able to bear a large loss. I quite agree with the right rev. Prelate and his right rev. brethren that Parliament made a very great mistake formerly when it allowed this monopoly value to grow up, but these things are, unfortunately, irrevocable, and they are irrevocable because public-house shares have changed hands and the present owner may have had no share in the large profits. The persons who make the large profits go beyond the power of your Lordships' arm to reach them. They retire with the fortune they have made, which they very likely invest in American securities, or in some other advantageous investment. The people you have to deal with now are not persons who are making enormous profit in many cases, or in most cases, but persons who are just as rich and as poor as other persons. They have made investments relying on the laws of the country, and we say they are entitled to protection. The right rev. Prelate says that, notwithstanding this, we might very properly increase the duty that is levied on the liquor trade. He may be right. It will always be open to the other House of Parliament to increase the duty on the liquor trade if they think it right and fair and proper, and nothing in this Bill will prevent that or be inconsistent with it. If in any future session Parliament thinks it right to increase the compensation fund by further levies it will be open for them to do so. I do not say whether the House of Commons would be right or wrong in doing that; I pronounce no opinion on the subject; but there is nothing in the Bill which would be inconsistent with that, supposing it should recommend itself to the representatives of the people. The right rev. Prelate's Amendment does not propose that there should be an unlimited power of taxing the liquor trade by the representatives of the people, but that this unlimited power should be entrusted to quarter sessions. I cannot believe that your Lordships would agree to such a proposal. I ask noble Lords on the other side of the House whether they are really prepared to confer upon a nominated, not an elected, body an unlimited power of axing a particular trade in this country.

1131
I think the proposition only requires to be stated for it to be shown that the thing is quite impossible. I do not believe there is a single one of your Lordships who would approve of such a power being given to quarter sessions. I am sure there is no noble Lord sitting opposite me who would, according to his principles, entertain it for a moment. I do not agree with the right rev. Prelate in despising the they were suppressed were in a large effect in London of this Bill as it stands. £252,000 a year is, after all, a very considerable figure, and, if that sum were divided by a reasonable figure representing the average compensation in the early years of the operation of the Bill, I think it would be found that a very large number of public-houses might be suppressed. The right rev. Prelate has given £3,000 as the average value of a licence. I am afraid I must demur to that figure.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDONsaid the Parliamentary Committee of the County Council fixed that figure.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the right rev. Prelate will probably find that the Parliamentary Committee of the London County Council were contemplating quite a different thing from what we are contemplating at the moment under this Bill. They were thinking of the average value of licensed premises when they were contemplating their suppression for the purpose of public improvements—good, bad, and indifferent, small and large, rich and poor. We are not undertaking that in this Bill. What we hope the operation of the Bill will be is that the renewal of the licences of the bad houses, which are not the large and rich ones, but the very small and poor houses, will be arrested. The compensation money, therefore, will go a great deal further than was contemplated by the County Council. The Parliamentary Committee also had to consider, in fixing their figure, the enhanced prices which compulsory expropriation always carries with it, and they had to deal with the different interests separately instead of dealing with them all together as provided in the Bill. For all these reasons I think the right rev. Prelate will find that his calculation is not to be relied upon, although I am certain he gave it in absolute good
1132
faith. I think the Bill will be far more effective than the right rev. Prelate thinks. He stated that my noble friends were wrong on a previous occasion when they said that the figures he gave of licences which had been suppressed had reference to those which were suppressed for misconduct and such reasons, and he declared that the reasons for which they were suppressed were in a large number of cases precisely those contemplated by the Bill. Before I assented to the proposition I should like to see the reasons for which these houses were suppressed under the existing law. I venture, with great submission, to doubt whether they were, in fact, suppressed for uch reasons as this Bill contemplates as entitling a house which is suppressed to receive compensation. Lastly, the right rev. Prelate says the total figure of £1,250,000 is altogether illusory because quarter sessions are not compelled to raise all the charges which go to make up that sum. That is perfectly true; but that observation cuts both ways and affects the Amendment also. For all these reasons, but principally, of course, because it would be quite impossible to give quarter sessions the power proposed by the Amendment, the Government cannot accept it.
EARL CARRINGTONsaid the noble Marquess was perfectly correct in stating that the licences abolished by the County Council in connection with the improvements which they affected cost more in the matter of compensation than houses would obtain which were abolished under this Bill. He mentioned that the County Council had done away, in all, with £315,000 worth of public-house property, which he thought compared very favourably with the achievement of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who justly boasted that they had suppressed £300,000 worth of licensed houses on their property. In some of our own Colonies, and also in the United States, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark the sale of intoxicating drink had been restricted over large areas, and in some cases had been restricted altogether, to the great advantage of the people and entirely without compensation, In one case only, namely in the Colony of Victoria, compensation was provided

1133
for, with the result that not one single public-house had been shut up throughout the whole of that great and thriving province of the Commonwealth of Australia. Though this Bill had been before the House some days, not one independent Member of their Lordships' House among the supporters of the Government had risen in his place to say a word in its favour.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is not so. The Marquess of Bath, Viscount Cross, Lord Lytton, and Earl Stanhope supported the Bill.
EARL CARRINGTON: Lord Lytton did not bless, the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: He spoke in favour of it, and voted for it.
EARL CARRINGTONsaid it was quite true that Earl Stanhope did support the Bill, and that he expressed the opinion that it would effect a considerable reform and tend greatly to the promotion of temperance. But for himself he could not take that sanguine view. The noble Earl behind him (Earl Grey) had also supported the Bill, but had explained his vote by saying that it was given in lively anticipation of favours to come. He ventured to think that there must be some reason for the silence on the part of the supporters of His Majesty's Government. He thought they were dissatisfied for two reasons. In the first place, they looked with disfavour on the pugnacious attitude which had been adopted on this subject by the trade, who had told the Government that "their trade was their politics," and—
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): I disclaim any right except that of an individual Peer to suggest that the noble Earl is travelling beyond the Amendment, but I think he will recognise that that is so.
EARL CARRINGTONthereupon resumed his seat.
LORD MONKSWELLexpressed hope that the noble Marquess would not prove to be a good prophet when he spoke of
1134
only the small houses being bought out. If that were to be the case in the county of London he was afraid it would lead to a very slight decrease in the drink traffic. With regard to what the noble Marquess had said as to the taxation of the trade, he reminded the House that Sir Michael Hicks Beach said only two years ago that the sums obtained for the licences were very inadequate. Sir Michael thought that the amounts ought to be very much larger, and that the money so obtained should go in relief of local taxation. The right hon. Gentleman did not suggest that that extra money belonged to the trade; and he (Lord Monkswell) hoped that future Chancellors of the Exchequer would consider that there was nothing in the Bill to prevent them going a great deal further than the noble Marquess suggested. The noble Marquess had suggested that a future Chancellor of the Exchequer might raise a greater amount of compensation money; but why should he limit himself to that particular increase only? He trusted there was nothing in the Bill which would prevent a Chancellor of the Exchequer saying quite independently of the compensation fund that he would increase the licence duties, and that those licences duties should go in relief of local taxation.
EARL BEAUCHAMPasked whether the Government would increase the scale of maximum charges.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That cannot be done by your Lordships' House?
On Question, Amendment negatived.
*EARL STANHOPEmoved to amend Sub-section 5, which enacted that—
"Any expenses incurred by quarter sessions in the payment of compensation under this Act, or otherwise in the exercise of their powers or the performance of their duties under this Act, and such expenses of the justices of the licensing district incurred under this Act as quarter sessions may allow, shall be paid out of the compensation fund and quarter sessions in the exercise of their powers under this Act, shall have regard to the funds available for the purpose."
He moved to insert, in the first line, after "expenses" the words "and all necessary legal expenses." He thought the

1135
wording of the clause as it at present stood was rather ambiguous, and that it would lead to a rich harvest by lawyers unless it was made quite clear.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 18, after the word 'expenses' to insert the words 'and all necessary legal expenses.'"—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD BELPER: I think I can make it clear to my noble friend that his object is better attained by leaving the words as they are. As a matter of fact, we do not wish to encourage the idea that there are going to be large legal expenses, and I do not think there will be. You have the general word "expenses," and if you include one thing you impliedlv exclude another; if you put in such words as "legal expenses" it might be very necessary also to put in such matters as the employment of valuers and other purposes for which there will, no doubt, be some expenditure under the Act. I can assure my noble friend that it is better for his purpose to leave the words as they are.
Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
*THE EARL OF CARLISLEmoved an Amendment to provide that Section 20 of the Licensing Act, 1902, shall apply as though the consideration of a report of the justices of a licensing district were a case of appeal against their decision. He said he wished to secure that the justices should not be placed in a worse position with regard to costs than they were now. At present their costs were secured to them, but under the Bill they would depend on the will of quarter sessions. By the Alehouse Act of 1828 the justices were allowed to have their costs from the trade in case they succeeded on appeal, but if they lost their case on appeal it depended upon quarter sessions whether they got any costs or not. That left the justices in a state of considerable anxiety, and he believed it was very largely due to this uncertainty as to the recovery of costs that so few licences had been reduced. His Majesty's Government had said it was owing to their inability to pay compensation, but he believed that a very much more potent reason was the fear that they might be mulcted in costs
1136
for the action they had taken. The present Government had felt that that was the case apparently, because they inserted a clause in their Act of 1902 which ensured the payment of costs to magistrates out of the county fund in case they lost on appeal. Not only was this done, but a circular was issued from the Home Office drawing the attention of magistrates to this alteration of the law; and he believed it was largely owing to that circular that the action was taken by magistrates in 1903 which had excited so much indignation in certain quarters. However that might be, by the present Bill magistrates were left entirely dependent upon quarter sessions. He thought they would he justified in doubting whether that was a safe security. A case occurred in 1903 where a brewster sessions, for various reasons, refused the renewal of a licence. The appeal went up to quarter sessions and was not allowed, quarter sessions upholding the decision of the magistrates. But they did not allow the magistrates costs, although they had gained the case. If, however, they had lost their case their costs would have been paid for out of the county fund. The appeal went up from quarter sessions to a higher Court, and a mandamus was issued compelling the payment of costs to the magistrates but those costs were taxed by the legal officer of the quarter sessions whose decision as to the costs had been overruled, with a result their Lordships could imagine. It would be unsafe for magistrates to trust to the decision of quarter sessions in this matter. He would like to repeat a statement made by Lord Onslow the previous day, that it was the intention of the Government to do nothing to impair the authority and discretion of the local justices, and also that it was their intention to retain the present procedure as far as possible. If that was the intention of the Government, he hoped they would see no objection to introduce the words he proposed.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 23, after the word 'fund' to insert the words 'and Section 20 of the Licensing Act, 1902, shall apply as though the consideration of a report of the justices of a licensing district were a case of appeal against their decision.'"—(The Earl of Carlisle.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is unfortunate that the noble Earl did not convey his wish to Members of the other House of Parliament. I am informed by those who understand these things a great deal better than I do myself that it is not competent under the Constitution for us to insert such an Amendment as the noble Lord has proposed. If the noble Lord looks at the clause in the Act of 1902, he will find that the effect of his Amendment would be to throw an increased charge on the rates, and I am informed that cannot be done by this House. But the noble Lord may snake his mind easy. We do provide that such expenses of the justices incurred under this Act as quarter sessions shall allow, shall be paid out of the compensation fund. I do not think that the suspicion which the noble Earl indicated against quarter sessions that they would not act fairly in this matter is really well founded.
*THE EARL OF CARLISLEreminded the noble Marquess that an Amendment of this kind was put down by a supporter of His Majesty's Government in the other House, but it was closured without any opportunity being given for its discussion.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
*THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYmoved an Amendment to provide that the money borrowed by quarter sessions on the security of the compensation fund should be borrowed "for a period not exceeding seven years." He said he had purposely in the course of these discussions refrained from intervening in matters which seemed to him, though they were questions of the highest possible; importance, to be questions of detail on which he was not competent to form an opinion which was of any special value. This, however, was a matter of principle rather than of detail. He viewed with grave apprehension, the danger which might arise if the local authorities mortgaged for years to come the money which was to be obtained year by year from the compensation levy. If a local authority borrowed to a large extent and mortgaged the fund for years to come, it would
1138
be impossible for their successors to take any action in the way of limiting the number of licences. The Government had more than once spoken of the possibility which existed of future legislation for amending this Bill. The difficulty of legislating would be very great if they found that the compensation fund had been mortgaged for years to come. Therefore he should like to elicit from the Government some concession. He suggested that seven years would be a suitable time, but he was not particular about the exact term of years provided it was not too long. He hoped the Government would consent to some modification of the scheme as it at present stood. He did not think the sanction of the Secretary of State to the loan sufficient security.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 27, after the word 'borrow' to insert the words 'for a period not exceeding seven years.'"—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
LORD BELPER: I can assure the, House that I entirely sympathise with the remarks of the most rev. Primate as to the importance of not mortgaging the borrowing powers of quarter sessions for too long a period, but this is a matter that will be dealt with under the regulations of the Secretary of State. There would be some difficulty in fixing an absolute limit, because circumstances would vary in different districts. Probably seven years would be too short a period, and personally I think the period might be ten or fourteen years. Such is, I believe, the view of my colleagues, but I hope the assurance will be accepted that the matter will be dealt with by regulation, and that the action that will be taken by the Secretary of State will be in the direction of taking care that the power is not too largely used.]
*THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYremarked that an assurance would not pledge future Secretaries of State. He did not understand whether the noble Lord means that the rules that were going to be drawn up were going to contain a provision of this kind, or whether he meant that an Amendment suggesting ten years instead of seven might be accepted by the Government. He would

1139
be willing to alter the limit to that extent to meet the Government view.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We will engage that rules shall contain some such limit, though I think seven years is rather too short. There is an obvious objection to a hard and fast line being drawn in the Act. It is one of the great advantages of rules that they can be modified without coming to Parliament. There is no reason to expect that anyone will play ducks and drakes with this part of the Bill, and the most rev. Primate may trust the Secretary of State in the matter.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYasked whether rules made by the Secretary of State would be as binding as an Act of Parliament, or whether it would be possible to vary them from time to time.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I distinctly stated that the great advantage of rules was that they were elastic anp could be modified.
EARL SPENCER: For my part, I should hesitate to give so much power to the Secretary of State. I would prefer that the clause should contain some indication of the views now expressed, and that the matter should not be left entirely to the discretion of a Secretary of State.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYagreed to withdraw the Amendment, hoping that at a later stage the Government would make a more definite statement.
Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The first Amendment to this clause is merely a drafting Amendment. The latter words of Sub-section 1, from the word "sessions," in line 36, as they stand in the Bill, only apply to county quarter sessions, but it is of course intended that they should apply similarly to the author-
1140
ity in county boroughs as well as to county quarter sessions. Therefore it is necessary to take out this part of the clause and put words in a little later, when they will apply to both authorities instead of the one.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 36, to leave out from the first word 'sessions' to the end of the sub-section."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The next Amendment is in line 40. This is merely drafting, so that it shall read the grant of a new on-licence. Of course it is only intended to refer to new on-licences.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 40, after the word 'new' to insert the word 'on'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he had to propose an Amendment to Sub-section 2. That Sub-section ran as follows—
"The justices of a licensing district, on the, grant of a new licence, may attach to the grant of the licence such conditions both as to the payments to be made and the tenure of the licence and as to any other matters, as they think proper in the interests of the public; subject as follows."
He proposed here to insert a new Subsection (a), which would make it absolutely clear and distinct that there should not be in the case of a new licence anything in the nature of an interest which should require compensation. With regard to the Amendment, as he had put it down on the Paper, his attention had been directed, with regard to the first sentence, Which ran—
"No charges in respect of the compensation fund shall be imposed on the holder of a new licence,"
to the fact that the Bill only enabled the compensation fund to be levied from the holders of existing on-licences. He recognised the force of that remark, and therefore did not propose

1141
to move that part of the Amendment, but he proposed to move the remainder, which would run thus—
"No compensation shall be payable in the event of the renewal of a new licence being refused."
He desired that it should be made as clear as possible that there should be no question of compensation arising with regard to new licences. Their previous experience had been such as to make it essential that they should be precise and distinct in what they said with regard to licences. He observed that a little lower down the noble Marquess himself had an Amendment which provided that the new licences might be annual licences. As Sub-section 3 stood it would be open to the Government to say that a new licence would be a licence for a term. But quite independently of licences for a term it might possibly be a licence for a year, and the noble Marquess by his Amendment recognised that that might be so. Let them have no more mistakes with regard to these annual licences, because the noble Marquess had himself said a little time ago that it was the fault of Parliament that these claims for compensation had become valid. He did not quite agree with the noble Marquess, because he did not know how Parliament could very well state anything more clearly than when they said a licence should be for a year and for a year only. He thought it was rather the practice of the magistrates which subsequently set up a claim for compensation which had now been admitted as valid. But that was not the matter they were on. Do not let it be said that it was the fault of Parliament, or that by what Parliament had done, or omitted, Parliament had made it possible that any such claim could grow up in future with regard to new licences. It was with the object of preventing that that he moved.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 3, after the word "follows" to insert the words '(a) No compensation shall be payable in the event of the renewal of a new licence being refused.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
LORD BELPER: My Lords, the Government are entirely in sympathy with the views of my noble friend, but we
1142
do think that the Bill as it stands practically makes it clear that no compensation can apply to any new licences. Both in Clause 3 and Clause 4 the power to impose charges with regard to compensation is strictly limited to the existing on-licences, and the scheme of the Bill with regard to new licences is entirely different. With regard to them there is no compensation fund, there will be no compensation charge, and there can be no claim for compensation. But the way the Bill proposes to deal with new licences is to give the magistrates very wide powers with regard to the conditions they shall impose—either pecuniary conditions or conditions under which the house shall be managed. But there is no suggestion that there is anything like compensation with regard to them, and the words which confine the compensation fund to existing on-licences directly point out that it could not apply to new licences. In asking my noble friend not to press the Amendment it is not because we at all disagree with him, but because we think his object is already attained in the Bill.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: With regard to the existing annual licences there is nothing anywhere which shows that they are entitled to compensation on account of non-renewal and vet, as yon know, they are all to be compensated.
EARL BELPER: The opening words of Section 1 clearly relate to the power to refuse the renewal of an existing on-licence.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that mistakes had been made. He was speaking of existing licences which they were now going to compensate for all time under this Bill. There was nothing in the existing law which said they were entitled to compensation if not renewed, but as a matter of fact they knew then were all to be compensated. It might prove the same with regard to these new licences. The noble Lord, Lord Belper, said there was no question of compensation, but there was nothing in the Bill to say they were not to have compensation.
LORD BELPER: It is limited to existing on-licences.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNremarked that the compensation might not come out of the compensation fund. Would it not be possible for the holders of the new licences, especially if they were 'yearly licences, to argue hereafter, "We were given a licence and held it from year to year, and we claim that owing to the practice of continuing our licences for many years we have acquired a claim to compensation. Look how you dealt with the case of licences which existed before the passing of this Act?" He vested the claim for his Amendment and his desire to enforce it very much on what the noble Marquess said regarding Parliament being remiss and not having clearly stated what it meant with regard to licences. He hoped their Lordships would not in future allow any possibility of a similar claim being made.
The Question having been proposed,
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he would not put their Lordships to the trouble of a division, and would withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The object of the next Amendment is this. It appeared necessary when this clause was drafted to allow so much profit to be reserved to the licensee as not to interfere with the prospect of good management. Of course all your Lordships would approve o' that. But our attention has been called to the fact that good management does not include suitable premises, and it appeared necessary to make that point clear, and therefore I move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 5, after the word 'for' to insert the words' suitable premises and.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The next Amendment, my Lords, is pure drafting.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 9, to leave out the word 'as' and insert the word 'when,' and to leave out the word 'premises.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD COLERIDGEsubmitted an Amendment which he hoped the Government would consider favourably. It was to provide that the local authorities should have the power, by notice given to, them, of appearing before the justices before a new licence was granted. A new licence might make a difference to rating. Everybody knew that the increase of public-houses did tend to increase crime, poverty, lunacy. and other things that tended to raise the rates. It seemed to him a reasonable Amendment and one which the noble Marquess might accept.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 18, after the word 'value' to insert the words 'Provided that no new licence shall be granted until at least three weeks notice shall have been given to the local authority for the area in which such premises are situate, and the justices have considered, all representations made by such local authority either in writing or at the hearing of the application in respect of such application.'" (Lord Coleridge.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord is aware of what the provisions of the law are already. There must be twenty—one days notice to the overseers; twenty-one days notice to the police; and twenty-eight days notice put on the church doors and other public places. Therefore, my Lords, there is ample notice given of the proposed granting of a new licence. Anyone, of course, is entitled to communicate with the licensing justices, and I need not say that the local authority is entitled so to, communicate. I notice, by the way, that the noble and learned Lord does not say which local authority he is thinking of.
LORD COLERIDGE: I thought that would come in better in the interpretation clause at the end, and I have drafted an Amendment for that purpose.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is not very material. On the whole.

1145
we think that it would be a pity to accept this Amendment. It would seem to imply that we wanted the local authority to perpetually take action in matters of the kind. That will cause one inevitable result, namely, that the liquor question will become an issue at every county council or district council election consequence of the Amendment. I cannot help thinking that most of your Lordships engaged in county government would regret that being the case unless you were going to give substantial power to the local authorities. Although I should not agree with it, it might be very well from your point of view. It is unnecessary to give them the power of communicating expressly with the magistrates when they have the power, like everybody else, already, and thereby to import the liquor issue into every local authority election. I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
LORD COLERIDGEintimated that he would withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS 0F SALISBURY: From the Bill as it has come up from another place it is just possible that the public and the magistrates might draw the conclusion that it is intended that a new licence should always be a seven-year licence. That is not the intention of His Majesty's Government. I do not think such a mistake ought properly to be made because I do not think the words are capable of that misconstruction, but in order to make it abundantly clear that the seven-years licence is not intended to be the only form which a new licence may take after the passing of the Act, we propose this slight change in the words which makes it quite clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 19, to leave out the words from the beginning of the sub-section to the word 'for' in line 20, and insert the words 'The justices of a licensing district may, if they think fit, instead of granting a new on-licence as an annual licence grant the licence.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
EARL CARRINGTONinquired whether the new annual licences would come under the conditions of ordinary existing licences with regard to compensation and extinction.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid that as the Amendment was drafted it looked as if the alternative was to give a licence for one year or for seven years. It seemed to him it might be thought that if a man was going to the expense of fitting up the premises in a particular way, he should have the expectation of a few Years: three, four, or five, as the case might be. He inquired whether it was intended that the magistrates should have the power to give a licence for any term between one year and seven years, as the words seemed to suggest it must be for either one year or seven years.
EARL BEAUCHAMPasked why the new licence should be given for seven years at all
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The object in giving a licence for seven years is to give the licensee time to recoup himself for his outlay when the licence is granted. In no possibility in this case can there be a grievance which might lead to the reproduction of the demand for compensation. That is the idea of the Amendment, and in order to give the quarter sessions, or the licensing or brewster sessions, a complete power to make such an experiment as they think fit, these words are introduced.
LORD SHUTTLEWORTHinsisted that it should be made abundantly clear that no claim for compensation could arise, because at the end of the term a new licence was given, and not a renewal of the licence. Did not the noble Marquess see that if the old system was kept on at the same time that annual licences were granted, the holders of them might say, "We have not taken a licence for a term of years; we have an annual licence—the old form of licence, which it has been recognised by Parliament ought to have a perpetual value attached to it." Was there not a great risk if they kept annual licences going, besides the new system

1147
of licences for a term of years, that they would have the sam evil arising which they were attempting to deal with in this Bill?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the noble Lord is fully entitled to make those observations. The seven-years licence is intended only to meet the cases where presumably there must be a considerable outlay on the licensed premises, as in the cases of hotels where a considerable outlay has to be made, and it will take a number of years in order to make sufficient profit to defray the expenditure. But the seven-years licence has this blemish, that while it is current the control of it will be largely removed from the brewster sessions. It is only in a case of a direct breach of the law for which the licensee can be convicted that his conduc will come under the control of the brewster sessions. His Majesty's Government, although they think in cases of houses which will require extensive outlay the seven-years licence would be suitable, do not think it would be suitable in cases of ordinary public-houses, and therefore it would be proper to keep on the annual system which keeps the houses annually under the control of brewster sessions. The licence then has to come up every year for renewal, and the holder's conduct can be looked into, and if he ash fallen short of his undertakings under the clause he can be called to account. We think, therefore, you will require both forms of licences—the seven-years licence for the house which incurs extensive outlay, such as hotels, and the annual licence for the ordinary public-house. It appears to be best to leave a free hand to the licensing bench to grant either a long or a short licence, therefore both are put into the clause, and we propose to trust the brewster sessions to act with wisdom and adopt which course they think fit.
LORD DAVEYthought there was a danger in the language in which the meaning was expressed, He had no doubt himself as to how he should construe it if the matter came before him at brewster sessions, but he was not sure that all his brethren would construe it in the same way. The clause said that
1148
any application for the re-grant of a seven-years licence should be treated as an application to grant a new licence and not as an application for the renewal of a licence. He did not see the sequitur in these words at all. It might be inferred from them that the meaning was that if there was a seven-years term the justices were to have a discretion to renew it, but if there was only a one-year term the justices were not in the same position with regard to it. He did not quite see the necessity for saying that at the end of the seven years it should be treated as an application for a new licence when it would really be a renewal. It was a matter of drafting.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYremarked that the word "term" did not apply to the first licence, which was merely called an annual licence. When the length of time for which the licence was granted was beyond that of an annual licence it was called a "term." There was likely to grow up in the minds of the magistrates the idea that the new licence granted for one year only had a stronger equitable claim to renewal even though the population of the district might be such as to operate against it. It was a dangerous thing to have in the one clause a word which suggested a different treatment for a new licence every time it came up, whether it was first given for one year or seven years.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My noble and learned friend Lord Davey construes the clause as I myself should construe it. With reference to the danger suggested by Lord Stanley of Alderley, you strike at the whole history of what we are now doing by way of legislation, for it will be utterly impossible for anybody to come to the conclusion that there is anything but a mere annual licence after what we have done.
LORD DAVEY: Has the noble Earl sat on petty sessions and known what things are suggested?
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I was for thirteen years a chairman of quarter sessions and I think I know what has been suggested.
LORD SHUTTLEWORTHwished to ask a Question which he did not think had been answered. Why should there be a difference in the mode of treating, a new licence for one year from a licence for a term? If there was nothing in it it would be better to treat them in the same way. Was there not a danger that there would arise in the minds of those who held a licence for one year only the idea that they would have a claim to be treated in the same way as old licensees for one year.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: We are drifting away from the actual words of the Amendment and putting an interpretation on a subsequent sub-section. Perhaps we had better come to a decision on the Amendment proposed by the noble Marquess.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYasked whether the Government would have any objection to inserting a further Amendment in Sub-section 3, to make it read "that in the case of all these licences any application for the re-grant of a licence shall he treated as an application for a new licence."?
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I would suggest to the noble Lord that this course would be a little inconvenient as the Amendment is not down upon the Paper. Perhaps the noble Lord will put it down for a subsequent stage.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think that would be a suitable way of dealing with the matter, for this reason. During the continuance of a new licence renewed from year to year the same conditions will apply. If the justices desire that different conditions should apply they will put an end to the annual licence and grant a new licence. But in the ordinary and normal course the same conditions will apply and that is the most convenient method of procedure. In the case of the longer licences of seven years we do not intend that the conditions should apply. We intend that, at the end of seven years, the thing should be reconsidered and new conditions imposed.
LORD DAVEYsaid that on consideration he thought the Bill was right for the reason that an ordinary licensee under the new law had a right to have his licence renewed and not treated as a new application. On the other hand, on the expiration of the seven or five years term, it was intended, as he understood, that it should be both in name and substance a new grant.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is so.
On the Motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, Lord CROSS took the Chair in the room of Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH.
EARL GREYmoved to omit Sub-section 3. It was said that this was the best clause in the Bill, but, in his opinion, it was the worst, on the ground that to fix a limit was to provide a direct inducement to the licence-holder to push the sale of alcoholic liquor so that he might make sufficient profit to recover during the term of tenure the amount of capital invested in the house at the beginning of the term. There were many public-houses put up by trust companies, costing from £5,000 to £10,000 in capital, and these would be seriously prejudiced. He should infinitely prefer to see all licences annual licences and the justices making such conditions as they thought fit in order to secure that trust companies and licence-holders should make provision for the wise management of their houses.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 19, to leave out Sub-section 3."—(Earl Grey.)
EARL BEAUCHAMPagreed with Earl Grey in this matter, and said he should vote for the omission of the sub-section. If, on the other hand, the Government could see their way, by any Amendment which might approve itself to them, to make it certain that no compensation would be given under Sub-section 3 and Sub-section 1, he would withdraw any opposition to this sub-section. He knew it was the wish of the Government that there should not be compensation, and if they would say that distinctly in the Bill, he would be satisfied.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I cannot conceive the possibility of any doubt about that. The compensation must be applicable only to those licences which are existing on-licences. There are three or four sections in which it is pointed out without the slightest doubt that there can be no compensation except in respect to existing licences.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Under the Bill, as it stands at present, exactly the same claim will grow up as has grown up in the past.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I sympathise with what has fallen from the noble Earl, Earl Grey, with respect to the sub-section, but I should like to call his attention to the remarks I made just now, in which I pointed out that it is not the intention of His Majesty's Government that this long term should be employed in the case of ordinary licences and ordinary public-houses. I agree with him that the objection which he has urged is sound, and in the cases of ordinary public-houses it would be a mistake to remove them for a term of seven years from the immediate control of the licensing bench, and to give them an inducement to push the sale of alcoholic liquor with great vigour during the seven years in order to make hay while the sun shines. I do not think that criticism applies to hotels. I think it would be extravagant in that case. We have to cover both cases, and it seemed to us better to insert the provision in the general sub-section, and trust to the good sense of the licensing bench to interpret it properly. We are not in favour of dictating on too rigid lines to the licensing benches exactly as to how they are to conduct their affairs. It is far wiser, in dealing with Clause 4, to give them a wide discretion. It has always been urged that this is in the nature of an experimental clause, and His Majesty's Government are most anxious to give a free hand to the licensing authorities to try experiments under it as to what may be the best form of licences. After a good number of years. when the experiments have teen tried, the best system will appear, and perhaps Parliament will be asked to legislate again.
THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid he arrived at the same goal as the noble Lord,
1152
Earl Grey, but by a different road, and if the noble Earl went to a division, although for different reasons, he should certainly support the omission of the subsection, because he did not like the two systems running together which, he feared, would cause great confusion, and even friction and jealousy.
EARL GREYsaid he did not like the sub-section, but he would withdraw the Amendment, as he did not wish to take up the time of the House.
Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
LORD NEWTONmoved to omit Sub-section 4 of Clause 4. This sub-section allocated the payment for new licences to the relief of local taxation, and therefore it appeared that the locality would have a direct pecuniary interest in the granting of a new licence. The object of the Bill was to diminish the number of public-houses, but at the same time there might be a reaction, and in that case municipalities and local authorities might, with the object of lightening the burden of rates, exert pressure and secure the granting of new licences. He was somewhat afraid that there was some technical or practical reason why this Amendment could not be accepted, otherwise he believed the Government were not altogether out of sympathy with it. He would suggest to the trio of noble Lords who were in charge of the Bill that if they were unable to accept the Amendment they should undertake to consider it before the Report stage.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 26, to leave out Sub-section 4."—(Lord Newton.)
LORD FARRERsupported the Amendment. The Lord Privy Seal last evening expressed very strongly the desire of His Majesty's Government that all new monopoly values should be kept in the hands of the public. It appeared to him (Lord Farrer) that as the Bill stood at present there was every inducement for a locality to sell the licence to the highest bidder. Anyone who had had, as he had, experience in attempting to get trust houses established would see that under the present arrangement they would be in a much worse position than they were

1153
now. It appeared to him that under the whole section the justices,when they came together in quarter sessions, would simply have to consider either the question of surrender or what they could get for the public. He should like to ask the noble Marquess what the Government meant by the words "securing to the public any monopoly value." As the words stood they must simply mean that the justices should take the highest bid. In that case the trust companies and other experimental institutions of that sort would have no chance at all. They could not buy against the breweries, who could always either surrender licences or give a much higher price than trust companies could possibly afford. He could not believe, considering the enormous increase in local expenditure of late, that it would be otherwise. For instance, in his own county the education rate had gone up from 3d. to 7d. this year. Surely the local authorities would be inclined to make as much money as they could, and in that case the trust companies would be in a hopeless position. He hoped they would get some explanation of what these words really meant.
EARL GREYassociated himself with the appeal of the noble Lord that the Government would reconsider this matter on Report. He attached great importance to it. Those of their Lordships who had acquainted themselves with the literature on this temperance question would be aware that Mr. Rowntree, and that large school of temperance reformers who worked with him, were agreed that there was nothing more dangerous than to allow profits realised from public-houses to be devoted to objects which were properly chargeable on the rates. The experience of Scandinavia was conclusive that this was a most dangerous principle, and he hoped that His Majesty's Government would listen favourably to the appeal to postpone the sub-section until the Report stage in order to reconsider the way in which the appropriation of the profits should be made.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYinquired whether it was competent for that House to entertain the question at all. Did not the noble Marquess observe that it was not competent for them to entertain
1154
any proposal which would increase the rates? This sub-section had come from the House of Commons and allocated a certain revenue to the rates, and their Lordships had no power to interfere with matters of taxation.
*THE EARL OF ONSLOW: MY Lords, I think there is a great deal to be said for that view, but I do not quite agree with the noble Lord so far as to say it is outside the competence of your Lordships' House to strike out the sub-section altogether. What would be the position when you have struck it out? There would be no provision in the Bill for the allocation of these funds at all. If you proceeded to suggest that the funds should go to the National Exchequer, I have not the slightest doubt that you would be going beyond your powers. It is not possible for us to agree to strike out this subsection, and so leave the whole matter in the air. I think that to some extent the fears of the noble Lords opposite are unfounded. After all is said and done, even supposing that the local authority is actuated by the misguided principles suggested by noble Lords opposite—namely, a desire to make money and save the rates at the expense of the sobriety of the people—even then I venture to think that the amount which would be realised would be so trilling that such a temptation is practically out of the question. The noble Lord talked about his education rate rising from 3d. to 7d. It would have to be a very wholesale disposal of new licences which would reimburse the County of Surrey the difference between 3d. and 7d. in the rates. It was asked, "What is the meaning of monopoly value, and how are you going to prevent that monopoly value from falling into the hands of any private person except by putting the licence up to the highest bidder?" It is not a question of securing a large monopoly value to the public, but of not letting anyone else except the public have the monopoly value. I would point out that the persons who grant the licences are the licensing justices and not the local authority, who it is supposed is going to misuse the money. There is no reason whatever why they should not simply impose conditions without any money

1155
payment at all or with a very small payment, and if there were conditions similar to those under which the trust with which the noble Lord, Earl Grey, is associated, is conducted, it is perfectly possible for the licensing justices to say that on receiving an undertaking and guarantee that you are not going to make more than a reasonable profit on the outlay of your capital from the sale of liquor, they will grant you a licence for one of your public-houses to be carried on under those conditions, having satisfied themselves that the result will not be to give to any private person the monopoly value which, if given to anybody, must go to the public.
THE EARL OF CREWEthought that the noble Earl had underrated the gravity of the question. As to the competence of the House to deal with the matter at all, he granted that if they were to strike out the sub-section there would be no provision made for dealing with the money so raised, but that need not trouble their Lordships if they disapproved of the sub-section, because he conceived that the effect would be to make it necessary to amend the Bill in another place. He confessed that the noble Earl had greatly underrated the extent to which, particularly in the cases of the smaller authorities, a temptation to get anything off the rates affected those bodies. All of their Lordships who were familiar with the details of local government knew that the chance of getting anything off the rates only too often outweighed every other consideration in the minds of local authorities. If it was possible to give any further consideration to this matter by bringing it up again at a later stage it would be of the greatest possible advantage, because he felt that the noble Lords opposite had not felt its gravity to any extent, and that was indicated in the words used by the noble Earl.
EARL GREYwished to ask the noble Marquess a Question on this subject. The noble Earl had pointed out that this clause would not affect the appropriation of profits realised by trust companies. He (Earl Grey) took it that if the words remained as at present the licensing authorities might make it a condition of granting a new licence that the house should be managed on
1156
trust principles, and then every penny of profit realised by that company would go to objects properly chargeable to the rates. He would much rather it went to a national compensation fund, and he thought it was within the powers of the House to decide that those profits which were not taxes should go to a national compensation fund. He again urged the Government not to take up a hard-and-fast position on this question, but to allow it to be reconsidered on Report.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think it is a most difficult thing to discuss in your Lordships' House a proposal for destroying the method proposed in the Bill for dealing with this money and yet not to substitute any other. It is impossible for us to agree to strike out this provision in the Bill unless we have some words before us showing how the noble Earl and others desire to replace them. I do not, however, like to give an absolute refusal to my noble friend, but what I suggest is that he should submit to us privately, if it is against the privileges of the other House to do it publicly, what he proposes as an alternative, and then we will consider it from that point of view. Although I say that out of courtesy to the noble Lords, I cannot hold out much hope that any change will be favourably received, I think that would meet their wishes, and I suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn.
LORD NEWTONsaid that in view of the promise made by the noble Marquess he would withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Amendment which I now move is to carry out the object which I announced to your Lordships when we were dealing with Sub-section 3. I told you then that it was necessary to strike out certain words because the powers conferred by them in the first sub-section of the clause were only applicable to county quarter sessions and we wanted them to be applied to county boroughs as well.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 38, after the words '874' to insert as a new sub-section the words: '(6.)

1157
On the confirmation of a new on-licence, the confirming authority may, with the consent of the justices of the licensing district, vary any conditions attached to the licence under the provisions of this section.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDmoved to insert a new clause after Clause 4. He said that the Amendment he had placed on the Paper had not, as he feared, so much chance of being accepted as he should have desired; but if by any chance it should be accepted, he wished to say that two or three words were accidentally omitted, which, if necessary, could be added at a later stage. They were in line 4 from the bottom after the words "alcoholic liquors" and were "or any other article." The reason for this was that his objection was not to the exclusive dealing in this connection as between owner and tenant in alcoholic liquors only, but in any article of consumption. He felt that the owners of tied houses in making conditions as to exclusive dealing with the tenants of their houses had been taking advantage of an opportunity to establish a system of exclusive dealing which was never contemplated by the licensing law. Moreover, it was extremely detrimental to the public interest. He objected to the whole principle of exclusive dealing. The system had now grown to enormous proportions. He was reminded of the Truck Acts. So long ago as 1831 it was enacted that this kind of condition as between an employer and his workmen should no longer be legal, and that the employer, for instance, should be bound to pay wages in coin without any stipulation as to how those wages should be spent; that goods should not be supplied by the employer; and, further, that no set-off for goods supplied from any shop in which the employer was interested should be allowed. He was not a lawyer, but looking at the matter as one of natural equity, it seemed to him that a tenant in these circumstances, considering the public interests at stake, should have the same kind of protection which the workman enjoyed
1158
under the Truck Acts, and that he should have the same freedom to buy his goods in the open market in free competition—the best goods he could find in order that he might supply the best to the public. Above all, he felt that the public interest should so far be protected in the matter. It was not fair to the public to allow owners of these houses to set up this quite exceptional and extraordinary system of exclusive dealing. He desired to secure that those who had to deal with these licences should take care in their discretion, and as a matter of public interest, to strike off these fetters of exclusive dealing by which the publican in a tied house was at present bound. Most of their Lordships would remember that in the course of the discussions before Viscount Peel's Commission a publican in the North of England declared that he was tied for everything he bought except sawdust. That was detrimental to the interests of the public, and a system of privileged trading which had so secretly grown up should be stopped.
In dealing with this matter they were not dealing with any old-established rights. The system of exclusive dealing in tied houses was quite a late growth. As lately as the year 1883, according to an official year book of the trade, there were only fourteen of these companies with tied houses, and as late as 1888 when the "Sharp v. Wakefield." case came up, there were only forty-four, while now these companies had grown to 380. so that it was a very modern growth. But while it was modern it raised a question of the gravest importance, because these companies had secured the bulk of the trade, some 85 to 90 per cent. of the licensed houses in some counties and 75 per cent. in others being now tied houses, and the tenants bound by the fetters of exclusive dealing. He did not desire to blame in any way those who had built up the properties or the companies who had pursued this policy, because they had pursued it in the natural course of business, and the Legislature, in an absent-minded sort of way, had allowed them to pursue it. The system had grown up, as so many things grew up, because it was not realised what was involved in the system, until it had assumed grave and dangerous proportions. There were

1159
many companies with tied houses serving the public as well as any other houses, but the law was not for the righteous man but for the unrighteous, and sooner or later this question ought to be dealt with by the State. He could not but feel that this was a proper time for giving the matter serious consideration.
Their Lordships were familiar with the objections urged against the tied-house system, and some of the defects which tended to make it detrimental to the public interest. A good deal of evidence was brought before Viscount Peel's Commission showing that the tendency of the system was to push and increase the trade in liquor. There was evidence on page 104 of the evidence taken by the commission showing that in one case a stipulation was made that the tenant must undertake to sell so many barrels a year. There was evidence in another case that an owner complained that his tenant was not selling enough. In some cases tenants were bound, whether they would or not, to keep open every lawful hour, when they might have been glad on many occasions not to do so. There was also abundant evidence of the objection the tied-house brewers had to a six-day licence. In the county of Cheshire there were forty-seven six-day licences, but of that number only four were held by tied houses, and the rest were licences held by free publicans not hound by the chains of the exclusive-dealing system. There was undoubted evidence that the system in the cases of many of these companies was one which tended to push the trade and stimulate the drinking habits of the country. Coming to a second objection, they found that persons of experience constantly brought to their notice the fact that the system tended, in a particular district where a certain brewery had a monopoly or anything approaching it, to the supplying of an inferior article and thus robbing the public of an interest which the licensing justices ought to secure to them. In his own county of Hereford he had an opportunity not long ago of seeing the working of that tendency to supply an inferior article. A neighbour of his, a late Member of the other House, much interested in the trade in their county cider, brought before the public two facts. One of the cider manufacturers supplied
1160
cider to a considerable number of houses in the Midland counties. Those houses all came into the hands of a brewery company, and the manufacturer received an intimation from the manager of the company that in future he was to supply all his cider not direct to the tenants, but to the company. He was glad to do so because he thought the company would probably help to increase his trade. But having done so he soon began to find that his trade was falling off, and that the cider was gradually no longer required, because the agent of the company desired to sell the company's beer and not his neighbour's cider. The other case was from another manufacturer, who had an application from the manager of one of these breweries to supply him with cider. The manager is reported to have said, "You need not send us your best cider, you may send us your worst," or to this effect. He did not wish to increase the trade in good cider, but the trade in the beer which his firm produced. He (the Lord Bishop of Hereford) said it was not to the public interest that a system of that sort should be encouraged or allowed to go on.
There was another objection to the system which had not attracted sufficient notice: that was, that it tended to a very insufficient assessment of the houses, and that, therefore, the public income from the assessed houses was being reduced to much less than it ought to be year by year. He had in his mind—it was always best to form an opinion from a concrete case—a house not far from his own lodge gates in Hereford. He was credibly informed that the house was not long ago bought by one of the speculative brewery companies. It was a modest little house, and was bought up at a cost of £3,000. No less than another £1,000 was spent upon it, and it is now probably bearing a rent of about £60a year. That was surely a very unhealthy state of things, and the sooner it was ended the better for the interests of the community.
An even stronger objection to this system was the insecurity of the licence-holder's tenure, and the precarious position in which experience showed them he was placed. The licence-holder was often hardly a free man. They were told of cases in which blank transfers were

1161
actually prepared to be filled up. Further, they had the very serious objection to the system that it tended to withdraw the houses from the effective control of the licensing magistrates. As a matter of fact, the licensing magistrates of their own city had not the same effective control over doubtful houses if they were tied houses as they had when the houses were free. He held in his hand a letter from a man of great experience, who, of his own motion, raised this very objection, and who wrote saying he had hopes that it might be pressed that the tied-house system tended to take the effective control out of the hands of the licensing justices and, as he put it, tended to make the position of the tied house unassailable. This gentleman was a clerk to the justices of thirty years standing in an important town, and he was a Churchman and a Conservative, so that it was simply in the interests of good government that he objected to the system. He said that for misconduct a licence was often refused by the local justices, and an appeal was made to quarter sessions, but by the time it arrived the company owner was ready to say, "We quite admit the case, but we have changed the tenant," and things went on as before. In the same way with structural repairs, he said that if repairs were required before renewal, and anything like refusal was threatened, an appeal was lodged, and by the time it got to the quarter sessions the company was prepared to say that they had prepared plans and would do what was required. So that, as this experienced clerk to the justices said, the system tended to an inordinate extent to take the control out of the hands of the licensing justices. Therefore, he (the Lord Bishop of Hereford) thought that they had a very strong array of reasoning against allowing this system to continue; a system which had grown up secretly and unnoticed, and was a new system and, to a certain extent, an illegitimate system—because he held that it was never intended that a system of exclusive dealing should have been set up under the shelter of justices making arrangements for the benefit of the public.
He hoped that they would see some such power given to the justices as he had ventured to suggest in his Amendment. Undoubtedly the tenant suffered by the present system. He suffered by liability
1162
to eviction—almost summary eviction; and he suffered, according to the evidence, by high valuation—a point on which the evidence brought before Viscount Peel's Commission had not been sufficiently studied in either House of Parliament. The tenant also suffered by the hard terms of the agreement. If he succeeded, his rent was liable to be raised; if he failed he was liable to be summarily dismissed; and, as a matter of fact, in his tenure he had no adequate freedom. Then again, the public suffered in one case and another by the loss of magisterial control; by the loss of assessment value—a very large loss, he believed; and by the loss of free competition, for in many cases they could not get the best article. If the tenant and the public were both sufferers, why should the law allow this new growth, which had been absolutely prohibited in many analogous cases, to continue? Exclusive dealing in any form was detrimental to the public interest, and it was not quite creditable that under the shadow of a public grant any such system should be allowed to continue. The question was asked, "Are you going to deal unfairly with the brewers?" He said there could be no unfairness in ending a system which had grown up in such a way. The brewery owner would be left in possession of his premises and still be in the enjoyment of all the rights of any other owner; he would only be prevented from following this objectionable practice. The owner might reap the further benefit of being able to let his house at a proper rent. There was no reason why he should not put his house up to auction and get the highest rent he could, and the house would be proportionately valued and the public would gain. He begged to move.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4,after Clause 4,to insert the following clause: 'The licensing authorities before granting or renewing a licence may, at their discretion, require from the applicant for a licence an undertaking to the effect that he has not entered into, nor will, during the period for which the licence is valid, enter into, or become a party to, any agreement or contract whereby there is or may be granted or reserved to the owners or owner of the premises to which the licence attaches, or to any person or persons to be nominated by him or them, an exclusive right of supplying any or all of the alcoholic liquors to be sold by the applicant on the said premises; and any agreement or contract entered into by the applicant in contravention

1163
of such undertaking as aforesaid shall be null and void and shall entail the forfeiture of the licence.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
*LORD HYLTONsaid that before he referred to the speech of the right rev. Prelate he desired for a moment to take up the taunt or challenge that was directed a ainst noble Lords on the Back Benches on that side of the House by the noble Lord, Earl Carrington, when he said that none of them seemed to be enthusiastic in support of the Bill. He (Lord Hylton) believed that supporters of the Government who sat upon the Back Benches were very enthusiastic in support of the Bill, because they believed it was a measure likely to bring about certain temperance reforms, which were as dear to them as to the noble Lords opposite. He went further, and said that the Licensing Act of 1902 and the measure brought forward in the present session were more than any other Government had done for the cause of temperance reform at any time. Coming to the speech of the right rev. Prelate, he had, like many other speakers, referred to the evolution of the tied-house system as something abnormal, extraordinary, and partaking of the character of a political Frankenstein. He ventured to think that the system which had sprung up, whether they deplored it or not, was merely an illustration of the general tendency that had been spreading for the last few years, and was continuing to spread, namely the combination of manufacturers for the manufacture and distribution of articles of all kinds. They might deplore this tendency, but it seemed to him illogical to deplore a particular combination for the production and sale of beer more than to deplore a combination for the production and sale of tobacco. The right rev. Prelate ought to bring in a Bill to prohibit a combination for the production and sale of any manufacture whatever. He held no brief for the great brewery companies, nor did he own a single share in any such companies, but he thought that those who declaimed against the "tyranny" of the tied-house system seemed to lose sight of the fact that any contract between a landlord and tenant was one entered into freely by both parties, and out of which both parties expected to gain. He could not understand how the word "illegitimate" could be used with regard to the contract between
1164
the owners and tenants of tied houses, and he did not believe that the majority of tied houses were otherwise than perfectly, well conducted. It would be folly for men—the shareholders and managers of great brewery companies—to invest their money in these houses and then put in, persons as managers who were likely to cause the licence to be lost by misconduct or in any other way.
In passing, he should like to refer to a point rather in favour of the system of tied-houses. He had known personally of a case where a small, old, licensed free house had fallen into a ruined condition. It was let on lease to a large brewery company on the condition that they made it commodious and suitable in every way for a licensed house, and in its present condition it was of far greater benefit to the neighbourhood than it was before. With regard to the crusade against licensed victuallers entered upon by the right rev. Prelate, it was forgotten in many cases that the inn in the country village was the only place in which the accommodation which travellers required could be obtained. It meant nothing to such a traveller whether the house was a free or a tied one. The class of men who went to such houses did not trouble whether the house was supplied from one brewery or another, nor did they care so long as the articles supplied were what they were represented to be. If the article was adulterated, let the police prosecute and the magistrates refuse the licence without compensation. For the owner can and should be held responsible for the act of his tenant. As to the compensation, he should like to call the attention of the House to the fact that over and over again the opponents of this Bill had spoken as if the compensation was to be provided by additional taxation, another penny on the income-tax, or an imposition of that sort; whereas, as a matter of fact, all the compensation was to be provided by the trade itself. That made a great deal of difference in considering the matter. He should certainly vote against the proposal of the right rev. Prelate.
*THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I do not think I need enter into a long discussion upon the merits or the demerits of tied houses. We discussed that point at

1165
very great length upon an Amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Coleridge, on the first clause of this Bill. I do not know that I should have very much fault to find with the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate if he had omitted two words in the Amendment, except that in that case, I think, it would have been unnecessary. The right rev. Prelate purposes that the licensing authorities before granting or renewing a licence may require the applicant to do certain things. The Bill provides that the justices shall make any condition they like on granting a new licence, and it is therefore perfectly within the competence of the magistrates in granting any future licence to make such conditions as the right rev. Prelate thinks are desirable. I cannot for the life of me see why because a system has grown up—whether it has been legitimate or illegitimate or grown up recently or many years ago—and attaches to certain houses, that therefore you should say, "I will make it a condition of refusing to renew your licence without compensation unless you entirely alter the system under which you carry on your trade." The object of this measure is to provide compensation at the expense of the trade themselves, and I can see no reason whetever for refusing to renew a licence without compensation because that licence has been taken in a manner which the right rev. Prelate considers to be illegitimate.
On Question,"That the clause be added to the Bill," resolved in the negative.
Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHresumed the Chair.
Clause 5:—
LORD COLERIDGEmoved an Amendment providing that the committee of quarter sessions should be composed of one-half of representative persons and one-half of nominated persons. The words he proposed to add were framed on the Scotch system which was passed by His Majesty's Government last year. There might be some Scotch noble Lords in the House, and if so they would be able to testify to the admirable working of the Scotch system. In the Scotch Licensing Act the confirming authority,
1166
both in burghs and in counties, was composed one-half of representative persons and one-half of persons in a nominated capacity. So to that system there could be no possible objection in principle, because it was embodied in the Bill of the Government last year. There was nothing he knew of in Scotland to make he licensing system any different there from what it was in this country. The advantage of it would be that it would create a confidence in the confirming body which would certainly tend to make its decisions more mature and more representative of a wider area of public opinion. He might add that his two Amendments hung together; if the first was rejected the other would naturally fall. He had separated them because the Bill itself separated the definitions of the two bodies, one applied to the county body arid the other to the borough body. He begged to move.
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, line 2, after the word 'committee' to insert the words 'consisting of members of the quarter sessions appointed by the quarter sessions and members of the county council appointed by the county council in equal numbers.'"—(Lord Coleridge.)
*THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I confess I am not very familiar with the practice which obtains in Scotland, but I do know something of the administration, both by urban authorities and by rural authorities, of licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors and for music and dancing. I think we have always held that it was very undesirable that in exercising judicial functions we should put upon the bench men who had recently submitted themselves to. a popular election. There is an exception to that, namely, the chairmen of urban and district councils and the chairmen of borough councils in London, who are during the term of their office
ex officio justices of the peace. I am not quite sure that that has worked really well. I have noticed in the evidence given before Viscount Peel's Commission that more than one witness pointed out that a magistrate coming to the bench, having recently stood at a contested election, was apt to look upon gratitude as not only being for past favours, but also as the expectation

1167
of favours to come, and that it was many months before the magistrate who had been popularly elected succeeded in training himself to a judicial frame of mind. I have for some years had the honour of being a member of the London County Council. That body has entrusted to it the administration of the music and dancing licences in London, and I must say that of all the duties which that body performs there is none which, in my opinion, might with greater advantage be removed from their jurisdiction. When I say that, I am expressing the opinion of a great many of those on both sides in politics in that Assembly, who think that a judicial authority and not an elected authority is the proper one to deal with licences of all kinds. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Coleridge, will expect that His Majesty's Government will lend any favour to effecting through a Bill of this kind so important an alteration in the law as that of associating with the justices of the peace an elective element equal in number for the purpose of administering the Bill. Therefore I must oppose the Amendment.
EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I conceive that this Amendment raises a very important point indeed. It is a point on which many of us are extremely doubtful—namely, how the Bill itself is to be interpreted. My noble friend who has just spoken referred to a judicial action. I think a great deal may be said about magistrates, and only magistrates, taking part in judicial action, and I do not at all agree with him that these men put on as ex officio magistrates, because they are made magistrates as chairmen of local bodies, are therefore not good magistrates. I want to know whether under this measure this committee is to act judicially or administratively. That is of first importance, we have been discussing it, we feel extremely doubtful as to what the proper interpretation is. My belief is that the committee ought to be administrative, and wholly administrative, and I should desire to divide the administrative from the judicial functions quite distinctly. The committee appointed by quarter sessions
1168
should be administrative, and quarter sessions should retain their judicial power. It is possible that this may be the proper interpretation of the Act, but I rather doubt it. I should like to know, is this committee appointed by quarter sessions considered by the Government to be both judicial and administrative? I think that would be extremely confusing and likely to lead to bad results. I am not acquainted with the Scotch law, and I do not know how far the precedent which has been quoted runs, but I want particularly to find out in the case of these committees what the functions of these bodies are to be. There is a great distinction between a body which acts judicially and one that acts administratively. I myself, as chairman of quarter sessions, have sat judicially on a very large appeal on a, public-house rating case. There, of course, counsel and not solicitors appeared before me to argue. There may be some difficulty in putting on quarter sessions anybody who is not a magistrate, as being contrary to the practice, and it will lead to considerable difficulty, in my opinion. I think it would be a great advantage to define these matters quite distinctly, and therefore I put this Question to the Government in order that they may clearly explain to us what the intention of the Bill is in respect to this matter.
LORD BELPER: I have some difficulty in following the remarks of the noble Earl. I quite understand the question he has asked, but I do not see how it enforces the Amendment which proposes to put a number of gentlemen representative of the county council on the committee, and therefore to make the committee half judicial and half administrative if they are put on.
EARL SPENCER: I think I was perfectly clear, I wanted to know before this Bill was passed what the opinion of the Government was as to whether the committee was to be administrative or judicial.
LORD BELPER: I did not understand whether the noble Earl was arguing in favour of the Amendment or not. As

1169
regards the Question. I think it is clear that a large part of the duties of the committee of quarter sessions must be in the first instance purely administrative. They will have to consider the reports made to them from all the different parts of the county in relation to the sum which they have to expend per annum; they will have to draw up some regular scheme for dealing every year with the reduction of licences in the different districts; and they will have to consider how far in each district they will be enabled by the funds at their disposal to reduce licences. They will have to deal with these sort of matters, and a considerable amount of them will be administrative. When they come to consider the particular cases brought before them and to deal with them I take it their duties will be a good deal judicial.
EARL SPENCER: How does that define? What is a good deal judicial?
LORD BELPER: I say with regard to these cases their duties will be judicial. The reason I rose was not for the purpose of answering the Question so much, but to deal with the Amendment put before the House. The Amendment proposes to put an equal number of the representatives of the county council on the committee with an equal number of representatives of quarter sessions. That, I think, is the effect of the proposal. I do not wish to say one word against the fact, which must be admitted, that the representatives of the county council may be, many of them, gentlemen well suited to act in a position of that sort. But what I think has been recognised, and recognised widely in England—I do not know the case of Scotland which has been quoted so well—is that it is not desirable to mix-up the county council with a question which creates so strong a feeling in the country as that with regard to licences. As a member of the London County Council I most strongly deprecate the county council having any powers with regard to licensing. I believe it would have a very bad effect on the constitution of the county council itself, because there ar many gentlemen on the county council who are
1170
exceedingly valuable members, but who would dec ine to take part in and expose themselves to an election which would turn purely on the liquor question and mix them up with the advocates of the extreme sections on both sides with regard to licensing matters. I sincerely believe that it would in that way be a serious injury to the county council, and although this Amendment would not give powers directly to county councils to discuss this matter on the council, yet it is quite clear that if you had to elect a number of gentlemen on a committee of this sort an opportunity would be given to the county council for discussing the manner in which the licensing law should be carried out. For that reason alone I deprecate the change in the Bill proposed by the Amendment of putting on a number of representatives from the county council instead of allowing the committee, as suggested by the Bill, to be a committee of the quarter sessions appointed completely by the quarter sessions.
*THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid he wished his noble friend opposite had been of the same opinion he appeared to hold now, as to entrusting duties likely to lead to serious differences of opinion on the county council, when in 1902 the Education Bill was under discussion. If he had taken that view then and held it to be a mistake to hand over to the county council that very controversial question, he would have been more consistent in bringing forward the argument he had just advanced. He agreed with the noble Lord that if they were going to give the licensing power to the county council, it would then probably seriously affect the choice of members to serve on the county council, just as he thought the Education Act of 1902 had already had an injurious effect upon the county council in regard to the discharge of their special functions. But that was not the question raised by his noble and learned friend Lord Coleridge. The Amendment did not propose to give licensing powers to the county council; it only proposed that members of the county council should he associated with quarter sessions in that particular work. He doubted whether that

1171
amount of obligation on the county council on this question would have any real practical effect upon the elections to the county council. On the contrary, he believed that it would introduce a useful element into the new committee that was about to be established. Having some experience on this matter, he did not share the objection which the noble Lord raised to this particular proposal. He thought that what they did want very much, and what-they would ultimately have to give—whether they gave it now or ten years hence—was a share in this question of licensing to the direct representatives of the people. He was convinced that Was what they would have to give, and he thought the proposal of his noble and learned friend took a step in that direction.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, it seems to me that the far-reaching effect of this proposal has not reached the minds of the noble Lords opposite. You must remember that all the Licensing Acts from 1828 onward assume that quarter sessions and the members of it who are magistrates for the county, more or less are to be the persons who have to deal with this matter. For the first time you now propose to introduce persons outside the magistrates of the county. I do not know how many Acts of Parliament you are repealing in that respect by such an Amendment as this. I say nothing about the merits of it, but it is a matter which obviously ought not to be put forward in a Bill of this sort, which is a Bill to amend procedure in the method of granting licences. Now at this time, when the Bill has reached this House, you are asked to introduce into the tribunal an outside element. That seems to me such an extraordinary and far-reaching change in the whole structure of the Bill that I hope your Lordships will not dream of introducing it into the Bill. I doubt very much whether it is strictly within the ambit of the Bill, but if it is, it is such a departure from the whole system under which licensing has been carried on that I think it would be properly the subject of a complete Bill in itself rather than that it should
1172
be introduced in this way by a side wind into a Bill of this sort. With regard to the other question, mixed up as it is with the different character of quarter sessions, I think I may answer my hon. friend—I hope satisfactorily—but I think I may answer him by giving him the authority of this House. The Court of quarter sessions, consisting of magistrates of the county, has a double capacity. It has duties which are absolutely administrative, and it has duties which are absolutely judicial. But besides these two divisions, which are very clear in themselves, it has often been said that even in their administrative functions they should act in a judicial spirit and discretion. These phrases have sometimes led them into some confusion. As licensing authorities they are simply administrative. But it has been said justly, that although they have only an administrative function they ought to administer it in a judicial spirit. Hence has arisen the confusion. It is entirely a misapprehension to suppose that they have any judicial authority at all. A stream can rise no higher than its source, and when they are appointed as substitutes for brewster sessions they are there as an administrative body and have no judicial power whatever. I have not the slightest doubt that that is the true position of the law, and I trust your Lordships will not accept the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord.
LORD COLERIDGEcould not accept the definition of the Bill as one to amend the procedure in regard to the method of granting licences, and he did not think it came well from the Government to object to the introduction of matters of principle into the Bill. If ever there was a Bill which introduced a new principle it was this Bill. He did not think the noble Earl was present when he (Lord Coleridge) mentioned to the House that this Amendment merely embodied the principle of licensing which was introduced by the Government into the Scotch. Bill last year. Therefore this novel principle and far-reaching alteration had already been adopted. No doubt it was for the advantage of the country that

1173
they should have a Scotch Prime Minister, but he did not see why the Scotch should get all the good legislation.
LORD DAVEYsaid the Amendment to which he desired to draw their Lordships' attention was one which should be read with the next Amendment standing in his name on the Paper, and with their permission he proposed to state what he had to say on both Amendments at once. The Amendment had been put down at the request of some of his hon. friends in another place, where, through the force of circumstances, they had had no opportunity of bringing the matter to the attention of the Government. The question on which it was desired to obtain the views of the Government had, in fact, been partly answered by the Lord Chancellor. The committee which was to exercise the functions of renewing licences was an ad-
On Question, "That those words be there inserted," There Lordship divided:—Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 76.

CONTENTS.

Ripon, M.

Temple, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Monkswell, L.

Carlisle, E.

Brassey, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Carrington, E.

Burghclere, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Chesterfield, E. [Teller.]

Cleridge, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Crewe, E.

Davey, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Grey, E.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Portsmouth, E.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Welby, L.

Spencer, E.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Malmesbury, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) (L. President.)

Northesk, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Onslow, E.

Cloncurry, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Powis, E.

Colchester, L.

Selborne, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Marlborough, D.

Stanhope, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Wellington, D.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Dunboyne, L.

Wharncliffe, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Bath, M.

Yarborough, E.

Forester, L.

Bristol, M.

Hatherton, L.

Camden, M.

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Hylton, L.

Landsdowne, M.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kenyon, L.

Cross, V.

Killanin, L.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.)

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

Knutsford, V.

Lawrence, L.

Methuen, L.

Bradford, E.

Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Camperdown, E.

St. Albans, L. Bp.

Ormathwaite, L.

Denbigh, E.

Raglan, L.

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

Addington, L.

Rathmore, L.

Ardilaun, L.

Redesdale, L.

Drogheda, E.

Armstrong, L.

Robertson, L.

Haddington, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Sherborne, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Balfour, L.

Stalbridge, L.

Harewood, E.

Belper, L.

Suffield, L.

Lathom, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Windsor, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Burnham, L.

Wolverton, L.

Lytton, E.

Burton, L.

Wynford, L.

ministrative body and not a Court. The Bill provided for rules being made by the quarter sessions with the approval of the Secretary of State providing for the mode of appointing the committee and the procedure of the committee. There were many persons interested in this Bill who were very anxious to have it more perfectly clear on the face of the Bill that the procedure of the committee would be the same as the procedure of brewster sessions exercising their licensing powers under the present law. Their Lordships were probably aware that it had recently been held in that House that brewster sessions, that was to say, the magistrates exercising the jurisdiction given to them by the Licensing Acts, were-not a Court. Although they must exercise their dis-

1175
cretion and powers in a judicial spirit they were not a Court. There was no litigation before them; there were no parties; any person might appear before them and state his objections to the proposed grant of a licence or renewal of a licence; and they might obtain their information not only from the evidence before them, but even from information not on oath and from their own personal knowledge of the neighbourhood and from other circum-stances of a similar character. They were, therefore, not a Court. He had no doubt that as this Bill proposed this jurisdiction of brewster sessions under quarter sessions it meant that quarter sessions should exercise the same functions and in the same manner as brewster sessions now exercised them, and that there should be the same powers to persons to appear before them and make objections, and the same power of obtaining information which the brewster sessions themselves possessed under the other Licensing Acts. He was glad his noble friend took the same view of the Bill which he had ventured to express.
The doubt which had arisen arose in this way: that quarter sessions sitting on appeal from the licensing magistrates were undoubtedly a Court, and it was apprehended that when a report from the licensing magistrates went to quarter sessions that the jurisdiction would be assimilated to an appeal from the licensing magistrates. He was glad to learn that that was not the view of the Government, and he hoped pains would be taken to make it impossible for anybody afterwards to raise the question. The Bill provided for the procedure of committees to be settled by rules approved by the Secretary of State. He proposed to insert on page 5, line 5, alter the word "committees," the words "except as hereinafter provided," and then he proposed at the end of the clause to add "Provided that the committee of quarter sessions on the consideration of any report of the justices of a licensing district shall have the same powers and, except as otherwise provided in this Act, shall be subject to the same procedure as justices at a general annual licensing meeting." That would confine strictly the jurisdiction with regard to renewals on the report of magistrates. He did not tie himself to these words, but he did
1176
hope that the Government would allow something to be put into the Bill to set at rest the questions which had been raised and in which, he confessed, he did not share.
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, lime 5, after the word 'committees' to insert the words 'except as is hereinafter provided.'"—(Lord Davey.)
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I regret to say I cannot advise the Government to accept the Amendment or any Amendment to that effect. My noble friend and I are quite agreed as to what the law is. There is no dispute between us there, and the proposal is to introduce words which it is supposed will make clearer that which I think is perfectly clear already by law, and one is to begin to explain everything that is supposed to be the law already in order that nobody may misunderstand any question, I have some doubt as to the task which one is desired to undertake. There is nothing so bad for drafting Acts of Parliament as that idea, because when something is put in which is manifestly unnecessary, you will find the argument is: "Here it is already in the Act, then the Legislature must have had some other object in introducing this other point." I can honestly say that in my judicial experience I have had that argument put before me over and over again, and sometimes there seems to be something in it. Here, I confess, there is nothing in it at all, and the only result of the Amendment, I think, would be to produce confusion. What can be the difficulty? Here is the Act of Parliament which says this is to take the place of brewster sessions. The statute has made no difference in the functions, and it would be extremely difficult to define everything the Court has to do as judicial functions. The law is there as it was before. Why alter and begin to define and attempt to describe? That I think will only produce confusion? It may not be very familiar to your Lordships, but a Court of quarter sessions has power to find an indictment for high treason though practically such a question does not arise. So here the function is manifest and open. It is to do that which the brewster sessions used to do. What

1177
more do you want, and why do you want to introduce other words which make that which is already clear darkened by exposition? I think it would be a very great mistake if your Lordships were to proceed on these lines, and I hope the noble Lord will not proceed with his Amendment.
LORD DAVEYsaid he would point out to the Lord Chancellor that the section which he desired to amend provided for the procedure of the committee to be regulated by rules of quarter sessions. What he desired to provide was that the making of rules for the procedure of thee committees should be qualified in he sense he had endeavoured to express by preserving for this particular function the procedure of the brewster sessions.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I cannot help thinking that this is worse and worse. I think you might presume that the magistrates in general Would understand plain words, but my noble friend seems to think that we should guard the Secretary of State's procedure. I think the Secretary of State may be trusted to draft rules which would not interfere with the recognised rules of quarter sessions.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid that the object of his Amendment was to retain for the municipal boroughs with a population of over 25,000 the autonomous powers they already possessed as regards licensing. He confessed that he somewhat shared the view expressed by the noble Earl on the Woolsack that the amount of drunkenness did not depend solely and entirely upon the diminution of public-houses. That might or might not be a great object, but in dealing with any great question of temperance reform he thought it was very desirable also to bear in mind the question of administration. What was the position as regarded the existing comparison between county boroughs and non-county boroughs? The anomalies which existed and which would be perpetuated by this
1178
Bill were of an extraordinary character. There were certainly sixty municipal boroughs with a population of over 25,000, and some of these municipal boroughs whose jurisdiction would be taken away from them as regarded licensing under this Bill, like West Hartlepool, had a population of over 60,000, and there were several with a population of over 50,000.
Perhaps, to show the extremely anomalous condition of things which would exist under the Bill as it now stood, he might take for example the county of Kent. For no reason that he could understand except that he believed his right hon. friend the Home Secretary was one of the Members for Kent, Canterbury had been made a county borough in the Local Administration Act of 1888. Canterbury had a population of 15,000, but Canterbury was to retain its own autonomous condition under this Bill. There was a place like Maidstone, which, he believed, was still the capital of the county, with a population of 33,000, and which did not happen to be a county borough. It was to be deprived of its brewster sessions; and there was another town of equal importance, the town of Rochester. He could not understand on what principle they were to deprive towns like Maidstone and Rochester of the right to deal with their own licensing affairs, whereas a city like Canterbury with a small population was by a mere accident to be allowed to retain that right. Another extraordinary thing existed regarding the inner towns of the county of Kent. There was the case of Tunbridge Wells. Part of it was in Kent and part in Sussex. Would part of the town be under the jurisdiction of the magistrates of quarter sessions for Sussex and part under the magistrates for Kent? It did seem to him to be a most extraordinary condition of things. But apart from what he might call the anomalies which existed under this Bill as it now stood, he thought that they ought to bear in mind the case of the very large and growing centres of population in Lancashire and Yorkshire. He thought it was the Bishop of London who had emphasised, and he thought with great force and power, the desire of some of these towns to show a public spirit in this matter. They wanted to make their towns clean and healthy in

1179
this respect, and the magistrates in these towns—most of them men acquainted intimately with the town, and townsmen themselves closely identified with the feelings of the town—had taken and did take the greatest interest in the welfare and prosperity of the town; and the social interests of the town especially connected with this matter of licensing, a matter which they had considered and which they felt they should be able to continue to take an interest in if this Bill passed into law. Southport and Blackpool had both applied to be made county boroughs, and he was afraid that the real reason why the Government had, as it were, excluded these non-county boroughs and taken away from them the brewster sessions was because they wanted them to pay for the diminution of licences in the country districts. That did seem to him to be a most unfair thing.
How did that practically apply? Figures had been given to him to show that under this Bill Scarborough would have to contribute a sum of over £2,000, but in return for that Scarborough would, he thought, receive towards its own fund a sum of about £700. That was to say, that the remaining two-thirds which was taken from Scarborough would be devoted towards the reduction of licences in the country districts. That seemed to him to be very unfair and very inequitable. He did not think the principle was a very wise one or a very just one, because many of these smaller licences in the country districts were really licences which were not of any value and which his experience rather tended to show did not lead to a great deal of harm. It was chiefly in the large towns where the licences were redundant, where it seemed to him that it was the duty of the magistrates to take great care to see that they were reduced. He referred not only to the case of young towns but to towns which were of a certain size and which were old towns. In all these cases the effect of the reduction of licences would be greatly hampered unless an Amendment of this kind were introduced. He hoped in regard to this matter the Government would he anxious to meet the views of the great municipal boroughs. He was quite sure that the support of the municipal boroughs to this Bill, if it
1180
became law, would be one which would be of great importance, and he could not conceive that anything would tend more to prejudice this Bill in the minds or in the sentiments of a large portion of English people, especially in some of the large counties in the North of England, than the taking away from them this privilege which they had so long enjoyed and which they still cherished very deeply indeed. He would most earnestly press this Amendment on the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, and he was sure Lord Belper would do him the justice of seeing that he did not press it in any Party spirit.
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, line 18, after the word 'borough' to insert the words 'with a population of less than twenty-five thousand.'"—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
LORD BELPER: I will not follow the noble Earl into some of the anomalies in regard to the numbers of the population of the county boroughs. No doubt there is some anomaly because there are some county boroughs which have existed for some period and which are not the big towns in England now. But there is no question with regard to the anomaly of population under this Bill, because it particularly specifies that they are to be boroughs over 25,000. This Amendment was made and was discussed at very considerable length in the other House. Not only that, but whenever any question has come up with regard to the administration of counties in a number of different Bills which have passed in late years, there have always been Motions with regard to these larger boroughs, and not only was there a Motion on this occasion with regard to 25,000, but since that Motion was proposed to make these 25,000 boroughs boroughs for the purpose of the Act, another Amendment was moved in the other House that the number should be 10,000, and, as a matter of fact, there was a feeling in certain of the big towns that they would prefer to have the management of their own affairs. But I should like to point out to the noble Earl that he is under some misapprehension with regard to what the Bill proposes to do. Thee is no proposal to take away the brewster sessions from these large towns. There

1181
is not the slightest intention of doing so. These towns which have their brewster sessions will have their brewster sessions just the same. What the proposal is, is that with regard to a scheme for compensation these towns will have, just as other districts of the county will have, the power of initiating proposals and the committee of quarter sessions will settle how the fund is to be eventually administered and what licences are to be reduced.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Take the case of Hull. Hull is to appeal to Beverley.
LORD BELPER: In the county boroughs there is an appeal to quarter sessions in the county, and we are limiting the powers of the county and not extending them in that direction, except that whereas there is an appeal in the case of misconduct that appeal will still be an appeal to quarter sessions of the county. But in the case where there is a reduction of licences on other ground than misconduct, the magistrates in their own borough will settle that matter, and so far from making the law less favourable to these boroughs, it is the very reverse. Might I point out that the noble Earl also assumes that if these boroughs are left as the Bill proposes, and if they are to be part of the county for the purpose of the compensation fund they will be treated unfairly and will not get their due proportion of reductions. Of course, in every case where the committee of quarter sessions has to decide, the circumstances will vary. What I should take it would be the procedure is that in those places where there is most necessity for reduction they are likely to get the largest reduction, and if in these big towns there is real necessity for reduction, so far from being damnified by being connected with the county, they will have the opportunity of getting part of the compensation fund that will go to the county as a whole, and thus will have an opportunity of getting a larger sum for their reductions. The fact of the matter is, the principle on which this Bill purposes to deal with this matter is to have the largest area possible within the county, and if you are going to cut up the counties into an enormous number
1182
of parts where there will be separate authorities, you will be acting in the opposite direction from that in which we have been urged to go by many experienced Members of the House. The principle I have heard put forward is that this should be a national Bill, and not a county Bill, and if you accept the Amendment you will make it a county borough Bill, and, so far as I can see, it will be a step in the wrong direction as far as the administration of the fund goes. It is a matter of great importance. There are no legs than fifty-three boroughs with a population of over 25,000 which are affected by this Amendment, and in some of the populous counties it would go a long way to destroy the fund, because in Lancashire there are no less than eleven boroughs which would be affected by this particular Amendment. I hope in this House—I do not think there is any feeling in favour of boroughs or against boroughs. What I ask the House now to think of in dealing with this Amendment is what is the best way of administering this Bill. I am sure it would be a step in a retrograde direction if you were to cut up the areas which are already established by the Bill, make them smaller, and make the fund less useful for the purpose for which it was intended.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6—
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7—
LORD MONKSWELLsaid that in moving this Amendment he would like to say, in the first place, that he did so in no unfriendly spirit to the City of London. He thought it desirable to say that because some noble Lords might know that he was a member, and a Progressive member, of the London County Council, and he knew that there was a

1183
feeling in that House that the Progressive members of the London County Council were extremely bitter and unfriendly towards the City of London. The noble Lord on the Woolsack shook his head, and he was glad to know the noble Lord was not of that opinion. He thought he had a special right to take the opinion of the House on the Amendment inasmuch as the matter was closured in the House of Commons. The only reason why he moved the Amendment was that it seemed to him that it was only just that the City of London should contribute towards the suppression of licences in the county of London. Under this Bill as it stood, if this sub-section were allowed to remain, the City of London would contribute probably nothing and certainly very little towards the suppression of licences in the whole county of London. That was a matter of considerable importance, because taking the county of London as a whole there was no doubt whatever that there were a large number, as the Bishop of London had stated, of redundant licences that ought to be suppressed, and if the City of London was not excluded from the purview of the Act and was not allowed to be a place by itself, the City of London, if the levy was made for the whole of the county, would contribute £25,000 towards the suppression of licences in the rest of the county of London. He thought the right rev. Prelate had made it perfectly clear that it was extremely desirable that not a single penny that could be obtained in the county of London for the suppression of licences should be abandoned. He ventured to think that the speech that they had just heard from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, Lord Belper, showed that the Government ought to treat his Amendment very favourably, because the noble Lord had explained that the intention of the Government was that the areas for compensation should be as large as possible. He held that after the speech of the noble Lord it would hardly be possible for His Majesty's Government to suggest that the county of London ought not to be considered as a whole, and he thought he might take from what the noble Lord had said that he would hardly be in favour of this exclusion of the City of London.
1184
Under the Bill as it stood the various county boroughs of London would have to contribute to the suppression of licences in London as a whole. The borough of Fulham, which had a very large and increasing population, and which probably would not have to provide a single penny for suppression of licences if it was excluded from the county of London, would have to provide compensation, under the Bill as it stood, for the boroughs of Shoreditch and Poplar, where the licences were very redundant, and the borough of Fulham was miles away from the borough of Shoreditch. But if they took the City of London, the public-houses of Shoreditch were near the City, but if the City was not to be under the necessity of providing compensation for the rest of London why should the borough of Fulham be obliged to provide compensation for the redundant public-houses in Shoreditch and Poplar? The Legislature had always declined to make the City of London a county borough. It was not a county borough. It was part of the county of London and the Legislature had recognised that. It had been pro-vided that the City of London should send four members to represent the City in the London County Council, and in other matters the City of London had been very properly treated as part of the county of London. Under the Equalisation of Rates Act the City of London contributed towards the poor rates of the rest of London, and towards the education rates of the rest of London, although if the City were considered as an entity by itself it would hardly contribute anything to the education of London, inasmuch as there were no children in the City of London to educate. If they once exempted the City of London, why should they not exempt every single borough council? Why should not all the thirty borough councils within the radius of the administrative county of London be considered as separate entities for this purpose of compensation? The City d Westminster surely had as much right to be considered a separate entity, and if they once began this disintegration of London where were they to stop? This proposal seemed to be the first step in the disintegration of London as a whole.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 15, to leave out Sub-section 3)."—(Lord Monkswell.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord has put forward this Amendment with a great deal of emphasis, and I really think that it does not deserve that emphasis. We cannot approach this question from a purely financial point of view. It is apparent from the provisions of the Bill and from the speeches of my noble friends on previous Amendments that we recognise that certain historical areas are treated, and are rightly treated, in a special manner. On the last Amendment the noble Earl Lord Portsmouth called attention to the method in which Canterbury would be treated by this Bill. I am quite aware that Canterbury is a relatively small city, but it has a great historical position, but not a greater historical position than the City of London, and I think Parliament has always been desirous of respecting the City of London, and of respecting its individuality. It is quite true, as the noble Lord has said, that the City of London is not a county borough in all senses of the term, but he carries his argument a great deal too far if he would have us believe that, although the City of London has not always been treated in an exceptional manner, it does not stand, as he seems to think, in a different position from the borough of Fulham. I submit that it is really a very great exaggeration to state that the City of London stands in no different position from the other boroughs of the Metropolis. It has its own police arrangements, that is an important matter. The whole control of its streets is invested in a city authority entirely distinct from the corresponding authorities in the other parts of London. I have no doubt you could put your finger on a great number of practices in which the City of London stands in a special position. I do not think we ought to interfere with the individuality of the City licensing arrangements. It is not at all true that they have not licences of their own with which they have to deal. They have licences of their own with which they have to deal, but these licensed houses are indeed very different from the kind
1186
of licensed houses with which it may be necessary to deal in other parts of London. They are for the most part a much more wealthy kind of restaurant than the public-house in the ordinary sense of the term; and therefore the City of London does not merely stand on a special footing historically, but, according to the circumstances of the case, it stands on a special footing, and therefore I think it would be a pity for us to take away the right of the City of London, which it has always claimed, of managing its licences for itself.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I am very loth to intervene in this debate, because it is tolerably evident that it is not much use to intervene in this debate, or to attempt to bring any conviction to the serried battalions that sit behind the Government. It has been my experience for nearly forty years, and I am not prepared to see it belied in any way by our experience in Committee to-night, but surely we are entitled to some rag or vestige of argument in support of the proposition for which the Peers in front of me are prepared meekly to vote when they are called upon to do so. What is the argument for exempting the City of London from the policy that is pursued over the rest of the Metropolis in respect of this Bill? The noble Lord who brought forward this Amendment showed very clearly and forcibly, as I think, that boroughs in London remote from places like Shore-ditch, where there are many licensed houses which require suppression, will have to pay for the suppression of those houses, but that the City of London is to be exempt from any share of the common responsibility of the Metropolis. I must say that there was one phrase in my noble friend's speech with which I disagreed, in which he said it was the first step in the dislocation of the Metropolis as a whole, because the policy of the Party opposite has always been the dislocation of the Metropolis as a whole. What is the ground on which the City of London is to be exempted from the common bond of burden imposed on it in this temperance measure? It is because it is a historical city. From whom does that argument come? It comes from the High Bailiff of the

1187
City of Westminster. Did he not recognise any exceptional historical position in the case of the City of Westminster? Is the position of the City of Westminster less dignified as compared with that of the City of London, that it does not deserve to be considered, but lumped in the common ruck of the county of London, while the City of London is to be set up on high for the suppression of those expensive restaurants to which the noble Marquess so feelingly referred? I think there is a limit to the contempt to which this House may be treated in point of argument. Canterbury, I suppose, is a historical city, because Thomas a'Becket is buried there. But why not Berwick-on-Tweed? It has been
treated for many Years past as a county town. It was ravaged from Scotland, not by war, not by force of arms, but by legislative enactment. Why is it not to be similarly exempted in the same fashion from the boroughs of its own county? I think we do deserve some better argument than has been put forward by the noble Marquess the Lord Privy Seal, for the exemption of the City of London; and I earnestly solicit that argument from the Government Bench.
On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-contents, 32.

CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Leven and Melville, E.

Colchester, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) (L. President.)

Lonsdale, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Lytton, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Malmesbury, E.

Dunboyne, L.

Northesk, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Marlborough, D.

Onslow, E.

Estcourt, L.

Northumberland, D.

Powis, E.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Wellington, D.

Saint Germans, E.

Forester, L.

Selborne, E.

Glanusk, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Glenesk, L.

Bath, M.

Wharncliffe, E.

Hampton, L.

Bristol, M.

Yarborough, E.

Hatherton, L.

Camden, M,

Hylton, L.

Hertford, M.

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Kenyon, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Colville of Culross, V.

Killanin, L.

Winchester, M.

Cross, V.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Zetland, M.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Kintore, L.(E. Kintore.)

Lawrence, L.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.)

Knutsford, V.

Methuen, L.

Sidmouth, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

Ormathwaite, L.

Addington, L.

Raglan, L.

Bathurst, E.

Allerton, L.

Ravensworth, L.

Bradford, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Redesdale, L.

Cawdor, E.

Ardilaun, L.

Robertson, L.

Dartrey, E.

Armstrong, L.

Sherborne L.

Denbigh, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Stalbridge, I.

Derby, E.

Barnard, L.

Suffield, L.

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

Belper, L.

Ventry, L.

Burnham, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Drogheda, E.

Burton, L.

Windsor, L.

Haddington, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Wolvertor, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Wynford, L.

Lathom, E

Cloncurry, L.

NOT CONTENTS.

Grafton, D.

Chesterfield. E. [Teller.]

London, I. Bp.

Chichester, E.

Peterborough, L. Bp.

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Crewe, E.

Ripon, M.

Grey, E.

Portsmouth, E.

Beauchamp, E.

Spencer, E.

Balfour, L.

Camperdown, E

Temple, E.

Brassey, L.

Carlisle, E.

Burghclere, L.

Carrington, E.

Falmouth, V.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Fairlie, L.(E. Glasgow.)

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Farrer, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Stanley of Alderley.

Kinnaird, L.

Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Monkswell, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Welby, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid that the reason why he proposed this Amendment was that a publican might say to a customer, "I will give you a cup of tea, but I will charge one shilling for it." That was a prohibitive price.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 22, after the word 'refreshment,' to insert the words 'at a reaaonable price.'"—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
LORD BELPER: I do not think there is any objection to those words being put in.
EARL BEAUCHAMPasked whether it would be possible to leave out the word "persistently."
LORD BELPER: I do not think we can do that.
*THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid that his Amendment, if it were carried, would make the words of the clause run—
"If the justices of a licensing district refuse to renew an existing on-licence on the ground that the holder of the licence has persistently and unreasonably refused to supply suitable refreshment at a reasonable price (other than intoxicating liquor), or on the ground that the holder of the licence has failed to give or fulfil any reasonable undertaking required by or given to the justices on the grant or previous renewal of the licence, the justices shall be deemed to have refused the licence on the ground that the premises had been ill-conducted."
As the matter now stood, as far as he could see, all that the licensee had to do was to refuse to give any undertaking at all. If he neglected to fulfil an undertaking that he had given, he could be regarded as having placed himself in the position of justifying the magistrates in refusing his licence. If the magistrates
1190
desired to make a reasonable condition and the licensee refused, they could not regard him as coming into that category. It seemed to him that it should be in the power of the licensing bench to make these conditions. The condition, of course, must be a reasonable one; but if it was of a reasonable sort it seemed to him that it ought to be absolutely in the power of the magistrates to demand it, and he could not conceive that the Amendment which he suggested could do other than make the section of the Bill coherent.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 24, after the first word 'to,' to insert the words 'give or,' and after the word 'undertaking' to insert the words required by or'"—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
*THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I am rather sorry, I confess, that the most rev. Primate did not go more fully into the reasons why he asks your Lordships to accept this Amendment. So far as a new licence is concerned, of course there can be no possible objection whatever to the magistrates imposing any conditions that they like, reasonable or unreasonable, for the matter of that. But this Amendment proposes that a man's licence shall be forfeited, that the renewal shall be refused, if he declines to give a condition which, in the opinion of the magistrates, possibly subject to appeal to a Court of law, is reasonable.
A NOBLE LORD: Quarter sessions.
*THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Well, the magistrates in quarter sessions. There is a practice which obtains at this moment of granting licences subject to certain conditions. That is not a practice which can be enforced in law; but of course the magistrates say to a man, "We will give your licence on condition that you do or do not do so-and-so." It is quite within the competence of the magistrate, when the licence comes up for renewal, to say, 'Oh, you have not observed the condition on which we granted your licence

1191
last year, and, therefore, we shall refuse to renew it." The man knows the conditions which are to be imposed, and he accepts them as being reasonable. What are the sort of conditions which are very constantly imposed on licences? One is not to sell beer on Sunday; that is to say, it is a six-days licence. In other cases he should not have the privilege of supplying bona fide travellers on Sunday. That is a condition which I believe exists in the licence which is given to the Zoological Garden. They obtain their licence on the condition that they will not serve anybody on Sunday. Then again it is even made a condition that when a man has got an on beer licence he should not apply for a full licence. These are the sort of conditions which, I take it, would be held to be reasonable conditions, Which are enforced every day with the consent of the licensee. Now the most rev. Prelate proposes that these should be imposed on them without their consent by the magistrates, and, if they refuse to accept them, that the licence which has been regularly renewed to them for twenty or thirty years shall be refused, and no compensation whatever given. I cannot think your Lordships will look on that as an equitable proposal in the case of an old licence, though I quite admit, when you come to grant a new licence, the magistrates should have the right to propose any conditions they please.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYgave as an illustration of the necessity for the Amendment the case of publicans who, as in Liverpool some years ago, bribed children to come to their houses by giving them sweets. A notice was served on all the publicans that this custom, which was very prevalent, should come to an end. There was some difficulty, but the magistrates succeeded, because it was a condition which it. Was then in their absolute power to enforce. If such a condition were laid down new, as suggested, the licensee would simply refuse to listen to it, and the magistrates would not be able to refuse his licence unless they gave full compensation. That seemed to be the kind of reason the noble Lord asked for.
LORD FARRERmentioned a case that occurred to himself in a town with which the noble Earl was very well acquainted, Two or three years ago he happened to be lowing up the river, and they came to a public-house where they asked for tea. They were told they could not have tea, but they could have spirits. He asked for biscuits, and they were refused. He wrote to the justices' clerk, who insisted that this publican should supply proper refreshments. He did not gather that, unless this Amendment were agreed to, that could be done under the Bill, but he might be wrong.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the noble Lord is wrong, and if he reads the section he will see that. It does not do to interpret one small act as being so fatal as to put the licensee in danger of losing his licence. But if he persistently followed such a course as has been described he would be liable to be judged as misconducting himself, and become liable to all the penalties. With regard to the instance of the most rev. Primate, there, again, I do not entertain the least doubt that the case of a publican who enticed little children into the public-house would be a case of misconduct within the meaning of the first clause. These two instances really illustrate the reason why we cannot accept the Amendment. All such matters as are suggested are already covered by the Bill as we propose it. But there are other matters which do not involve misconduct, and these, we think, ought not to be imposed. We think these should be matters suggested to the licensee, and, if he undertakes to do what is suggested, I think that undertaking should be enforced. But we do not think that we can exalt these conditions into grounds for refusing a licence.
EARL SPENCER: I hope the Government will consider the proposition of the most rev. Primate. So far as I understand the Bill, it most materially deprives magistrates of the disciplinary power they had before. They will not be in a stronger position when they can only recommend what they want to the licensing committee, and not act themselves. Everybody who understands the Bill is clearly of that opinion, as far as I

1193
know. An immense deal has been done to the disciplinary power of the magistrate, which, we think, will be diminished; and what the most rev. Primate proposes is to try to give back some of that power, which is a very beneficial power, into the hands of the magistrates. This it is very desirable they should hold in many respects. My Lords, I do not mean to go at length into this matter, but I believe at Liverpool there was a most remarkable instance of what the magistrates did, not by threatening to withdraw licences, but really by the licence-holders and others knowing what power they had. They were able, as the law then stood, to do a great deal which a great many people who have studied the Bill think they will not be enabled now to carry out. Therefore, I hope the Government will take into account this Amendment of the most rev. Primate, which I think would be of great interest and value for the sake of morality and good conduct in towns.
THH EARL OF HALSBURY: I cannot understand why it has been said in this debate that the disciplinary power of the magistrates is lessened. There is no such limit in the Bill at all. The power to punish by withdrawing a licence for misconduct remains what it was before. My very strong objection is that you are leaving now some very uncertain powers in the hands of magistrates, and I think it is for their sake as well as for the sake of the persons who are to have this jurisdiction exercised over them, that these very uncertain and unnecessary powers should not be granted. Take one example; suppose a magistrate was to say, "I will not grant a licence unless You undertake your house is not tied." Some people may think that is a reasonable condition, but it is giving them power beyond the law, and I think it ought not to be allowed. You ought to have definite rules. You ought to have something that can be recognised as misconduct by everybody. I think it would be a very undesirable thing to give this jurisdiction to magistrates, exposing them to very unfavourable comment if they do not take advantage of the fad of any particular neighbourhood.
*THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CAN-TERBURYasked the Lord Chancellor
1194
whether the expression "ill-conducted" would cover such a case as he had referred to, in which the house, being well-conducted in other respects, was in the way of bribing children with sweets.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: The difficulty I have in replying is that the expression has not sufficiently explained itself. If the most rev. Prelate means coaxing children by sweets to indulge in spirits or beer, I should not have the smallest doubt; but if it is merely giving children sweets, I should not think that is misconduct.
*THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid he was sorry to prolong the conversation, but to make it quite clear, he would point out that the particular offence that was at that time practised by the publicans in question was to entice children, at a time before the Child Messenger Bill had passed, to go to their house rather than another house to fetch beer, and necessarily to find that house a happy place wherein to spend their time. In short,-the system was to endeavour to get children within the walls of the public-house, the specific purpose being that it was profitable to the publican rather than advantageous to the child.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
*THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYmoved to leave out the word "previous" in Sub-section 2 of Clause 8.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 25, to leave out the word 'previous.'"—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: There is no objection to that.
THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid he would move, in a slightly altered form, the Amendment which stood in the name of the Earl of Rosslyn.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 27, after the words "ill-conducted,' to insert the words 'provided that where

1195
the justices, on an application for the renewal of an existing, on-licence, ask the licence-holder to give an undertaking as aforesaid, they shall adjourn the hearing of the application, and cause notice of the required undertaking to be served upon the registered owner of the premises, and give him an opportunity of being heard.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We have no objection to these words as amended. We could not have accepted them as on the Paper; but as the noble Earl has moved them we have o objection.
*THE EARL OF CARLISLEin moving the Amendment which stood in the name of Viscount Peel, said that it was a very important one, because it did that which they had been frequently told the Bill was intended to do. It assimilated the ante-1869 beerhouses to other licensed houses. Clause 1 of this Bill abolished the old four grounds that affected 1869 beerhouses, but the effect of Clause 9 was to revive the four grounds on which alone the justices could refuse renewal. By the sub-section as it stood the old 1869 beer-houses would regain privileges which the first clause of this Bill struck out, and the consequence was the Bill did nothing whatever to the 1869 beerhouses, except to give the quarter sessions committee the power of buying them out. Other licensed houses could be refused renewal at present for structural disqualifications, but this privileged set of houses might be as structurally unfit as possible and yet their licences could not be refused on that ground. The clause protected these houses for no reason that could be conceived. This Bill had been praised again and again, and great deficiencies had been justified on the ground that it dealt with the 1869 beerhouses. It was quite true it did that, but it replaced them in their original position by this clause. He hoped the Government would see their way to meet them on that clause, because, as it stood, it reduced the Bill to an absurdity. It should, however, be understood that without the Bill these ante-1869 beerhouse licences had been reduced from 49,130 in 1869 to 27,874 in 1904 by the latest, return; so that unless the assimilation,
1196
which he proposed, was effected, it was difficult to see what could be gained by the Bill on this point.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 30, to leave out from the word 'repealed' to the end of the sub-section."—(The Earl of Carlisle.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The effect of the Amendment is to place the ante-1869 beerhouses in the same position as other public-houses for all purposes. I think the noble Earl will see the reason why the Government are not willing to accept the Amendment. The law provides that ordinary public-house licences which do not belong to this category can be taken away for a great variety of reasons without compensation; but in the case of the ante-1869 beer-houses they can be taken away only for four causes, which are enumerated in the Act of Parliament. Well, my Lords, if this Amendment were passed, it would follow that the ante-1869 beerhouse licences might be taken away without compensation for those causes for which the ordinary public-houses can be deprived of their licences, and which are not included amongst the four which specially apply to the ante-1869 houses. That, my Lords, we think would be a breach of the Parliamentary title under which the ante-1869 beer houses are held. But we do not think that the ante-1869 beer-houses should be imposed for all time on the community; on the contrary, it is one of the advantages of the Bill that we deal for the first time with these beer-houses. We allow them to be taken away for the causes I have mentioned, but which are not enumerated amongst these four specially prescribed in the case of the ante-1869 beerhouses, but with compensation. The difference between their title and the title of the ordinary public-house will be represented in the amount of compensation they will receive. By this method no injustice will be done to the ante-1869 beerhouses, and yet they will be brought within the control of the magistrates in a way in which they have never been before, and will be removable even for other reasons than the four prescribed. But, of course, if the magistrates go outside these four prescribed reasons, they will be obliged to

1197
provide the compensation which is directed by the Act. These are the reasons why we cannot accept this Amendment. It would, contrary to the policy of the Government, break the Parliamentary title under which these ante-1869 beerhouses are held. At the same time we think we have provided a sufficient means of controlling these beerhouses which, we submit, is better than that which the noble Lord recommends.
*THE EARL OF CARLISLEsaid that the Parliamentary title of these houses was the same as that of the full public-house licence. The pre-1869 off beer licences had already been abolished without compensation in 1882, and he never understood that there was a difference in the Parliamentary title between the off beer licences and the on licences.
Earl SPENCER: I think it will be a great misfortune if these licences are
not to be under the same regulations as other licences. All the difference in the world is made by the fact that they will now receive compensation.
THE MARQUESS of SALISBURY: No, my Lords. In the Amendment of the noble Earl, he proposes in certain cases that they should be suppressible, if I may use that word, without compensation. That is exactly the point of his Amendment.
*THE EARL OF CARLISLE: If the premises are structurally unfit, the ante-1869 beer licences should be suppressible like other licences.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But outside the Act of Parliament.
On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," their Lordships divided—Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 27.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Drogheda, E.

Burton, L.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor)

Feversham, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Vane,E. (M. Loddonderry.) (L. President.)

Haddington, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Cloncurry, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Lathom, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Grafton, D.

Lytton, E.

Dunboyne, L.

Marlborough, D.

Malmesbury, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Northumberland, D.

Northesk, E.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Wellington, D.

Onslow, E.

Forester, L.

Powis, E.

Glanusk, L.

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Saint Germans, E.

Glenesk, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Selborne, E.

Hampton, L.

Bath, M.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Hylton, L.

Bristol, M.

Wharncliffe, E.

Kenyon, L.

Camden, M.

Yarborough, E.

Killanin, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.

Hertford, M.

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Lansdowne M.

Colville of Culdross, V.

Lawrence, L.

Winchester, M.

Falmouth, V.

Methuen, L.

Zetland, M.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Montagu of Beaulieu, L

Ormathwaite, L.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.)

Sidmouth, V.

Raglan, L.

Ravensworth, L.

Clarendon, E.(L. Chamberlain.

Addington, L.

Redesdale, L.

Allerton, L.

Robertson, L.

Bathurst, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Stalbridge, L.

Cawdor, E.

Ardilaun, L.

Suffield, L.

Chichester, E.

Armstrong, L.

Ventry, L.

Dartrey, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Denbigh, E.

Balfour, L.

Windsor, L.

Derby, E.

Barnard, L.

Wolverton L.

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

Belper, L.

Wynford, L.

Burnham, L

NOT-CONTENTS.

Ripon, M.

Carlisle, E.

Crewe, E.

Carrington, E.

Grey, E.

Beauchamp, E.

Chesterfield, E. [Teller.]

Spencer, E.

Temple, E.

Brassey, L.

Monteagle of Broandon, L.

Burghclers, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Sandhurst, L.

London, L. Bp.

Farrer, L.

shuttleworth, L.

Peterborough, L. Bp.

Hatherton, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

St. Albans, L. Bp.

Kinnaird, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

St. David's, L. Bp.

Monkswell, L.

Welby, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

*THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOLsaid that his noble friend Lord Zouche of Haryngworth was unable to be present, and he had asked him to look after his Amendment. He himself had an Amendment on the Paper very nearly in identical terms, but he preferred the form of his noble friend. He proposed that the eastern and western divisions of Sussex and Suffolk should each be deemed a county for the 'purposes of this Act. He wished to ask their Lordships to adopt the Amendment so as to bring these two counties into the four corners of the Bill. He understood, from conversation he had had with Lord Onslow, that it was contrary to the practice of Parliament by a public Bill to interfere with any rights of quarter sessions. His answer to that was that for hundreds of years in the case of Suffolk, and he dared say for a very long period in the case of Sussex, the practice had invariably been in the opposite direction, and there was nothing novel in what they were asking for. They were only asking that the invariable practice and custom of the counties should be confirmed. On the merits of the question he might mention that it had invariably been the case both in Sussex and Suffolk that the quarter sessions had dealt with licensing questions including licensing appeals. He was aware that there was a proviso which would enable them to go to the Home Office and ask for an Order, but these two or three words which he proposed would save the justices the trouble of making an application to the Home Secretary and the Home Secretary the trouble of answering the application. He thought their Lordships would perceive that he was asking nothing unreasonable.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 39, after the word 'sessions' to insert the words 'provided that the eastern and western divisions of Sussex and Suffolk shall each be deemed a county for the purposes of this Act.'"—(The Marquess of Bristol.)
*THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The last few words of the speech of the noble Marquess seemed to me to suggest to your Lordships that, in order to save the quarter sessions of the counties of Sussex and Suffolk from proceeding under the Bill in the same way that every quarter sessions are to proceed, they should have a special clause put in to enable them to do that which they could perfectly well do under the Bill. That seems to me altogether unnecessary, and to rest on a misapprehension as to what can and cannot be done in the two counties in which the noble Marquess is interested. May I ask the noble Marquess to look at Clause 8, Sub-section 4, which says that "where quarter sessions have customarily been held separately by adjournment or otherwise for any part of a county as defined by this Act, the Secretary of State may by Order, on the application of the justices sitting at each such separate sessions, constitute for the purposes of this Act any part of the county for which quarter sessions are, for the time being so separately held a separate county." Well, if the two parts of Suffolk wish to be constituted separate quarter sessions areas they have powers by applying to the Secretary of State, but, if either of those counties are unwilling to, be created into separate portions then I think it would be most improper for Parliament, against their will and without hearing them, to compel them. I think I have shown that the object the noble Marquess wishes to attain can be attained under the Bill, and I cannot see any reason for exempting these two counties from the operations which are provided generally for all counties.
On Question, "That those words be there inserted."
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The Contents have it.
*THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOL: I must trouble your Lordships to divide

1201
because I am in the nature of a baillie for Sussex.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I waited for a challenge but heard none.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I am bound to say I heard my noble friend challenge, but I hope he will not persist in it. May I say that he may take my assurance that there is the power to do that which he requires under the Bill, and in the interpretation clause the word "county" includes every part or division of a county.
On Question. Amendment negatived.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYmoved the following Amendment: Page 7, line 21, after "persons" insert "or may be transferred or removed to any other premises under Section 14 of the Alehouse Act, 1828, or Section 50 of the Licensing Act, 1872." The noble Marquess said: This Amendment is in order to remove a doubt. We do not think, as a matter of fact, that there ought to be any doubt that a removal does not involve that the licence should be a new licence—the renewal of a licence on removal does not involve that it should be a new licence, but there has been just an atom of doubt thrown on the point, and in order to insure that the removal does not make a new licence, we propose to insert these words.
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 21, after the word 'persons' to insert the words or may be transferred or removed to any other premises under Section 14 of the Alehouse Act, 1828, or Section 50 of the Licencing Act, 1872.'"—(The Marquess of Saliabury.)
THE EARL OF CREWEsaid before these words were inserted, as he supposed they would be, he desired to make one or two observations upon the Amendment. It was one of the Amendments of a very innocent appearance, as several had been described, which had an extremely far-reaching effect. So far as he was able to judge, it seemed certain that Clause 4, upon which they on that side of the House had looked with great satisfaction, would have its effect very largely reduced
1202
indeed by the insertion of these apparently innocent words. In Clause 4, as their Lordships were aware, the monopoly value of a licence was handed over to the public, and taken away from the licence, but in these cases of transfer the monopoly value of course remained as before in the hands of the licence-holder. What he desired to point out to their Lordships was that there had been, and doubtless would be in the future, a great number of cases where these transfers were in all practical sense and meaning the grant of new licences. A licence would now be, of course, an even more valuable possession than it had hitherto been, all old licences would be most jealously and carefully preserved, and they would be preserved now with all the greater attention, in order to remove them from places where they had not been very valuable to places where they would become exceedingly valuable. After these harmless-looking transfers had been effected, they would not merely retain an old monopoly value, but would acquire an absolutely new monopoly value which they would maintain in permanence. It was a little surprising that this Amendment, which was of a far-reaching character, should be imposed upon them at that stage. They did not propose to ask their Lordships to divide against it. That would be a useless task, he feared, but certainly they were not disposed to allow it to pass without a protest. The insertion, he was bound to say, of Clause 4 by His Majesty's Government, holding the views they did, had caused some surprise in some quarters, and he could only assume that the objection taken to Clause 4, possibly by certain members of His Majesty's Government, had unfortunately caused them to whittle down the operation of the clause by the insertion of this most mischeivous Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the noble Earl is under a mis-apprehension. As I understand him, he desires to raise the old question as to whether transfers should be placed on the same footing as renewals under the Act. I beg to say we are long past the part of the Bill in which that was done, which was in the beginning of Clause 8, and the word "transfer" in the Amendment I am moving is, as I apprehend, of quite a different character. The

1203
point here is not the transfer from one licence-holder to another, but the transfer of a licence from one set of premises to another set of premises. I am sure the one which the noble Earl had in his mind is an earlier one.
THE EARL OF CREWE: By no means.
The MARQUESS of SALISBURY: This is a relatively small matter, and that is much more important. For example, a licensed house is burned down. That is no reason why, because the house has been burned down, all the conditions of a new licence should be imposed. The licence must be removed to another building, and that appears to be a perfectly fair and equitable arrangement. I merely give that as an instance, and therefore I hope the noble Earl will not consider this as a matter of importance.
EARL GREYsaid he would give another instance. The noble Marquess had given an instance of one kind of case. Supposing the owner of a licensed house obtained the transfer on removal from a congested slum in a town or county to a perfectly new area. That was absolutely equivalent to a new licence of a very great value, and it was to protest against that the noble Earl spoke, and the only part he heard with dismay was that in which he said he was not going to divide. He did hope the noble Earl would divide on this Amendment.
LORD DAVEYsaid it was rather astounding that this Amendment, which practically converted what would otherwise be a new licence into an old licence, with all the privileges which this Bill for the first time enacted, and to the prejudice of the public, should be treated as a mere drafting Amendment. He presumed to differ from the noble Marquess. He (Lord Davey) thought that the first sub-section of Clause 8 dealt with a totally different thing—"The provisions of this Act shall apply to the transfer of an on-licence as they apply to the renewal of an on-licence." That meant, as he understood it, those cases where on the death of a licence-holder, or on the licence-holder giving up a public-house and wishing to transfer it to another licence-holder, a transfer took
1204
place. It applied only to transfers of that character, and speaking for himself, though of course he might be mistaken, the only transfer which was spoken of in the noble Marquess's present Amendment was the transfer of a totally different character, which could only be done under the express provisions of a particular case—that was to say, the transfer of the licence which was attached to certain premises in one place to premises in another place. That was a transfer of a totally different character from that which was mentioned in Sub-section 1 of Section 8, the transfer from one person to another. The question they were discussing now, and which was raised by the Amendment of the noble Marquess, was transfer from one licensed premises to another premises which stood on a totally different footing. That could only be done under Section 14 of the Alehouse Act, which required very special conditions to exist. He had not the Act by him, but he was quite certain that the conditions were of a very special character and only related to a very special class of case. The transfer under the section of the Licensing Act of 1872 was of a large character, and enabled a person to get his licence transferred from one premises to another premises with the consent of the licensing authority to the second premises. Under the old law that was perfectly immaterial. It was quite immaterial whether the transfer from certain premises, say, from Worthing to Brighton, was a transferred licence or Whether it was a new licence granted in Brighton. Now, under the old licence, they received under the Act an extremely advantageous and privileged position, which made a11 the difference in the world. If a man found that the trade at his licensed premises was dwindling in one place and the premises were no longer required in that place, he could promptly transfer himself to another town or village within the same county, and claim the privileges of the old licence for his new premises. That was like a questions of ancient lights: a man hung out a notice that he had ancient lights, and nobody could touch them. So with an holder of an old licence on certain premises: it gave him the right to warn people off from any infringement of his licence, although he transferred it to other premises. This seemed to him

1205
to be a most important Amendment. But for this Amendment he believed that a man would have to obtain a new licence if be transferred his business from one town or one village within the county to another village or town within the county, and he would have no higher rights or privileges than those which belonged to a new licence; but if he could transfer his old licence from one town or village to another town or village within the county or the quarter sessions district, at any rate he would obtain for his new public-house, which was in all essentials and in all respects a perfectly new public-house, all the benefits and privileges which by this Act were annexed to an old public-house.
*THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYhoped the noble Marquess or some other member of the Government would be able in some way to reassure their Lordships on this subject. The noble Marquess treated it as a small matter, but it appeared to him one of the gravest changes they could introduce in the Bill. If the interpretation he (the most rev. Primate) put upon this Amendment were true, it would practically mean that no one who could help it would apply for a new licence, but everybody would apply for a "removal," for the reason that he would thus escape the new obligations imposed by Clause 4 on new licences. Their Lordships would remember that there were two quite different Acts relating to such "transfers" or "removals." There was first the Act of 1828 under which the cases on which a removal could be justified were such things as the burning down of a house, and under that Act the "removal" could only take place within the same licensing district. But there was absolutely no restriction under the Act of 1872 as to the grounds on which the renewal might be sanctioned, and it might be a removal to any other part of the county—that was to say, those who held a great many licences, instead of asking for a new licence which would be placed under the severer conditions now imposed, would ask for the transfer by removal, which would give them all the opportunities of escaping the obligations they had heard so much of under Clause 4. If that were so, the change might be good or bad (he himself thought it was exceedingly bad) but at all events it was
1206
a very great thing to do, and it seemed to him to take away the merits they had heard so much belauded under Clause 4. He might be making some mistake, but in that case he hoped to be set right.
LORD BURGHCLEREsaid he interposed with very small hopes of his suggestion being accepted by the Government. But if, as he had not the slightest doubt, the most rev. Primate was right in what he said with regard to the Acts of Parliament mentioned in the Amendment of the noble Marquess, he would suggest to the Government that they should strike out the words "or Section 50 of the Licensing Act, 1872," and the Amendment would be very much improved. Under the Alehouse Act of 1828, as had been pointed out, there were certain specific conditions by which the transfer might be made in these circumstances, but by Section 50 of the Act of 1872, as he was informed, they might be transferred without any conditions whatever. If His Majesty's Government would strike out those words he thought it would not be so necessary for them to make a protest against the Amendment. He ventured respectfully to commend the suggestion to the noble Marquess, though he was bound to say that, with the experience the House had had, he had not the slightest hope of it being accepted.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am very much surprised at the amount of attention which has been directed against this Amendment, which I really did think, quite candidly and frankly, was a very innocent Amendment, and I am still inclined to think it is, but as the most rev. Primate and noble Lords opposite have told us they consider the matter of very great importance, I should not like to press it upon the House at this moment. I therefore engage, on behalf of the Government, to look into it very carefully, and hope to be able to persuade the House at a future stage to adopt it, or some part of it; but I will not press it at the present moment.
Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
"In line 28, after the word 'licence' to insert as a new paragraph the words 'The expression

1207
"transfer" means a transfer under Section four or fourteen of the Alehouse Act, 1828.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury).
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9:—
THE EARL OF WEMYSSmoved an Amendment of page 7, line 31, after "1902" insert "(3) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January, 1905." The noble Earl said the object of the Amendment was simply that the Act should not become operative until 1st January, 1905
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 31, after the words ('1902') to insert the words '(3.) The Act shall come into operation on the first day of January one thousand nine hundred and five.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: This Amendment is clearly necessary. We require a short time in order to get things in proper order before the Act can come into force, and of course, we accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agree to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, as amended.
The House then resumed.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, the Licensing Bill has gone through the Committee to which your Lordships referred same and I am directed to report it to your Lordships. with Amendments.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I beg to move that the Standing Committee be negatived.
On Question, Standing Committee negatived.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No.183.)
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): It may be convenient that we should take the Report stage of this Bill as the first order on Monday, and if that meets the convenience of noble Lords, I will give notice to move the suspension of the Standing Orders.
EARL SPENCER: I think that would be the much better course.

ARMY COUNCIL BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
  *THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DON-OUGHMORE)moved the Third Reading of the Army Council Bill. He said: As a result of the consideration we have been able to give to two points raised in Committee, I am glad to be able to meet the noble Lords opposite on one of those points. As regards the first point raised by Lord Monkswell, namely, the insertion of the words "as such" after "Secretary of State for War," I am convinced that the insertion of the words would make the Act quite unworkable.
  I have been carefully through some of the principal Acts concerned—the Army Act, Militia Act, and the Reserve Forces Act—and I find that in none of these is the Secretary of State mentioned as "the Secretary of State for War," but as "a Secretary of State," and therefore if we were to insert the words "as such" it would exclude all the most important Acts concerned with the Army from the purview of this Bill. But I think your Lordships will see, on looking at the words of the clause "all statutory powers and duties which at the date of the passing of this Act are exercised by the Secretary of State for War," that there is really not any likelihood of any abuse arising. As regards the point raised by the noble Marquess Lord Ripon, I was able to discuss this matter with him this evening and at his

  1209
  suggestion I am quite ready to insert after the words "Army Council," "including the Secretary of State for War and the UnderSecretary of State for War." If you will allow me, I shall be glad to move that as a privilege Amendment.
  On Question, "That the Bill be read a third time," resolved in the affirmative.
  Bill read 3a (according to order); an Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at half-past Eleven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter past Four.