Sitting of 12 July 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [LORDS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time to-morrow.
  Doncaster Corporation Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  Richard Jaeger's Patent Bill [Lords] Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Caledonian Railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Glasgow and South Western Railway Order Confirmaticn Bill [Lords]; Govan Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords], Read a second time; to be considered upon Thursday.
  Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Bill [Lords]; Scotch Education Department Provisional Order Confirmation (Edinburgh) Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Great Western Railway Bill [Lords]; Neath, Pontardawe, and Brynaman Railway Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP No. 10).
  Sir LEWIS MCIVER reported from the Committee on Group No. 10 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, they had adjourned until Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Education Board Provisional Order (Cardiff) Bill; City of London (Central Criminal Court-House) Bill, without Amendment.
  Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill, with Amendments.
  Amendments to—Southport and Lytham Tramroad (Extension of Time) Bill [Lords]; Filey Improvement Bill [Lords]; Maidenhead Bridge Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

PETITIONS.
  BISHOPRICS OF SOUTHWARK AND BIRMINGHAM BILL.
  Petition from Birmingham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Kintyre, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Allestree; Armley; Aston on Trent; Barrow on Soar; Borrowash; Boughton; Boxted Bradford; Bramley; Brierfield; Bucknall Callow; Camberwell; Castle Doningtor Colby; Colne (two); Costcck; Derby Dewsbury (two); Dunstan; East Leake Elmstead; Foubridge; Gateshead (four) Great Bedwyn; Hackney; Haltwhistle Hastings; Hebburn; Helpringham; Hemingfield; Hexham; Hither Green Holbeck (two); Hoton; Ilford; Kilburn King's Heath; Leysters; Loughborough Low Wortley; Madeley; Mark's Tey Mawbrey; Mount Sorrel; Newcastle on Tyne (three); New Wortley; Norwich; Peldon; Pewsey; Preston; Quarndon; Queen's Ferry; Rocksholme; Sabden; Silver Royd Hill; South Bank; Stamford
  1348
  Hill; Thornton; Warrington; West Mersea; Willoughby; Wimborne; Wivenhoe; Wymeswold; and York; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Hastings; and South Kensington; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petition from Camberwell, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  VALUATION BILL.
  Petitition from Nuneaton, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (GREAT BRITAIN).
  Copy presented, of Forty-seventh Report of His Majesty's Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools for 1903. Part I. List of Schools and Detailed Reports [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented, of Draft Rules proposed to be made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Prisons Acts, 1877 and 1898, with respect to the constitution of the Visiting Committee of Borstal Prison [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PENAL SERVITUDE AUT, 1891.
  Copy presented, of Regulations made by the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland for taking Finger Prints, etc., of Untried Prisoners [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES, 1904–5).
  Copy presented, of Explanatory Memorandum by the Secretary of State for India [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  SEA FISHERIES REGULATION ACT, 1888.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, under

  1349
  the provisions of the Act for the variation of the Order creating the North Eastern Sea Fisheries District [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports Annual Series, Nos. 3213 to 3215 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Order included in the Tramways Orders Confirmation {No. 2) Bill."—(Mr. Bonar Law.)
  ELECTRIC POWER UNDERTAKINGS.
  Return ordered, "showing the names of companies or persons who have obtained Acts conveying powers for the supply of Electric Power to Districts, with the names and areas of such Districts and the year in which the powers were obtained, and whether such powers have been exercised or not; and, in the former case, what is the state of the Works constructed under such powers."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES ACTS, 1879 AND 1884.
  Address for "Return showing the working of the Regulations made in 1886 for carrying out the Prosecution of Offences Acts, 1879 and 1884, with Statistics setting forth the number, nature, result, and cost of the Proceedings instituted by the Director, in accordance with those Regulations, from the 1st day of January, 1903, to the 31st day of December, 1903 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 209, of Session 1903)."—(Mr. Cochrane.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Religious Examinations in Schools—Permission of the Local Authority.
  MR. SOAMES (Norfolk, S.): To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that the ordinary
  1350
  I work of the national school at Wortwell, Norfolk, was suspended on Friday, 24th June, for an examination in religious knowledge, by the diocesan inspector, without leave from the local authority; and, if so, whether he will give instructions that the permission of the local authority must in future be obtained before the school work is interrupted for this purpose.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) I have no information as to the particular case referred to in the Question. This matter is governed by Section 76 of The Elementary Education Act, 1870, under which managers are entitled to fix a day or days, not more than two in number, for the inspection or examination of the school by the diocesan inspector. The notice which the section requires is to be given in the school. The section says nothing of notice to the local authority; though under the changed conditions of the Act of 1902 it would certainly appear to be desirable, as a matter of courtesy and convenience, that such notice should be given.

  Obstruction of Main Street in Omagh by Farming Machines.
  DR. THOMPSON (Monaghan, N.): To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if he is aware of the obstruction to traffic in the main street of the town of Omagh caused by the exhibition of dangerous and unprotected farming machines and implements: is he aware that the street is blocked to a distance of fifteen feet from the pathway with these implements; and, if so, will he explain why, although frequent complaints have been made to the police, this public danger not only remains unabated but is daily growing more serious.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The Towns Improvement Act of 1854 has been adopted in Omagh, and offences of the character mentioned are prosecuted by the town commissioners. The police have reported all cases of obstruction of the thoroughfares to the commissioners, but the latter have declined to institute proceedings. I am considering the question of directing the police, under the circumstances, to take proceedings under the 92nd Section of the Act.

  Outstanding Exchequer Bonds and Treasury Bills.
  MR. BUCHANAN (Perthshire, E.): To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, what is the amount at present outstanding of Exchequer Bonds and Treasury Bills respectively.
  (Answered by Mr Austen Chamberlain.)
  Outstanding on 12th July, 1904.

  £

  Exchequer Bonds

  20,500,000

  Treasury Bills

  26,633,000*

  47,133,000

  * N.B.—£5,500,000 of these Bills are advances on Ways and Means, and must be paid off within the financial year.

  State of Affairs in the Aden Hinterland.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any information as to the state of affairs in the Aden Hinterland which would account for the despatch of an increased military force from Aden.
  (Answered by Mr Secretary Brodrick.) In consequence of a threatened attack by the Kotaibi on our post at Sulek, which is about fifty-five miles from Aden on the route northwards, the Resident, as a precautionary measure, strengthened the post and the communications between it and Aden. These measures, according to a report received by telegraph on the 10th instant, seem to have had the desired effect.

  Members of Royal Irish Constabulary Punished at Instance of County Inspector Ball.
  MR. P. A. MCHUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give the number of sergeants and constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary punished at the instance of County Inspector Ball since his appointment to county Leitrim.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Two sergeants were punished at the instance of the county inspector since the date referred to, January, 1902. Two constables were also fined by him in the
  1352
  same period on reports made by their officers.

  Sanitary Condition of Irish Workhouses.
  DR. THOMPSON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware of the state of dirt and neglect to which the poor of Irish workhouses are exposed; that in many of these institutions there are no baths, water-closets, water supply, or other sanitary conveniences; and whether, seeing that these institutions are inspected by non-professional inspectors, without any scientific attainments or special knowledge, he will direct that in future these institutions, and especially the hospitals, shall be inspected by medical and not lay inspectors.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The poor in Irish workhouses are not in a state of dirt and neglect. They are much cleaner and are better cared for than the poor outside the workhouses. If, however, the hon. Member will refer me to any workhouse in which it is suggested that the contrary is the case I shall be pleased to cause an investigation to be made. The workhouses are visited periodically by experienced lay inspectors, and I am not aware that they discharge their duty less efficiently because they have no scientific attainments. The workhouse hospitals are inspected by two medical inspectors specially appointed for the purpose.

  Sanitary Condition of Glenties Workhouse.
  DR. THOMPSON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if he is aware that in the Glenties Workhouse there is no water supply; that there are no baths or water-closets, or means of heating water, and that notwithstanding the frequent application of the authorities of the hospital and workhouse, these necessaries remain unsupplied; and, if so, will he direct the Local Government Board to insist on the immediate remedy of the grievances.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The water supply in this workhouse is defective. Basins and portable baths are, however, provided in the hospital. The

  1353
  Local Government Board inspector has repeatedly called attention to the necessity for a sufficient water supply, and the board of guardians some time ago obtained plans for the work as well as for water-closets and bathroom accommodation; but, in view of the poverty and high rates in the district, the guardians decided to await the Report of the Poor Law Reform Commission before incurring the heavy expense of a better water supply.

  Pensions for Junior Literary Assistants of the Irish National Education Commissioners.
  MR. O'DOHERTYTo ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland the number of junior literary assistants at present engaged by the Commissioners of National Education and National Schools of Ireland; and whether, considering the long service at low salaries rendered to the Commissioners by junior literary assistants, the Government will consider the advisability of allowing them pensions or compensation when they are unfit for work, the same as now applies in the case of national teachers.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The number of junior literary assistants in the service of the Commissioners is eleven. Teachers of this class are entitled to retiring gratuities under the old arrangements which were applicable to all teachers before the introduction of the Teachers' Pension Act. They are not eligible for pensions under the Teachers' Pension Act. This class of teacher is fast dying out and no new appointments are made.

  Assistant Teachers in Irish National Schools.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLTo ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the number of assistant teachers employed in Irish national schools; how many of those have been trained; what is the highest grade and salary they can reach as assistants; how many years must elapse under most favourably circumstances before they can reach the maximum; why it is that the spirit of the recent rules, which gives promotion and increase of salary to all others, is denied only to the assistants; whether, under
  1354
  those circumstances, steps will be taken to enable assistants of ten years service and classed under old rules as second-class to be promoted to second grade.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The number of assistant teachers employed in the year 1903 was 3,787, of whom 1,590 were trained. Assistants, as a rule, can only rank in the third grade, but may, under exceptional circumstances and by special order of the Board, be promoted above third grade (Rule 195f). So long as assistants are in the third grade, the maximum salary for men is £86 per annum, and for women £72 10s. per annum, in both cases exclusive of capitation fees, out of the school grant under the Irish Education Act of 1902. An assistant entering the service at the minimum salary would reach the maximum of the third grade under ordinary circumstances, if his service was good, in nine years. Under special and exceptional circumstances he might reach the maximum of the third grade, or even of a higher grade, in a much shorter time, but there is no fixed time limit. The new rules provide for increases of salary to assistants' under ordinary circumstances, and for promotions of assistants under exceptional circumstances, but it was never contemplated, and it would not be desirable, to give assistants the same rights as principals in regard to promotion. The Commissioners desire that principals should, as a rule, be recruited from experienced assistants, but few assistants would be willing to take principalships with the corresponding increased responsibilites if they could, from the monetary point of view, do as well by remaining assistants. In reply to the concluding inquiry, I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member's previous Question of the 29th of June † on the same subject.

  Whisky for Inmates of the Naas Union—Refund of Duty.
  MR. LEAM: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the quarter cask of whisky, containing about 62 gallons, which had been- procured by the guardians of the Naas Union for the
  † See page 27.

  1355
  use of the inmates, has become not potable owing to having been reduced by water which was subsequently found to have been polluted, and that the Local Government Board has ordered it to be destroyed; and, if so, whether, seeing that the duty has been paid on it, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue will either refund the duty or make some allowance in respect thereof, seeing that the guardians were at the loss of the material and have had to replace it.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The facts are as stated. The workhouse master who was responsible for the loss has since been required to resign. The guardians communicated with the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and were informed that the latter have no power to make any repayment of duty in respect of spirits which have passed out of Revenue control.

  Value of Output.

  Number of coloured (Natives) at work.

  Number of white men at work.

  £

  June, 1904

  1,309,231

  68,857

  Not available.

  January, 1904

  1,231,418

  69,159

  12,814

  February, 1904

  1,234,927

  72,177

  12,801

  March, 1904

  1,310,667

  73,667

  12,681

  April, 1904

  1,305,431

  73,246

  12,740

  May, 1904

  1,335,826

  70,778

  Not available.

  Value of Output.

  Average number of coloured (Natives) at work.

  Average number of whites at work.

  £

  July to December, 1901

  899,402

  13,248

  2,552

  January to June, 1902

  2,827,385

  24,527

  5,627

  July to December, 1902

  4,456,279

  35,264

  9,337

  January to June, 1903

  5,587,510

  52,487

  11,233

  July to December, 1903

  7,040,547

  64,162

  12,401

  January to June, 1904

  7,727,400

  72,062

  12,758

  (average for January to April)

  (average for January to April)

  Gold Output of Transvaal Mines—White and Native Labour.
  DR. MACNAMARA: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the value of the gold output in the Transvaal mines for June, 1904, together with the white and native labour employed in the mining industry during the same month; whether he can state further the Same facts for each month of 1904; and whether he can give the same facts for each of the periods of six months, as follows: July to December, 1901, January to June, 1902, July to December, 1902, January to June 1903, July to December, 1903, and January to June, 1904.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The following are the figures I am able to give:—
  Transvaal Gold Mines.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Maltese Finance.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that three months have elapsed since the close of the financial year in Malta, he will undertake that a copy of the balance-sheet for the year will be available for Members of the House before the Vote on the Colonial Estimates is taken.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): I have received a telegram from the Governor of Malta stating that the Annual Account for the year 1903–4 would be ready on the 11th of July; it should, therefore, reach the Colonial Office in about a week from that date. The account will then be printed and laid before Parliament.

    Prosecution of Fortune-tellers.
    MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the number of prosecutions and convictions for palmistry and other species of fortune-telling from 1st March, 1901, till 30th June, 1904, in London and Birmingham, respectively.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): During the period in question there were in the Metropolitan Police District sixteen prosecutions of the nature indicated by the hon. Member and thirteen convictions. In Birmingham there were fourteen prosecutions and five convictions, with two cases still pending.
    MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: What class of people were prosecuted. Were they sixpenny, or two or three guinea fee-takers?
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I will see if I can get the information for the hon. Member.

    The Alleged Mutiny on board ss. "Homewood"—Composition of the Crew.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the President of the
    1358
    Board of Trade whether he has received any report from His Majesty's Consul at the Port of Brest, France, with regard to the alleged mutiny on board the British steamer "Homewood"; and whether he can state how many of the sailors and firemen were foreigners, and what were their nationalities, and also to state whether these men could speak and understand the English language.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): Yes, Sir, I have received a report from His Majesty's Consul at Brest in regard to a disturbance on board the "Homewood." There was no mutiny. One member of the crew assaulted another, and when the master attempted to handcuff the offender he was attacked by two of the dockers who were working on board the vessel. Members of the crew came, however, to the assistance of the master and protected him against further assault. The crew (other than officers) of the "Homewood," when the Articles were opened at Antwerp, consisted of four Germans, four Swedes, two Belgians, one Norwegian, one Swiss, one Turk, and two British. I have no information as to their knowledge of English.
    MR. NANNETTI: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether these men understood the English language.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not think that is necessary. They seem, under the circumstances, to have behaved very well.

    Tuberculosis By-laws.
    MR. LUNDON (Limerick, E.): On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state how many, and what, local authorities have adopted the model by-laws on tuberculosis issued by the Board; and whether, in the event of the sanitary authority refusing to adopt the model by-laws, there is any means of compelling them to do so.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): I presume that the

    1359
    hon. Member has in view the Model Regulations issued by my Department for the guidance of local authorities in framing regulations under the Dairies, Cowsheds, and Milkshops Order of 1885. Since 1899, when the present Model Regulations were issued, 583 series have been made by councils of boroughs and urban and rural districts, and they are for the most part based on the model. I am not empowered to compel local authorities to adopt the Model Regulations if they do not think fit to do so.

    Inspection of Meat.
    MR. LUNDON: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state if the medical officers of health who are charged with the duty of judging meat alleged to be affected with tuberculosis have any special qualification for this position, or whether they have passed any examination in public health; and whether he will consider the necessity of issuing by-laws for their guidance with a view of protecting the private property of the traders in native meat and preventing the detrimental effect of unnecessary confiscation upon the producers of home meat.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I am advised that the training which every registered medical practitioner must have received as a student is sufficient to render him competent to detect tuberculosis in a carcase. As every medical officer of health must be a registered medical practitioner, it is not necessary for the purpose mentioned in the Question that he should possess any special qualification. Circulars were issued by my Department in March, 1899, and September, 1901, drawing attention to the principles which should be observed in the inspection of tuberculous carcases, and I do not think I need take any further action in the matter at the present time.
    MR. KILBRIDE: Is it not the fact that many of the inspectors have no qualifications whatever for this work.
    MR. WALTER LONGwas understood to reply that that observa-
    1360
    tion would not apply to medical officers of health to whom the Question on the Paper referred, but it was the case that some of the inspectors were in no way qualified.

    Kilrusheightey School Teacher's Salary.
    MR. P. A. MCHUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Resident Commissioner of National Education in Ireland wrote on the 23rd March last to the Very Rev. John Melvin, parish priest, manager of Kilrusheightey National School, county Sligo, informing him that the Commissioners would be surcharged by the Auditor-General if the salary of the principal teacher of the school was increased by giving him credit for the sum of £7 14s. 6d., which he had earned for tuition in agriculture within the three years ended 31st March, 1900; if so, will he explain to the House the circumstances under which the Resident Commissioner endeavours to transfer to the Auditor-General the responsibility of the Commissioners of National Education for a failure to comply with Rule 200 in calculating the consolidated income of the principal teacher of the school mentioned; has this case been submitted to the Auditor-General; and is that official entitled to supervise the Commissioners' interpretation of Rule 200.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The reply to the first inquiry is in the affirmative. Payments made by the Commissioners in such cases are governed by regulations which have been approved by Government and the Treasury, and are audited by the Controller and Auditor-General, who is authorised by statute to surcharge any payment made in contravention of the regulations. The case in question has not come under the notice of the Controller and Auditor-General because no payment was made.
    MR. P. A. MCHUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland were bound, under Rule 200, to take into account all sums

    1361
    earned by teachers from State sources for work actually performed within the three years ended 31st March, 1904; that the principal teacher of Kilrusheightey (county Sligo) was paid a sum of £7 14s. 6d. for tuition in agriculture given within the period stated; that the manager of this school, Very Rev. John Melvin, P.P., has repeatedly insisted that that sum (£7 14s. 6d.) should have been taken into account by the Commissioners when fixing the teacher's consolidated income; and that the Commissioners have refused to take it into account; and, if so, will he say under what authority have the Commissioners departed in this case from the provisions of Rule 200; and has the manager any appeal from their decision.
    MR.WYNDHAM; The period referred to in Rule 200 is the triennial period ended 31st March, 1900. Subject to this correction the reply to the first inquiry is in the negative. The consolidated incomes of teachers were calculated on emoluments actually paid within that period. The payment in the present instance was not so made, and in any case it was never contemplated by the Rules, as I have already explained, that grants covering services in respect of a period of six months should be continued in perpetuity under the form of consolidated income. The Commissioners reserved to themselves, with the approval of the Treasury, the right to give special consideration to cases in which any of the regulations in Rule 200 would operate inequitably. This right was exercised in a large number of cases at considerable additional expenditure. The claim of the Rev. Mr. Melvin was also several times considered by them, but they saw no reason for coming to the conclusion that it could be sustained.

    Irish Intermediate Education—Committee of Inquiry.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say when was the Committee of Inquiry now investigating the working of the system of intermediate education in Ireland appointed; what are the terms of reference to the Committee; who are the gentlemen who constitute the Com-
    1362
    mittee; what educational experience do they possess; what is the nature of the inquiries they are making; and who are the witnesses called, if any.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Committee was appointed on 2nd May. The inquiries are directed to the general conditions of the organisation of intermediate education in Ireland; its relations with primary and technical education; the staffing and equipment of schools; the allocation of the Board's funds; the training and salaries of teachers. The members of the Committee are Mr. F. H. Dale, an Inspector of Schools under the English Board of Education; and Mr. Stephens, late Inspector of Schools for the Victoria University, and now one of His Majesty's Inspectors of Schools. About eighty intermediate schools have been visited, as well as some of the training colleges. The Committee conferred with many educational authorities of different denominations and with teachers of schools.
    MR. FLYNN: By what authority was the Committee appointed?
    MR. WYNDHAM: By the authority of the Lord-Lieutenant.

    Queen's College (Belfast) Professors.
    MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state whether any appointments, outside their professional appointments, are held by the professor of English, the professor of chemistry, the professor of logic, and the professor of pathology, at Queen's College, Belfast; whether he can state if their college work is limited to five months in the year; and whether he has received any representations as to the necessity for the appointment of assistants at the public cost.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The professors in question hold no appointments other than examinerships. The Clark Lectureship, conferred by Trinity College, Cambridge, is also held by the professor of English. So far from the work of the professors being limited, as suggested, to a period of five months, in the year, the professors in some cases are only able to obtain a vacation of six weeks. The reply to the last query is in the negative.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Is it the case that the sittings only extend over five months in the year?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I will deal with that in answer to another Question.

    Irish Queen's Colleges.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state in how many months of the year education is imparted at the Queen's College, Belfast, and for how many months of the year, including vacation periods, it is closed; and whether he can state if the periods of repose are similar at the Queen's College, Galway, and the Queen's College, Cork.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The period of the college session at Belfast, as at Galway and Cork, is regulated by statute and is the same in the case of each of these colleges. It commences on the third Tuesday in October and terminates on the second Saturday in June. Much of the so-called vacation between June and October is taken up with examinations of the Royal University, at which the professors and students are occupied.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Are they not paid extra in connection with these examinations?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I cannot say.

    Lectures in Queen's College, Belfast.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many courses of lectures, advertised to be delivered in the Queen's College, Belfast, on music and on sound, have been abandoned for want of audiences, and what public cost was entailed on those occasions in fees and otherwise.
    MR. WYNDHAM: No such courses of lectures were abandoned for the reason stated, or any other reason, and no public cost was entailed.

    Westropp Estate, County Clare.
    MR. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say what
    1364
    reply the Estates Commissioners have received to the request made to the Land Judge's Court on behalf of the tenants on the Westropp Estate, county Clare; and whether the property is to be sold in compliance with the request.
    MR. WYNDHAM: On receipt of the request, the Land Judge wrote to the Estates Commissioners reminding them that offers for purchase had been previously made to the tenants under the 40th Section of the Act of 1896, and refused by the majority of the tenants. The Land Judge also pointed out that at the time of the consideration of the Land Commission report upon which these offers were based, the tenants had the fullest opportunity of being heard, and the prices named were most carefully considered by the Land Judge. In these circumstances, the Judge did not deem it expedient at present that proceedings should be taken under the 7th Section of the Act of 1903.
    MR. SHEEHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what offer was made to the tenants by the Land Judge?
    MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir.
    In reply to a further Question Mr. WYNDHAM said the matter was one which deserved and should have his careful attention.

    Glen (Kerry) Boat Slip.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the state of the boat-slip at Glen, county Kerry; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that the fishing season will shortly commence, the Congested Districts Board will complete the slip and undertake the construction of a breakwater.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Board recently expended a sum of £360 on the extension of this boat-slip. The construction of a breakwater would cost many thousands of pounds, but no further expenditure than that already incurred is contemplated by the Board.

    Kanturk Land Appeals.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why appeals in land cases from the Assistant Commissioner and from County Court Judges, which concern the Kanturk, county Cork, district, are heard in Killarney instead of Cork; and whether, in view of the additional expense to solicitors, tenants, and witnesses, as also the delay involved, the Land Commission will arrange to hear these appeals in Cork or Mallow, or other convenient centre in the county of Cork.
    MR. WYNDHAM: There is direct railway communication between Kanturk and Killarney and the former is nearer to Killarney than to Cork. Killarney is regarded as the most convenient centre for the hearing of appeals, and no additional expense, I am informed, has been placed upon the parties by having their cases heard in Killarney, which was selected to suit the public convenience.
    MR. FLYNN: Is it not possible to consult the convenience of those most concerned in these cases?
    MR. WYNDHAM: It is impossible to suit everybody's convenience.

    Strabane Labourer's Cottage Scheme.
    MR. MCFADDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Henry McCool, of Druminany, Raphoe, county Donegal, in the year 1899 applied to the Strabane No. 2 Rural District Council for a labourer's cottage, on the ground that his house had been condemned by the medical officer of health as unfit for habitation; that the Local Government Board for Ireland wrote to Henry McCool on the 23rd July, 1901, that steps were being taken to carry out an improvement scheme under which he would be provided with a cottage; that in 1902 McCool was compelled to leave his house, on the ground that a labourer's cottage was about to be built on its site, and had to take lodgings in the house of a neighbour; that a labourer's cottage was built on the site of the old house and on its completion was given to a man
    1366
    named Porterfield who did not belong to the district at all; and whether, seeing that McCool has now got notice to leave the lodgings where he has resided since 1902 and cannot get accommodation in the district, the Local Government Board will direct the Strabane No. 2 Rural District Council to take steps to provide him with a cottage.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The statements in the Question are accurate, but they omit an important factor in the case—namely, that the cottage was originally applied for by Porterfield. The district council has decided to let the cottage to this man, and it appears that the council is now preparing a further scheme which includes a cottage for McCool.

    Rae Estate, Kerry.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what steps have been taken by the Congested Districts Board for Ireland with a view to purchase the Rae Estate, Keel, county Kerry; what are the instructions given to the engineer who, since February last, has spent a few days on the estate; when will he be required to furnish his report; and whether he will be instructed to secure the voluntary co-operation of the tenants in preparing his report.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Board is still in correspondence with the owners of this property. When it is in possession of certain information for which it has applied to the owners, it will consider the question of the purchase of the estate. The Chief Inspector his not yet visited the estate.

    Irish Language for Irish Postal Officials.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has received copies of resolutions passed by the county councils of Wexford, Meath, Dublin, and Tipperary (S.R.), by thirteen urban district councils, nine rural district councils, and fourteen boards of guardians in various parts of of Ireland, requesting to have Irish made a subject of examination for postal officials in Ireland, and to have a knowledge of Irish required in making appointments of postmasters and

    1367
    postmen; whether he is aware that in the official advertisement of the vacancy for the postmastership of Carnarvon the words, "a knowledge of Welsh is necessary," occur; and whether he proposes to have the resolutions of these elected councils in Ireland carried into effect.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): I have received copies of resolutions passed by various local bodies in Ireland urging the adoption of Irish as a subject of examination for postal officials in Ireland, and the introduction of a rule requiring a knowledge of that language by all postmasters and postmen. The conditions under which Irish is used as a spoken or written language do not appear to me to be such as to render such a measure necessary. In certain districts of Wales a knowledge of Welsh is necessary; and this fact was mentioned in the advertisement of the vacancy in the postmastership of Carnarvon.
    MR. BOLAND: If the noble Lord gets resolutions from every district council will he kindly consider the matter?
    LORD STANLEY: Oh yes, I will consider it.
    MR. JOYCE: Will you consider it favourably?
    [No Answer was returned.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Finance Bill will be taken on Monday?
THE PRIME MINISTER and FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: Yes. On Monday and Tuesday.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Has any fixture been made for the next stage of the Navy Estimates?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir.
MR. JOHN ELLIS: Are we to understand that the Licensing Bill will not be taken next week?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. I can, only say that we shall take the Finance Bill on Monday and Tuesday.

NEW BILLS.

  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
  "To amend the Law with respect to Customs Duties in the Isle of Man,"

  1369
  presented by Mr. Victor Cavendish; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 269.]

  CRIMINAL ALIENS BILL.
  "To make provision for the repatriation of Criminal Aliens," presented by Sir Howard Vincent; supported by Mr. Forde Ridley, Sir Carne Rasch, Sir Ernest Flower, Mr. Runciman, Mr. Trevelyan, Mr. Herbert Robertson, and Colonel Pilkington; to be read a second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 270.]

  LICENSING BILL [3RD ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 4:—
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,)moved to omit the words from "confirming" to "county borough" in order to insert the words "the county licensing committee to confirm new licences, and any other power of that committee shall." The object of the Amendment, he said, was almost entirely consequent on the Amendments which had already been accepted by the Government limiting the compensation clauses of the Bill to existing licences. As the Bill was first adopted the compensation clauses applied to new licences. It was therefore necessary to provide that in the case of the non-county boroughs the county quarter sessions should consent to the grant of new licences; but now that the compensation clauses of the Bill only applied to existing licences, this necessity no longer existed and the provision which required consent to be given by quarter sessions might therefore be omitted. Non-county boroughs would retain exactly the same power which they had now over new licences. They would have the same confirming authority, viz., the whole body of magistrates or the special committee as the case might be. He thought that this Amendment would meet, at all events, if not entirely, in a very large
  1370
  degree, the Amendments which were on the Paper in the names of the hon. Members for Anglesey, Lancaster, Flint, and Huddersfield. As regarded county boroughs the Government, after having heard what had been said during the Second Reading and in the earlier stages of the Committee, had decided not to interfere with the present confirmation of new licences, so that the whole body of justices, acting for the borough, would continue to act as the confirming authority and need not, unless they wished to do so, appoint a special committee. So far as the county quarter sessions were concerned, they would appoint a committee, but the committee which they would appoint would be in substitution of the licensing committee which they now appointed and which now acted. Sub-section 1, as they proposed to amend it, was therefore limited to the provision necessary to transfer to quarter sessions the present statutory powers which were possessed by the licensing committee of quarter sessions for the purpose of confirming licences. It was really the same authority, but a new committee would have to be appointed, and they would deal with new licences as well as with the question of the extinction of licences which had been reported to them as redundant by the brewster sessions. The same committee in the county and the same body of justices in the county borough would deal both with the confirmation of new licences and with references from the licensing justices as to the renewal of existing licences. The Committee would see that the Government had gone very far to meet many of the suggestions which had been made both from non-county and county borough Members, and he trusted they would think that the proposals they had made were an improvement on the Bill. They certainly simplified the powers very much indeed, because they left, to a very much greater extent than was formerly proposed, the jurisdiction where it was before.
  Amendment proposed—
  " In page 3, line 8, to leave out from the word 'of' to the word 'be,' in line 10, and to insert the words, 'the county licensing committee to confirm new licences, and any other power of

  1371
  that committee shall."—(Mr. Scretary Akers Douglas.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. HELMEsaid that on behalf of the interest represented by the non-county boroughs he desired to thank the Home Secretary for the consideration and courtesy with which he had received the deputations which had waited upon him. He reserved to the Report stage the raising of the question of non-county boroughs having powers equal to those conferred upon county boroughs where the population exceeded 25,000. In such boroughs the compensation area was sufficiently large and valuable to allow such powers to be exercised without any injury to the principle contained in the Bill.
  MR. LLOYD WHARTONsaid that hitherto the licensing bodies had put forward a claim for a new licence. They had sat on the county licensing committees and had made recommendations for new licences. The county licensing committee in dealing with the whole county had inquired into these cases and had either confirmed or rejected the original suggestions. Now, if he understood the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman rightly, the county licensing committee would cease to be the qua licensing authority, and the powers of the committee would be relegated to quarter sessions, who, he supposed, would delegate them again to the new committee, which would clear away difficulties that might arise from having two committees, one a licensing committee and the other what they might call a compensation committee. They had a provisional power given to county boroughs which, instead of sending their claims to the new licensing committees, would formulate their own licensing committees and would either confirm or reject the recommendations of the brewster sessions, so that there would be considerable access of power to justices in county boroughs.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)asked if it was made perfectly clear that quarter sessions could delegate
  1372
  their powers under Section 4 to the committee to be appointed under Section 5. He thought there was some danger it might be suggested there was no such power of delegation. Personally he was in favour of it.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CARSON,): Yes, I think it is quite clear.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: It will be the county licensing committee after all.
  SIR EDWARD CARSON: Not the existing licensing committee but one in lieu of it.
  MR. MANSFIELDinquired whether, supposing the licensing justices refused an application for a new licence, quarter sessions or their committee would have power to override their decision and grant the new licence.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: No, quarter sessions cannot override their decision in such a case.
  MR. WHITLEYasked if the Government were prepared to insert provisions to ensure that the inhabitants of a district affected had full notice of any intention to apply for a new licence so that they might attend the Court and put forward their views. Every possible avenue for the expression of public opinion should be left open.
  SIR EDWARD CARSONreplied that under the law as it stood there was a very elaborate system of notice insisted on as a precedent to applications for new licences.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Words inserted.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEmoved an Amendment to give power to quarter sessions to sanction or vary any conditions attached to a new licence under the provisions of the section. His object was to extend the powers of quarter sessions. A new licensing system was practically to be set up,

  1373
  and personally he thought it a considerable improvement on the present one. It was in fact much more elastic. He believed it would work satisfactorily provided that there was some power of controlling within reasonable limits the various conditions that might be attached to licences. The present power of quarter sessions only extended to confirming or not confirming; but if they were to extend the power of the licensing justices in the way proposed by the Home Secretary, he thought they must also make a corresponding extension of the powers of quarter sessions, which ought to have the power to refuse conditions attached to licences.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 11, after the word 'sessions' to insert the words 'and shall include the power to sanction any conditions attached to a new licence under the provisions of this section.'"—(Mr. Henry Hobhouse.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY(Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)said the point raised by his right hon. friend was one well worthy of consideration. His right hon. Friend suggested that when now licences were granted there should be some power in quarter sessions so to vary the conditions imposed by local magistrates that there should be some kind of uniformity in the terms on which the new licences were granted. Personally he was rather in favour of leaving such liberty to the local magistrates as might producs a large variety of experiment in this matter. On the whole he was disposed to think that, instead of having a controversy between the local magistrates and quarter sessions as to the terms upon which in a given locality new licences should be granted, they might leave the power with the local magistrates. He thought they would have a very valuable series of experiments made, some of which would doubtless be abortive, but none of which, so far as he could see, would inflict injustice on individuals, because from the nature of the case a man who took a new licence knew the conditions under which he took it, and if he did not think those condi-
  1374
  tions were tolerable he had the liberty of refusing to enter into the contract.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he was not in favour of the Amendment, because he did not desire to see the authority of the local magistrates more circumscribed than it was at present. Quarter sessions might say to a licensee, "If you are not prepared to accept modifications in the sense that we desire we shall refuse to confirm the licence."
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid that if quarter sessions had power to bargain with the licensee his object would be achieved; but it seemed to him they must either confirm or veto the licence. As the Government were not prepared to accept the Amendment he asked leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WHITTAKERmoved the following proviso, "Provided that no new licence shall be granted before the 1st day of January, 1907." He regarded the provisions of the clause in regard to the granting of new licences as a considerable improvement on the original Bill, but he could not help feeling that the discussion on these important although somewhat crude proposals was being rushed. The fact that the Government had already altered their scheme showed the difficulty and complexity of the problem for the discussion of which they were only being allowed one day. He wished to recognise that the revised proposal of the Government was a genuine attempt to propound a bona fide scheme for the issue of new licences in the interests of the public. There was no trace of the brewer in this proposal, and he was, perhaps, a little strengthened in his support of it by the fact that the trade papers were strongly condemning it. The object of his Amendment was to relieve the licensing justices of the necessity of dealing with that very complicated and difficult problem just at the moment when they had the new reduction proposals on their hands. The justices under the revised clause would fix the price to be charged for a licence for a

  1375
  period of seven years; and he thought that when they had had a year or two's experience in dealing with the question of compensation for non-renewal they would have gathered a large amount of very useful information as to the value of a licence and the conditions which ought to be attached to it. They were framing the new licensing system somewhat in a hurry, and one advantage of deferring the granting of new licences for two years would be that the Government would have an opportunity of reconsidering the whole matter. Many difficult problems were connected with the granting of new licences. There was the question whether there should be a heavy licence fee, fixed according to population if they liked, which would keep down the number of licences simply by the amount which would have to be paid, or whether they should adopt a system under which persons should tender, stating how much they would give for a licence. For these and other reasons it would be well to post-pone for two years the granting of new licences.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 8, at beginning, to insert the words 'No new licences shall be granted before the 1st day of January, 1907, and after that date.'"—(Mr. Whittaker.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  COLONEL PILKINGTONthought it would be a very great pity to interfere in any way with the discretion of the magistrates in the granting of new licences. The matter had been dealt with by the Home Secretary and the Solicitor-General with the greatest care and ability, and in his opinion the sooner the magistrates got to work the better. The hon. Member must not forget that many benches of licensing magistrates had already formulated schemes for a reduction in the number of licensed houses, and had obtained full particulars of the premises it was proposed to deal with, so that the pressure on them immediately after the passing of the Bill was not so great as he had suggested.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASdissented from the view of the hon. Member for the
  1376
  Spen Valley that the discussion was being rushed. He could not accept the Amendment. He had always had sympathy with the view that very few licences ought to be granted. But he did not see the necessity for the Amendment, because the magistrates would have the power to refuse to issue new licences for two years if they thought well to do so, and because, in the interest of growing districts which would require new licences to satisfy their needs, it would not be right to fetter the discretion of the magistrates.
  MR. BROADHURSTfeared that the Home Secretary had not appreciated the full force of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for the Spen Valley. What it was desired to point out was that in the administration of this great and complicated Act the magistrates would be overburdened with work, and, therefore, it was quite a reasonable suggestion to suspend the granting of new licences for two years, when the magistrates would have more time to-give to the consideration of the matter. After all, the main object of the Bill was to reduce the number of drinking shops, and surely it was not a very drastic proposal to suggest that no new licences. I should be granted for two years. As a rule licensing justices were men who were engaged in other businesses, and it was not right to make too heavy calls on their time.
  MR. WHITTAKERasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 11, to leave out from the word 'sessions' to end of sub-section."— (Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. WHITTAKERnext moved to add at the end of the sub-section—" (1) No application for a new licence shall be received or considered by the justices of a licensing district unless and until they have issued a public notice that in their opinion a new licence is required in a particular locality, and they are prepared to receive applications for it." This was, he said, one of the recommendations in the

  1377
  Majority Report of the Royal Commission on Licensing, and he hoped, therefore, it would receive the support of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon. The proposal was a very simple one. His object was to save the magistrates from being badgered and worried by people coming continually with applications for new licences in the hope that some year they would influence a majority of the Court. It would be a very great advantage indeed if the magistrates had greater control and if it were left for them in the first place to decide where new licences were required and to invite suitable applications.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 11, at end, to insert the words' (1) No application for a new licence shall be received or considered by the justices of a licensing district unless and until they have issued a public notice that in their opinion a new licence is required in a particular locality and they are prepared to receive applications for it.' "—(Mr. Whittaker.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment. He had great doubts whether many persons would apply for new licences under the stringent conditions imposed by the Bill; but supposing in a new and growing district an hotel was built, was the owner to wait before he could apply for a licence until the justices of the licensing district had made up their minds about the necessity of a new licensed hotel in the locality? Was it not much better that the person applying for the licence should give evidence before the magistrates as to the necessity for such an hotel, and that on hearing that evidence the licensing magistrates should make up their minds as to whether or not they should grant the licence? The hon. Member must know that at present the greatest pains were taken to make known that an application for a licence had been lodged with the magistrates. There had to be publication of it in the papers for a month or more before the licence could be granted, and also on the site and on certain public buildings. Any member of the public had the power to come before the magistrates to object to the granting of the licence, and have
  1378
  his side of the case thrashed out. He could not see that anything would be gained by the Amendment.
  MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire,. E.)said that as he had placed on the Paper an Amendment with the same object but in another form, he wished to say a word or two in support of the proposal of his hon. friend. The Home Secretary had just said that it was undesirable to restrict the power of the licensing magistrates, and now they were told by the Solicitor-General that it was undesirable to extend the powers of the magistrates to represent their locality in dealing with this question of new licences. The magistrates were trusted with the duty of granting licences because they were supposed to be the most sober-minded men in dealing with licences in their own locality; and they should be allowed to form their own judgment as to the time at which they should deal with the needs of their own district. He thought the Amendment was in the right direction, and it was supported by those authorities which the Government ought to respect.
  Question put, and negatived.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid that the Amendment which he wished to move raised two questions of very great importance. One was as to the advisability of having some change in the system under which the liquor trade was to be carried on; and the other was that an opportunity should be given to public opinion to express itself through a representative public authority. Many who were interested in temperance reform had been for some time of opinion that one of the most hopeful directions in which that reform could be carried out was that of endeavouring to have a change in the system of the liquor trade. As at present carried on it was inevitable that the sale of liquor should be pushed to the utmost degree possible. And, whilst it was his object to eliminate this, his Amendment would not interfere in any way with the liberty of people who wished to obtain alcoholic liquor. His object was to discourage the system of pushing the sale of liquor. He knew,

  1379
  of course, that the Amendment was open to one criticism, that if they got rid of the incentive to drink for the good of the landlord or the good of the house, it was only to substitute the incentive to drink for the good of the parish. That was a possible danger to which the system was open, but he would point out that, in his Amendment, there was nothing to restrict the disposal of the profits. It would be for purposes so wide—purposes of general utility that there would be no incentive to push the sale of liquor in any particular locality. The Amendment had been drawn in such a way as to guard against any such danger as he had described. After having got rid of the incentive to push the sale of liquor, he provided that the profits should be devoted to counter-attractions to the public-house. [An HON. MEMBER: TO fountains?] What was in his mind when he spoke of counter-attractions was that in every village there should be a place of resort—a public hall or club for social entertainment, where village societies could meet and spend their time in interesting and profitable discussions. "Counter-attractions," of course, was not quite the full description of what he meant. Public halls were in themselves eminently desirable, whether there was a public-house close by or not. The phrase had been drawn intentionally wide, because it would include fountains up to the highest form of scientific education.
  As to the second most important point in the Amendment, it was to bring in a representative authority. Now, he quite saw that they could not bring in a representative authority in such a way as to confuse the administration of the licensing authority. But, if the local authority were given no administrative power whatever, and only an opportunity of passing resolutions in regard to the issue of new licences, he thought that might be done in such a way as not to lead to confusion in administration. Under this Bill it was impossible to change the administrative authority from the justices to a representative authority; and if his Amendment would entail anything of that kind he admitted that it would be against the principle of the Bill. At the same time
  1380
  he, and those who thought with him, had never looked upon the justices as the ideal authority to decide all questions in regard to licences; and just as they were beginning to have some hope of a change in the system, their hopes had been dashed by the introduction of this Bill. He wished the introduction of a representative authority, because he believed that in recent years public opinion had been ripening in regard to temperance reform, and had been keenly investigating possible methods of such reform. The Prime Minister himself had admitted that there was some hope in liberty of experiment in this matter. He entirely agreed that foolish experiments might be made; still in liberty of experiment there was really some hope of temperance reform. But there could be no liberty of experiment unless some opportunity was given for the expression of public opinion. He insisted that that opportunity of giving expression to the desire of the people for temperance reform could be afforded without conflicting with the administration of the licensing authority set up by the Bill. If it were the case, as everybody admitted, that the liquor trade and excess in drinking was a real national danger, and if that danger were greatly increased by leaving the trade in private hands, surely no opportunity of introducing a change in the present licensing system should be neglected. Excess was the real national danger, and if that danger were greatly increased, as it must be, by leaving the trade in private hands, and if it were the case that private hands had literally got the country by the throat, surely no opportunity of introducing a change of system in the future, should be ignored.
  So far as existing licences were concerned, the Amendment did not refer to them, but, where the creation of new licences was concerned, public opinion should be given the greatest possible opportunity of starting new and improved systems. The Prime Minister spoke somewhat disparagingly of temperance reformers as a hopeless body because they were never agreed. If they took too extreme a view of the matter it was difficult to get agreement, but he thought there were many creeks and inlets into which a favourable

  1381
  tide would flow if they only dug a channel for it. He wanted to dig a channel for it in that Amendment in which public opinion might flow. The real hope was not so much in a great general movement as in the fact that they would have one community more progressive than another, which afforded a practical way of advancing to which they should give every facility. He wanted any progressive communities to have an opportunity of having their say, and experiment to have a fair trial, in the hope of a better system of control of the liquor trade. Even if the number of new licences must be for many years comparatively small, and as he saw in the clause as moved by the Government nothing of the hand of the brewer, and no desire to tie licensing authorities down with regard to the new system, he would ask the Government whether they could not favourably consider his Amendment, which introduced the representative authority, and so gave facilities for the expression of public opinion without conflicting with the administrative powers of their own licensing authority, and to say whether it would not be desirable that they should give some invitation to local authorities to take steps in the direction of putting new licences, at any rate, under a better system than that which had hitherto had the monopoly of the trade.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 13, at end, to insert the words 'provided that a local authority may, by resolution, declare that no new on-licence shall be so granted or confirmed in respect of premises within their area except to a company or association of persons formed for the purpose of devoting any profits (or any such proportion of profits as may be specified in the resolution) to public purposes and complying with regulations made for the purpose by the Secretary of State, and any such resolution shall have effect accordingly.'"—(Sir Edward Grey.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid there was a great deal in the general observations of the right hon. Baronet with which, as the Committee knew, he was in sympathy; but he did not think it would be desirable to adopt the Amendment which he had put upon the Paper; nor did he think
  1382
  that Amendment really carried out the general principles which the right hon. Baronet had laid down in his speech. He would not go into the question of how the money which could be derived from the sale of liquor in a parish or district could be applied for the entertainment and improvement of the inhabitants. He remembered the late Lord Salisbury suggested that if they wanted to amuse a parish the best way was by giving a circus rather than by giving a parish council; and he would venture to suggest to his hon. friend behind, who made in-terjectory interruption in the speech of the right hon. Baronet, that probably circuses would be more effective for that particular purpose than the fountain which his hon. friend would regard apparently as the substitute in this case. He did not gather that the intention of the right hon. Baronet was to substitute a non-intoxicating for an intoxicating beverage, but rather to see if any profits made out of the monopoly value could be transferred to some public purpose. There were many temperance reformers who would regard that as a very serious blow to their own particular views as to how the cause of temperance could be best advanced. He neither shared their apprehensions in that matter nor did he share to the full some of the hopes which the right hon. Baronet expressed as to the substitution of companies like those indicated in the Amendment for the present system. He must honestly say he thought there had been an exaggeration in much temperance literature as to the degree of alcoholic consumption which was due to what was called pushing the sale of drink. He had not much experience in those matters, but his own impression was that the people drank in public-houses because they wanted to drink, and not because the liquor was pressed upon them by the publican. There might be, and no doubt were, especially in country districts, cases in which the sale might be pressed to the great detriment of the locality and of the individuals who fell a prey to that temptation; but that the great bulk of the drinking in this country was regulated by the pressure put upon the consumer by the publican, and not by the pressure put upon the publican by the consumer, 'he had very great doubts. It was not

  1383
  really those considerations, which were subsidiary, on which he based his objection to that Amendment.
  That Amendment was recommended to the Committee because it introduced the public opinion of the locality, and enabled it to pronounce in favour of a particular form of experiment in regard to the sale of alcoholic liquors. He quite understood the policy, though he did not agree with it, or think it would be desirable, at all events in the existing conditions, to say that every question connected with drinking facilities, so long as injustice were not inflicted on individuals, should be left to the locality itself, That was an intelligible but probably not an expedient policy; but he did not think the limited form proposed by the Amendment was consistent either with sound theory or practice. It would only allow the local authority to intervene in that question in one particular form and in favour of one particular kind of experiment. That seemed to him illogical and inconsistent with the general principles they desired to lay down, and also inimical to that other liberty of experiment which he regarded as one of the most valuable results of Clause 4 in its present shape. Under the Amendment the liberty of the local authority would be absolutely restricted to saying aye or no to that one particular question.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: If the Govern-would insert the wider and larger Amendment I should be delighted to withdraw this. I thought, being small, it might be acceptable.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he thought if they were going to give power to the locality at all they should give the locality freedom all round. But they had gone throughout on the hypothesis that they were to interfere as little as possible with the magisterial management. That was the view embodied in the Bill, and it had received its most violent expression from hon. Gentlemen opposite. They had been obliged to change the magisterial authority in order to carry out the scheme of compensation, but where they could leave it alone they had done so. He did not think it would be wise in Clause 4 alone
  1384
  of the Bill to bring in for the first time the local authority as settling the precise kind of experiment which should be tried. He was not sure they would be well suited to carry that out, and it would be both illogical and imprudent in any case to say, "We cannot trust you with the whole decision on all the points that arise, but you are to have the power to say aye or no to the one particular form of experiment. "He thought the public-house trust system a most proper experiment, and one well worthy of trial. Whether it was going to succeed, and going gradually to supplant other methods, he was not rash enough to prophesy, but it was an experiment which had been supported with the most earnest intentions of dealing with some of the evils in the country, and full liberty to try it with regard to new licences was left under the clause as they had drafted it. He would venture to suggest, however, they ought not to lay it down that in this particular, and in this particular alone, the local authorities should be dragged in, and be permitted to give a veto on any other than one particular form of experiment among the many forms of experiment which were open to the magistrates to try. For these reasons he hoped the Committee would agree with the Government in refusing to accept this limitation.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEthought it was unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman could not meet the invitation of the right hon. Member for Berwick, and leave the whole matter in the hands of the local authorities. He considered local authorities should have greater powers in this matter than they had at present. The door, of course, was closed so far as existing licences were concerned, but they ought to have a locus standi whenever application was made for a new licence. At present the local authority had no right to appear before the magistrates, or instruct counsel to place the case for the locality officially before the Court of quarter sessions. It had been decided by the House of Lords that if a watch committee employed counsel for the purpose of presenting its views on a licensing question, the money so spent should be disallowed. He would suggest that where a new licence was applied for, notice should be given to the local authority

  1385
  of the district, and that the authority should be able to appear before the licensing magistrates and quarter sessions. It would be practically useless in London, for instance, to advertise these notices in the local newspapers, because they had a very poor circulation, and probably not one-tenth of the population ever saw them. The notice should be sent to the authority, and appear on the agenda paper of their meetings and be considered. He agreed that drinking did not depend on the pressure of the publican so much as it did on a man's sense of honour. A man who had nowhere else to spend the evening, and who had any sense of honour, felt that he could not sit in a public-house all the evening for 2d. That was the sort of pressure that existed. He felt he was not welcome if he did not spend, and therefore he continued to drink and spend his money. A man ought to be able to feel that he was just as welcome if he did not spend his money as if he did. A man was not scowled at in his club if he did not spend his money, and that was one of the elements of these great trusts. This question of licensing would never be settled except by means of experiment, and he thought the should not only be allowed to experiment, but encouraged to do so. But what was a good experiment in one district might be a bad experiment for another. He knew districts in Wales where prohibition was a success, but there were others where, if prohibition were tried, a wholesale defiance of the law would follow. The local authority would be much more likely to experiment, and therefore he would ask the Prime Minister to consider whether some means could not be devised which would give greater elasticity with regard to new licences. Not much harm would, at any rate, be done if the local authority were brought in, and it would test how they would set to work. In some districts it would be quite possible that the whole system of licensing would be recast, but that could only be done by trusting local opinion.
  MR. HUNTthought the Committee, at all events, were entitled to ask that the Amendment should be sufficiently clearly worded to ensure that the new licensed houses should be so managed that extra profits
  1386
  should not go to the brewers. It was only human nature that the brewers and distillers should endeavour to sell as much liquor as they possibly could, because it was their living. That was the result of the present system. It also had the effect of increasing the sale of inferior and doctored liquor, which ruined people's health and increased the craving for drink, a result from which the poor were the chief sufferers, because this inferior liquor was sold at a low price. The huge mistake that had been made in the past afforded a strong reason why every care should be taken against any such mistake in the future. As a loyal supporter he appealed to the Government to make it, as far as possible, certain that under all future licences it should not be in the interests of either owners or managers of licensed premises to increase the sale of beer or spirits. He hoped the Liberal Party, when they returned to power with serried ranks and gigantic battalions, would find a way of dealing with grocers' licences, which it was generally admitted had had the effect of teaching the women of England to drink.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid the Committee were now engaged in remodelling the licensing system so far as new licences were concerned, and that in itself was a matter of extreme importance. The Amendment proposed that in one direction the local authority should have power to require a particular experiment to be tried. That experiment was not municipalisation, but disinterested management, and under it a man would be able to enter a licensed house as a place of recreation, without feeling that he was obliged to spend more than he could afford. There was nothing in the idea of providing counter-attractions that ought to excite derision. The harder the life of the people, the more need was there for amusement and diversion, and the provision of that relaxation without the necessity to drink was an object of which every sensible man must thoroughly approve. Existing organisations for this purpose had done much good already, and with the experience they had secured they would doubtless do better in the future. The objection of the Prime Minister was not so much to the principle

  1387
  as to the empowering of the local authority to require the experiment to be tried, but the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman urged his objection rather gave the idea that he was not altogether beyond persuasion or pressure. The suggestions of the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs, that the local authority should be given a loeus standi in the matter, would not do all that was required; but his further proposal that the relations between the local authority and the licensing authority should be considered was well worth attention. He would join his hon. friend in urging the Government to see whether something could rot be done to give the local authority some potent voice—a consultative voice, if nothing more—in the granting of new licences. The field was absolutely open. Personally, he would like to supersede the justices by a complete scheme of local option. There was no chance of that, however, at present, but was it not possible to harmonise local opinion with the authority and power of the licensing justices? The question could not be properly discussed on the present occasion, but he hoped that before the Report stage the Government would consider whether they could do anything to assist in that direction.
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid that one would imagine, from the discussion, that no regard had been had in the drafting of this clause for the interests of the experiment to which reference had been made. As the Prime Minister had stated, that experiment was a most valuable one, though whether it would eventually succeed was another matter. But the Committee must not be under the impression that the Government were not fostering that experiment. Under the proposal of the Home Secretary, power was to be given to the justices to attach "such conditions as they think best adapted for preventing any private person from obtaining any benefit for any monopoly value of the licence." That meant that the justices could attach such conditions as they pleased as to any proportion of profits being handed over for public purposes. There was to be no private gain in the matter. That provision would to a large extent help the trust experiment, because it was hardly
  1388
  conceivable that any private ndividua for a commercial speculation would accept such a proposition. It might happen, however, that an association carried on on non-dividend-earning lines might fail, and then the trust would come to an end, and the private individual would have to be set up again. The right hon. Baronet asked the Committee to go a step further, and empower the local authority to say that only to such a trust as was willing to agree to pay over the profits for public purposes would they grant new licences. That was an absolutely impracticable and impossible proposition. It might, in practice, amount to local option. In a new neighbourhood it was only as a matter of speculation that a hotel would be built. A trust was hardly likely to enter into such a speculation, so that the local authority would practically be empowered to say that no such hotel or refreshment room should be built. The same argument would apply to railway refreshment rooms, which were frequently carried on not for profit, but simply for the convenience of passengers. The right hon. Baronet would probably admit that in reality he was trying to introduce the thin end of the wedge of local option—a principle to which the Unionist Party had never in any way lent its support. To introduce that principle to the extent suggested in this Amendment would be a very serious matter. It might be a good or bad thing, but it could not be introduced into a Bill of this kind without having far-reaching consequences. A proposal had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Carnarvon to give the local authority a locus standi, but that was really the same principle as local option. In the case of an application for a new licence any member of the public t might come in and object, or any member of the council. He regarded this Amendment as the thin end of the wedge for local option, and it would have more far-reaching consequences than it appeared at first sight to indicate.
  MR ASQUITHsaid the Solicitor-General had presented them with a new form of the simile of the thin end of the wedge, but the right hon. Gentleman could not have had in his mind at the time the legislation of his own Government in regard to Scotland.

  1389
  What did the Government do in regard to Scotland? They actually gave direct representation to the local authority, and last year that principle was actually carried into effect in regard to Scotland, The Solicitor-General had asked what about hotels and railway stations? If the Government would accept the Amendment in substance and in spirit there would be no difficulty in moulding it into a form which would prevent any such cases of special hardships as those he had mentioned. The Solicitor-General asked what would happen supposing there were no trusts in the district prepared to undertake the matter? He did not think that was a very probable case, and a local authority under those circumstances would not pass any such resolution. If they did pass such a resolution it would be a clear indication of their view, in which one would imagine they were supported by the opinion of the locality, that it would be better not to have any public-houses at all rather than have them carried on merely for private profit under demoralising conditions. He doubted whether they would find any local authority, if there were no trusts, which would consider that it was fulfilling its obligations under this proviso by taking such a step. Let them clearly understand whether it was the opinion of the Government that this particular proposal should not be accepted here in England, and that local authorities as such should have no voice of any sort or kind and no power of remonstrance in its official capacity in regard to this great question. It had been determined in the House of Lords that local authorities could not lawfully expend the borough funds upon licensing appeals and that was a monstrous state of the law. He did not think there was any duty which could more properly be cast upon local authorities, and in the performances of which they could more rightly and justly resort to the rates, than that of expressing before the licensing justices what the general opinion of their district was in regard to public-house accommodation.
  MR. TALBOTsaid he thought it was agreed on both sides of the House that the authority dealing with licensing questions should be
  1390
  the justices. He never could see why a distinction should be drawn between the justices acting in one place and the same justices acting in another place. This Amendment would prevent the justices from granting a new licence if the local authority said the licence must only be granted on the trust principle, because then the licensing justices were not to be allowed to grant that licence upon any other principle. That seemed to him to be interfering with the discretion of the magistrates which he wished to maintain. He would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that the feeling upon this matter of licensing was not always on one side. From experience in his own county he could state that local opinion in favour of licensing was much stronger than local opinion on the other side, as expressed at the petty sessions and quarter sessions. He had often had great difficulty in persuading his colleagues to take the views he held against the granting of new licences because public opinion as expressed in Court was often on the side of licensed houses. The other day he was sitting as chairman of a licensing committee, and they had an application from a town in Kent to be made what was known as "a populous place," which allowed more time for drinking in the evening. Not without difficulty it was shown that there was another side to the question and the licensing committee took the bold line, and, in the face of all the local opinion, which seemed to preponderate on the other side, they determined to deny this boon. He mentioned that to show that local opinion was not always on the temperance side.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid the right hon. Gentleman opposite had given instances where local opinion had been expressed unfavourable to the temperance cause, but he did not think that argument would apply to the local authority. They could always get influential persons to give their individual opinion in one direction or the other, but if they trusted the local authority, which had the responsibility of acting not merely for themselves but for those they represented, it would in ninety-nine cases out of every hundred express the real wishes of the locality.

  1391
  The Solicitor-General had directed his criticism chiefly to the particular form of the Amendment, but his right hon. friend had stated his willingness to simplify his Amendment in any way which would induce the Government to support it. The valuable part of the Amendment was the suggestion that they should bring into play in dealing with new licences the intervention of the local authority. It was quite true that, theoretically, any one had power to appear before the licensing justices, but all those who had had experience of licensing justices knew that the representations made either by petition, through the chairman of a public meeting, or by means of a committee, were really not allowed to have the influence they deserved before the local justices. In days gone by it was decided in many cases not to permit petitions to be presented, and they were simply placed upon the table. He wished to remind the Prime Minister that this was the only part of the Bill in which this proposal could properly be made. Here they were dealing with licences that might be granted in the future, and they said that the local authority should have some locus standi in the determination of the questions which arose. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to give very full power in the case of public-house trusts, but something might be done to introduce the local bodies. His hon. and learned friend had suggested that they should have some locus standi before the justices, and it was, he understood, his intention to move an Amendment dealing with that matter. It would not be denied by anybody on the other side of the House that it would come well within the proper power of a local authority, at any rate, to make some representation in regard to this matter. The local authority were entrusted with the care of the health of the people, and they had to police the district, and surely it was not too much to ask that they should have the right to make representations to the justices, and that they should be placed in such a position that the justices would not be able to brush them on one side entirely in connection with any representations they might make. The Solicitor-General had stated that notice of an ample kind had to be made to many people
  1392
  before an application for a new licence could be made. He thought it would be well now to determine that notice should be given to the local authority. If that were done the public authority would deal with the matter and determine to do something with regard to it. He would make it the duty of the local authority to consider a proposed application for a new licence, to determine one way or other with regard to it, and to make a representation of their views to the justices. If Parliament declared that the local authorities themselves should consider these very important questions, and make representations regarding them, the justices would feel for the first time the real force which ought to attach to the opinions of the representatives of the people. He entirely approved of the new Clause 4 so far as it went, but he hoped something would be put in to enable local authorities to make representations to the justices.
  MR. CORBETTsaid it was very desirable that the local authority should have power to advise in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University said he agreed with the speeches on both sides. He found himself in the unhappy position of disagreeing with both parts of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He disagreed with the view that the local authority should not have any power of intervention, and he disagreed also with the very sanguine hope formed as to the experiment which the trusts were carrying out. Mr. Charles Booth, no mean experimenter, had experimented with five houses, and his report was to the effect that the idea that a manager could decrease the alcoholic trade was disproved. A friend with whom he had a conversation informed him that he had been told by one of the trust managers lately, "If I offer my customers tea and coffee they are fit to kill me." If they had a publican carrying on his business for his own private profit with all the interest he used to have at stake, under a bench of magistrates, active and vigilant in their supervision over him, they got as efficient a means of carrying on the business as they were likely to have through a manager. A good deal had been said as to the elimination of the element of private profit, but people did not work for

  1393
  profit alone. They worked for success and they became as enthusiastic about success as about profit. He knew of two prohibition areas in the neighbourhood of London where the population entirely appreciated the prohibition. Whenever it was proposed to open a public-house on the borders of these areas the people were prepared with practical unanimity to sign petitions against it. He had received letter after letter from a public-house trust, urging him to have a trust public-house in one of these areas. He maintained that their desire to have a public-house in one of these areas where there was no liquor sold at present, and where the people did not want liquor to be sold, did not arise from love of temperance, which might have been the original cause of forming the trust, but to that love of success which took hold of a man whenever he engaged in a business enterprise. He had intervened in the debate to express his strong feeling that the hope attached to this kind of work was very apt to be disappointed.
  MR. WHITTAKERsaid he was very strongly in favour of power being given to local authorities to make representations to the justices. He had not seen his way to support the Amendment of his right hon. friend. He was not in favour of entrusting the licensing system to the local representative authorities, because he did not want to see this liquor business introduced into municipal elections. He thought the influences of the liquor traffic in municipal elections would be all to the bad. He could imagine the dining, and otherwise influencing, to which the members of local authorities would be subjected. He would like to see some means devised whereby they would get the opinion of the public direct. He did see a good deal of advantage, in suitable localities, of eliminating the matter of private interests in the sale of liquor. The Prime Minister had suggested that there was practically nothing in the contention that the publican pushed the sale of drink. If the right hon. Gentleman would study the tied house system of the country, he would find how great was the number of publicans who were turned out because they had not pressed the sale of liquor and had not sold enough. If it were not to induce people to go in
  1394
  and buy liquor, why had licence-holders spent so much money to make their places attractive? If the element of private profit could be got rid of a great deal would be done to shorten hours as had been done in Norway. Much had been accomplished in the way of providing parks and playgrounds for the outdoor enjoyment of the people. But they were apt to forget that a majority of working people could only enjoy these places for a short time. He suggested that there should be provided "indoor parks," in the shape of free clubs and places of recreation, altogether disconnected with places of worship or instruction, and conducted with the utmost freedom, and quite clear of liquor. It was the social instinct which brought men together in the public-houses, and if such clubs as he had suggested were established much could be done to meet the great evil of drinking clubs which were springing up up and down the country. To close public-houses and yet allow drinking clubs to spring up would be to make very little headway indeed. The only way to grapple with the drinking club was to provide counter-attractions under the management of local authorities He was very much attracted by the idea of getting the money to provide these counter-attractions from the liquor trade
  His objection to the trusts associated with the name of Lord Grey was, first of all, that they brought very definite and potent pressure to bear in applications for new licences, thereby increasing the number of licences. They brought pressure of a potent kind to bear, because those connected with the trusts were all influential noblemen and gentlemen in their localities. These noblemen and gentlemen waited upon the bench of magistrates and urged that licences should be granted. In that way they could bring a pressure to bear which no private individual could do. Their contention was that all they asked for was that if the justices were prepared to grant a licence, the licence should be granted to them. But in practice they were pressing for licences in districts where there were already numerous licences; and consequently they were a very potent influence aiming at the increase of public-houses. His second

  1395
  objection was that the money was to be used for local purposes. That was a species of bribery to the local justices to grant a licence. If the profits were to be used to endow an hospital, a new library, or a nurse, it would be a very great inducement to grant an additional licence which would not otherwise be granted. The right hon. Baronet suggested that the gifts should be distributed over a wide area; but there was nothing of that in the Amendment.
  The Solicitor General had referred to the complications which might ensue. He agreed that the many difficulties surrounding this proposal of the right hon. Baronet were too extensive to be discussed on this Amendment. One point of importance not mentioned in the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet, or in the amended clause the Government had put on the Paper, was the rate of interest that was to be allowed to these public-house trusts. He could see that a 5 per cent. investment might become very attractive indeed, especially if there was a tinge of philanthropy connected with it; and that the investor persuaded himself that he was thereby working in the direction of temperance reform. He was quite in favour of wide-spread local experiments; but they should be made under safeguarded conditions. He thought that disinterested management of public-houses would be of little value anywhere unless the company or the local authority had the control of all the licensed houses in the locality. A single house with disinterested management would have no value whatever. Before they could embark on the principle of disinterested management they ought to have a very well thought-out scheme; and such a scheme could not be introduced into this Bill. The Amendment did not propose that licences should be granted to a municipality, and he was glad to note that, because he believed it would be fatal. To grant licences to a municipality would be jumping out of the frying-pan into the fire. It was because the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet introduced in the crudest way the possibility of the element of public profit out of the sale of liquor that he much regretted that he could not see his way to support it.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid he had moved his Amendment in the hope that the Government might see their way to accept it. It had been drafted on a limited scale in the anticipation that the Government would think it possible to admit it into the rather close meshes they had drawn round their Bill. But as the Government would not accept the small experiment which he had suggested he would not press his Amendment to a division. However, he felt very strongly that the local representatives were not to have any say at all in the granting of licences. The Solicitor-General said that this was the thin end of the wedge of local option. Well, in a sense it was, if local option was used in a wide sense, and not in that of local veto. He did not know why the thin end of the wedge should not be inserted here as well as in the Transvaal, which was not a highly democratic community. He had no desire to press this particular Amendment to a division; but he thought the sense of the House ought to be taken on the question of whether the representative authority was to have any say or any interest whatever in the direction of a trade which was admitted to be one of great danger.
  MR. HARWOODsaid that the ideal of the hon. Member for Spen Valley was a land in which there should be no public-houses. His ideal was a land where there were enough public-houses. The question before the Committee was whether they were to have public-houses managed by trusts from philanthropic motives. He thought the Prime Minister rather under-estimated the power of the managers of tied houses in pushing the sale of drink. The tied house system had enormously increased during the last twenty years. In the old days a publican had a sort of pride in his business. It was a kind of a social institution; not a mere money-making establishment. Under the new system there was a decrease of the places in the public-houses where a man could sit down and quietly enjoy his evening. He thought if the Prime Minister, who did not seem to travel abroad much, were to go over to the Continent, he might see, for instance in France, what an ideal public-house was. There a man could sit all

  1397
  the evening, and write his letters, and have his glass of beer, or cup of coffee, and feel comfortable. But that could not be done in a tied house. His own opinion was that the local authority should have, in questions of granting new licences, not an authoritative position, but a consultative position. From a practical business point of view, he thought that a new licence should be sold by auction. In that way a very large sum of money would be obtained for public purposes. There ought to be some elasticity for experiments in a new system of licensing; but no bench of licensing magistrates would sanction these experiments unless they had the strengthening advice of the local authorities. Therefore, the local authority ought to be able to express the feeling of the community as a whole in regard to new licences. The Prime Minister said that any one could appeal to the licensing magistrates, but he could only do so individually and not as one speaking for the community. He urged on the Prime Minister to allow the local authority to have a consultative voice in the granting of a new licence.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid that a great deal had been urged that afternoon as to the advantage of experiments being made on a new licensing system on right lines. He thought that the Amendment of his right hon. friend would fairly ensure that experiments might be made on trust lines, but it did not leave the way open to the adoption of a high licence system. It was said that under the Government scheme high licences would be possible. But, although high licences might, to a certain extent, destroy the monopoly, they would not promote temperance, because the man who had to pay a high licence would press the sale of liquor even more than a man who only had to pay a low licence. He would support the Amendment, not in the interests of the trusts, but because he did not believe that the Government scheme was on the right lines. His hon. friend had referred to trusts; but there was one variety of trust which had not been mentioned. That was the village trust started by miners in villages in Scotland, and run by them under extraordinarily difficult cir-
  1398
  cumstances but with great financial success. He admitted that that was rather a dangerous form of trust, especially where a village was deriving a large income from the public-house. It would be far better if the Government recognised the trust system, and provided that the profits should be spread over a large area and not concentrated in one hard-drinking village. It was time that the whole system should be put on a better thought-out basis than that on which it now rested. These drinking clubs were extending from Scotland to the North of England, and they were on the highway to similar village trusts there to those which existed in Scotland.
  MR. OSMOND WILLIAMSsaid he wished to support the Amendment. The principle of legislation in this country for years had been in the direction of decentralisation. The Bill, however, laid an axe to the root of local control and removed any power from the man on the spot, transferring it to a distant body whose local knowledge was of necessity extremely imperfect. The Home Secretary stated that quarter sessions would be an imparitial tribunal. He had attended quarter sessions for thirty years, and during recent years he had had the honour of presiding over the Court; but, although he had the greatest respect for quarter sessions, he could not subscribe to the sweeping statement of the Home Secretary. Why go through the farce of asking the local justices to act at all? Why not make quarter sessions the sole authority? A more wanton insult to the local justices could not be imagined; and the public would be quite ready to lay hold of it.
  Sir EDWARD GREYasked leave to withdrawn his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEmoved an Amendment providing that no new licence should be granted until at least three weeks notice of the hearing of the application had been given to the local authority in the area in which the public-house was situated, and the justices had considered all representations made to

  1399
  them by the local authority either in writing or at the hearing of the application. His object was to give a locus standi to the local authority, to allow it to make a full report as to the circumstances of the case, and to make suggestions to the justices so as to assist them in coming to a conclusion with reference to the terms on which they should grant a licence. The local authority was responsible for law and order and for the expense which new licences would throw upon the district, and surely they should be able to appear before the licensing bench and express their views freely. The Solicitor-General suggested that this would be an approach to local option; but it required a very keen Celtic imagination indeed to evolve local option out of the Amendment. The local authority would probably refer the matter to a committee, which would consider all the local circumstances, and then decide as to whether a licence should be opposed or supported, and on what conditions it should be granted. He thought that quarter sessions would be rather pleased to have the assistance of the local authority. He could not see what possible objection there could be to the proposal. The late Archbishop Temple favoured it; and it was the opinion of every moderate-minded man that the local authorities should have the power to appear and express an opinion through counsel as to the granting of new licences. The Home Secretary proposed that any money obtained from new licences should go to the local taxation account; but, surely, the authority which had the expenditure of that money ought to be able to suggest to the licensing bench the payment which ought to be made. He hoped the Prime Minister would see his way to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 13, after the words last omitted, to insert the words, 'provided that no new licence shall be granted until at least three weeks notice shall have been first given to the local authority for the area in which the 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."
  —Mr. Lloyd-George.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the hon. Member desired that the local authority should have some means of saying how the money was to be made which they were to spend. That was exactly what temperance reformers on the other side of the House most vehemently objected to. Was not the Amendment, moreover, unnecessary fron the point of view of the hon. Member? He talked as if the local authority had now no right to appear before the magistrates. The law at present was, he understood, and would still remain, that "in the case of an application for a new licence any member of the public may appear before the licensing justices and oppose the grant of such licence," etc. A fortiori a person so much a member of the public as the representative of the local authority might do so.
  MR. ASQUITH: He cannot spend money on it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, and therefore he cannot employ counsel; but surely in a matter like this that would not be the best way of dealing with a purely administrative point.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The applicant employs counsel invariably, and so does anyone who opposes. Surely the local authority ought to have counsel.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he would have thought otherwise. The local authority must know what was going on and have full cognisance of the fact that a new licence was to be granted. They could make any proposals they liked to the magistrates. Whilst they would not gain anything by the Amendment, he thought a great deal would be lost. He did not think the general management of public affairs would be greatly improved by throwing this additional controversial subject upon their shoulders. The Amendment would do nothing which might not be done now, but it would be making a suggestion, which he would regret to see in an Act of Parliament, that part of the normal duties of a local authority should be to

  1401
  canvass the kind of advice they should give to the magistrates in the case of a new licence, not only as to the necessity of it, but as to the terms on which it should be granted. It would be better to leave the law as it was, allowing full liberty to all local authorities to say what they had to say to the magistrates responsible for granting new licences.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he was much interested as to the little red volume from which the Prime Minister had quoted the law. The local authority had not now the power which the Amendment proposed to give them. If the local authority had, as the Prime Minister himself assumed, an interest as to the granting or withholding of a licence, surely they ought to be in a position to employ counsel and meet the other side upon equal terms. Unfortunately the House of Lords had been induced to correct the impression which formerly prevailed that local authorities were entitled to spend a modest sum out of the rates for the purpose of making their views known, and local authorities were now unable to voice the views of their constituents in that matter. He thought the Government might make a concession of that kind without in any way interfering with the general principles of their scheme.
  MR. HENDERSONsaid he wished to appeal to the Government to accept the Amendment in the interests of the children of the country. Recent legislation in connection with education had put new responsibilities on the local authorities. The old school boards could only protest against the granting of new licences; but they had no power to spend money or to employ counsel. In the interests of the child life of the country it was necessary that the Amendment should be accepted.
  MR. WHITTAKERpointed out that the municipal corporations had a position in this matter somewhat different from anything which would accrue if they were made the licensing authority. Municipal corporations, through their watch committees, had control of the police, than whom nobody knew more as to the necessity or desirability of the granting or the renewal of licences; but
  1402
  the local authority had no power to engage legal assistance in pursuing to the Court of Appeal the opinions of their watch committees. He submitted that the watch committee, inasmuch as they had control of the police, ought to have power through the local authority to employ at the public cost legal assistance in order that the opinion of the police might be adequately expressed before the licensing authority. The Amendment was a very modest one, and he hoped the Government would accept it.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsupported the appeal of the hon. Member for the Barnard Castle Division. A constant ground of objection to proposed sites for elementary schools was the existence of a public-house in the neighbourhood which would interfere either with the school itself or with the children attending the school. That power of objection was all very well with regard to existing public-houses, but there was nothing to prevent a new public-house being placed in a position disadvantageous to an elementary school. He submitted that it was only right that a local authority, which was charged with the duty of superintending public education, should have a voice before the magistrates in order to warn them of the evils which, from the point of view of the school, might result from the grant or the renewal of a licence.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURthought the case just brought forward was not one which required to be supported by counsel or solicitors. He was quite willing to rate as highly as the right hon. Gentleman opposite the skill of the profession of which he was so great an ornament, but it was surely enough that the members of the local authority, or the chairman on their behalf, should tell the magistrates that if a new public-house was required it must not be put down close to an elementary school. Such a case appealed to everybody, and he could not see what would be gained by the local authority being empowered to pay for such presentation to be made to the licensing magistrates. He hardly thought that such a change in the existing law was at all required to carry out the object hon. Members had in view.
  MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid the Prime Minister had treated this Amendment merely as a proposal for enabling the local authorities to employ counsel, but such a view was based upon a complete misconception of the position occupied by the local authorities on these matters, and the practical steps which had been taken to give effect to their views. In the Tynemouth case, to which reference had been made, the justices had deprived six or seven houses of their licences, and the corporation decided to use public funds for the purpose of sustaining the action of the magistrates on appeal. That decision involved the employment of counsel, the collection of evidence, the engagement of a solicitor, and the payment of the costs of securing the attendance of witnesses; and while the crown of the structure might have teen the counsel who ultimately adorned it, the earlier steps, which were infinitely more important, were all necessary in order to enable the local authority to make its opinion felt before the quarter sessions. The situation at present was that local authorities could not spend a single sixpence out of the rates for the purpose of conveying to the committee of quarter sessions their opinion upon matters of enormous importance to themselves. A phrase in the Amendment of the Home Secretary placed the matter on an entirely new basis, because the justices were to consider, amongst other things, "the interests of the public." How were they to know what were the interests of the public in connection with a matter with reference to which they had not necessarily any local knowledge whatever? They were being called upon to discharge an important function without having the means of ascertaining the facts. They would have a highly partisan aspect of the case presented by the applicant, but the other side would be left to the uninstructed zeal of private individuals who were opposed to the licence. It was true that members of the local authority might appear as individuals, but there was no voice of the authority as such, and no official representation was conveyed to the licensing committee to guide them in their decision. The Amendment involved no infringement of the principle of the Bill; it simply freed local authorities from the
  1404
  fetters placed upon their action by the decision of the House of Lords in the Tynemouth case—a decision which on public grounds could not be sustained— and he hoped the Government would grant the concession asked for.
  MR. PEMBERTONjoined in the appeal to the Government to accept the Amendment, which was certainly not against the principle of the Bill. It was not the case that the expression of public opinion of the district was always before the licensing authority when the question of the granting or the renewal of licences was considered. An individual might come before the licensing committee, but he came only as an individual, and naturally his views had not the same force as if he came as a representative of the local authority. One had only to think of the position before a Committee upstairs. When an individual appeared as the chairman of a public body he carried much more weight than the, man who, although the chairman of a public body, appeared simply as an individual. The same argument really applied to the case they were now considering, and he therefore hoped that the Government would favourably consider the Amendment. As an attempt to meet those Members of the Party who did not see eye to eye with their leaders on the Bill the acceptance of the Amendment would be welcomed.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid that on the question of expense he might remind the Committee that two years ago they enabled the licensing justices to defend their decisions on appeal at the cost of the rates. That made it no longer necessary for the local authority to duplicate that operation practically out of the same pockets. As to the contention that this Amendment was necessary in order to get the opinion of the police authority in boroughs, he knew a case where, whether legally or otherwise, the licensing justices, in their capacity as conservators of the peace, called upon the chief constable to supply all the necessary information as to the police aspects of the case. Really, as a matter of practice, with all respect to the hon. Member for Sunderland, could any man in his senses dream that it was

  1405
  necessary for a local authority to employ counsel in order to convey to the justices the simple fact that the resolution against the granting of a licence had been passed by the local authority? When they had conveyed that resolution what was there more?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid this looked like an attempt to quarter the lawyers on the rates. They had already got the school board rate, the poor rate, and the police rate, and under this Amendment there would be a lawyer's rate. In his opinion there was no need whatever for the employment of any lawyer in so simple a matter as this. He must protest against this attempt to set up a tyranny of lawyers in every matter in which the public interest was concerned. Quarter sessions would be able to deal with all the representations made before them in the public interest even if they were not placed before them by a lawyer. He hoped the Solicitor-General was not going to join with his associates in making this further demand upon the rates. He trusted that this Amendment would be dismissed with the contempt which it deserved.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid he trusted, on the other hand, that the Amendment would be received with the respect it deserved. He hoped the hon. Member for King's Lynn would welcome his intervention, for whatever other faults or qualities he might have, he was not a lawyer. It was the Prime Minister who had stumbled upon the legal point. The right hon. Gentleman had taken up a red book written, he believed, by a lawyer, and had been misled by that book apparently. The Prime Minister used two arguments against the Amendment. The first was that local authorities could already do under the law what it had been clearly proved they could not do. That argument therefore fell to the ground. The other argument was that, even if they could, it was undesirable that they should busy themselves with this very contentious matter of licensing. He thought that local authorities could not be kept free from contentious matters of this kind. Very often, indeed, the more contentious the matter the more necessary it was that they should be introduced into it.
  1406
  It would have been more useful if, instead of the red book, the right hon. Gentleman had had in his hand the Liquor Licensing Ordinance applied to the Transvaal. There the right hon. Gentleman would find that upon this question of the sale of liquor by retail, control was given by a vote of the majority of the voters, or, in their absence, to a majority of the white male population over twenty-one years of age, residing within the village or ward. When they heard of the thin end of the wedge for local option being introduced by this Amendment surely that argument was a little late in the day, more especially after the Government had gone so far in regard to a community in the Transvaal, in a backward state as regarded representative institutions. He thought the Prime Minister ought to feel that he owed the Opposition a concession. The right hon. Gentleman charged them with inconsistency because he had been bombarded with representations not to interfere with the discretion of the justices. Now that he had fettered the discretion of the justices he thought the right hon. Gentleman might give them some compensation by bringing in the popular element to the extent of enabling representative bodies to advise the justices. The Bill said that the licensing authority should consider the public interest. Surely those words contained the logical conclusion that a representative authority should have the right to offer such advice or make such representations as they thought fit.
  MR. BUTCHERsaid that in this matter of new licences it had been said that the public interest could not be properly represented unless counsel or solicitors were employed by the local authority.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid his Amendment provided that notice should be given to the local authority before the hearing of applications for new licences, and it provided that magistrates must hear the representatives of the local authorities.
  MR. BUTCHERsaid it had been pointed out that every member of the local authority was entitled to go before quarter sessions with all the authority he

  1407
  possessed as a member of that local authority, and this was not disputed.
  MR. LAWSON WALTON: As I understand the law, they cannot appear officially.
  MR. BUTCHERsaid they could appear as members of the public, and he should be very much surprised if their authority was diminished at all, because they were members of a public authority. On the contrary, it seems to him that their authority would be very much increased when it was known that they were members of the authority. Proceeding, the hon. Member said he knew no reason why the chairman of a local authority should not be authorised by resolution of his board to appear before quarter sessions and state their views authoritatively on his own behalf and on behalf of his council; and he should be astonished to hear that quarter sessions would refuse to hear him. It had been argued that this was not sufficient, and that it was necessary to appear by counsel or solicitor; but if laymen appearing before quarter sessions showed half the ability many laymen in that House had shown they would do extremely well. If there was a general feeling that the local authority ought to collect evidence, it would be necessary to allow them to go to a certain amount of expense. In the present state of the law the cost of putting quarter sessions in full possession of the facts of the case could not be got out of the public rates. If there was a general feeling in the House that in order to collect evidence it was necessary that the local authority should go to a certain amount of expense, and if it were a fact that at present that expense could not be paid for out of the rates, then he hoped that the Government would at a later stage of the Bill take this matter into consideration.
  MR. YOXALL (Nottingham, W.)said an appeal had been made to the Government by the hon. Member for York, who was regarded as the author of this Bill—
  MR. BUTCHER: I do not claim any such distinction.
  MR. YOXALLsaid he could not help thinking that if the Prime Minister were
  1408
  present he would, after hearing the views of the hon. Member for York, have yielded on this particular point. A great feature of the debates had been that, when the Solicitor-General had exercised his great knowledge and ability and was evidently in a mood to concede something, he had been unable to make that concession because of the furtive and temporary appearances of the Prime Minister. So now the Solicitor-General was to be overridden by the Prime Minister. The Amendment generally commended itself to the whole Committee. The Government had brought into existence all over the country local authorities for education. It was part of the duty of these authorities, when any private enterprise in the neighbourhood of their schools was likely to be injurious to those schools, to protest against it, but the chairman of the local authority could not go before the licensing justices in his official capacity, and make a representation against a licence being given to a house near a school, which, in the view of the authority, would be prejudicial. There was no doubt that the local authority should be given such power, and he hoped the Government would take that view.
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid he did not think he was open to the particular charge the hon. Member had made against him, because before the Prime Minister spoke he had expressed the opinion that this Amendment, as drawn, would not enable the local authority to defray costs out of the rates. But the Amendment was intended to serve an entirely different purpose. It had been pointed out over and over again that any member of the public could go before the justices. The whole of the local authority could appear in a body, wearing their robes if they had any, and express their views before the justices. They could pass resolutions and forward them to the justices. They could hold meetings and publish the resolutions passed there, and the justices would know them just as well as if the members of the local authority appeared in their official capacity. This was not a question of the employment or the non-employment of counsel. What this Amendment sought was to give the local

  1409
  authority a statutory right to interfere at the investigation of licensing cases. The hon. Baronet had said that there was no question of interference. But there was a question of interference, and he would tell the Committee why. What would be the effect if the treatment of a particular case entered into politics at local elections? Could anybody maintain that such a proceeding would not conflict with the administration of the law by the local justices? Everybody must know that an immediate conflict would arise, and that it would become an acute question of politics in the neighbourhood. They would go further and say that the local justices were not representative of the people, not elected by the people, and that they were absolutely overriding what had been thoroughly investigated before the electors at the election. Whether it would be a good system to allow the local authorities to administer the clause instead of allowing the justices to do so, was a question that might be argued, but he hoped the Committee would not pass this Amendment with the idea that it only involved the collection of evidence. The Amendment would set up in the licensing districts the power of the local authority as against the power of the justices.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid the Solicitor-General was under a misapprehension as to the case made on the Opposition side. They were accustomed to sympathetic consideration of Amendments from the hon. and learned Gentleman, but on this occasion he had departed from that rule. He understood the Solicitor-General to say, Why not go there as individuals? If it was just as powerful for officials to go in their individual capacity, why that strong tirade at the end of his speech? He submitted that there ought to be authority of some kind given to local authorities to go before the justices. It had been a complaint for many years past that if there was opposition to a licence it was left to private individuals, and it very often happened that what was everyone's duty was no one's duty. In that way the temperance party had had to contend against a powerful trade. It was not reasonable that where a local authority took a view on a matter of this
  1410
  kind they should not be allowed to state that view in an official way. This was not a question of employing counsel. The local authority must judge of the necessity of that in each particular case. He noticed that the Bill provided that the brewers might be represented by counsel at quarter Sessions. It should be remembered that at present the licensing justices could be represented by counsel at quarter sessions; but as he understood, that would not happen under the Bill, because it was the licensing justices' report that was to be considered by quarter sessions. He must say that the opposition of the Government to this Amendment showed once more their preference of the interests of the brewers' to the interests of the public, so far as this Bill was concerned. His hon. friend the Member for Carnarvon had referred to the old cricketer playing the game, while the gate-money went to the brewers. As the game was going on the brewers were the umpires, because it was for them to say whether the Government were to be in or out. It was because the umpires would not allow them to accept this Amendment that the Solicitor-General had hardened his heart.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid he did not think that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken was justified in adopting such a tone. He wished to express his regret that the Government had not seen their way to accept, at any rate, the principle of the Amendment, which he considered to be eminently reasonable, There was no question of the local authority being brought in to deal with anything in the nature of a vested interest; but he could not conceive of anything more proper than that the local authority should have a voice in the question whether a new interest should be created. Indeed he did not understand the Government to deny that the local authority were, or ought to be, charged with certain responsibility in this matter, because the hon. and learned Gentleman said that any member of the local authority might appear before the justices. If it were true that the local authority had or ought to have an interest in these matters, it could not be wrong that they should have some means for putting forward the views that they held. He could

  1411
  not conceive why, when a new licence was proposed to be created, the local authority, which was responsible for good order and conduct in the locality, should not have the means of putting their views before the licensing authorities. He could not but think that the Government might reconsider the question. A Government lost nothing by being reasonable upon Amendments which were not in themselves vital, but which did commend themselves to a very considerable number of Members. He would suggest to his right hon. and learned friend that he might at least say that on this matter the Government were prepared to keep an open mind, even if they could not accept this particular Amendment. It was a very general feeling in the House that local authorities should have the power to put their views or objections before the licensing authorities.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire,)said he thought it would be extremely desirable if the question of granting licences was taken out of the hands of the justices and put into the hands of some public authority. He thought that the brewers themselves would be rather in favour of this Amendment, because they complained that any teetotaler was able to oppose the renewal or the grant of a licence. Down to 1894 any person could enforce a right to a public footpath at his own expense, but no public authority had the right to expend public money for that purpose. The power, however, was given in the Act of 1894. The result was that if there was any question of defending footpaths, it was taken in hand by the district council or the county council, and private persons had practically abandoned their rights. He thought it would
  be very desirable that the same course should be followed in regard to licences. He thought that any Amendment which tended to take opposition to applications for licences out of private hands and put it on the public authority should be adopted.
  MR. MARSHALL HALLsaid he thought that this was an Amendment which the Government ought to allow. The local authority ought to have some right to appear at quarter sessions on the question whether these licences were to be granted or not, and it would be far better that they should be able to appear in their representative capacity. He thought, however, that there ought to be some provision to protect the views of the minority, in the event of the local authority being against a licence by a bare majority. What was wanted was some opportunity of showing what was the real feeling of the local authority on the matter.
  MR. LLOYD WHARTONsaid he would like to know what the local authority was which was referred to in the Amendment. Was it the parish council, or the district council, or the county council? He had heard of a parish council which consisted of two members. If it was a district council, its chairman, who was a county magistrate, would represent its views; and if it was the county council the clerk of the peace would represent it. He did not see what more was needed or why counsel should be employed.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 178; Noes, 262. (Division List No. 223.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Crooks, William

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Cullinan, J.

  Allen, Charles P.

  Burt, Thomas

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Asher, Alexander

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Caldwell, James

  Delany, William

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Cameron, Robert

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay(Galway)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Black, Alexander William

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Doogan, P. C.

  Boland, John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Brigg, John

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Edwards, Frank

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Cremer, William Randal

  Ellice, Capt. E. C. (S. Andrw'sBghs

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Emmott, Alfred

  Levy, Maurice

  Runciman, Walter

  Evans, Sir Fran. H. (Maidstone)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Russell, T. W.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lloyd-George, David

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Lough, Thomas

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lundon, W.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Shackleton, David James

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Mac Veagh, Jeremiah

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Sheehy, David

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  M'Crae, George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  M' Kenna, Reginald

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

  Morgan J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Moss, Samuel

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hain, Edward

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Tennant, Harold John

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Murphy, John

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale)

  Newnes, Sir George

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Harwood, George

  Norman, Henry

  Tomkinson, James

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Toulmin, George

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wallace, Robert

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Higham, John Sharpe

  O'Dowd, John

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somers't E)

  O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Malley, William

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Sliaughnessy, P. J.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  O'Shee, James John

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Parrott, William

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea)

  Perks, Robert William

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire.)

  Price, Robert John

  Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Priestley, Arthur

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rea, Russell

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan,W.)

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh., N.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Reddy, M.

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T (Huddersf'd)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Langley, Batty

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Rigg, Richard

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Charles Morley and Mr.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Pemberton.

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Aird, Sir John

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Bigwood, James

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bill, Charles

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

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bingham, Lord

  Coddington, Sir William

  Arrol, Sir William

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bond, Edward

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Austin, Sir John

  Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Cross, Herbert Shepherd ( Bolton)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Butcher, John George

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Balcarres, Lord

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

  Dalkeith, Earl of

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

  Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ.)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Balfour, Capt, C. B. (Hornsey)

  Carson, Rt, Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire)

  Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Worc.)

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Charrington, Spencer

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  1414

  1415

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Dougla, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N.R.)

  Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Staly bridge)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Eardell, Sir T. George

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Mancr.)

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

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Samuel, Sir Harry S.(Limehouse)

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Galloway, William Johnson

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W)

  Smith, H.C.(North'mb. Tyneside)

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwioh)

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset)

  Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets)

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.)

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Line)

  Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H. E(Wigt'n)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfriessh.)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Stock, James Henry

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

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

  Gretton, John

  Milvain, Thomas

  Thompson. Dr E.C (Monagh'n, N)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Mitchell, William (Burpley)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Hardy, Lawrenee (Kent, Ashford

  Moon, Edward Robert Paey

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Tuff, Charles

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Tully, Jasper

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheffield)

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley)

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.)

  Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Helder, Augustus

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafiord, W.)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Myers, William Henry

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne)

  Hogg, Lindsay

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

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Horner, Frederick William

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hoult, Joseph

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Howard, Jn.(Kent, Faversham)

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

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

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Percy, Earl

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Young, Samuel

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Younger, William

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.)

  Pryce-Tones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Kerr, John

  Purvis, Robert

  TELLERS FOB THE NOES—Sir

  Kimber, Henry

  Pym, C. Guy

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Randies, John S.

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Rankin, Sir James

  Question, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  MR. AKEES-DOUGLASsaid that at an earlier period of the afternoon he explained the reason for putting down the
  1416
  Amendment to Sub-section I, and in stating the reasons for putting down these new clauses he need only add a few

  1417
  words to what he said then. The provisions he now proposed in place of Subsaction 2 were really to explain the provisions of the Bill. The licensing justices were given power to grant new licences, subject to any reasonable conditions. It was further suggested the licences might be granted at the discretion of the licensing justices for any period not exceeding seven years. During that period the licences would not be subject to renewal, hut at the end of seven years they would again be treated as new licences, and the? conditions under which the justices originally granted them would apply. The reason for giving the justices this power was that these new licences would not come under the compensation clauses of the Bill, and therefore it was desirable that they should be granted in this form, in order that a substantial tenant might be obtained. There was no obligation on the part of the justices to grant a licence for the full seven years; they could grant a licence for any period not exceeding the term; or they need not make use of this method at all. As those licences when granted would not require renewal, or come under the supervision of the licensing justices every year, provision had been made for enforcing the conditions under which they were granted-A Court of summary jurisdiction would have the power of forfeiture if the licensee did not observe the conditions, and in that way the proper observance of the conditions under which the licence was granted was assured. Having excluded those new licences from the operation of the compensation fund, it had been necessary to find a fund into which any money derived from the higher payments in respect of the licences should be placed, and the Government, therefore, had arrived at the conclusion that that money should be transferred and used in a similar way to those funds, which under Section 20 of the Local Government Act, 1888, were transferred to the Local Taxation Fund and used in the relief of rates. The object was to secure to the justices in the granting of new licences power to insist upon reasonable conditions, and to ensure that they should take particular care that no new monopoly value was created. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  'In page 3, line 14, to leave out Sub-section (2) and insert—
  "(2) 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, and shall attach such conditions as they think best adapted for preventing any private person from obtaining any benefit from any monopoly value of the licence.
  '(3) For the purposes of this section a new on-licence may be granted for a term not exceeding seven years, and where a licence is so granted for a term, any application for a re-grant of the licence on the expiration of the term shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new licence, not as an application for the renewal of a licence, and during the continuance of the term the licence shall not require renewal.
  '(4) The amount of any payments made in pursuance of any conditions under this section shall be collected and dealt with in the same manner as the duties on local taxation licences within the meaning of Section 20 of the Local Government Act, 1888.
  '(5) A licence granted for a term under this section may (without prejudice to any other provisions as to forfeiture) be forfeited, if any condition imposed under this section is not complied with, by order of a Court of summary jurisdiction made on complaint, or if the holder of the licence is convicted of any offence committed by him, as such, by the Court by whom he is convicted; but where a licence is so forfeited the owner of the licensed premises shall have all the rights conferred on owners by Section 15 of the Licensing Act, 1874.'"—(Mr. Secretary Ahem-Douglas.)
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section (2) stand part of the clause."
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked whether this new proposal ought not to have originated in Committee of the Whole House. It was in fact a proposal to increase the licence duties, and on the Finance Bill the Chairman had ruled that Such a proposal required origination in Committee of the Whole House. The only differences in the present proposal were that the burden was to be imposed by the magistrates, that it was optional, and that it applied only to new licences. Unless those slight differences were held to alter the principle, he submitted that the ruling to which he had referred applied to the proposal now before the Committee.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am relieved from the necessity of making any original pronouncement on the matter, as the question has already been brought before the notice of Mr. Speaker, who, after full consideration, has ruled that no Committee was necessary.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: On this Amendment?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. I may say that I had come to the same conclusion, because this charge is levied not Imperially but locally. It goes to local purposes, and it need not even be levied at all. But it is unnecessary for me to go into reasons, because Mr. Speaker has already ruled on the subject.
  SIR ROBERT REID: Will it be competent for any private Member to move to increase the licence duties proposed by this clause?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The clause gives the fullest latitude. The justices are to be given power to fix "any such sum"; they may fix £1,000,000 for each licence if they choose.
  SIR ROBERT REID: Are we at liberty to propose that the full amount be imposed, instead of leaving the amount at the option of the justices?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not understand what the hon. and learned Member means by "the full amount." If the justices think fit to impose the condition that for every new licence £1,000,000 should be paid, they will be able to do so.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I take it, then, the Amendment of my hon. and learned friend to impose 4 per cent., and so on, will be perfectly in order?
  THB CHAIRMAN: Yes, but that would probably be limiting the discretion of the justices.
  SIR ROBERT REID: Then it would be in order.
  MR. CRIPPSsaid that in his opinion the present proposals of the Home Secretary met the real
  1420
  difficulties of the licensing question much less satisfactorily than the oiiginal proposals of the Bill, and there were two or three points on which ho hoped the righ hon. Gentleman would enlighten the Committee before they went into the details of the question. Under the Bill the terms to be imposed on the granting of new licences were placed in the discretion of quarter sessions. They were now to be placed in the discretion of the authority for the particular licensing district in which the licence was applied for. That, he thought, was a great mistake. It ought not to be possible for different conditions to be imposed in each licensing district of a county; unless the same conditions applied throughout the county at large the administration of the law would be rendered exceedingly difficult. For instance, if the licensing authority in any particular district imposed conditions which quarter sessions thought to be not in the public interest, quarter sessions would have the power to refuse the new licence on that ground, but not to impose such conditions as they thought right and proper. Was that really a practicable method of dealing with the question It was a serious question, because it might load to a complete deadlock. If quarter sessions thought the conditions imposed were unsatisfactory, when the licence came up for confirmation they ought to deal with the whole subject-matter, and decide not merely whether they should refuse the licence on the ground that the conditions were unsatisfactory, but also whether they themselves should not impose conditions which they thought were in the public interest. Wore the hands of quarter sessions to-be tied by this power being withheld? The responsibility for confirmation rested, in the last resort, not with the licensing district but with quarter sessions, and they could not exercise that authority without full powers being given to them.
  The second proposition was much more serious. He understood that in future new licences were practically to be put up to auction and sold to the highest bidder. He did not think that would be in the public interest and they ought not to deal with new licences in that way. There were much larger interests involved, and they ought to grant new licences under the best conditions and to the

  1421
  best applicants whether they were prepared to pay the highest price or not. Instead of having the power to deal with licences from year to year as regarded ill-conduct and disciplinary powers, which were so important and which had worked so admirably in regard to the licensing laws in the past, all those powers were now to be taken away. They proposed to put new licences up to auction and then give the purchaser a seven years term during which he was not to be interfered with however much the local magistrates might think it desirable to interfere. It had been suggested as regarded these licences that they ought to see that the persons who applied for them did not get a monopoly value. He quite agreed with that, but that was an entirely different matter from putting the licences up to auction, a proceeding which might be exercised to the detriment of true temperance reform. He hoped that no principle of that kind would be introduced into this Bill. This was not a matter of sale and purchase, but a matter of the public interest. There ought to be the same annual power to deal with them as at present and he was not prepared to tie the hands of the magistrates for seven years and take away their disciplinary powers. The proposal of the Home Secretary provided—
  "(2) 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, and shall attach such conditions as they think best adapted for preventing any private person from obtaining any benefit from any monopoly value of the licence."
  It was difficult to know exactly what that meant, but he thought its effect would be that a person who in the ordinary way would be willing to invest money would not be willing, under those rules, to erect the class of public-house wanted. How could they expect any man to do that if he was not going to get a profit? It meant that they would drive out of the competition the best class of men, and would practically compel people to erect in the future houses of a less efficient type, or else reintroduce the very class of house they all wanted to get rid of. This
  1422
  difficulty was all owing to the absurd notion of seeking to introduce so great a matter as State regulation. By adopting this system they would defeat their own ends, and drive away the people they ought to encourage, for he could not imagine anyone building good public-houses under those conditions, because at the end of seven years the purchaser might be dispossessed and have to pay again. Could they conceive anyone investing money to build public-houses or rebuilding them so as to be satisfactory from the hotel or saloon point of view under such conditions? Every new licence in the future would come under these terms and the old law would be altered from top to bottom and altered in the wrong direction. Was it important to introduce the best article and to provide the best premises? Was it important to have the business carried on so as to have the best social conditions? He considered that the terms of this Amendment so far from conducing to a higher level of our licensing system in the future would tend entirely to have a contrary effect. The Amendment would tend to reduce the system to a level which they would all regret. If the present licence duty was not sufficient that was a matter for the House to consider, but to put a particular licence up to auction, and to put every obstacle in the way of a house being well-conducted, would, he thought, interfere to a most serious extent with the proper management of the house. That was not the proper way to conduce to temperance reform, and he sincerely hoped that some Amendment would be introduced which would not revolutionise our licensing system in the future as was proposed by the Amendment of the Home Secretary.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he agreed with one observation of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, namely, that it was not possible to adequately discuss this new system in the limited time allowed. He thought the Amendment a very great improvement on the original proposals of the Government, and in default of a better he would support it. Annual licences had hitherto been granted, and all that law, justice, and the statutes could do had been done to express the undoubted rule that they were subject

  1423
  to be discontinued at the end of every year. That could not be made clearer than it already was. That system had broken down, or, at least, so far that the Government and a majority of this House had thought themselves bound to confer property and a freehold tenure on those who held licences. The moral originating from this consideration was that a person was not likely to invest money on an annual tenure on account of its being so short. It was contended that if the period were longer what was called the equity or expectation would not arise, at all events in so strong a form, especially as it was said in the Amendment that after seven, years it was to be treated as an application for a new licence, and not an application for a renewal. The point, therefore, was that when the seven years tenure had come to an end the licence was not to last longer. He thought words should be put in to say that at the end of seven years the licence would not be continued unless public necessity required that it should be renewed. He did not know that that was not implied. He did not think the Amendment was open to the strictures of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  MR. PEEL (Manchester, S.)said the points dealt with by the hon. and learned Gentleman on that side of the House were whether all these conditions were only to be applied by the licensing session, and whether quarter sessions, when the matter came before them for confirmation, should have some power of altering the conditions or whether the question ought to be: Shall we grant this licence or not? In regard to the first point he thought there was a very great deal to be said for it. Conditions might be inserted for bringing the general administration in the different licensing quarters in a county into some kind of similarity. On the next point he could not help feeling that the hon. and learned Gentleman had to some extent exaggerated the words that were placed in the clause when he said that the putting up of a licence to the highest bidder would be an extremely bad thing for the general public. Hon. Members on the Opposition side had been contending that too much power was placed in the hands of brewers and brewery companies. It seemed to him that the conditions now proposed were
  1424
  so severe that small men would not be got to put money into licensed houses. It would only be possible for the large brewer or brewery company to get the licence, and it would be, acquired in some cases not for the purpose of getting money out of it but to prevent other parties from getting the licence. In that way the proposal might not work to the best advantage. He was not sure that his hon. and learned friend had attached sufficient importance to some of the other words in the Amendment.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to; make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  LICENSING BILL [3RD ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHEB (Cumberland. Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 4:—
  Amendment again proposed—
  "In page 3, line 14, to leave out Sub-section (2), and insert the words—
  '(2) The justices of a licensing district on the grant of a new licence may attach to the I grant of the licence such conditions, both as to i 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, and shall attach such conditions as they think best adapted for preventing any private person from obtaining any benefit from any monopoly value of the licence.
  '(3) For the purposes of this section anew on-licence may be granted for a term not exceeding seven years, and where a licence is so; granted for a term any application for a re-I grant of the licence on the expiration of the term shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new licence, not as an application for the renewal of a licence, and during the continuance of the term the licence shall not require renewal.
  '(4) The amount of any payments made in pursuance of any conditions under this section shall be collected and dealt with in the same manner as the duties on local taxation licences within the meaning of Section 20 of the Local Government Act, 1888.

  1425
  '(5) A licence granted for a term under this section may (without prejudice to any other provisions as to forfeiture) be forfeited, if any condition imposed under this section is not complied with, by order of a Court of summary jurisdiction made on complaint, or if the holder of the licence is convicted of any offence committed by him as such, by the Court by whom he is convicted, but where a licence is so forfeited the owner of the licensed premises shall have all the rights conferred on owners by Section 15 of the Licensing Act, 1874.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
  Question again proposed, "That Subsection (2) stand part of the clause."
  MR. PEEL,continuing his speech, said whatever view the Committee might hold on this particular Amendment everybody must agree that it was of very great importance. It established an entirely new principle of licensing, and he could not but regret that the discussion upon it had not commenced earlier in the afternoon, and that so much time had been absorbed in the discussion of other Amendments, which however useful they might be, were not comparable with this in importance. The diminution of the powers of the magistrates under this Bill had been referred to; it had been, in fact, made the football of the debate throughout these discussions. There, however, could be no doubt that in one respect the powers of the magistrates were diminished if licences were granted for a longer period than one year; but that power was purely optional. The magistrates could grant these licences for any time they liked up to a period of seven years. Looked at from another point of view the powers of the magistrates were greatly enhanced in the direction of imposing conditions and money payments. Those who complained of the diminution of the power of the licensing magistrates had not taken into consideration the position the holders of these licences would be in if a clause of this kind were not passed. By the general assent of the House these new licences were to be exempted from the contribution and compensation clause, and therefore the licence-holders would be in exactly the same position as they were previous to this Bill being introduced. They would have the liability of having the licence taken away every year, but on the other hand the knowledge that they would get a renewal of the licence every year subject
  1426
  to good conduct. Therefore, in discussing the diminution of power, they had to compare it not with the freedom enjoyed under this Bill, but with the freedom possessed in the years preceding the introduction of it. With regard to the monopoly value, he thought it would be a most difficult thing to make any calculation as to what the monopoly value was. It must always be a pure speculation, as it would be impossible to say what would be the profit of a particular house in seven years. But the magistrates might impose as a condition a money payment—not at the commencement of the granting of the licences, but the payment of a certain percentage on the profits on the principle of the gold tax in the Transvaal every year; and inasmuch as the monopoly value must be a purely hypo thetical value that would, in his opinion, be the wisest course to adopt. The only weakness in the proposal was, that, having to pay a considerable sum as monopoly value, the owner would make much less money out of the licence, and at the end of the seven years the magistrates, in consideration of that fact, might be apt to say, "We will continue this man's licence for another seven years," and so something approaching a vested interest would again grow up.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid it appeared to him a most remarkable thing that a great financial Resolution such as this could be accomplished in the simple way in which this had been brought about. He did not challenge the Amendment. It meant the introduction of high licence duties into this country. For nineteen years he had stood almost alone in advocating high licence duties, and now the Government of the day had been converted to them. Nothing would induce him to vote against the Amendment, which was the one great financial provision in the Bill. But this scheme involved three distinct categories of licence duties—first of all, the duties imposed by the Act of 1880; then the additional payments imposed for the purpose of compensation; and finally the duties created under this Amendment. He did not see any representatives of the Treasury on the Benches opposite although this was a Treasury Bill. He

  1427
  believed that the time would come when all these payments would be merged in one, and that the financial system of the licence duties would demand simplification. The present scheme involved a financial confusion which no self-respecting Chancellor of the Exchequer would tolerate for a moment. What would the result be? There would be two kinds of licences. A licence under the the old Act of 1880, by which the licensee was compelled to give up a fractional part of its monopoly value. Side by side with that a totally new set of licences were brought into existence, which were to be taxed up to the hilt as regarded monopoly value. How could such a discrimination between the old and new licences be justified? It seemed to him incredible that anyone could expect such a system to last. The brewers had a vested interest in the Tory Party being retained in office, although it appeared to him to be a vanishing security. He welcomed the proposal now before the Committee. because it was the beginning of the end, and because it introduced the principle of high licence.
  MR. DUKEsaid his views in regard to licensing were not so revolutionary as those of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, but he agreed with him in welcoming the principle of the scheme, because it was a new departure. Anyone who regarded the public well-being would agree that they were too much fetterred by what their forefathers had done, and by conventions in regard to the liquor traffic. They on that side of the House disagreed with hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the mode by which the difficulties of the licensing question could be got rid of. They, on that side, believed that the rights of property which had g own up by reason of the action of their predecessors should not be disregarded. They were entitled with regard to new licences, however, to make new conditions, because conditions that were the subject of free bargain between the licence-holder and the community could not possibly inflict any hardship on the individual. When a bargain was made for a fixed term, there was no claim either moral or equitable at the expiry
  1428
  of the term for a renewal of the bargain-The monopoly of the sale of liquor, if resting on proper grounds, must be a monopoly for the public benefit. The Amendment was in some parts ambiguous, and he suggested the adoption of phraseology which would make it perfectly clear that the public were parting for a term of years with a monopoly right, which was for the future, in respect of new licences, to be a public right. It was suggested that if the justices in licensing districts in the counties were to set up separate conditions, there might be difficulty in dealing with the matter. Perhaps, however, if there was a common understanding in the House as to the desirability of a scheme of this kind, the Home Secretary might propose words which would ensure something like uniformity in the county area. He gave his hearty support to the principle of the Amendment.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid he considered this clause was hardly adequate to deal with the object which it was intended to effect. The clause would affect the whole future licensing system of the country. He must say that the Government need not at the last moment have made so large a change in the procedure prescribed by the Bill in Clause 4. He did not want to find fault with the Bill; he thought it was a very good Bill; but it was now proposed, without any previous notice, to do away with the power of the magistrates in quarter sessions to make a county scheme for new licences. That power was to be given to petty sessions. There might be eight or nine petty sessional divisions in a county, and if each had their own regulations that must lead to confusion. He ventured to think that in altering the scheme from quarter to petty sessions it would put it out of the power of the magistrates to make a cohesive county scheme for dealing with new licences. He looked with alarm on the procedure by which new licences were to be granted on a seven years lease. Of course he might be told that great freedom would be given to the magistrates; but they might only give a lease for one or two years. The plan, he thought, would discourage the

  1429
  building of good houses, and would tend to increase the number of those mean public-houses in back streets, where so much drunkenness took place. It would also be unfortunate if licence-holders were relieved from the obligation of appearing annually before the magistrates and hearing what they had to say on matters affecting the trade. The effect of putting up licences to auction would be that nobody but large brewers would be able to obtain them. He very much regretted that he could not support the Amendment.
  MR. AINSWORTHsaid it must be evident to hon. Members on both sides that this Bill marked a revolution in the licensing system of the country. They had been discussing how licences were to be managed, but he wondered whether hon. Members had asked themselves the question why a licence was ever granted? It was not for the benefit of the revenue, for that was comparatively insignificant; it was not granted for the benefit of the licence-holder or the large firm behind him. No; the licence was granted in the interest of the public and that was the reason why up to now no licence had ever been sold for money. Under the old system the wants of the neighbourhood were watched; but now that was to be done away with and the business was to be left to an authority sitting perhaps miles away. Having destroyed the system of local control the Government had now come to the point of saying, well, if the new licensing authority is to issue licences let it be to the highest bidder. In an hour and ten minutes this revolution would become law—they would have revolutionised the licensing system of the country. They were dealing in a hurry with the legal interests of the country; whether the holders of new licences had to pay any price at all had to be decided, but it should be decided with a view to the total revenue of the country and without regard to any accidental requirements of the local authorities.
  SIR PHILIP MUNTZsaid that the Amendment would make a revolution in our licensing system. In his opinion instead of improv-
  1430
  ing the class of houses and the class of tenants the new clause was calculated to deteriorate both. He failed to understand why the Opposition, who were opposed to tied houses, supported the proposal, because, speaking from a practical knowledge of the question extending over forty years, he could say that the whole of the new licences would pass into the hinds of the brewers. He objected to licences being granted for a period of seven years without the annual approval of magistrates. The new system was unsound because under it they would not get the best class of tenant, but the man with the most money or the great brewer. At the end of the seven years the licence was to be again put up for auction, and if it was worth anything the great brewer would again step in. That would perpetuate the system of tied houses. He could not help feeling that the proposal was wrong. It required complete reconsideration and revision in order that another System might be introduced securing the best class of houses, and that no licence should be granted until there had been the most careful consideration by the magistrates at quarter Sessions or petty sessions of the question whether the licence was required for the district. When it was determined that the licence should be granted it should only be granted to a house of the highest and best type, affording every accommodation, and to a man who would occupy it and who was in every way qualified by the highest character for the position. What guarantee was there that under this proposal they would secure a respectable licensee, if he knew that his occupation would only last for seven years. This was the worst system they could devise. The clause as it stood was unwise, unsound, and was based neither on the interests of the licensed trade or of those of temperance reform. He appealed to the Prime Minister to withdraw the clause and submit another in its place securing the objects he had suggested.
  MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid the hon. Member who had just Spoken based his criticism of this Amendment on his distrust of the licensing authority. Every one of his arguments assumed that the magisterial bench of

  1431
  which he had had forty years experience would not deal wisely and in a judicial spirit with the jurisdiction vested in them under this Bill. The Amendment, which he thought was an admirable Amendment, proposed to give to the justices of the licensing district power which they did not now possess.
  SIR PHILIP MUNTZ: I said that in my opinion the magistrates had dealt wisely in the past with licensing questions and would do so in the future.
  MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid if that were the opinion of the hon. Member he was entirely at a loss to understand the feeling of apprehension with which he regarded an extension of the magistrates' powers. As he understood the hon. Member the power to impose conditions given under this Amendment would not be wisely exercised, and that so far from seeking the most eligible applicant the magistrates would be guided solely by financial considerations and would chose the highest bidder whether he were the best qualified or not. He asked the Committee to conclude that the justices would act wisely in the future. No argument whatever had been used against this jurisdiction being given to them. The magistrates would have ample power to clothe the granting of licences with any conditions they might choose to demand in the interests of the public, which by this Amendment they were expressly enjoined to consider. The attachment of some financial terms to the granting of a most valuable monopoly right was by no means inconsistent with the general policy of our licensing law. It was not an impossibility to choose the most eligible applicant and at the same time to recognise that they were conferring upon him a financial endowment in regard to which he might be fairly asked to make some contribution which would, to some extent, relieve the local burdens of the district. The hon. and learned Member for the Stretford Division was rather opposed to the provision under which it would be possible to have different conditions obtaining in different districts. But if they were to have experiments they must leave the magisterial discretion unfettered. If there magisterial Court was to be trusted, their was no reason why its discretion should be restricted.
  1432
  There was another part of the Amendment which appeared to him more important, and that was the introduction of a system which he could not help thinking would ultimately be the licensing system in this country, viz., the power— which he wished was compulsory—to licensing justices to grant a seven years licence in place of the annual grant. No one who had considered this question could have avoided coming to the conclusion that the annual licence was an obsolete and inapplicable system. At present, when an application for a new licence was made, the justices asked to inspect the plans; plans involving expenditure possibly of thousands of pounds were submitted; they were inspected and passed, the house was constructed under the supervision of the Bench, and the licence was granted when the house was completed. But although it was obvious that many years must elapse before the capital expenditure was exhausted, the term of the licence was one year only. That was an obsolete system, totally inapplicable to modern conditions. If they were dealing solely with new licences, he did not think there could be the smallest question that the one year was doomed, and that they must give either an equity of renewal or a tenure of licence which would enable the person who obtained the licence to look forward to a definite period during which he would have some security for the capital he had invested. The problem in regard to new licences was so simple that the Government had been persuaded by the force of argument, and had provided under this Amendment that new licences should be for seven years, and that when that seven years had elapsed the licence would be enewed for another seven years. That system entirely removed the necessity for any compensation. The proposal under the section gave no compensation after the lapse of seven years, and when those seven years had elapsed there might be a review by the Bench of the whole situation of the district and its needs with regard to the trade.
  If this argument was So sound that it had convinced the Government with regard to new licensing, was there no means by which the system might be applied to existing licences. If it was so

  1433
  sound that every new licence was to be granted on the footing of a lease of seven years', during which the tenant might count his risk of non-renewal at the end of that period, insure against loss, and limit the expenditure of his capital to the duration of his term—why should they not adapt that System, at once businesslike and logical, to the existing licences. Such a proposal he had himself made the Subject of a new clause, which, however, would meet the fate of many other suggestions under the closure. How might that system be applied to licences now in existence? If the licensee were allowed to have the option of taking the renewal for seven years instead of one, of abstaining entirely from any contribution to the fund, and of keeping out of the scope of the scheme of compensation, he might be given the power of putting himself into the Same category as the new licensees. He would become his own insurer. He might insure on better terms than this Bill provided and he would have all the advantages which a new licensee possessed under this clause. What was the objection to that system? He would gladly support the Amendment, which, if it could be carried one Step further so as to bridge the chasm between new licences and old licences and obviate the absurd anomaly of having two classes of licences, would make then the Bill a statesmanlike measure.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that, though the form of this clause was new, it was the fact that from the first moment the Bill was introduced he had always explained to the House that, in the view of his colleagues, and in his own view, it was an essential part of their scheme that as regarded new licences, where existing rights were in no sense involved, a new system should be adopted. The hon. Member appealed to their sympathies because he could not bring on his own Amendment, but although they could not have the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment they were delighted to have had his speech. They only regretted that it was not made on the First or Second Reading.
  MR. WHITTAKERsaid this provision was not before the House then.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the Bill was before the House, and what he was dropping a sympathetic tear over was that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not deliver his speech on the First or Second Reading or on some subsequent occasion when the fundamental principles of the Bill were under discussion. For he had said that the system of annual licences was antiquated and obsolete, that it was not appropriate to the present condition of affairs, and that there ought to be either an equity of renewal or a lease. Where was "Sharps v. Wakefield"?
  MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid he was: indicating a perfect system. "Sharper. v. Wakefield" defined the existing law which was most imperfect.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman on the Second Reading would have been most highly valued. The hon. Gentleman behind him, not content with "Sharpe v. Wakefield," went back to the 16th century to show that annual licences were the proper system, and the idea that there was a right to an equity of renewal or a lease would have been received earlier in the debate by the hon. and learned Gentleman's friend with shouts of disapproval. If the hon. and learned Gentleman voted against the First and Second Reading, holding the ideas he did on the equity of renewal or right to a lease, it was impossible to square his votes with the view which, with so much eloquence and acumen, he had now expounded to the Committee.
  MR. LAWSON WALTONpointed out that his argument referred to new licences. Where a house was constructed under the sanction of the Bench in the anticipation of an annual grant, there should be either an equity of renewal or a fixed term during which the tenant might provide against his capital being unexhausted. He was not dealing with old licences under the present system under which there had been so many warnings of the precarious character of their tenure, of which warnings "Sharpe v. Wakefield" was the most pointed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURdid not follow the hon. and learned Gentleman. Many

  1435
  structural alterations had been required from men holding their licences on an annual tenure. The Government said it was an outrage to take the licence away without compensation. The hon. and learned Gentleman apparently thought it an outrage, but he had been voting steadily against the Bill, the object of which was to prevent that outrage. The speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman was a lgood speech from his own point of view, but he did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman's interruption explained the inconsistency between his arguments and his votes.
  MR. LAWSON WALTON: I do not think it is a good Bill; I think it is a very bad Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he knew all that. He thought the criticisms of the clause from the Government Benches had been uttered under a complete misconception both of the purpose and effects of the clause. The purpose of the clause was to prevent in the future in regard to new licences that slow but inevitable growth of equitable rights, not recognised by law, which had grown up in regard to old licences under the existing system, and which had proved such a difficulty in the way of reducing licences. He did not believe there was an hon. Member in the House who differed from that particular statement of the policy which they ought to pursue. To effect that object, upon which they were all agreed, his hon. friends said they would prefer annual licences rather than leases for seven years. But there was nothing in the clause to prevent the issue of annual licences. The matter was left to the magistrates to determine. His hon. friend had added to the error of supposing that this Bill required the magistrates to grant leases, the further error that this clause required them to put the licence up to auction. The hon. Member not only misinterpreted the clause but he did so in a way which absolutely reversed its true character and the intention of those who framed it. He asked hon. Members to turn their attention for a moment to the phrase in the first paragraph of the second subsection—
  "The justices of a licensing district on the grant of a new licence may attach to the grant
  1436
  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."
  His hon. friends also interpreted that sub-section of the clause to mean that the licensing justices were bound to see that the extremest sum was obtained for the monopoly value of a new licence that it was possible to obtain in the open market. How could the monopoly value of the licence be separated from the rest of the property?
  MR. LOUGH: By putting it up for auction.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is nothing about auction.
  MR. LOUGH: It is the only plan.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the monopoly value was only part of the interest of the licence. How could they put up for auction that which might be of enormous value apart from the licence and from the monopoly value of the licence? What the clause contemplated was that the magistrates should draw a distinction between the value that would attach to the licence were there free trade in the sale of liquor and the value which attached to it because there was not free trade in the sale of liquor. That could not be put up to auction separately, and it must be done by a rough and ready method.
  MR. AINSWORTHsaid that if a license was to be sold for the benefit of the public the object must be to get the utmost possible value for it. If they did not do that they would not be selling the licence in the public interest, but in the interest of the man who bought it, because he would be getting it for less than its real value.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was not quite sure that he fully understood the purport of his hon. friend's interruption. His hon. friends were also puzzled by the words in the clause "private persons." Those words were meant to prevent the clause from being applied to cases in which the beneficiary from the monopoly was the corpoiation of a town or some other public body of the kind. He

  1437
  believed that some hon. Members thought this phrase had been inserted in order to protect or to aid one particular form in which it was intended to deal with licensed premises—namely, the Public-house Trust Corporation. It had nothing to do with it either directly or indirectly. It had no special reference whatever to any form of private trading in liquor; but it was conceivable that in some districts there might be a desire that any product of monopoly value should go to the public. It was intended to make this possible, and it ought to be possible. It would be very wrong so to arrange any licensing laws that the monopoly value should not go to the public. If they restricted the, liquor trade they were almost certain to create a monopoly value, do what they would. No one desired to have free trade in drink; it had been tried and it had failed, and no one wanted to try the experiment again. If they were going to restrict the trade, the mere fact that it was restricted had a strong tendency to give it a monopoly value. All that the Government desired was to give the monopoly value to the public and not to the private individual. It was therefore recognised that the clause was a serious endeavour to carry out an object agreed to by both sides of the House.
  MR. WHITTAKERsaid that there should be a term to licences with full power to deal with them at the end of the term. The right hon. Gentleman had prevented the possibility of this power from being enjoyed in the future. It was a principle of great importance that there should be full power on the part of the justices to deal with licences at sometime or other. The present proposal was an enormous improvement on the original proposal in the Bill, but the Prime Minister had not met the criticisms urged against it. There was, first of all, the loss of annual control. The licences would not come before brewster sessions until the end of seven years. That was an undesirable change. They should come up annually for review, as to conduct, because it was important not to lose the annual control. It was also undesirable that the licensing authority should, So to say, Sell the licence. They ought to sell the licence for an annual sum, and it ought to be a
  1438
  very substantial sum, but he did not like the system of paying down a lump sum for a licence to cover a period of years because under Such circumstances it would be very difficult to take that licence away. Therefore it would be much better if the payment was an annual one. If this principle was so sound and good why should it not apply to all licences, to off-licences as well as on-licences? The expressions "private person" and "monopoly value" were by no means clear. What was meant by monopoly value? The Prime Minister had suggested to them what it was not, but he had not told them what the monopoly value was.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that monopoly value was the difference in value between the sale of liquor in existing circumstances under the existing law and what the value would be if there was free trade in liquor.
  MR. WHITTAKERsaid that amounted to the difference in the value of the premises with a licence and without. In the ordinary case if there were free trade in liquor there would be no special value attaching to the premises, and they would be like any other premises. On that definition the real meaning of the monopoly value would be the additional value which the granting of this monopoly added to the premises. That, however, did not coincide with the definition given by the Solicitor-General, who seemed to think that it depended upon the profits. The ordinary profits resulting from the trade in drink would be distinct from the monopoly value which the licence would give to the premises. Every successful trade was conducted at a profit and it did not mean that all the profit of carrying on the trade would be taken. It seemed to him that there was substance in the contention that practically these licences would still go to the great brewers.. He did not think they would get rid of monopoly by selling at the highest possible price, but he thought they must sell at the highest possible price if they were to get the monopoly value. If they were to sell to the highest bidder in order to get the full monopoly value the licences would go to the great brewers as before. It seemed to him that was inconsistent with the provision in the

  1439
  clause that they were going to protect the public interest. The buyer would have to sell the largest possible amount of drink in order to get a return for the price paid, and that would not be in the public interest. The hon. Member for the Tamworth Division had said that the justices could select the men. He thought the justices had very few opportunities of selecting the men now. The brewers selected the men and the justices had largely to take those who were offered to them. There was one point in the new clause he should like to make a remark upon. He did not like the idea of the extra levy upon licences going to the relief of local rates. At present licence duties went to the local authorities, and, therefore, to the relief of rates. The amount at present was comparatively small, but if they were to get into the way of levying on licences their full value that amount would become very substantial indeed, and it was undesirable that local authorities should depend for a large relief of the rates on the number of licences granted. He thought this extra charge should go to the National Exchequer rather than to the relief of local rates. The hon. Member for Manchester had suggested that under this proposal surrenders and exchanges might still continue, that was to say, it might be possible to surrender two or three licences in one place in order to get a new licence in another. As he read the proposal that would not be possible. If a new licence was to be obtained by the surrender of two or three others it must be perfectly obvious that they were not getting the full monopoly value. Therefore, it seemed to him that such an arrangement was not included under the proposal. He agreed with his hon. friend the Member for Dundee that this was introducing a very important change, and that they could not in any degree look upon the idea as a permanent one that one class of licences should pay full value to the State, while others would be allowed to pay only the nominal sum they paid now. He believed that in the near future they might look for very much increased licence duties.
  There were unquestionably many respects in which this new proposal
  1440
  was an improvement on the old one. In the old proposal it was provided that the fees got for new licences should go to the compensation- fund. That was not to be the case now. That were to go to the service of the public. He thought the clause abolished the possibility of exchanges and surrenders for new licences, and further, the new proposal would retain the power of granting new licences in non-county boroughs to the justices there. These were, he thought, important improvements. The plan was not the best one, and he felt certain that it would be a somewhat temporary one. He was afraid that not one of the existing licence-holders would adopt the suggestion of his hon. and learned friend of exchanging their licences for new ones on seven years terms, because under the Bill as it at present stood they would be entitled to very full compensation, while under the new arrangement they would be required to pay a very much increased fee. This was the beginning of a very great change indeed, and he thought that in the near future it would be extended to all licences. It certainly meant the end of the old condition of things. He regretted that under the operation of the closure this question could not receive anything like adequate discussion.
  SIR J. STIRLING - MAXWELLspeaking as a friend to the Bill, ventured to repeat a Question of the hon. and learned Member opposite, which, he said, his right hon. friend had not answered. The Bill was designed to give compensation to existing licence-holders for an equitable right which Members on the Government side held that they possessed. That was laid down in the first part of the Bill; but they were now creating a new kind of licence in the future which would be unlike the old kind and would be much less valuable. How did the Prime Minister account for the discrepancy between the two? The difference did not represent the compensation, because that was already arranged for. It seemed to him that it only represented a flaw in the system which they were creating in this Bill. He would suggest that it might be possible at some date, without interfering with the system of compensation, to bring existing licences under the same

  1441
  improved conditions as were to be applied to the new ones.
  MR. BONDsaid it was extremely important that the Committee should know what they were voting about, and he confessed he had some difficulty in interpreting some of the words in the Amendment. His difficulty was chiefly about "private person" and "monopoly value." He thought the Prime Minister misapprehended what was meant by "private person." These words had created a good deal of alarm, because it was thought the use of the words in this connection meant that individual arrangements would be excluded, whilst a similar disability was not inflicted on brewery companies or persons associated and brought together for the purpose of carrying on trade. He thought the matter ought to be made plainer. In regard to "monopoly value" it seemed to him a monopoly must mean an exclusive right to sell. He could understand the words "monopoly value" would apply to a licence granted to a publican to sell liquor in a village where he had no competitor within a radius of two or three miles, but in a town where there would be four, five, or six competitors he thought the term "monopoly value" could hardly be applied. He submitted that persons would not go into a business of a speculative character upon conditions of the nature indicated in the Amendment, and that the new clause would really have the effect of making it almost impossible to get new licences taken up. He could not but think that the passage of this clause in the form in which it now stood would go a long way towards bringing about a result he was sure the right hon. Gentleman did not desire,
  1442
  namely, that there would be hardly any new licences granted, even when they were required in the public interest.
  MR. CRIPPSsaid they all recognised that as regarded new licences no right of compensation should arise as in the case of old licences. He understood that licences would be put up to auction, and granted for a term of seven years, but the right of annual revision should be retained to the magistrates in order that they might see that a public-house was being properly carried on. Their object was to have the Bill in the best possible form in justice to existing interests, and he hoped the points which had been raised would be fully considered by the Prime Minister and the Solicitor-General before the Report stage.
  Question put and negatived
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  And, it being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 5th July, to put the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
  The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the allotted Business to be concluded on the 3rd allotted Day.
  Clause 5:—
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that on behalf of his hon. friend the Member for Flint Boroughs he wished to move the omission of the words "may if they think fit," and insert "shall." The object of the Amendment was to make it mandatory upon quarter sessions to reduce the area of the district in which the compensation would operate, and in which the committees would act in the matter of reduction of the licences. [Loud interruptions.]
  THE CHAIRMANsaid it would be impossible to go on with the business if this disturbance continued.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he understood that it was not the intention to go on further with the Bill that night after the guillotine had fallen. The purpose of his Amendment, as he had said, was to reduce the areas of the districts in which the compensation fund would operate, and in which the committees would act in the matter of the reductions of licences-It had been found in connection with the Education Act that where the areas were large, administration was unsatisfactory. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 23, to leave out the words 'may, if they think fit,' and insert the word 'shall.'"—(Mr. Whitley.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. LOUGHsaid that on a point of order he wished to draw attention to a paragraph in the Closure Resolution,
  1444
  which said that the Chairman should proceed—
  "Successively to put forthwith the Question; on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice has been given (but no other Amendments), and on every Question necessary; to dispose of the allotted business to be concluded on the allotted day."
  Now the Committee had disposed of the allotted business for this allotted day, and he would like to know whether it was in order to go on with the discussion of the Bill
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that although the allotted business for the allotted day had been completed, the Committee could go on with other business, as there were still fifty minutes until midnight.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that he thought the words in the Closure Resolution forbade the Committee making any further progress that evening.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is competent for, the Committee to proceed with the Fifth Clause. If the hon. Member does not desire further discussion, it is open to him to ask the Government to move that Progress be reported.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid that, as far as the Government were concerned, they were quite prepared to proceed with the clause. He thought that was also the opinion of the Committee generally, in order that as many Amendments as possible might be saved from the application of the guillotine.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that, having passed a Motion, the Committee ought to be bound by it.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not move to

  1445
  report Progress. As regarded the Amendment, there were many districts which, if divided, would render the compensation area insufficient. He therefore hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment.
  MR. J. H. LEWISsaid he was not convinced by the argument of the Home Secretary. He thought it desirable that the quarter
  sessions should be told distinctly that it would be necessary for them to subdivide their districts in the interests of the efficiency of the Act. There was an undue centralisation of authority in the Bill.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 267; Noes, 157. (Division List No. 224.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Arrol, Sir William

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Austin, Sir John

  Denny, Colonel

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Dewar, Sir T.R.(Tower Hamlets

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Helder, Augustus

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

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir FredDixon

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Hobhouse, RtHn. H(Somers't, E

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Hoult, Joseph

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants., W.)

  Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham

  Bigwood, James

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

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Bill, Charles

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Bingham, Lord

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Bond, Edward

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Fison, Frederick William

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Bull, William James

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

  Butcher, John George

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Kerr, John

  Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ.

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Keswick, William

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Forster, Henry William

  Kimber, Henry

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Foster, PhilipS.(Warwick, S.W.)

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Garfit, William

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.A (Worc.

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N.R.

  Chapman, Edward

  Gordon, Hn. J.E.(Elgin& Nairn)

  Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets)

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

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

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)

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

  Greene, Sir E.W(B'ry S.Edm'nds

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

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Percy, Earl

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Stock, James Henry

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh, W.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Randles, John S.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Martin, Richard, Biddulph

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Tuff, Charles

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Maxwell, Rt.Hn. SirH. E(Wigt'n

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Valentia, Viscount

  Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.)

  Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

  Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H(Sheffield

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Ridley, S. Forde(BethnalGreen

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Milvain, Thomas

  Robinson, Brooke

  Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh., N.)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

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

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Myers, William Henry

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Young, Samuel

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Smith, H.C(North'mb. Tyneside

  Younger, William

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

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Spear, John Ward

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  O'Dowd, John

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk)

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Craig, Robert Hunter(Lanark

  Grant, Corrie

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cremer, William Randal

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Allen, Charles P.

  Crooks, William

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Asher, Alexander

  Cullinan, J.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Hain, Edward

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Harcourt, Lewis V- (Rossendale

  Barran, Rowland Hisrt

  Delany William

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Harwood, George

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Hayter, Rt Hon Sir Arthur D.

  Benn, John Williams

  Doogan, P. C.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Black, Alexander William

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Boland, John

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Brigg, John

  Edwards, Frank

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Ellice, Capt. E. C(SAndrw'sBghs

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Emmott, Alfred

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Evans, Sir Francis H.(Maidstone

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Burt, Thomas

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Caldwell, James

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Cameron, Robert

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Joicey, Sir James

  Cawley, Frederick

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Joyce, Michael

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgo w

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  1448

  1449

  Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W.

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Slack, John Bamford

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Malley, William

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Kitson, Sir James

  O'Mara, James

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Langley, Batty

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Parrott, William

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Partington, Oswald

  Sullivan, Donal

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Levy, Maurice

  Perks, Robert William

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Price, Robert John

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Lough, Thomas

  Priestley, Arthur

  Tomkinson, James

  Lundon, W.

  Rea, Russell

  Toulmin, George

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Roddy, M.

  Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  White, George (Norfolk)

  M'Crae, George

  Rigg, Richard

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Mansfield Horace Rendall

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Runciman, Walter

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Morley, Charles (Breeonshire)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

  Moss, Samuel

  Shackleton, David James

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Shaw, Charles Edw.(Stafford)

  TELLERS FOB THE NOES—Mr.

  Murphy, John

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  J. H. Whitley and Mr. Her-

  Newnes, Sir George

  Sheehy, David

  bert Lewis.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid it had already been decided that quarter sessions should have power to divide their administrative areas into districts for the purposes of the Bill, and the object of the Amendment he was about to move was to secure that if such divisions were made the districts should be those at present existing. The advantage of such an arrangement was that in each division there would then be local magistrates who for a long time had been in the habit of considering the requirements of the particular district, and who therefore had practical experience of the wants of the neighbourhood in the matter of public drinking facilities. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page-3, line 24, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'which districts shall consist of the licensing districts or licensing divisions into which such area is now divided.'"—(Mr. Herbert Roberts.)
  Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsuggested that, inasmuch as the Committee had decided to leave it in the option of the quarter sessions to divide the county into districts, it would be far better to leave it to them to decide what those districts should be. The reason quarter Sessions were being taken as the administrative power was that the existing districts were too small, and by reason of their smallness would frustrate the object of the nsurance scheme of the Bill.
  MR. WHITLEYthought there was much force in the last observation of the learned Solicitor - General. Personally, he was not in favour of too large districts, but, on the other hand, he did not want them too small. He suggested that the Solicitor-General should give some indication to the Committee that the Government would attempt to provide that the districts should be of a reasonable size.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. NUSSEYsaid the remarks of the Solicitor-General on the last Amendment put in a nutshell the case for the proposal he was about to make. The ostensible object of the Bill was to reduce the number of licences, but it was obvious that if the counties were divided into too small districts the amount of the fund raised would be so small as to render impossible any reduction within a reasonable period. His Amendment provided that in no case should the districts be of less than £10,000 annual value. He was not tied to that particular figure; he simply desired to give some direction to the quarter sessions to prevent the districts being too small. In many districts the full amount of the tax would not be levied, and in such cases the amount of the fund raised would be very small. He hoped the Government might see their way to
  give the Amendment favourable consideration.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 26, at the end, to insert the words, 'Provided that the annual value of premises to be taken as for the purpose of the publican's licence duty within any such district shall in the aggregate be not less than ten thousand pounds.'"—(Mr. Nussey.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he could not accept the Amendment. The Bill provided that quarter sessions should decide for themselves what the area was to be and he thought it would be far better to leave all these questions to the discretion of that body.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 124; Noes, 234. (Division List No. 225.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Levy, Maurice

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Allen, Charles P.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Lough, Thomas

  Asher, Alexander

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Beaumont, Went worth C. B.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Benn, John Williams

  Grant, Corrio

  MArthur, William (Cornwall)

  Black, Alexander William

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  M'Crae, George

  Boland, John

  Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Brigg, John

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Harwood, George

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Caldwell, James

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Moss, Samuel

  Cawley, Frederick

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Murphy, John

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Malley, William

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Partington, Oswald

  Cremer, William Randal

  Joicey, Sir James

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Cullinan, J.

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Price, Robert John

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

  Joyce, Michael

  Priestley, Arthur

  Delany, William

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rea, Russell

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan,W.

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Doogan, P. C.

  Kitson, Sir James

  Reddy, M.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Langley, Batty

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Edwards, Frank

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Rigg, Richard

  Ellice, Capt EC (S Andrw'sBghs

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Evans, Sir Francis H.(Maidstone

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Russell, T. W.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  White, Luke (Yorkshire, E.R.)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Sullivai, Donal

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Taylor Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Shackleton, David James

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan,E.)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Huddersf'd

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Tomkinson, James

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Toulmin, George

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Slack, John Bamford

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Nussey and Mr. Guest.

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  White, George (Norfolk)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

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

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt Hon. Sir H.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Austin, Sir John

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Forster, Henry William

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Foster, PhilipS.(Warwick, S.W.

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Balcarres, Lord

  Garfit, William

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Gordon, Hn. J.E.(Elgin&Nairn)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

  Gordon, Maj. Evans-(T'rH'mlets

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Greene, Sir EW(B'ryS.Edmonds

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H.E.(Wigt'n

  Bigwood, James

  Gretton, John

  Maxwell, W.J.H(Dumfriesshire

  Bingham, Lord

  Groves, James Grimble

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Bond, Edward

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Milvain, Thomas

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Butcher, John George

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ.)

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire)

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Heath, Arthur Howard( Hanley

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.A(Worc.

  Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Chapman, Edward

  Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.)

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A.Graham(Bute

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H(Somers'tE

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Nicholson, William Graham

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

  Hope, J.F.(Sheflield, Brightside

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

  Coghill, Douglas Harry.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  0'Brien,Kondal(Tipperary, Mid

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Howard, John(Kent, Faversham

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hunt, Rowland

  O'Dowd, John

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Tameson, Major J. Eustace

  Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Percy, Earl

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Jessel, Captain HerbertMerton

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.( Salop)

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Kerr, John

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Keswick, William

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Randies, John S.

  Egerton, Hon. A. do Tatton

  Lawson, JohnGrant(Yorks, N.R

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ.(Manc'r

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  1454

  1455

  Ridley, Hon. M.W. (Stalybridge

  Spear, John Ward

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Ridley, S.Forde (Rethnal Green

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bronbwich)

  Wilby, Sir Charles G.E. (Notts

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur(O'mskirk

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Robertson, Herbert (Hankney)

  Stanley, EdwardJas (Somerset)

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

  Robinson, Brooke

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Rolleston Sir John F. L.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J.M'Taggart

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Stirling-Maxweil, Sir John M.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Stock, James Henry

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Talbot. Rt. Hn. J. G. f Oxf'd Univ.

  Worsloy-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart-

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Wrigntson, Sir Thomas

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Tuff, Charles

  Young, Samuel

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Tully, Jasper

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES, Sir

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Valentine, Viscount

  Aexander Acland-Hood and

  Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H(Sheffield

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

  Wilker, Col. William Hall

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

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  MR. LEVYmoved to omit Sub-section 2 of Clause 5, which empowers quarter sessions to delegate their powers to a committee. He objected that the great powers to be vested in the Home Secretary might override quarter sessions. The Bill provided that the Home Secretary might appoint the committee. That committee might have to deal with questions of compensation and the renewal or refusal of licences. It was imperative upon quarter sessions to delegate certain powers to the committee, and he wished to know whether quarter sessions would have power to revise the decisions of the committee. He thought the House should have some information as to the object of handing over great powers to a committee, of the constitution of which they were told nothing. The Government had indicated their opinion that counties should be divided into somewhat smaller areas, and that being so it seemed unnecessary to have any committee set up.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 27, to leave out Subsection (2)."—(Mr. Levy.)
  Question proposed, "That the words of Sub-section (2) to the word 'appointed,'
  1456
  in page 3, line 28, stand part of the clause."
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid he would remind the hon. Member that there were county licensing committees, and it was necessary that power should be delegated to the committees which would be set up under this Bill. Already under Clause 4 certain powers had been transferred to the committees. He thought the hon. Member would quite see that it would be impossible for the quarter sessions properly to supervise all the questions with which the committees would have to deal relating to renewal.
  And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  COUNTY OF SUFFOLK BILL.
  Ordered, That Mr. Goddard be discharged, and that Mr. Soames be added to the Select Committee.—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
  Adjourned at three minutes after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Rotherham Corporation Bill. Moved, That the order made on the 14th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 16th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Liverpool and Wigan Churches Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Barrow-in-Furness Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Torquay Tramways Bill. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Arbroath Corporation Water Order Confirmation Bill (No. 140); Dunfermline District Water Order Confirmation Bill (No. 141); Glasgow Corporation (Police) Order Confirmation Bill (No. 142). 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.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill (No. 143); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill (No. 144). Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order Bill; Hamilton Gas Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.] House in Committee (according to order); Bills reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a on Thursday next.

PETITONS.
  SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY BILL [H.L.]
  Petition to be heard by counsel against; of the County Council of Lanarkshire; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  INDIA (ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES, 1904–1905).
  Explanatory memorandum by the Secretary of State for India.
  FISHERIES (IRELAND).
  Report of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland on the sea and coast fisheries of Ireland, for the year 1903. Part I. General Report.

  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (GREAT BRITAIN).
  Forty-seventh Report, for the year 1903, of the Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools. Part I. List of schools and detailed reports.
  Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PENAL SERVITUDE ACT, 1891.
  Regulation made by the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland for taking finger-prints, etc., of untried prisoners.
  SEA FISHERIES REGULATION ACT, 1888.
  Order made by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, under the provisions of the above Act, for the variation of the Order creating the North-Eastern Sea Fisheries District.

  PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES) (VISITING COMMITTEES).
  Draft rules proposed to be made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, under the Prison Acts, 1877 and 1898, with respect to the constitution of the Visiting Committee of Borstal Prison.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  HALL-MARKING OF FOREIGN PLATE BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.

  THE PROTECTION OF THE BRITISH FLAG.
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I desire to put to the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have already given him notice, namely, "What amount of protection is the British flag supposed to confer upon British subjects or others who are on board a ship flying the British flag?" I have put this Question because there is an idea—it may be an erroneous idea—that the officers of a foreign Power cannot arrest anyone on board a British ship and take him from under the British flag unless armed with a letter from either the British Minister or the British Consul authorising them to do so.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): The noble Lord has put a Question to me in very general terms, and he will not be surprised if I reply in equally general language. The best information which I have been able to collect for him is to this effect, that, speaking generally, a British ship on the high seas is regarded as British territory. Persons on board, whether British or foreigners, are regarded as being on British territory, and have the same protection and rights as though they were actually on British territory.

  REGISTRATION OF CLUBS (IRELAND) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, in asking your Lordships to read this Bill a second time it will not be necessary for me to take up your time with many remarks. A Bill of the same nature passed last year for Scotland, and the year before for this country, the object
  1328
  of all being to put an end to the so-called clubs which are really formed solely for drinking purposes. It has often happened that a man who has been refused a spirit licence, either on the ground of his career or the unsuitability of his premises, has promptly converted his premises into a club, with the result that there is established an unlicensed, irregular, and ill-conducted place of public entertainment. In order to prevent this state of things this Bill provides that all clubs shall be registered, that the registrar shall be the clerk of petty sessions, who shall enter the certificate of registration on this register, and that any application for registration shall be accompanied by a certificate signed by two magistrates of the district, and by two copies of all the rules of the club; also, notice must be given in a newspaper circulating in the district in which the application is made. These rules are set forth in Clause 4 of the Bill. I need not go through them beyond mentioning that they are practically identical with the rules in the Act relating; to Scotland which was passed last year, with one exception, to which I attach some importance; and which I will mention in a moment.
  Objections can be raised before the Court of petty sessions by the Constabulary or the Metropolitan Police in Dublin, or by anyone resident in the district, on grounds set forth in Clause 5, and the magistrates, after considering both the application and the objections, can either give or withhold the certificate. Again, in the case of a renewal, the same course takes place, the same objections can be made, and the magistrates will then decide whether the club has been properly conducted according to the rules, and will only renew the certificate on those conditions. This Bill has passed the House of Commons with the approval of all Parties—a happy state of things which does not usually obtain in regard to legislation connected with Ireland. I understand that His Majesty's Government propose to insert some Amendments, one of which is of considerable importance, but the others are more or less of a drafting character.
  In the Bill, as it stands, there is an absolute prohibition of the sale of

  1329
  excisable liquor to any member of a club to be consumed off the premises. This is an unnecessarily stringent provision, and it is not in either the Scottish or the English Act. It interferes with the liberty of respectable members of a club who would, for instance, be prevented, when going for a day's fishing or for a day in the country, from taking any alcoholic liquor with them to be consumed, say, with their luncheon. The Amendment which is to be moved by His Majesty's Government has for its object the sanctioning of this sale to members within limited hours—that is, between the hour of eight o'clock in the morning and the hour of ten o'clock at night. I think that is a very reasonable Amendment, and one which ought to be accepted. Although I approve of the terms of the Amendment to be moved on behalf of His Majesty's Government, I intend to move one of my own, which I like better.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Clonbroch.)
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, I have only to say, on behalf of the Irish Government, that there is no objection to this Bill. I shall, however, have a few Amendments, many of a merely drafting character, to move besides the one referred to by the noble Lord.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

  CROWN AGENTS AND SHIPPING RATES.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHrose to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the following Questions:—I. Is it the fact that one of the Crown Agents is a director of the London Assurance Company, and is such appointment in accordance with the regulations of the Civil Service; and why are not the Crown Agents paid a fixed salary like other members of the Civil Service sufficient to preclude their receiving any other emoluments? II. (1) Is the Under-Secretary for the Colonies aware that the British India Steam Navigation Company has recently joined what is known as the "Shipping Ring," namely,
  1330
  that association of shipping firms carrying goods to South Africa which has agreed to maintain a high rate of transport for freights? (2) Is the Under-Secretary aware that at the present time freights between England and South Africa have been raised to about 38s. a ton, whereas from New York to South Africa they are only 12s. a ton? (3) Is the Under-Secretary aware that the result of this raising of the freights levied by all British shipping firms trading with South Africa is such as to cause increased orders for goods to be placed in New York and in other parts of the United States of America, in order to take advantage of the low freight (12s. a ton) from American ports to South Africa, while something of the same kind takes place with regard to Belgium-and Western Germany in connection with the transport from Hamburg? (4) Will the Under-Secretary state the arrangements which have been made by the Crown I Agents in connection with the shipping of Government goods to South Africa during the last six months, giving the names of the firms employed and the rate of freight agreed upon?
  He said: My Lords, in putting the Questions standing in my name on the Paper, I must apologise for their length, but my remarks upon them will be very short. As regards the first Question, the information which I am particularly anxious to elicit is whether or not the Crown Agents are considered a department of the Colonial Office, and whether they therefore come under the regulations and conditions of the Civil Service. If it is true that the Crown Agents are permitted to hold other posts, which I am informed is the case, it is hardly fair that that prohibition should apply to other civil servants, like those connected with the Foreign Office. This is not the occasion, nor the time, to consider the propriety or impropriety of the existing regulations concerning the Civil Service; but I wish to point out, with regard to this directorship of the London Assurance Company, that this company does, so I am informed, do the chief, if not the whole, of the insurance business of the Crown Agents' department. It would appear to me that in the interests of the public service, and in the interests of sound administration, the insurance business

  1331
  of the Crown Agents should be put up to tender, and should be tendered for by a certain number of the first-class insurance agencies. It is not, in itself, satisfactory that a Crown Agent should be a director of any particular insurance company.
  With regard to the question of the rates of freight between this country and South Africa as compared with the freights from New York to South Africa, I may mention that while in some cases the freights between England and South Africa have been raised to about 38s. a ton, the latest information which I have received is that the average rate of freight by the Conference Lines—that is, the shipping ring—is at the present moment 30s. a ton to South African ports from Great Britain, as compared with 12s. a ton from New York to South Africa. I should like to make this other statement in connection with the question of the shipping ring, that I am informed that this ring, which consists almost entirely of British firms, has established, and is now maintaining, a fleet of steamers running between New York and South African ports to carry American manufactures at less than one-half the rate of freight charged from British ports. I beg to put the Questions standing in my name.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOE THE COLONIES (The Duke of MARLBOROUGH): My Lords, the noble Earl has been very considerate in not departing from the Questions he has put down on the Paper and pursuing other matters of Colonial administration which I admit on a previous occasion he could not help following. He has on the present occasion confined himself entirely to the Questions on the Paper, and I am sure the noble Earl would wish that I should reply to them more or less categorically. He asks me, in the first place, whether it is the fact "that one of the Crown Agents is a director of the London Assurance Company. The answer to that is in the affirmative. Then the noble Earl is anxious to know whether such appointment is in accordance with the regulations of the Civil Service. I must explain to the noble Earl that the Crown Agents, technically, are not Civil servants; but I will not press that point
  1332
  to the extent of giving the reasons why. I am in perfect agreement with him that it is unusual—in fact, I do not think it is possible—for members of the Civil Service to hold directorships.
  Then the noble Earl wishes to know whether the Crown Agents are paid a fixed salary. I think I told him when we last debated this question that their salaries were fixed, and could only be altered at the wish, or with the sanction, of the Secretary of State. The fact that one of the Crown Agents (Sir Ernest Blake) holds a directorship is somewhat exceptional. I do not think I need go into the reasons why Sir Ernest Blake holds this appointment. He has conducted his work as a Crown Agent in a most admirable and proper manner, and I do not think the fact that he has been a director of this assurance company has been detrimental in any way to the public service over which he presides. The noble Earl is no doubt aware that this matter has already been brought up in another place, and the Secretary of State, in reply, said he would consider the question. I can assure the noble Earl that the Crown Agent in question has put himself entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State, who is considering this question and will give his decision when the Colonial Office Vote is taken in the House of Commons. In view of the fact that the Colonial Office Vote must be taken at a date not very far distant, and in view, moreover, of the fact that this is a somewhat personal matter, involving the private affairs of a public servant who is under the authority of the Secretary of State, I hope the noble Earl will take my assurance that the matter is being considered, and will agree with me that it would be better and more appropriate that the announcement of the Secretary of State's decision should be given by the Secretary of State himself.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I quite agree with the noble Duke on that point.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: The noble Earl next asks me whether I am aware that the British India Steam Navigation Company has recently joined what is known as the shipping ring. Yes, I can assure the noble Earl that we are

  1333
  perfectly aware of that fact. The other day the noble Earl below the Gangway (Earl Grey) deplored the fact that the Colonial Office had not employed this line, and he called it the "one solitary independent line." We were perfectly aware of the fact that the British India Steam Navigation Company had close commercial relations with the Conference Lines. There is an agreement with the Conference Lines to this effect, that the British India Steam Navigation Company will not deliver any goods from this country to any of the South African ports, except Beira and Delagoa Bay, and I am informed, moreover, that even with regard to these ports the rates are not competitive. It is, therefore, perfectly clear that they are not an independent line. There is no real competition between this country and South Africa, and it would be impossible for us to regard the British India Steam Navigation Company as an independent line, or to contemplate treating them as such as long as they have this agreement with the Conference Lines.
  EARL GREY: Can the noble Duke inform the House of the date of the agreement between the British India Steam Navigation Company and the Conference ring?
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord the exact date. I rather think it was about twelve months ago; and subsequent to that agreement they made a second one, so I am informed, to the effect that the rates even to Delagoa Bay and Beira are no longer free and independent rates. They have come to a definite understanding with the Conference ring as to what those rates should be. Therefore, I think the noble Earl will admit that the British India Company is not an independent line, but is closely associated with the Conference. The noble Earl who placed these Questions on the Paper next asks whether I am aware that at the present time freights between England and South Africa have been raised, and are higher than the rates between America and South Africa. It is very difficult to form an accurate opinion, because it is so hard to make an accurate comparison. In the first place, we require the whole of the American tariff and the whole of
  1334
  the English tariff, and then it is not a question of average. Three or four different tables or classes are laid down. There are first, second, third, and fourth classes, and goods are classified under these different heads. For instance, rails would be under the lowest class of all—the cheapest class, whilst small parcels of breakable goods would probably come under the most expensive class, so that unless you have before you the different rates and can ascertain to which Schedule a particular article belongs, I submit it is most difficult to make an accurate and proper comparison.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: It is quite true that there are different rates according to different scales, but my point is this, that I have found out that the average difference between the rate3 from this country and from America bears this enormous disproportion.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: The noble Earl may be correct in his average. I am quite unable to say, for I do not know how it is arrived at. It is most difficult and complicated. In addition, you have to take into consideration the cost of landing, lighterage, and sorting, which the shippers have to do. Although I will not challenge the statement of the noble Earl that the American rates are lower than the English rates, yet I do submit that it is most difficult to ascertain the difference between the two rates, because there are so many complicated items which have to be considered. I do not think the noble Earl is correct in Saying that the freights from New York to South Africa are only 12s. a ton. My information is that they vary from 15s. to 17s. 6d. a ton, and I believe I am right in saying that the lowest public rate between this country and South Africa is about 25s. a ton, so the noble Earl will see that the difference between 17s. 6d. and 25s., though I admit it is considerable, is somewhat less than that which he has quoted to your Lordships.
  Then the noble Earl suggests that the result of this raising of freights levied by British shipping firms upon trade between this country and South Africa is to increase the trade between America and South Africa. It may be that the

  1335
  trade between America and South Africa is increasing. No doubt the noble Earl has evidence to support that view, but I do not know that it has increased quite to the extent that he seems to infer. Americans are extremely clever traders, and many articles may be required in South Africa which cannot be obtained in this country, and unless the noble Earl can show me that the trade between America and South Africa in goods similar to those which can be sent from this country has increased, I do not think there is very much to complain of. We cannot object, for instance, to large consignments of grain going from America to the Cape, and if very low freights are quoted, it is clear that the Americans will get the control, or, at any rate, the largest order in that particular commodity.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Will the noble Duke give us the comparative volume of trade between the two countries and South Africa in the last few months?
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I am afraid I cannot give that, but I know, with regard to the total South African trade, that at present we possess two-thirds and that one-third is enjoyed by America and other countries. As to the low rates which the noble Earl has quoted, can he assure me that the American shippers are making a profit? I am informed that they are losing a considerable amount of money in quoting these low freights, and that they have only done so in order to try and undercut the English trade and eventually get a monopoly. I think it is reasonable to suppose that they will not succeed in their design. The result will be that these low freights, which I do not deny may now exist, will not be at all permanent. I anticipate seeing in a few months, perhaps a year, the 17s. 6d. increased to a higher figure. I cannot quite agree with the statement which the noble Earl makes at the end of his Question, that something of the same kind takes place with regard to Belgium and Western Germany in connection with the transport from Hamburg. My information is that the German lines all belong to the Conference, and that the Tate of freight on the sea is uniform, and
  1336
  is the same from Germany to South Africa as it is from this country. But the reason why the Germans are able to send their goods to South Africa cheaper than we can is this—that the German State railways grant a preferential rate to manufactured goods from the places of manufacture to the port where they are shipped, and consequently, as they gain an advantage on the railway rates, they can naturally quote in South Africa through rates which are more favourable than those which British shipowners can offer, and no doubt that is the explanation why the Germans are pushing forward their trade in South Africa at the present moment.
  The noble Earl was anxious to know what arrangements have been made by the Crown Agents in connection with the shipping of Government goods to South Africa. I cannot give the noble Earl a full statement of the contract which the Crown Agents have made with the Conference lines. It is a very long and complicated document, and I feel sure that the noble Earl would not wish me to occupy the time of the House in presenting it. Moreover, I do not think it would be altogether in the interests of the public service that it should be published in its entirety. I suppose the noble Earl wants to know roughly what agreement has been made in order that he can compare it with the public rates, or assure himself that the Crown Agents have made proper and reasonable terms on behalf o the Colonial Office. We believe that the arrangement which the Crown Agents have made with the Conference lines for the shipment of goods from this country is a reasonable and a good arrangement, and one which compares very favourably with those made in previous years. To give the noble Earl an instance, I may mention that 30,000 tons of rails are to be shipped this year to South African ports at a uniform rate of 16s. per ton. For a somewhat smaller consignment of rails the price is higher, namely, 18s. 6d. a ton. Then arrangements have been made to ship locomotives and building material at 20s. a ton; but the noble Earl will understand that in addition there are, of course, lighterage, sorting, and other charges to be added, these being charges

  1337
  which the Conference lines, and indeed, all shipping lines, make to the public or to the Government.
  The noble Earl asked me to state the names of the firms employed. I presume he means by that the names of the companies in the Conference lines. The names as are follow: The Union Castle Mail Steamship Co., The Clan Line of Steamers, the Bucknall Steamship Line, Ballard, King & Co., John T. Rennie & Co., the Ellerman Harrison Line, and R. P. Houston & Co. With regard to the general question, I do not know whether the noble Earl, in asking for this information, was inclined to consider that this question of freights was directly connected with the business of the Crown Agents. I hope he will not assume that because he can show that the freights between America and the Cape are lower than those between this country and the Cape that has anything to do with the efficiency of the administration of the Crown Agents. All that they are concerned to do is to carry out the orders they receive from the Colonial Office, and we believe that the agreement they have made on behalf of the Colonial Office for the shipment of goods from this country to South Africa is not only a good agreement but one which will give satisfaction to the Governments of the Transvaal and of the Orange River Colony.
  As to the question of getting a better rate for the public, that is entirely outside the province of the Crown Agents. It is a matter which the Government alone could undertake or examine, and it is very doubtful whether it would be wise for the Government to do so. The noble Earl may have read the Report of a Committee of the House of Commons, presided over by Mr. Evelyn Cecil, which went very carefully into the question whether it would be wise for the Government to grant subsidies to any particular steamship lines for the purpose of encouraging trade in any part of the world. They unanimously came to the conclusion that it would be unwise for the Government to do so, and, furthermore, they pointed out that in the case of Continental Powers that had given these subsidies, they did not think their action had been advantageous. I know that the noble Earl is solicitous for the wel-
  1338
  fare of persons trading between this country and South Africa, a feeling which I myself share, and he may be interested to know that the various Governments in South Africa propose Sending representatives to a conference which is to take place in South Africa to discuss this question of the rate of freights. Until we know what the result of that conference is, until we are informed of the wishes and views of the people of South Africa themselves upon this subject, it would be premature for His Majesty's Government to offer any opinion upon Such a difficult and complicated matter.
  EARL GREY: My Lords, I desire to conform in every way to the rules of debate in your Lordships' House, but really the noble Duke makes it extremely difficult for me to do so. He was asked certain Questions on matters of fact, but in replying to those Questions he has, delivered a speech brimming over with controversial matter and matter of opinion. There is no Motion before the House, and I am conscious that I am debarred by the rules which govern debates here from making a speech in answer to the observations which we have just listened to from the noble Duke, I but, with the permission of the House, I will briefly refer to one of the points in the noble Duke's Speech. The noble Duke has twitted me with having misinformed the House on the last occasion when this question was under debate, and with having told your Lordships that the British India Steamship Company was an independent line of steamers so far as Delagoa Bay was concerned. It is true that I made the statement that at that time the company was, as I believed, an independent line to Delagoa Bay. Of course, I was aware that there was an arrangement between that company and the Conference lines with regard to the South African ports, but that arrangement left Delagoa Bay an open field for competition between the British India Steamship Company and the Conference lines.
  I asked His Majesty's Government whether they would support this independent line to Delagoa Bay, the owners of which were more anxious to get a share of the freight consigned to that

  1339
  port than to obtain a subsidy from the Government. The extraordinary answer I received from Lord Onslow was—"How can His Majesty's Government even consider the expediency of shipping freight to Delagoa Bay by a steamship company that does not want to stop at Cape Town or Port Elizabeth"? I did think that was trifling with the business capacity of this House. Delagoa Bay was a port at which the British India Steamship Company, certainly at the beginning of this session, was perfectly entitled to compete with the Conference lines. I want to know whether His Majesty's Government ever gave them an opportunity of tendering for a single ton of cargo to Delagoa Bay. I also want to know whether His Majesty's Government ever gave an opportunity of tendering for a single ton of cargo to Messrs. Houston & Company when that was an independent line. It is my belief that it is the action of the Government in refusing to Support the independent lines which has forced those lines one after the other into the Conference ring. I warned your Lordships in the last debate that if you pursued this policy of only feeding the Conference lines and did not follow the example of the Indian Government in supporting the independent lines, you would force the British India Steamship Company in its turn into the Conference ring. There is a great deal more to be said in answer to the noble Duke, but as we shall, no doubt, have another opportunity of discussing the points raised, I will not longer detain your Lordships now.

  EDUCATION GRANTS.
  EARL BATHURST,who had a Question on the Paper to the following effect: "To ask the President of the Board of Education whether the Board of Education are aware that by the proposed change in the system of grants as announced in Article 31 of the Code for 1904, that on fourteen typical schools, six being town schools of sixteen departments, and eight country schools under the Gloucestershire Education Authority, having 5,049 children on their books, the loss in grant on that number will be £125 19s., or 5.98d. per scholar, and that, if, as it seems
  1340
  reasonable to expect, this result will follow throughout the county, the loss on an average attendance of 48,000 will be £1,196 per annum,"—said: My Lords, I feel that I owe some apology to your Lordships for the length of time this Question has appeared on the Paper in my name. Although it has lain there almost dormant I think it has had a very good effect, for I have been informed that the new Code of grants has already been entirely withdrawn. This Question, therefore, comes before your Lordships rather late in the day. It was my intention, in asking it, to bring to your Lordships' notice the loss that would be entailed on local education authorities by this new scheme, and to ask the Board of Education whether they would postpone its coming into effect for a year, or at least until such time as the local education authorities had been able to consult with one another and with the Board of Education, so that a thoroughly satisfactory Code might be drawn up with full knowledge of what its effect would be. As the Code is now withdrawn, it will be unnecessary for me to enter into any of the figures, of which I have a good many with me, the object of my Question having been achieved. I have, however, brought this subject to your Lordships' notice today, as the noble Marquess the President of the Board of Education very courteously said he was willing to make a statement on the question which, no doubt, will interest many of your Lordships who take an active part in the work of county councils. I beg, in conclusion, to thank the noble Marquess for the consideration he has shown me in making the desired inquiries, and also for withdrawing the Code.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY): My Lords, my noble friend has been kind enough to thank me for what he calls the courtesy shown to him. I feel, if I may say so, that the boot is on the other leg. It is I who owe him a debt of gratitude for the considerate manner in which from time to time he has postponed this Question, which, as he has told your Lordships, has been on the Paper for some time. I was very anxious to go fully into this question of the scale of grants

  1341
  before giving my noble friend what I hoped would be an answer of a satisfatory character. As my noble friend has told your Lordships, the scale of grants which we inserted in the Code has now been withdrawn, and I do not, therefore, think it necessary to go at any length into the question of what might or might not have been the result of that scale had it been continued.
  While I do not propose to give your Lordships a long dissertation on the reasons why we inserted this scale of grants in the Code, it may not be out of place if, in a very few words, I place before you our object in introducing it and our reason for withdrawing it. The Board of Education introduced the scale of grants in question in order to complete those changes in the methods of distributing the grant to public elementary schools which were initiated by the block grant established in 1900, which has been operative since 31st March, 1901. We proposed that the scale of grants should be—15s. average attendance for children under five years of age; 20s. average attendance from five to twelve years of age; and 25s. average attendance over twelve years of age; as against what had been the previous giant of 17s. for infants and 22s. for older scholars.
  We considered that in framing this scale we were assisting the classification of children for instruction, and producing, to a certain extent, greater independence of financial considerations. We also considered that with this change it would be possible for inspectors the better to advise us as to improvements. We certainly thought that a higher rate should be paid for scholars who remained at school a year after twelve than should be paid in respect of a year before five. I think your Lordships will acknowledge that the reason for that is a sound one, inasmuch as it is possible for children over twelve years of age to obtain the practical advantages of education to a greater extent in proportion than children under the age of five. We had hoped that this alteration in the scale of grants, this increase in that direction, would have proved an attraction which would have been taken advantage of.
  I do not for a moment controvert what my noble friend stated with regard to
  1342
  there being losses in Some districts and gains in others. In the Question on the Paper the noble Earl goes very closely into the figures and the manner in which his own native county, Gloucestershire, would be affected. Not being prepared to argue this point, inasmuch as the scale has now been withdrawn, I have not gone very carefully into the figures submitted, but I cannot help thinking that if we had gone very closely into those figures we might have found that the state of affairs was not quite so black as my noble friend has painted them. We fully recognised that there would have been losses in some districts, but we had hoped that the gains in others might have been the means of counterbalancing the losses, and that the authorities in those districts would have seen their way for a time to endure the small losses in order to gain the greater benefits which we believed would accrue. But experience has shown that this was not the case, and as we fully recognised that there was considerable opposition in certain districts we did not think we were justified in retaining those clauses in the Code. I do not for one moment admit that we were wrong in inserting them in the first instance. Although we felt bound to withdraw the scale in view of the hardship some districts believed that they would suffer, we still firmly believe in its principle, and I hope that those districts will, in course of time, come to see the advantages of the system.

  THE CASE OF CONSTABLE ANDERSON.
  EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will lay on the Table of the House all official Papers and correspondence connected with the case of Constable Anderson, of the Royal Irish Constabulary. When I gave notice of this Question yesterday, I was careful to explain to the House that it was not my intention to raise a discussion, at all events on this occasion, upon the subject to which it refers. The case of Constable Anderson is one of a peculiar character, and has aroused an immense amount of feeling throughout the country. It has formed the subject of many writings in newspapers and elsewhere, and it has also, I

  1343
  think, caused some disturbance of mind to those who, like your Lordships, are anxious that nothing should be done to exacerbate the feelings between the various religious sects in Ireland. I am not aware of exactly how much information we have before us on this case. I believe that in the shape to Answers to Questions in another place the Chief Secretary has given certain information to the Members of the other House, and I believe also that the particulars of the trial of Constable Anderson are to be obtained, though I confess I have not been able to see them. I venture to put it to your Lordships that if this case is to be considered in this House—and I think it is almost impossible that it should not be raised in some form or other—it would be desirable, not only for our sakes, but for the sake of His Majesty's Government, that all the information that can be conveniently given should be afforded to the House. I am not aware whether the subject will be raised in another place, though I have heard that such is the expectation; but whether that is so or not, I venture to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will lay upon the Table any—I should prefer to say all—official communications which have passed on this subject. I do so with a desire that if the subject is discussed it should be discussed with full and perfect information, which we have certainly not got at present. I should be glad if His Majesty's Government would return a favourable Answer to my Question.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): My Lords, any request coming from the noble Earl, who has had so long and so distinguished a connection with the Government of Ireland would, of course, meet with a most ready and cordial response from those who are at present responsible for the Executive administration of that country; but I am informed that there are no documents which they can, in accordance with practice and convenience, lay on the Table of your Lordships' House. But when my noble friend desires to discuss the subject in detail he will find any materials that he may require in the very numerous Questions and Answers in the other House of
  1344
  Parliament. Though I have not myself seen it, there is also, I believe, a report of the evidence that was taken at the inquiry.
  EARL CADOGAN: Which inquiry.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: At the second Court of Inquiry, at which sworn evidence was taken. I am told that it appeared in the Press, and, if so, it is accessible to everyone who desires to see it. I am not in a position to meet my noble friend further; but whenever he deems it right to raise the question, it will, of course, be my duty to be here and to give such explanation as may be desirable.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I fully share the views of the noble Earl opposite—that it is extremely difficult to deal with this subject without more information than apparently we now have. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, replied that there is, so far as he knows, sufficient information in Answers to Questions in another place. My noble friend the late Lord-Lieutenant certainly did not seem to think that information sufficient, and then the noble and learned Lord said it was not usual to produce Papers such as those asked for. Every case of this kind must be decided upon its merits, and if this case is one of very great importance, as apparently it is, I think an exception to the usual practice should be made, and if there are any Papers and documents which bear materially upon it I would press His Majesty's Government to produce them. I am told that the Irish newspapers have been full of this case for some time past; and from the leading organs here we know that there is a good deal of feeling on the subject, and that it is a question of some importance. I would, therefore, ask the noble and learned Lord whether in this case he cannot see his way to produce other documents than the one which he says is available bearing materially on this case and putting it properly before the public.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE EOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I am sure nothing is further from the desire of the Irish Government than to suppress any

  1345
  information which can properly be given to the public, and it occurs to me that matters would be rather advanced if the noble Earl would give us an idea of the kind of documents which he thinks might be produced. One important document has been referred to by the noble and learned Lord—namely, that containing the finding of the Court of Inquiry.
  EARL CADOGAN: The evidence.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The evidence of the Court of Inquiry, and, I imagine, the orders passed upon it by the Lord-Lieutenant. I understand that these documents are already public property. If the noble Earl will tell us what other Papers he would desire to possess we will certainly consider his demand for their production.
  EARL SPENCER: I can only speak from past experience in these matters. I have myself held the position of Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, and, so far as I know, there must have been minutes on this subject—minutes by the Inspector-General of Constabulary, minutes regulating the Court of Inquiry, and minutes which would show how the final decision took place. I understand that there have been several decisions on the point, and there must be Papers on which the final decision, which is, I understand, to reinstate this constable, was based. I am not expressing any shadow of opinion one way or the other; but, in a case of this sort, where there is strong feeling and a great desire to get at the bottom of the matter, I think more official documents than those to which reference has been made ought to be produced.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I will mention the matter to the Chief Secretary, in whose competence it is, and ascertain if there are any documents which, in his opinion, can, in the interests of the public service, be laid on the Table.
  EARL CADOGAN: It was because I did not in any way wish to embarrass His Majesty's Government that I did not mention any particular document which I wished produced. I should be quite content if His Majesty's Government would agree to afford us any information they
  1346
  can, and lay on the Table of the House such documents as they think can be laid without any injury to the public service.
  House adjourned at half-past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.