Sitting of 27 July 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Newburgh and North Fife Railway (Extension of Time) Order Confirmation Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
Kirkcaldy Corporation Order Confirmation Bill. Considered; to be read the third time upon Friday.
Glasgow Corporation (Tramways, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Greenock Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read a second time; to be considered upon Friday.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
Ilford Urban District Council Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Barry Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SAVINGS BANKS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
RAILWAYS (PRIVATE SIDINGS) BILL.
Lords Amendment to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP M).
Sir JAMES WOODHOUSEreported from the Committee on Group M of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Thursday, 4th August, at Twelve of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Hyde; Ripley; Stanhope; and Tow Law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIAL BEPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Colonial Report, No. 421 (Hong-Kong, Annual Report for 1903) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 26th July; Mr. Gerald Balfour]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 282.]
  PRISONS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Twenty-sixth Report of the General Prisons Board (Ireland) for 1903–4, with an Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COURT OF PROBATE DIVISION (HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE) (IRELAND).
  Annual Account presented, of Receipts and Disbursements for the year ended 31st December, 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  ORDNANCE SURVEY.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Progress of the Ordnance Survey to the 31st March, 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1904–5).
  Estimate presented, of the Further Sums required to he voted for the Service of the year ending 31st March, 1905 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 283.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3237 and 3238 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING, 1903.
  Copy ordered, "of Tables showing the progress of Merchant Shipping in the

  1319
  United Kingdom and the principal Maritime Countries."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

  COAL TABLES, 1903.
  Copy ordered, "of Statistical Tables relating to the production, consumption, and imports and exports of Coal in the British Empire and the principal Foreign countries in each year from 1883 to 1903, as far as the particulars can be stated; together with Statements showing the production of Lignite and Petroleum in the principal producing countries for a series of years (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 312, of Session 1903)."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Accounts of General Lighthouse Fund.
  MR. CHARLES Mc ARTHUR: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Accounts for the General Lighthouse Fund for the year ending 31st March, 1904, will be laid upon the Table of the House before the prorogation of Parliament; or, if not, when their publication may be expected.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I regret that it will not be possible to lay these Accounts upon the Table of the House before the prorogation of Parliament, as the certificate of the Comptroller and Auditor-General will not have been obtained by that date. The Accounts will probably be laid upon the Table of the House upon its reassembling early next year.

  Underground Telegraphic Cables to the North—Progress of Work.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state to what point the present system of underground telegraphic cables to the North has been advanced; and whether the area which has suffered specially through storms in former years has now been passed.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The pipes in the underground system to the North
  1320
  have been laid as far as Carlisle and also over the Beattock Incline. Wires in the pipes have been provided as far as Liverpool, Manchester, and Leeds, and are now being provided in the Warrington-Carlisle section. The original section, viz., that between London and Birmingham, traversed the area which had suffered especially through storms in former years.

  Bradford Wages Committee Report and Stafford Post Office Staff.
  MR. CHARLES SHAW: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, under the recommendation of the Bradford Wages Committee, the uniform men, to the number of ten, on the Stafford postal staff, in receipt of the 2s. per week in excess of the maximum now obtaining, will continue to receive the 2s. above the proposed maximum of 28s.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The Report of the Bradford Committee is under my consideration, and I am not at present prepared to state what is the decision of the Government upon the recommendations of the Committee, or to discuss their bearing on particular cases.

  Carriage of Fish from Scotland.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state whether his efforts to secure a reduction in the through rates charged for the carriage of fish from the North of Scotland to the southern markets have been successful.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The matter is under consideration, and I am unable to make any statement.

  Franking of Letters from Scottish Office.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state why letters from the Secretary for Scotland's Office addressed to Members of this House, which were formerly franked, are now prepaid by means of postage stamps.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) No alteration has been made in the regulations as to the postage of letters from the Scottish Office, and letters are franked as heretofore.

  Passage of the Dardanelles by Vessels of Russian Volunteer Fleet.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of any convention having been entered into between Russia and Turkey, in regard to vessels of the Russian Volunteer Fleet passing through the Dardanelles, since 1872; and, if so, whether he will communicate its provisions to this House.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) The Answer is in the negative.

  Lifting of Heavy Weights by Females in Jam Factories.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in reference to the statement on page 221 of His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Factories' Report, that girls in the boiling rooms of jam factories lift and carry copper cauldrons or pans of boiling jam, weighing about one hundredweight, and that accidents have been frequent, the girls falling and being scalded; whether the clause in the Fruit Preserving Order as to the lifting of weights by female young persons is being enforced; and whether the attention of occupiers has been called to this provision.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) Copies of the Fruit Preserving Order were sent to every occupier at the time it was made, together with copies of the register to be kept and notice to be affixed on the premises, and further copies have been sent from time to time where necessary. As the Question of the right hon. Baronet only appeared on the Paper this morning, I have not been able to obtain a special report with regard to the cases referred to; but it is obvious that they were discovered by the inspector in the course of enforcing the provisions of the Order. It will be seen, from reports of inspectors appearing in other parts of the volume, that the requirements of the Order are on the whole being well observed.

  Audit of Cardiff Corporation Accounts.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his
  1322
  attention has been drawn to the Cardiff Corporation accounts for the year ended 31st March, 1903; whether he is aware that the name of the borough auditor for that year, Mr. Coleman, chartered accountant, was appended to the accounts without his consent and with the knowledge of the corporation authorities that he had not completed the audit, he having been refused permission to complete it; and whether it is competent for the Local Government Board to inquire into the circumstances.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) have received representations from Mr Coleman to the effect of the statements contained in the Question. I have no authority with regard to the audit of these accounts, and am not empowered to interfere in any way in the matter.

  Renewal of Exchequer Bonds Expiring on 6th August.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of the Government to renew the £7,000,000 Exchequer Bonds that expire on 6th August, and on what terms and for what time; and whether they propose to renew the whole or only a part of these bonds, and from what source they intend to pay off any bonds which they do not renew.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The Exchequer Bonds maturing on the 6th August amount to £6,500.000, and they will be renewed in accordance with the terms of the prospectus issued, by the Bank of England on the 22nd instant. The new bonds will run for three years, and will bear 3 per cent. interest.

  Irish Land Act—Negotiations under Section 6; Sub-section (4).
  MR. DILLON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many estates have, under Section 6, Sub-section (4) of The Irish Land Act, 1903, been certified to the Lord-Lieutenant, with the consent of the owner, as estates the purchase and resale of which are desirable, in view of the wants and circumstances of the tenants thereon.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) No estate has yet been so certified.

  Dr. Leslie and the Vacancy on the Senate of the Royal University.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to a meeting of the Royal University Graduates' Association, held in Belfast on the 18th instant, at which Dr. Leslie was unanimously seletled as the candidate whose claims should be brought before the Government for appointment to the vacancy on the Senate of the Royal University caused by the death of Dr. William McKeown; and whether, having regard to the fact that the Royal University Graduates' Association represents the opinions of a large proportion of the graduates of the Royal University and of the public in the North of Ireland, and that the late Dr. McKeown was the representative of this opinion in the Senate, the Government will appoint Dr. Leslie to the vacant seat to preserve the continuity of representation of this opinion.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Representations have been made in favour of the appointment of Dr. Leslie to fill the vacancy on the Senate caused by the death of Dr. McKeown. These will be considered by Government.

  Army Reorganisation Scheme—Statement of Financial Results.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War when the Statement of the financial results of the Army Reorganisation Scheme will be in the hands of Members.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) I hope that it will be in the hands of Members in a very few days.

  Summary of Report of the Mowatt Committee.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War when the promised Summary of the Report of the Mowatt Committee will be in the hands of Members.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) It is hoped that this document will be in the hands of Members by the end of this week.

  Compensation for Lucy Scotland for Ill-Treatment by Venezuelan Authorities.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDETo ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what compensation has been offered to Lucy Scotland, British subject, for her ill-treatment by the Venezuelan authorities; whether full inquiry has been made into her case by His Britannic Majesty's Minister at Caracas; whether the compensation awarded her corresponds to that awarded other British subjects; and what steps the Government intend taking in the matter.
  (Answered by. Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) £150 has been awarded to Lucy Scotland, on account of the ill-treatment received by her at the hands of Venezuelan officials in 1892, out of the £5,500 paid by the Venezuelan Government in respect of the claim, of British subjects for outrages and maltreatment. The facts of the case are well known to His Majesty's Government, and no further inquiry into them was necessary, but some delay in the actual payment, and correspondence with His Majesty's Minister at Caracas, has been involved owing to uncertainty as to the claimant's present address. It has now been ascertained that she is herself in French Guiana, but that she wishes the indemnity sent to the Governor of Dominica, her native place, with whom she proposes to communicate. The Governor of the Colony has accordingly been authorised to pay the amount to Lucy Scotland or to her duly accredited agent. The compensation was assessed after careful consideration and having due regard to the facts of the case, and to the amounts granted by His Majesty's Government to other claimants in like circumstances.

  Goods Rates on the Tarkwa-Sekondi-Kumasi Railway.
  MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to representations on behalf of mining and commercial interests in the Gold Coast Colony as to the rates charged for the carriage of goods, and especially of machinery, upon the Tarkwa-Sekondi-Kumasi Railway; whether he is aware that the scheduled rates for classes 1, 2, and 3 on this line are 2s. 6d., ls. 8d., and ls. per ton per mile,

  1325
  while the corresponding rates on the Lagos and Sierra Leone lines are 9d., 6d., and 3d., or 9d., 6d., and 4d. per ton per mile respectively; and that the cost of carrying a fifty-stamp mill plant for 125 miles tan this railway would amount to £11,120; and whether, seeing that Government troops and stores are carried over this line at cost of conveyance only, he will state how this cost of conveyance is arrived at, and explain why the exception in favour of Government troops and stores is made; and whether he will cause further inquiry to be made with a view to such a revision of the present classification and schedule of rates as will be equitable to the several classes of traders using the railway.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The points raised by the hon. Member have been dealt with in letters sent by my direction on the 6th of November and 21st of March last to the London Chamber of Commerce, but it should be added that I am in communication with the Governor of the Gold Coast in regard to the manner in which the cost of conveyance should be arrived at, and that the question whether there is any ground for revising the present rates is receiving consideration. Extracts from the letters are appended.

  Extract, 6th November, 1903.
  I am directed by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton to inform you that he has had under his consideration your letter of the 24th of July last relating to the rates for the carriage of goods on the Gold Coast Government Railway. With regard to the rate for the carriage of machinery, which is specially referred to in your letter, I am to observe that the rate is certainly high as compared with the rates charged in many other parts of the world, but that it does not appear to Mr. Lyttelton to be higher than the circumstances require. The Government of the Gold Coast was pressed to make the line on the ground that the mines could not be developed without it. It was represented that the cost of transport by carriers was enormous; that even the light machinery which could be so transported was subject to delay and damage and the loss of essential parts, and that the heavy plant necessary for working
  1326
  the mines at a profit could not be got up at all unless a railway were made. The construction of this line was accordingly undertaken by the Gold Coast Government, with the approval of the Secretary of State, in preference to one which had been contemplated for the purpose of developing the existing trade in palm oil and other products of the soil, and which was strongly advocated by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce; and the heaviest machinery required can now be conveyed up country, whilst the cost of conveyance from the coast to Tarqualt which was formerly from £25 to £40 a ton, has been reduced to £5 a ton. But, in securing this saving to the mining industry, the Gold Coast Government has had to impose upon the Colony all the risk involved, except in so far as it is protected by the guarantee of the Ashanti Goldfields Corporation, and in fixing the rates it is bound to have regard not merely to the interests of the mining industry, but to those of the Colony as a whole. There is no reason to think that the rates are prohibitive or likely to hinder the development of the mines, and, until the permanent traffic on the line, not the temporary rush of traffic due to the installation of the mines, gives net receipts sufficient to cover the working expenses and debt charges, it is not possible to hold out any expectation that rates will be reduced unless it should appear that the reduction would have the effect of attracting more traffic and so increasing the net receipts.

  Extract, 21st March, 1904.
  I am directed by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton to inform you that he has had under his consideration your letter of the 19th of January respecting the rates in force on the Gold Coast Government Railway, and to express his regret that the pressure of other work has prevented him from replying to it sooner. You refer in this letter to your previous letter, dated the 24th July last, in which it was calculated that the cost of transporting a complete 50-stamp mill plant 125 miles on the Gold Coast Railway would be £11,120, and attention was called to the Beira Junction and Mashonaland Railways, on which it was stated that the rates charged are 10d., 8d., and 6d. per ton per mile in the first, second, and third classes

  1327
  respectively, with an additional charge of 5s. per ton for any distance, and that machinery of all kinds is included in the third class. From this it appears that the cost of transporting a 50-stamp mill plant, weighing 1,038 tons, for 125 miles, would be £3,503 on the Beira, etc., Railways. But it is to be borne in mind that the gold mines served by these railways are much further from the coast than the Gold Coast mines. The distance from Beira to Salisbury is 375 miles, and from Beira to Bulawayo is 675 miles, and the cost of conveyance of the plant in question over these distances would be £9,991 and £17,775 respectively. These figures appear, no doubt, to be high when regarded by themselves; but, when the other expenses incidental to the establishment of a mill and the formation of a company to work it are taken into account, Mr. Lyttelton does not think that it can fairly be argued that the charges for the carriage of machinery are so high as to have any material effect upon the development of the mines.
  With reference to the fourth paragraph of your letter, in which objection is taken to the clause in the agreement with the Ashanti Goldfields Corporation, under which Government goods and passengers are carried at rates fixed by the Government as covering the cost of conveyance, I am to inform you that it was necessary for the purposes of the agreement with the corporation to have an arrangement on this point, but that Mr. Lyttelton fails to see that other users of the railway have any ground of complaint, as they have no share in the risk undertaken in constructing the line. In the fifth paragraph of your letter attention is called to the question of the extent to which the expenditure of the Colonial Government for the transport of its officers and stores is affected by the railway, and it is contended that the bulk of the expenditure under the head of "transport" in previous years will be saved. I am to explain that, as will be seen on reference to Paragraph 12(pp.8–9) of the Gold Coast Annual Report for 1902, the cost of transport in 1901 was still largely charged to the heading "Ashanti Disturbances," and that accordingly the increase of £41,901 11s. 2d. to which you point in the vote for transport in 1902 as compared with 1901 is more apparent
  1328
  than real. It is estimated that £46,920 will be spent on transport in 1904, as compared with £66,120 actually spent in 1902, and with £60,000, the revised estimate for 1903. But all these sums contain large items for passages and other sea transport, and for the transport of stores by carriers, and this last item still amounts to £22,918 in the estimates for 1904. It must not be assumed, therefore, that the whole difference between the actual expenditure in 1902 and the estimated expenditure in 1904, which amounts to £19,200, is a saving due to the railway.

  Outbreak of Chinese Labourers at the New Comet Mine, Johannesburg.
  DR. MACNAMARA: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the latest outbreak of Chinese coolies on the Rand at the New Comet Mine, Johannesburg, in which two coolies having been on this occasion accidentally killed, the rest of the coolies mutinied and attacked the mine manager, nineteen of them being ultimately arrested; and whether, having regard to the outbreaks that have occurred, he will ask Lord Milner for a full report on the circumstances leading up to and attendant upon these revolts.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I have no doubt that Lord Milner will report to me on the recent disturbance at the New Comet Mine if the circumstances are in any material respect different from those reported in the newspapers. I am not aware that any other incident of the same nature has occurred on the Rand.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Merchant Ships and the British Navy.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, have the Admiralty considered the uncertainty arising from the Board of Trade notices warning British merchant ships not to approach His Majesty's ships when in squadron or fleet formation, and the impression thereby produced that, under those circumstances, His Majesty's ships are not bound to observe the rule of

  1329
  the road at sea by keeping out of the way of such merchant ships, as prescribed by the rules, but that merchant ships passing through a fleet or squadron do so at their own risk; and will the Admiralty consider the propriety of issuing an order to make it clear that His Majesty's ships, whether in squadron or fleet formation or not, are equally bound with all other ships to obey the rule of the road at sea by keeping out of the way of other ships as prescribed by the rules.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): The Board of Trade does not warn British merchant vessels that they are not to approach His Majesty's ships when in squadron or fleet formation. The notices issued merely point out the danger which is caused by single vessels approaching a squadron so closely as to involve risk of collision, which is quite a different thing. There is no necessity for the Admiralty to issue any special order to make it clear that His Majesty's ships are to obey the international rules for the prevention of collision, as these rules hold good, have never been cancelled, and are acted on by the officers of His Majesty's Navy.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: But the President of the Board of Trade said a warning had been issued.
  MR. PRETYMAN: They were not ordered not to approach His Majesty's ships, but they were warned of the danger of doing so under certain circumstances.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: In fact, they were ordered to keep out of the way. Does the hon. Gentleman deny that?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! This is becoming a controversy.

  Retired Naval Officers and the Press.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, are naval officers temporarily on half-pay subject to the Naval Discipline Act or to Military Law; and are they bound to obey the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions, including the Article therein which forbids writing for any newspaper on subjects connected with the naval
  1330
  service, or publishing any matter or thing relating to the public service; and are naval officers retired from the service, but whose names are retained on the Navy List, either on the emergency list or otherwise, bound to obey these regulations.
  MR. PRETYMAN: Naval officers while on half-pay—not being "borne on the books of any one of His Majesty's ships in commission"—are not, for the time, subject to the Naval Discipline Act. They are at all times expected to comply with such of the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions as may apply to them. With respect to the Article referred to—682—it is not the practice of the Admiralty to raise any objection to the above-named officers writing or publishing their opinions on subjects connected with the Royal Navy, unless they consider that any such communications are of a nature likely to be detrimental to the interests of the service.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is that held to apply to all these officers?
  MR. PRETYMAN: To the extent which I have indicated in my answer.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether it partly applied and partly did not apply.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid the hon. Member could put what construction he pleased upon the answer.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked the hon. Gentleman to reply to the last part of his Question, whether the naval officers referred to were bound to obey these Regulations.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid he had done so. The hon. Gentleman then repeated the last sentence of his reply.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Does that include retired officers?
  MR. PRETYMAN: Yes, Sir.

  Royal Army Medical Corps Promotions.
  DR. THOMPSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the Advisory Board of the Royal

  1331
  Army Medical Corps is solely responsible for recommending promotions in the corps; and whether, seeing that this Board is partly composed of civilians and partly of comparatively junior officers, who may themselves benefit by the supersession of their seniors, he will consider the advisability of altering the duties of the Advisory Board so as to leave the military responsibilities of promotions in the hands of the Director-General of the Royal Army Medical Corps.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The Advisory Board is not solely responsible for recommending promotions in the Royal Army Medical Corps. The Advisory Board sends forward the names of those officers whom it considers professionally qualified for promotion, and the Selection Board decides whether, from a military point of view, they are fit to be promoted. All promotions are finally approved by the Secretary of State for War. I may add that the junior medical officers on the Advisory Board do not give an opinion on the qualifications of officers senior to themselves.

  Military Expenditure for the Year.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what are the total Army Estimates, including military works, during the current year, for the United Kingdom and India respectively.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The figures are as follows. United Kingdom:—
  Army Estimates (including Ordnance Factories) £29,000,000
  I am unable, as I stated in a reply to the hon. and learned Member for Dundee on the 21st instant, to give the estimated expenditure out of Loan Funds in 1904–5 on Military Works.
  The figures for India, which have been supplied me by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for India, are:—

  Army Estimates

  £18,215,000

  Military Works

  1,018,300

  Special Defence Works

  256,700

  Total

  £19,490,000

  MR. LOUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the figures as to Military Works before the end of the session?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERwas understood to say he feared not.

  Recruiting.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many recruits will be required to keep up the establishment of the general service and home service Armies respectively; and when it is proposed to commence recruiting under the new system.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: If the hon. Member will kindly wait for the Return which I hope shortly to publish, he will find therein the figures he requires. I am not at present in a position to reply to the last part of the Question.

  British Colonies and the Fiscal Policy.
  MR. BUCHANAN): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial Office has at any time received any offer from any of the self-governing Colonies to open the home market of such colony to British manufactures on equal terms with colonial manufactures, or on terms better relatively to colonial manufactures than those now existing; and, if such an offer has been received, from which colony or colonies has such offer been received, and what were the conditions accompanying it.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): No offers have been made of the nature indicated in the Question. The general attitude of the self-governing Colonies in respect to this matter was defined in the Resolutions passed at the Colonial Conference in 1902. Steps have since been voluntarily taken by several of the self-governing Colonies to give effect to this policy, but without any negotiation or correspondence or bargaining with the mother country.

  Settlement of South African War Claims.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the

  1333
  Colonies whether his attention has been called to the complaints in South Africa that the British authorities have in many cases refused payments of receipts given by British officers for goods forcibly requisitioned during the war; and whether he will grant a Commission to investigate those complaints with a view to a remedy.
  MR. LYTTELTON: The great majority of military receipts have now been disposed of, over £2,500,000 having been devoted to this object through the agency of the civil Government. I have received a few complaints of the nature referred to, and am in communication with the Government with regard to them. A Commission has been and is sitting to investigate claims, and I do not propose to appoint any other body to supersede it.

  Asiatic Labourers in South Africa.
  MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether an Act to legalise the transit of indentured Asiatic labourers through the colony of Natal has recently been passed by the Natal Legislature; if so, will he say what was the date of the passing of such Act; and will a copy be laid upon the Table.
  MR. LYTTELTON: A Bill to regulate the transit of immigrants through Natal to other British South African Colonies passed through the Natal Legislative Council on 16th June, but I have not yet received it in its final form. I will lay a copy when I receive it.

  The Tibetan Mission—Killed and Wounded.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what have been the casualties sustained in killed and wounded to date by the British and Tibetans, respectively, during the progress or the Mission.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): The losses known up to date to have been sustained by the British forces during the progress of the Tibet Mission are as follows:—

  British Officers.

  Killed, 3

  Wounded, 17

  British Rank and File.

  Killed, 2

  Wounded, 12

  It is obviously quite impossible to state what losses have been sustained by the Tibetans.
  MR. LAMBERT: Have there been no telegrams sent home from India to the right hon. Gentleman stating the losses of the Tibetans?
  MR. BRODRICK: None which enable me to give a reliable estimate.
  MR. LAMBERT: Cannot you ascertain?
  MR. BRODRICK: We might get the number of the killed buried, but obviously we cannot tell the number of wounded.
  MR. LAMBERT: Have you received no information?
  MR. BRODRICK: The figures I have had I have given to the House. I will endeavour to make a computation from them.

  The Advance to Lhasa.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if the Commander of the British and Indian forces in Tibet has instructions to advance to Lhasa before negotiating for peace; and at what date is it expected that destination will be reached.
  MR. BRODRICK: The Mission and escort have orders to proceed to Lhasa to negotiate there, in accordance with the notification made to the Tibetan authorities that this action would be taken if they failed to send competent negotiators to Gyangtse by a fixed date. There is nothing to prevent negotiations taking place at any point on the march to Lhasa if competent negotiators appear. The latest information received states that the Mission marched to Yarsig on the 21st instant. Yarsig is sixty-six miles from Lhasa.
  MR. LAMBERT: When is it expected to arrive at Lhassa?
  MR. BRODRICK: That depends on what opposition it meets with.

  Assam Excise Administration.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, with reference to the inquiry instituted into the allegations made against the Excise Administration of Assam, in a memorandum issued by Mr. James Buckingham, C.I.E., in 1902, on behalf of the Indian Tea Association, he can now state when the Report, together with the views of the Government of India upon the question, will be issued; and whether it will be published in the form of a Parliamentary Paper.
  MR. BRODRICK: The Papers regarding Assam Excise will be published in India this week, and copies for presentation to Parliament will be sent here as soon as possible.

  Spirits in Sweets.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a notice has recently been sent by the Board of Inland Revenue to traders whose liqueur chocolates have been submitted to the Board for analysis, informing them that the sale of such articles without a licence is illegal, and directing their withdrawal from sale; whether he will state whether a general order has been issued to the officers of the Board of Inland Revenue instructing them to report to what extent such articles are being sold in their districts; and whether he can give any information as to the proof strength of the spirituous liquor found in the samples of liqueur chocolates recently submitted to the Board for analysis.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The Answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. As regards the second, a general order has been sent to the officers of Inland Revenue directing them to caution vendors that these articles cannot legally be sold by persons not holding a spirit licence, and to warn them that proceedings for recovery of the penalty incurred will be taken against persons who sell such
  1336
  articles without having the necessary qualification. The result of the recent analysis of samples of chocolates shows the highest strength of proof spirit to have been 33·7 per cent., i.e., 66·3 degrees under proof; and the lowest 4·8 per cent. of proof spirit, i.e., 95·2 degrees under proof.

  Adulteration of Spirits.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that spirits, being a blend of German spirits, are permitted, with the cognisance of the Inland Revenue officials, as pure British spirit, and in the case of so-called brandy as foreign brandy; and whether, in view of the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act, legal proceedings will be instituted by the Inland Revenue in any such cases which come to their knowledge.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: German spirits are not allowed to be blended with British spirits in bond, nor are they allowed to be described as British spirits in bond, or when issued from bond. The Board of Inland Revenue have no knowledge of what may be done with such spirits after they have passed out of Revenue charge; nor have they any power of control after the spirits have so passed.
  MR. MOONEY: Is it not the fact that after spirits have been taken out of bond they are still under the control of the Revenue authorities, inasmuch as a certificate must be given?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No; the permit is to remove them in bond, I understand. After they have passed out of bond they are not under the control of the Revenue authorities, nor are the Revenue authorities the proper authorities for enforcing the Merchandise Marks Act.
  MR. MOONEY: But does not the permit given when the spirit is taken out of bond describe the nature of the spirit?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked for notice of any further Questions.

  Scottish Night Telegraph Messengers.
  SIR ARTHUR BIGNOLD: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will consider individual applications from night telegram messengers in Scotland for good-conduct stripes, provided that the cases of such applicants are certified by their respective postmasters.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): Adult night telegraph messengers are ineligible for the award of good conduct stripes, and I am not prepared to consider any applications for extending the privilege to them, either as a class or individually.

  Counterfeit Irish Lace.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state the result of his inquiries into the fact, as alleged in the recent report of the British Consul at Nice, that a counterfeit lace made at St. Gall, in Switzerland, is sold in Nice as Irish-made lace; and what steps he proposes to take in order to safeguard the interests of this Irish industry in this town and in other towns on the Continent.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): No, Sir; the inquiry which the Board of Trade is making, with the assistance of the Foreign Office, is not yet completed.

  Midwifery Diplomas.
  DR. THOMPSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the Central Midwives Board have appointed nurses to examine candidates for the diploma in midwifery; and, if so, will he direct that candidates for a midwifery diploma must be examined by qualified physicians and surgeons.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. COCHRANE,): No, Sir; I think this is not the case. I understand that the whole scheme of examination is still under the consideration of the
  1338
  Central Midwives Board. That Board is, however, left by the statute free to exercise its discretion in the appointment of examiners, and I have no power to give directions in the matter.

  Rathmines Registration Scandal.
  MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that tampering with the requisition forms has taken place in other districts in South Dublin as well as in the Rathmines polling district; and, if so, what action he proposes to take to discover the guilty persons.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): The matter is in the hands of the police. Inquiries have been made by them in the different polling districts of South Dublin. With the exception of some cases in Kingstown, no tampering with these forms has been discovered outside the Rathmines polling district. The police are pursuing their inquiries. They have experienced great difficulty in obtaining information. Any persons who can be made amenable will, if the evidence justifies it, be proceeded against.

  Tenelich Evicted Tenant.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any application has been received from an evicted tenant named Patrick Magrath, of Abbeyshule, for restoration by purchase to his farm at Tenelich, which is at present held by a planter tenant who lives twenty miles distant; whether he is aware that this man was directed by the receiver to lodge £3 in Court for a Court lease of this farm in 1894, but found instead that the farm was given to another; and will he bring this case to the notice of the Estates Commissioners.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): An application has been received from the evicted tenant and will be duly considered. The Commissioners have no information on the other matters mentioned in the Question.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: When shall I repeat the Question?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am afraid I cannot say when a decision is likely to be arrived at.

  Holywood (Down) District Council.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state under what circumstances the usual authority to issue cheques has been withheld by the Holywood District Council, county Down; whether the workmen engaged by the council are still in the employment of the council and receiving wages; and what steps the Local Government Board has taken in the matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Board has no information beyond that given at the meeting of the district council held on the 7th instant, nor has it any jurisdiction to intervene in the matter.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Then has the Local Government Board no jurisdiction over bodies which decline to pay the wages of their servants?
  MR. WYNDHAM: it has no jurisdiction in this matter.

  Clinton Estate Disturbances.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the recent evictions on the Clinton Estate several hundred men were present inciting women to throw stones and generally leading the riot; whether he has received any complaints on this matter; and, if so, what action, if any, has been taken to make the chief aggressors amenable.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Proceedings have been instituted by the Crown against nine men on charges of riot, unlawful assembly, and assault on the sheriff's officers, arising out of these evictions. The cases have been adjourned till the 5th August.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these women were merely defending their own homes?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Irish National School Teachers—Official Reports.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the form supplied to managers of national schools containing questions relating to the work and conduct of teachers is marked private and confidential, and is considered in connection with the inspector's annual reports, and that only a sentence or two of the report comes back to the school from the Board, and the teacher is deprived of seeing the report, and especially that part which deals with the character, conduct, and manners of the teacher as supplied by the manager, he will explain why teachers are not given an opportunity of seeing the whole report and replying, if necessary, to anything contained therein.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The reports in question are made by managers for the private information of the Commissioners. They are regarded as confidential, and are not communicated by the Commissioners to other persons. Extracts from the reports of the inspectors are sent to the managers for the guidance of teachers, and in the opinion of the Commissioners these extracts contain all the information about the school and teachers that it is necessary to communicate.
  MR. SLOAN: But is it not the fact that with this particular form inquiries are made as to the character and conduct of the teacher?
  MR. WYNDHAM: That may be so.
  MR. SLOAN: What opportunity is given to the teacher to defend himself against charges?
  [The Answer was inaudible.]

  Ballynahinch Trout Fisheries.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state the result of the Department of Agriculture's investigation into the action of three water bailiffs and others who netted the Ballynahinch River, and removed a number of trout for the purpose of stocking their own lakes, on the 6th instant.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Two complaints were made in this matter, namely, the netting of the river and the netting of the millrace. There is no legal objection, so far as the Department is aware, to the capture of fish by a riparian proprietor to the middle of the bed of the river, provided he uses a net with a mesh of the legal size. It is not within the province of the Department to offer an opinion on the general question of the rights possessed by persons, other than riparian proprietors, who may fish the river. But netting in the millrace is illegal, and the Department has informed the local police that if such netting should be practised the offender will be prosecuted.

  Irish Department of Agriculture— Pensions of Veterinary Staff.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the claim made some time ago by the regular veterinary staff now under the Department of Agriculture to pension rights has been considered; and, if so, will he direct the result of such consideration to be communicated to the staff.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir. The Treasury decision in the case of these officers was communicated to them on Monday.

  Compensation Award under Edenderry Labourers' Cottages Scheme.
  MR. HAVILAND-BURKE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, under a recent award under an Edenderry No. 1 District scheme for acquiring plots for the erection of labourers' cottages, the Local Government Board arbitrator fixed the compensation to Mr. Peter Ennis, of Killane townland, at £6, the compensation awarded in the case of an adjacent farm of land of no greater value being £12; and that, on the Edenderry No. 1 District Council writing to the Local Government Board calling attention to the fact, it was informed that there was no appeal from the award of the arbitrator; and whether the Irish Government would favourably consider some system of appeal in such cases with a view to obviate inequalities of compensation.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The proposal of the District Council in this case was to award the occupier £6 15s. as compensation without any reduction of his rent, whereas the arbitrator fixed the compensation at £6 and reduced the rent by 12s. a year. Arbitration proceedings under the Labourers Acts are not exceptional; they are governed by the same enactment as similar proceedings under the Housing of the Working Classes Act and the Public Health Acts.

  Irish Land Clerks.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what steps have been taken to carry out the promise, when the Irish Land Act, 1903, was in Committee, that, on the sale of estates, Irish land clerks would be compensated, and that in the administration of the Act the Government would give as much employment as they could to these clerks; will he say whether any of these clerks are at present employed by the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, how many, and are they paid salaries equivalent to the salaries they received as land clerks; and have the Estates Commissioners yet settled, with the assent of the Treasury, the fixed price or percentage to be paid to land clerks under the provisions of Section 23, Sub-section 11, of the Irish Land Act, 1903.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Question does not quite accurately represent what took place in Committee. In discussing an Amendment moved by my hon. friend on the 1st July, 1903, I stated that where the Commissioners employed a person in any capacity the scale of payment would he arranged between them and the Treasury, and that in the administration of the Act it would be the earnest desire of the Government to give as much employment as could be given to agents and others concerned. Where estates have been sold by vendors to tenants the Commissioners have sanctioned payment of negotiation fees to the negotiator nominated by the vendors, in the case of some thirteen estates. The fees in such cases have varied from 1 to 3 per cent. on the purchase money. The Commissioners are unable to say to what

  1343
  extent the negotiators have compensated land clerks out of these fees. In cases of sales to the Estates Commissioners no fixed scale of price or percentage has yet been settled under Section 23 (11) of the Act of 1903. With respect to employment, the creation of one post on the staff of the Commissioners has been sanctioned, which it is intended to fill by the appointment of a person having experience in land agency.

  Mr. Arthur M'Guire's Leitrim Estate.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received any proposal for the sale of the estate of Mr. Arthur M'Guire, situate at Miltron, Carrigallen, county Leitrim; and, if so, what steps have they taken to bring about the reinstatement in his holding on that estate of an evicted tenant named Thomas Rourke.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This estate is not before the Estates Commissioners Any application that may be made by the evicted tenant will be duly considered.

  Tempo (Fermanagh) Water Supply.
  MR. EDWARD MITCHELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the character of the water supply in the village of Tempo, county Fermanagh, and to the reports made by the sanitary officer and by the Local Government Board inspector upon the insufficiency of the supply; if so, will he state what action has the Local Government Board taken in the matter; and whether, seeing that the well by which this village is supplied has now gone dry, he will direct that immediate steps be taken to procure pure water for the inhabitants of the village.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Board was informed by the district council in January last that it was proposed to provide a water supply. The Board has again communicated with the council and urged it to give the matter immediate attention. With respect to the conclusion of the Question, the Board's action n such matters is regulated by Section
  1344
  15 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1896, and it cannot proceed unless in pursuance of a formal complaint made under that enactment. No such complaint has been lodged with the Board.
  MR. EDWARD MITCHELL: Am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that no action will be taken unless the inhabitants of Tempo make formal application to the Local Government Board?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have referred the hon. Member to the section of the Act.
  MR. EDWARD MITCHELL: Must it go forward in the form of a complaint?
  MR. WYNDFIAM: Yes.

  Bangor Post Office Business.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state the relative amount of revenue realised from telegrams, parcels, postal orders, post office orders, and savings bank deposits in the post office of Bangor, county Down, as compared with the post offices of Portrush and Clones, where new post offices to provide for the increased volume of postal transactions in recent years have been built recently; whether he is aware that the space available for public use in the Bangor post office causes, in the summer season, congestion and annoyance to the population and to visitors, resultant upon regattas, fleets' visits, and tourist traffic at this seaside resort; and whether, in view of the fact that the central sites are being rapidly built upon, he will see his way to move in the matter without delay to meet the wishes of all sections of the people in Bangor.
  LORD STANLEY: The preparation of special returns of the post office business at the offices mentioned would occupy some time; but according to the latest available returns, the work at Bangor, county Down, is less than that at Clones, and hardly more than half that at Portrush. I am aware that on special occasions there is pressure on the space in the post office at Bangor; but it is not the practice to provide accommodation greatly in excess of the ordinary requirements in order to meet exceptional demands.

  Drainage of Loughs Oughter and Gowna District—Flooding.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the tenants and ratepayers of the parishes of Mullaghoran and Scrabby, in the county of Cavan, and neighbouring parishes in county Longford, have, in public meeting, called attention to the injury to their lands by autumn and winter flooding to the extent of 2,500 acres by the insufficient drainage works of the Loughs Oughter and Gowna district, and that a memorial adopted at the meeting had been addressed to the Commissioners of Public Works; and, if so, will he say what reply has been given by the Commissioners, and if the Commissioners will direct an inquiry as to the grievances complained of, and take the necessary steps to deal with the situation promptly.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): A petition was received last month on behalf of the farmers and occupiers of land situated within the area of the Loughs Oughter and Gowna Drainage District complaining of flooding and asking to have certain works carried out. The Board of Works have referred the petition to the drainage board, who report that they are having certain works of maintenance carried out, which will, in their opinion, meet the case. This statement is being communicated to the petitioners. New works, as distinguished from works of maintenance, are not within the powers of the drainage board, and would require the constitution of a fresh board under the Drainage Acts.

  Phoenix Park Constable's Grievance.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Joseph Little, late gate-constable of Phoenix Park, Dublin, was dismissed on the 7th May last without any intimation other than a letter he received on 29th April giving him one week's notice to leave the service, and that this man asked for an opportunity to answer any charges preferred against him; and, if so, will he explain why his request was refused.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: Yes, Sir. The Commissioners of Public Works, who are responsible for discipline in their own Department, were not satisfied with this constable, and as he had already been admonished without effect, they decided to give him notice to leave. They saw no advantage in according him the interview which he requested. I cannot interfere with the discretion of the Commissioners in such matters.
  MR. SLOAN: Am I to understand that this constable was given notice without any indication of why he was dismissed?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: No; he had been warned several times.
  MR. SLOAN: For what?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: Neglect of duty.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now state when he proposes to afford the House an opportunity of discussing the recently proposed scheme of Army Reform.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): As the House already knows, we propose to take the debate on the vote of censure on Monday. On Tuesday it is proposed to take the Motion for the suspension of the Twelve o'Clock Rule; and afterwards the Supplementary Estimates and a stage of a Treasury Bill, which must be passed in the course of the present session. On Wednesday it will probably be convenient to take Irish Supply, and on Thursday the Home Office and other Estimates, and either Navy or Army Votes. On Friday I propose to take the Defaulting Authorities Bill, and on Monday probably the War Office Vote. There may be some changes, but that is a general indication of the plan I venture to suggest to the House as the most convenient.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the Irish Supply on Wednesday be the Queen's College Estimates in accordance with the request made on behalf of the Irish Members?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, a full opportunity must be given for the discussion of the Chief Secretary's Vote, but I understand a mode of giving an adequate opportunity of dealing with the Queen's College Vote is still a matter of negotiation through the ordinary channels.

The Seizure and Sinking of British Merchantmen by Russian Men-of-War.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has any information to communicate to the House with reference either to the seizure of British merchantmen by Russian men-of-war, or alleged men-of-war, or with regard to the alleged sinking of the "Knight Commander" on the high seas?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I suppose the first part of the Question refers to the case of the "Malacca" and of other ships taken in the Red Sea. I shall hope to make a brief statement on that subject to-morrow. In regard to the sinking of the "Knight Commander" in the Pacific, I regret to say that the information which reaches me this morning leaves very little doubt in my mind that that regrettable occurrence has taken place. There is no question of loss of life. I am afraid there is a question of breach of international law.

LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Reported, so far as amended in the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.
Leave given to the Standing Committee to make a Special Report.
Special Report brought up, and read.
Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 284.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 284.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEE).
Mr. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Trade (including
1348
Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures: Mr. Wyndham, Sir James Haslett, Mr. John Redmond, Mr. Joseph Nolan, Mr. Seymour Ormsby-Gore, Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Clancy, Mr. Condon, Mr. Farrell, Mr. O'Shee, Mr. Joseph Hoult, Mr. Lundon, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Edward Mitchell, and Lord Bingham; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir John Barrington Simeon, Mr. Cochrane, Mr. Baird, Dr. MacDonnell, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. Runciman, Mr. Channing, Mr. William M'Killop, Mr. Hunter Craig, Mr. O'Mara, Sir Elliott Lees, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Lambert, and Mr. Wolff.
Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILL.
  RAILWAYS AND STEAMSHIPS (PARLIAMENTARY FACILITIES) BILL.
  "To secure travelling facilities for Members of Parliament in the discharge of their Parliamentary duties," presented by Mr. Crooks; supported by Mr. MacVeagh, Mr. James Bailey, Sir Christopher Furness, Mr. Rothschild, Sir John Brunner, Mr. Wolff, Mr. Schwann, Dr. Disraeli, Mr. Malcolm, and Sir Edward Sassoon; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 282.]
  POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
  Lord Stanley, Captain Clive, and Dr. Hutchinson were nominated members of the Select Committee on the Post Office Sites Bill.—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)

  LICENSING BILL [6TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment [26th July] proposed to the Bill, on Consideration, as amended.
  Which Amendment was—
  "In page 3, line 26, to leave out the words from the word 'of,' to end of sub-section (1) of Clause 4, and insert the words ' confirming a new licence and of assenting to the conditions, if any, upon which such licence is granted, shall be exercised by quarter sessions after consultation with the justices of the licensing district where such licence is granted,' — (Mr. Disraeli,) instead thereof."
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'new,' in page 3, line 27, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. CRIPPSsaid there were several Amendments down on the Paper all dealing with substantially the same question as was involved in the one under discussion, and of them he should prefer that in the name of the right lion. Gentleman the Member for East Somersetshire. This clause raised entirely different issues to those embodied in other parts of the Bill. The real object of the measure was the reduction of redundant public-houses. But the importance of this proposal arose from the fact that in this clause the whole system of granting new licences was revolutionised and altered. The Bill as it now stood provided that "the power of the county licensing committee to confirm new licences and any other power of that committee shall be transferred to quarter sessions." That provision was not introduced until after the closure Resolution had been carried, and the object of the Amendment was to restore the Bill to its original form. In his opinion, the alteration made in the Bill, which in substance, with regard to new licences, substituted the magistrates of the licensing districts for quarter sessions, or the committee of quarter sessions, was an alteration in the wrong direction. Even as the law now stood, no power was better exercised by quarter sessions than the power of dealing with new licences. New licences were only sanctioned where there wag abundance of evidence that they were needed in the public interest, and they were granted under stringent conditions as to the character of the applicant and of the house. But it was of even greater importance that this power with regard to new licences should be exercised in the future by quarter sessions, even if in consultation with the licensing justices, because of the more difficult and complicated questions which would arise when the Bill became law.
  Licences were to be granted for a number of years. He disliked the alteration altogether. He would be the last person in the world to attack the magistrates, but this was a question as to under what conditions they could best use the administrative
  1350
  powers which had been committed to them, and no one surely would hesitate to say that the best tribunal to deal with a question of that sort in its final developments was not one composed of the magistrates of a particular licensing district, but one composed of magistrates in quarter sessions assembled. It was a very dangerous thing to have too much experimenting with social problems of this kind, and if they had any experiments at all they should be made in the country or smaller areas. Much had been said about preconceived opinions. He had never attacked magistrates on that ground, for all men had preconceived opinions with regard to particular matters, and when they got a large body together likethatof quarter sessions these particular opinions were apt to become submerged owing to the number of justices and the different conditions under which their powers were exercised. They wanted to refer these questions to a body so constituted that it would act judicially. He advocated this on grounds of public order and public morality. Let them not have local option in small districts, but let them try to secure uniformity throughout the county area. He personally hoped that the right hen. Gentleman the Prime Minister would see his way to restore the law to the position proposed when the Bill was first introduced and to maintain the control of quarter sessions on such questions as the granting of new licences.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)said he thought his hon. friends attached more importance to the change which the Bill proposed to make than it really warranted. He, at any rate, did not regard it as a matter of first-rate importance, and he would explain exactly why the Government put the Bill in its present shape. When they originally found it necessary to transfer some of the authority now exercised by the licensing justices to quarter sessions, it was because of the compensation fund to be raised by the whole county, for obviously only a body representative of the whole county could properly deal with such a fund. But under Clause 4 no compensation was to be paid. Therefore the question arose whether a gratuitous alteration should be

  1351
  made in the existing law when there was no over-mastering reason for doing so.
  MR. CRIPPS, interposing, pointed out that it was the clause which altered the existing law, and that what the Amendment proposed was to leave the law as it stood.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that no doubt Clause 4 did modify the law, but it did not modify the law in a sense which made it necessary to bring in quarter sessions, as happened in the earlier clauses of the Bill. He attached considerable value, from the point of view of licensing reform, to the power of experiment which would be given in various parts of the country in the granting of new licences. His hon. friend's view was that there should be a certain latitude of experiment, but that it should be confined to counties as distinct areas. It might be that absurd experiments would be tried here and there by brewster sessions; but the power of appeal to quarter sessions remained; and, accordingly, if quarter sessions thought the conditions under which the local bench of magistrates granted new licences were inequitable or absurd, they could say that it was impossible for them to endorse the granting of those new licences. Of the two alternative plans open to the Government—to leave to brewster sessions the initiation of any experiments they liked, subject to appeal to quarter sessions, or to allow quarter sessions to operate in the area of the whole county —his inclination was in favour of the first.
  SIR ROBERT REIDadmitted that the point was one of no very great importance, and he agreed with the Prime Minister in thinking it desirable that there should be elasticity as widely diffused as possible. He was in favour of adhering in this matter to the smaller local areas. In his opinion the Amendment was superfluous, but at any rate the object aimed at was better expressed in the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Somersetshire.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsubmitted that the Amend-
  1352
  ment really accorded with the spirit of the existing law. He could not assent to the view that the Amendment was unnecessary, and at any rate if quarter sessions was to have power to confirm the grant of new licences made subject to certain conditions, it should also have power in consultation with the local magistrates to vary those conditions. Quarter sessions might be convinced that in a certain locality there was a necessity for a new licence owing to the large increase of population; at the same time they might consider that the conditions attached were absurd and ought not to be allowed in the public interest. If, then, they could not come to terms with the local bench, obviously the only power they had was to veto the licence altogether for another twelve months. That, he submitted, would not be desirable in the public interest. Let them remember that there were 130 different areas in the country in which different kinds of experiments might be tried, so that there would be a sufficient variety of experiment. Under this Bill, if the Amendment were accepted each licensing district would send up its proposals to quarter sessions, and they would be considered by the whole body of magistrates. That would tend to secure uniformity. The Amendment would really improve the working of the new system without doing anything to discourage reasonable experiments.
  SIR JOHN DORINGTONsaid this was partly a question of administration. Whilst it was desirable that petty sessional benches should express their own opinion with regard to any particular licences, they should all be periodically reviewed by the central authority in order to obtain uniformity and to secure the proper direction of the police authorities. He, therefore, thought that some such words as were contained in the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Altrincham Division should be introduced, though he would prefer those of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Somersetshire. He would also like to point out the difficulty that might arise from calling on the police authorities in any one county to enforce all sorts of varying conditions. That was a practical

  1353
  difficulty, and therefore while he admitted it was highly desirable that the various petty sessional benches should express their own opinions with regard to new licences, their decisions should come up for review by a central authority when the time for confirmation of the licences came.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURthrew out the suggestion that all views might be met if they took the words of the right hon. Member for East Somersetshire with an addition. That Amendment ran as follows—
  "And the powers of quarter sessions shall include the power to confirm or vary any conditions attached to a new licence under the provisions of this section."
  And he proposed to add thereto, "with the consent of the justices of the licensing district." If that were done, no new licence could be established except under conditions which approved themselves to the central authority. It left the initiative to the local authority but it made it clear that the central authority were to have a finger in the pie, and suppose there was a conflict between the two, the result would be that the new licence would not be granted while the police control was unaffected. If that met with general acceptance the Government were prepared to adopt it.
  MR. WHITTAKERpointed out that this was practically the suggestion of the hon. Member for Blackpool. He thought the suggestion of the Prime Minister a valuable and useful one, as if the Amendment were carried as it stood it would give quarter sessions power to impose conditions not agreed to by the local justices.
  MR. BONDsaid it had been suggested that there was no new fund to be dealt with in connection with the grant of a new licence, but unless he was mistaken that was not' altogether the case, as a scheme had been brought forward under which the applicant for a new licence might be compelled to pay a certain sum for it, and he took it that the county would have to administer the fund thus raised.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid quarter sessions had nothing to do with that.
  MR. LAMBERTasked what would happen if there was failure to come to an agreement between quarter sessions and the local bench.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The licence would not be confirmed.
  MR. LAMBERTheld that some one should have a predominant voice in the matter. Personally, lie would prefer that the Government should adhere to their original proposal, and give the local justices absolute power to grant these licences and to attach to them whatever conditions they wished.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We have not proposed that.
  MR. LAMBERT: I thought you intended to give them that power by this Bill.
  MR. LLOYD WHARTONpointed out there would be a representative of the local body at quarter sessions. Consequently there would be no chance of the local authority being taken by surprise. That authority would be able to lay all the facts of the case before the confirming authority, and that should be sufficient for all purposes. If counsel represented the authority, their case would be dealt with more elaborately than it would be otherwise. If, therefore, the House accepted the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Somerset, which gave power to quarter sessions to confirm or vary any conditions attached to a new licence, it would be the best way of dealing with the question.
  MR. WORSLEY-TAYLORsaid that he had an Amendment on the Paper dealing with the same question. But when he saw the Amendment of the right hon. Member for East Somerset it appeared to him to be a better Amendment than his own. It was, therefore, his intention to withdraw the Amendment and to support that of his right hon. friend. It would give quarter

  1355
  sessions an opportunity of comparing the conditions imposed by different benches of magistrates. It would he better that the conditions should be varied in order to prevent friction between the quarter sessions and the local justices. The Amendment of his right hon. friend would not put more power in the bands of the quarter sessions than was now possessed. The quarter sessions had the power to say to an applicant, "We do not like to refuse confirmation of the licence and to hold the granting of it over until next year. But we suggest a condition on which we will confirm, and if you will come back next year with that condition fulfilled we will confirm the licence."
  MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid they had had several contributions to a very interesting discussion from chairmen of quarter sessions, and it was no doubt characteristic of these Gentlemen to seek to enlarge the jurisdiction of the tribunal over which they presided. But he would point out that there were public interests and the interests of the local justices concerned in the matter which were being ignored. There would, he thought, be a general acceptance of the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Blackpool that quarter sessions after consultation and by agreement with the justices of a licensing district might vary the conditions under which a licence was granted. Gentlemen opposite entirely ignored the right of initiation which was given to local justices under the existing law, and which was preserved under this Bill. This Bill enabled the local justices to attach to licences certain conditions. No section of the House, he believed, wished to enlarge the power of quarter sessions as the confirming authority, but if they refused a licence that would delay the granting of it for at least a year. If such an agreement were come to as was suggested in his hon. and learned friend's Amendment opportunity would then be given for fully discussing the reasons which had led to the imposition of the conditions. He was, therefore, anxious to support that Amendment.
  MR. PEELthought it rather unfortunate that, in discussing that matter, the hon. and learned Member for South Leeds had suggested that this
  1356
  proposal was merely an attempt on the part of chairmen of quarter sessions to enlarge their jurisdiction. It seemed to him almost absurd that the larger power which Courts of quarter sessions would possess, to say whether new licences should or should not be granted, should not carry with it the smaller power of saying whether the conditions attached to a licence should be varied or dealt with in any other way. He thought that quarter sessions should certainly have, in addition to the general power, means of dealing with the particular conditions upon which licences had been granted. There was a good deal to be said for the suggestion of his hon. and learned friend the Member for Blackpool that when the grants of new licences came up at quarter sessions for confirmation from different parts of a county the conditions might embody valuable suggestions and varying regulations which might be made applicable to other parts of the county, and quarter sessions should have the power of dealing with all those suggestions and saying that certain conditions should be attached to all new licences that might be granted. So far as he could see, the position was that quarter sessions as the determining body was being made the humble servant of the local magistrates. The initiative rested with Brewster sessions, and they could set up whatever conditions they liked. They could be approved or criticised by quarter sessions, and it was quite possible, even if this Amendment were passed, that there might be quite a variety of conditions. He hoped the Prime Minister would support the Amendment proposed by his right hon. friend.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he really hoped that the Prime Minister had a strong opinion upon this subject and would adhere to the suggestion he had made. He thought that the suggestion which had come from the other side would destroy the whole nature of this proposal. An hon. Member opposite had said that the proposal would convert the quarter sessions into the humble servants of the local magistrates. Humble service involved obedience to the behests of the master. If the quarter sessions were not satisfied they could say, unless their suggestions were accepted

  1357
  they would not confirm the licence. Supposing the local magistrates were to say that they would grant a licence, but on condition that the applicant closed his premises at a certain hour on Saturday and throughout the whole of Sunday. The quarter sessions might say that condition was absurd, and might confirm the licence only on that condition being eliminated. He thought that was a very serious thing, because very likely a six-day licence might have been the principal thing in the mind of the local magistrates, and they would probably never have granted the licence in the first place but on that condition. He was quite sure that no local magistrates would interpose but for adequate reasons. If a county committee were to make suggestions in the interest of good order and of improving the licensing system, they would carry very considerable weight with the local justices. He trusted that the Prime Minister would adhere to his suggestion, and that the hon. and learned Member for Blackpool would conclude that his first thoughts were the best, and not be moved by the oratory of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Somersetshire and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon.
  MR. BOUSFIELDsaid there might be great inconvenience involved in the dragging of all the magistrates of the county to quarter sessions to present their views. It was quite evident that they ought to be represented either by counsel or some other persons, and he suggested that the difficulty would be got over by inserting the words, "some person or persons to be authorised by them."
  MR. SPEARtrusted that the Prime Minister would adhere to his suggestion. This was not a small matter, but one involving whether or not the power of the local magistrates should be further reduced. He ventured to suggest that the local magistrates wore Later qualified to of deal with this matter than quarter sessions. They were conversant with the requirements of the neighbourhood and the circumstances surrounding the question of the issue of new licence. Under this Bill they would still have to rely largely upon the energy, care, and justice of local
  1358
  benches for the administration of the licensing law. It was most important therefore, that the House should not reduce their local power and influence by taking away from them or reducing their influence with reference to the granting of licences. The retention of that power would secure for them greater respect, if possible, and further the fact of the local bench dealing with the question would give an opportunity to the people of the locality to present their objections to the granting of a new licence without the inconvenience of having to travel to the town where the quarter sessions met. Consequently, from every point of view, he hoped the Prime Minister would maintain the position he had taken up. If the right hon. Gentleman did not he would vote against the Amendment.
  MR. DISRAELIasked permission to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid that it was clear that they would not get any further concession from the Government, and lie would move his Amendment with the addition of the words suggested by the Prime Minister.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 3, line 28, after the words 'quarter sessions,' to insert the words and the powers of quarter sessions shall include the power to confirm or, with the consent of the justices of the licensing district, vary any conditions attached to a new licence under the provisions of this section.'"—(Mr. Henry Hobhouse.)
  Question,. "That the Amendment be made," put, and agreed to.
  MR. CRIPPS, in moving the next Amendment, asked if the licence was to be granted to the highest bidder, or was this merely a way of imposing a new duty as regarded licences? Would the magistrates in the future be able to accept an application for a new licence merely on the ground that the applicant was the best man? He thought what had been proposed would enable a most demoralising condition to be imposed upon the licensing laws, and it would result in having nothing but a tied-house system. It would be impossible for any ordinary licensee to obtain a licence because he

  1359
  would have no chance in bidding against a brewer. The general proposal was that there should be a seven years agreement. Was that to give security to the licensee? In his opinion nothing could be worse than a seven years lease to achieve that object, because it would mean that the person to whom the licence was granted would have to make the greatest possible amount of profit out of his licence during those seven years in order to recoup himself. Nothing could be worse from the point of view of public order and public morality, because its effect would be to induce men to come forward who would be able to say that because they had paid the highest price in the market for the licence, they were entitled to conduct the house solely with a view to getting the maximum profit during the term of the licence. The seven years term not only denoted uncertainty in the worst form, but it withdrew the licence during that period from the disciplinary supervision which was so important. If the clause were passed, only two classes of persons would be able to come forward in the future as applicants for new licences. One was the big brewer, who, under the tied-house system, would he able to make sufficient profits during the seven years, and the other would be the municipality. With regard to the former, he deprecated anything being done which would give a monopoly to or extend the operation of the tied-house system; while, as to the latter, he submitted that nothing could be more demoralising in connection with municipal trading than that the local authority itself should be the licensee and the party immediately concerned in the conduct of the public-house. It was because he felt so strongly the necessity of safeguarding the future of the licensing system that, in moving his Amendment, he had ventured to put these points to the Prime Minister.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill.
  "In page 3, line 30, to leave out from the word 'condition' to the second word 'as,' in line 32."—(Mr. Cripps.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. A. J. BALFOURsaid that his hon. and learned friend had really covered the whole principle of the clause, and
  1360
  therefore, though he might have occasion to supplement on some later Amendment anything which he now said, he might be permitted even thus early in what was the substantial debate on Clause 4 to say how lie regarded the question. He thought there had been a great mistake in the public mind and in the mind of many hon. Members as to the objects of the Government in framing the clause. It had undergone a great deal of alteration, and the object of that had really been to make the original intention of the framers clear and to prevent the kind of mistake into which his hon. and learned friend had fallen with regard to the views held by the Government. In answer to his hon. friend's first question, he desired emphatically to say that the Government did not desire in the smallest, degree to promote the system of putting up licences to auction. This was not, and ought not to be, regarded either by the magistrates or quarter sessions, or any other body, as a means of making money. It ought, in the first place, to be regarded as a means of getting the most eligible licensee possible, and in the second place, it ought to be seen that the terms on which the licensee got the premises were such as would not re-create a monopoly value, the existence of which had been the cause of so much difficulty in the past. That was the view which the Government had had in framing this clause, and if, even in its amended form, it did not carry out that object, they would, of course, be very glad to hear any suggestions from either side of the House. He thought there was a considerable amount of force in his hon. and learned friend's observation that a seven years term might not be long enough to enable a tenant reasonably to recoup himself for obligatory construction or reconstruction which the magistrates might put upon him. He did not think that argument of his hon. and learned friend ought to be left out of account. The reason the Government put this provision in the Bill was that they were anxious not to give that fixity of tenure, or anything approaching that fixity of tenure, which they had been somewhat unjustly reproached for establishing in other parts of the Bill. That was their whole motive. He thought there were difficulties in connection with the proposal, but he was not at all sure that the

  1361
  House would, on reflection, be very ready to give power to the magistrates to grant an unlimited term. Seven years might be too short, but they should he careful how they dealt with the term. He did not think it necessary to say more than that upon this particular branch of his hon. friend's catechism.
  Then his hon. friend said that unless they were very careful the owner of a licence would desire to make the maximum profit out of it during the time that he had it. No provision could be introduced into this or any other Bill which would prevent a trader who desired to make the maximum profit from trying to do so during the tune in which his trade was carried on. He firmly believed that that legitimate desire was consistent, or consistent in most cases, with public morality; but no provision they could put into a Bill could interfere with a man in fulfilling that desire. But his hon. friend said that only two classes would be able to take a new licence at all under this clause. One was the brewer, the other was the municipality. There was no objection to the tied house in itself, but to his mind his hon. and learned friend was quite right in deprecating legislation which would prevent any other system from coming into operation at all. Nobody desired to do that. It was disputed which system had led to the best class of house, but no man was so fanatically enamoured of his own views as to desire by legislation to prevent the possibility of brewers taking tied houses on the one side or free licences being granted on the other. He thought there should be room for both systems, and he thought there was nothing in the clause as they had drawn it which would exclude free licences. The duty of the magistrates to see that they got the fittest man in the public interest was pointed out in that clause, and it ought to be carried out by them, whether the fittest man was the representative or employee of, or was at all events closely connected with, a great brewery, or whether he was an individual free to buy his beer where he liked, and carrying on business in absolute and individual independence.
  As regarded the municipalisation of licences, he did not venture to pronounce
  1362
  an opinion. His whole view about the question of new licences was that it was important to see in what direction experiment showed that the best results could be obtained, and certainly he would be as reluctant to introduce words into the Bill which would forbid a municipalising experiment as he would be to encourage that experiment at the cost of any other. He believed that it was a dangerous experiment in many ways, but he did not think there was evidence or proof of that. It had been tried elsewhere, and there had been no tendency on the part of the community, at the expense of their morality, to obtain excessive profits for the relief of taxation. At all events, let them leave the ground free and not prejudge it. He did not think the Bill did prejudice the question. He had now replied briefly, but he hoped clearly, to the questions put by his hon. and learned friend. If he had not convinced the House that the Government's intentions in this matter were right, he hoped that he had made clear what those intentions were; and he ventured to think that, whether those intentions were well carried out in the words which they had chosen or not, the broad policy was one which was likely to commend itself to students of this question on whatever side they might sit or whatever their views might be on other portions of the measure.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid there was really no ground for the apprehensions of the hon. and learned Member for the Stretford Division, as the clause of the Solicitor-General was so drawn that the monopoly value had to be reserved for the authority granting the licence, the profits were left wholly untouched, and the licences could not in any way be made the subject of auction. It would be quite impossible for them to be put up to auction. There was only one sum to be found, viz., the monopoly value, and when once that was ascertained everyone who obtained a licence would have to pay it; nobody could be asked to pay more, nor could anybody be asked to pay less. The idea of competition was altogether excluded. As to the tenure of the licence, the Prime Minister had expressed doubts whether seven years was a sufficiently

  1363
  long period. Personally he thought the fixing of any period during which there could be no periodical interposition of the discretion of the magistrates was a very serious matter. He believed that, if properly and fairly carried out, the annual system was the best. If they reserved the monopoly value there was going to be no claim so far as new licences were concerned. That might be one method of preventing a revival of the system which had led to all this trouble. He thought seven years was quite enough, for these men were embarking upon a very profitable trade and they obtained great profits in seven years. He should have thought that a much shorter period would have been sufficient to compensate them for their outlay. Did anyone deny that it was desirable to encourage six-day licences? They knew the value of six-day licences in Scotland.
  MR. DISRAELI: But that is not one of the conditions.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid there were many other matters which might he included, and he regarded this more in the light of a preliminary canter.
  MR. LLOYD WHARTONsaid there was nothing in this clause to prevent the licensing authority assisting the rates by granting licences to a large number of new houses and thus obtaining a large annual income. A friend of his had been carefully reading this clause, and he had informed him that there was nothing in it to prevent a district, for example, like West Ham, granting an enormous number of new licences in order to bring in, say, £25,000 a year. That was a temptation which ought not to be placed within the reach of any public authority.
  MR. WHITTAKERsaid that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had drawn attention to what was no doubt a very serious danger, which he thought ought to he avoided by providing that the money should go to the National Exchequer and not to the locality. It was always a danger to allow the receipts from licences to go to the relief of the local rates. He hoped the Government would resolve that this extra sum should go to the National Exchequer.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CARSON,)said there was nothing in the section to prevent justices granting a large number of licences, but if justices took the course which had been suggested in order to relieve the rates, the sooner they were deprived of the power of dealing with this matter the better. He could not conceive that the justices would inundate a district with new licences for the purpose of relieving the rates of a district. He would point out how the section itself would guard against that danger. The great safeguard against that danger was that in the case of each licence the full monopoly value must be demanded. Having granted a licence at a monopoly value, if more licences were granted the monopoly licence would not be worth sixpence. The real safeguard against the justices acting in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would be the large money demand which had to be made based upon the monopoly value. The competition suggested could not last beyond seven years, and at the end of that period those persons would be at the mercy of the magistrates, who could deal with the cut-throat competition in their districts.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid his right hon. friend supported the objection that magistrates might be tempted to increase licences so as to derive a large sum in relief of the rates. But the larger the number of licences granted the smaller would be the revenue derived from them. If the licences were so increased as to approach to free trade, it would destroy the monopoly value altogether, and consequently destroy all public revenue from that source. He agreed that whatever might be the number of licences and the amount of profit derived, the money ought to go, not to the local authority, but to the Exchequer, and he hoped it would be possible to propose an Amendment providing for that. If it were not accepted, a serious blot would remain on the Bill.
  MR. BRIGGasked how the monopoly value was to be ascertained. The monopoly value must necessarily depend very considerably upon the character of the house and the locality in which it was situated. It

  1365
  would be a most impossible to ascertain the real value unless it was put up to auction.
  MR. CRIPPSsaid that, having regard to what the Prime Minister had said, he begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 3, line 33, to leave out from the word 'public' to end of line 35, and to insert the words 'subject as follows—(a) Such conditions shall in any case be attached as, having regard to proper provision for good management, the justices think best adapted for securing to the public any monopoly value which is represented by the difference between the value which the premises will bear, in the opinion of the justices, as licensed premises, and the value of the same premises if they were not licensed. Provided that, in estimating the value as licensed premises of hotels or other premises where the profits are not wholly derived from the sale of intoxicating liquor, no increased value arising from profits not so derived shall be taken into consideration; (b) The amount of any payments imposed under conditions attached in pursuance of this section shall not exceed the amount thus required to secure the monopoly value. —(Sir Edward Carson.)—instead thereof."
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid the great value of Clause 4 was that it introduced for the first time the principle of high licence duties. He understood that the monopoly value which was to go to the public, and the payment of which was to be imposed by the local justices, was to be measured by the difference between the premises as licensed and the premises as unlicensed. He did not object to that definition, but there was a proviso which minimised the amount of the monopoly value by excluding from it profits derivable from the sale of articles not included in the Excise duties. He thought that was objectionable, but the principle of high licence duties was so overwhelmingly important that he was not disposed to object to these definitions and minimisations. It was time the House came to close quarters with this monopoly value. The system proposed by the clause was absolutely crude, inconsistent, and impracticable. He did not think it would work in practice, and
  1366
  he believed it would produce results not anticipated by the Government and in effect wreck the main purpose of the Bill. But it would bring about a most beneficial financial revolution, for the sake of which he welcomed the proposals, though crude and impracticable. If this clause passed they would have in existence three sets of duties on licensed monopolies—the Excise duty, which brought to the local taxation account the miserable return of less than £1,500,000, the compensation duty under Clause 3, and the new licence duties which would be imposed by the local authority under Clause 4. He did not believe for a moment that a financial system like that could possibly last. It was too confused and too confusing, and the finances of the country would not stand the strain. How would it be possible to defend and justify the existence of a public monopoly in respect of which three several authorities were authorised to exact three different sets of of licence duties going to different purposes and different destinations? It would not do, and it could not last. The only way out was that all licences, old and new, should be subject to a new licence duty going to the Exchequer.
  Another serious confusion lay in the existence of two kinds of licences, one paying a low and the other a high duty. The house known as the "Monster" in Pimlico was sold by order of the Court of Chancery for £31,000; the house itself would not be worth more than £3,000, the difference of course being what the purchaser was prepared to pay for the chance of a renewal of the licence under existing conditions. That house paid probably £60 a year in licence duty. Supposing a similar house were now set up in the same district, it would pay not less than £1,000 a year in licence duty. Could that go on? What would the new licensee say to it? Was it possible that new licence-holders paying the full monopoly value would submit for ever to similar houses in the same neighbourhood paying only £60 a year? And if the licensee acquiesced and the long suffering public stood it, what would be the duty and right of a sensible patriotic local authority having power to grant new licences? Would there be any harm in their calling into existence a rival to the "Monster," which would pay on the

  1367
  full monopoly value either to the local purse or the Imperial purse? Every rival of the "Monster," called into being would make it more easy to abolish the "Monster" itself because every new licence created in its neighbourhood would reduce its monopoly value and its compensation value. This famous new clause would end in the destruction of existing licences and the creation of new and restricted licences. That, he believed, would be the unintended consequence. Nothing would induce him to vote against Clause 4—amended or unamended—because of the principle which it enshrined; but he warned the Government that the consequences of their legislation would be very far-reaching and very different, both now and in the distant future, from what they anticipated or intended.
  There was another point to which he wished to call attention, viz., that the money raised from the new monopoly value should go to the Local Taxation Account. With that he thoroughly sympathised, but here they had need of the presence of some Treasury official other than the First Lord of the Treasury. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have something to tell the House about the effect of this clause. It was going to give the local authorities here and there some unknown additions to their taxable revenue. Would not that introduce another element of confusion into local finance Was it creditable that the Imperial Government, which had muddled local finance so disastrously, should pile up confusion on confusion by creating a system under which the caprice of the local licensing justices might add thousands a year to the revenue of the local authorities without requiring the authority of the people? There was another important point. He submitted that no Government was justified in proposing a clause like this unless they were prepared to come to the House and tell them what the financial effect of the clause was to be. They ought to have from the Chancellor of the Exchequer an answer to the question whether the Inland Revenue had been consulted as to the probable financial result of this new clause, and as to its probable effects upon local finance. Had the Inland Revenue authorities been consulted as to the extent of the compensa-
  1368
  tion clauses and the schedules of the Bill? Had they made no guess? If they had not, then to introduce a proposal like this was one of the biggest instances of Imperial frivolity such as could not be equalled in history.
  MR. CRIPPSsaid he had no intention of following the hon. and learned Member into the frivolities to which he had alluded or into the larger question of local and Imperial taxation. He wanted to express his dissatisfaction with the form of this new clause, and he would put his objection to it in the form of Questions in order that they might be answered by the Solicitor-General. What was meant by monopoly value? He had never been an opponent of some system by which the State should get some fair proportion of that monopoly value, either in regard to Imperial or local finance. He was not one of those who thought that a case had not been made out for further taxation of monopoly value; but he thought the term monopoly value had been used in a way somewhat unjustifiable in some of the discussions. There was really no monopoly value apart from security, and when they talked of monopoly value they meant the value attached to a grant by the State, under certain conditions as to security. Let him give an illustration. Suppose a licence were given only from year to year, there would be no monopoly value at all. Monopoly value, in the sense generally used, meant that some one had a substantial security over a series of years, although it was not a large security. There was no longer to be an interference with this practical security, so long as there was good management and good conduct. They could hardly have a better system than that produced in the Bill, which gave practical security under good management and good conduct; and on the other hand, under the insurance system, which enabled the State to interfere where necessary without injustice to anyone. That was a system which he would have liked to see applied to both old and new licences. Full security was got on the one side, and absolute power on the other. He quite understood that there was a very large monopoly value as regarded a new licence, but if that were only granted for a real

  1369
  public necessity, it was exceedingly unlikely that it would be taken away on account of redundancy. Therefore, the question of redundancy did not arise in connection with new licences, but in regard to old licences which had been granted, in the great majority of cases before 1872. He could speak for one county where no new licence had been granted since 1872, except in one special case for refreshment purposes; and so, if the new licences were granted under the old conditions, there would be full security for the public interest. On the other hand, there would be a large monopoly value, because those licences would be allowed to go on as long as the house was well conducted. The proposal of the Government was to have a seven years system. He wanted to know from the Solicitor-General what was considered the monopoly value of the seven years grant, which at the end of that seven years might be put up to another person who was the highest bidder. He wanted to know what his hon. and learned friend called, under these circumstances, the monopoly value? In his opinion, the Government by this clause were destroying what was very properly a source of benefit to the State without any interference in regard to public order and morality. They were introducing a system which destroyed the very basis on which what was called a monopoly value was truly founded.
  As regarded the seven years system, it might he that a person would be willing to give something for it; but he was quite satisfied that the value of the monopoly grant would be nothing like what was suggested, because the real basis of the value would he taken away on the understanding that at the end of the seven years the rights of the owner might be, and would be, superseded by the licensing magistrates. As to the latter part of the section, the monopoly value, as he understood it, for this purpose was to be estimated in the same way as the compensation value. That was the difference between the value of a licensed house and an unlicensed house. The monopoly value under those circumstances would be a very small thing indeed. What he could not follow was this: In his view, when they were dealing with compensation or monopoly value, they were dealing with licensed premises and
  1370
  not with trade profits. What did these words mean:—
  "Provided that, in estimating the value as licensed premises of hotels or other premises where the profits are not wholly derived from the sale of intoxicating liquor, no increased value arising from profits not so derived shall be taken into consideration."
  Now, in accordance with his view, if the first part of the clause was looked at, profit was not in it at all. Profit was quite outside of it. What had to be dealt with was a very different problem altogether—viz., the value of the premises as licensed or unlicensed. What did the Solicitor-General mean when he said that in certain cases profits were not to be considered? They were not to be considered in any case. There would be nothing but confusion by suggesting a proviso of that kind. How would it be construed? It could only be construed on the supposition that what wore the provision profits were to be brought in, and that would be entirely contrary to the first part of the Amendment of the Solicitor-General. What the Soilcitor-General wanted he could quite understand. The right hon. and learned Member said that in the case of an ordinary public-house it was easy to decide the difference of profit between a licensed and an unlicensed house; but where licensed premises carried on other business it was difficult to separate what profit was due to the licence and what to the other business. That, doubt, was a difficult problem which no would have to be dealt with. It certainly could not be dealt with by excluding profits applicable to a particular part of the business carried on on licensed premises. These points were not brought forward in any antagonistic spirit to the Bill, but in order that they might have a good working measure. He, therefore, hoped that they would have further instruction from the Solicitor-General. Members opposite opposed the Bill from a different point of view. They believed it was a thoroughly bad Bill; but he believed that, in substance, it was a good Bill; and he only wished that the details might be so improved that it would he a final settlement. That was not the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He only wished to make the Bill as good as possible; and he, therefore, hoped that the points to which he referred would be

  1371
  reconsidered. He was very much in favour of the principle of the Bill; and it would be a thousand pities of proper attention were not given to these administrative questions, which would be of great importance in the working of the Act. Difficulties would arise if these matters were not sufficiently considered; and he hoped the Solicitor-General would give further information regarding them.
  SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid that the First Lord of the Treasury had stated what was the object of the Government in reference to this legislation. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was the desire of the Government to extricate the trade and the public generally from the unfortunate position in which they found themselves owing to past legislation, which, although it did not create a legal right, did create a moral right from which the nation wished to be freed. The right hon. Gentleman drew a just distinction between the past and the future; and he laid down the principle that there was a strong desire to prevent the difficulties which had arisen in the past arising in the future, so that they should have a free unfettered hand in dealing with this question. The speech of the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken was in direct antagonism to that. He said that the past system did not inflict any evil, that it was the perfection of a system, and he wanted to perpetuate and extend it.
  MR. CRIPPSsaid the system was amended by the present Bill.
  SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid he knew very well what the hon. Gentleman meant, and what his opposition to the Amendment would result in. Did the hon. Gentleman agree with the view of the Solicitor-General? There would be no difficulty about ascertaining what was the monopoly value. It would be the simplest thing in the world. He wished to say a few words, however, on a matter which he considered of far more importance than the details of the clause, and that was the very important question raised by his hon. friend the Member for Dundee. An hon. Gentleman last night said that he was anxious that the Bill should be a fair and a final
  1372
  settlement. There might be a strong difference of opinion as to its fairness or its finality, but there could be no difference of opinion, so far as the financial aspect of the Bill was concerned, that it was not fair, nor would it be final. His hon. friend had pointed out the enormous financial complications involved in the Bill; and he alluded to the difficulties which existed alike in reference to the taxation and the expenditure of the country. There would not be very much difference of opinion that the country had arrived at an impasse on that question. One of the first subjects, totally outside the question of licensing reform, which would occupy the attention of the country must be its financial position in reference to liquor taxation; and any clause put into this Bill would not be of a binding character in reference to the future financial position of the country. An enormous income was at present derived from this trade; and many hon. Members thought a much greater income would be derived from it in the future. What the clause did was to add to the complications. There would be three or four taxing bodies, so to speak, three or four applications of the money, and, above all, the inevitable question of local taxation would arise. He thought it would have arisen under the present Government with their enormous majority, and that they would have devoted themselves to rectifying the great, growing, and almost intolerable evils of the local taxation of the country. The Government had two Reports from very competent Commissions on the subject. That question would have to be approached with a perfectly unfettered hand with reference to this branch of taxation, whatever scheme of percentages or poundages or compensation or monopoly value might be now introduced. Depend on it the Parliament of the future would deal with a perfectly unfettered hand with this trade as with all other trades, in order to secure for the Imperial Revenue the proper return it ought to get. They might aggrandise the compensation fund, but money raised in one part of the area would be applied as compensation in another part of the area. It was a temporary proposal. It could not last. He believed that even the

  1373
  Prime Minister himself did not believe that it would last. Their only hope was to take from the Government all they could get in this cause; and he hoped the Government would stand firm, and would not reopen the seven years limit. The Prime Minister always fairly appreciated the arguments of those who differed from him; and he hoped that at this last stage the right hon. Gentleman would not consent to any vital alteration of the clause.
  MR. WHITTAKERsaid that when the clause was in Committee no division was taken on it, because they were very anxious to get a new licensing system and to prevent the extension of compensation to new licences. He submitted that the provision had been altogether in sufficiently thought out by the Government. What were the facts? First, there appeared in the Bill a definite proposal. When it came into Committee the Government proposed a whole series of Amendments which practically made a new scheme. Now they pretty well revised half of this new scheme again. These changes clearly indicated that the Government had not thoroughly thought out the licensing question, and were not competent to deal with such a complicated question. They showed that the Government were simply in the learning stage. The Bill would, he was sure, break down in working, and a great deal of it the Government dare not attempt to put into working shape. It was left to the Home Secretary to devise this, that, or the other. The whole system would have to be reconsidered. He regarded it as serious that there should be the possibility of enormous sums of money going into a locality through the granting of licences. The Solicitor-General said that if they granted a number of licences they would destroy the value. He did not agree. Look at the enormous value of licences in towns, notwithstanding their number. Again, there were districts with comparatively few licences. West Ham had the smallest number of public-houses, in proportion to population, of any district in the country. West Ham had trouble enough in the amount of its rates; and what a great temptation it would be if the local authorities could get tens of thousands of pounds by granting new licences. The monopoly value was to be
  1374
  the difference between the value of the house licensed and the house unlicensed. It was the same principle as was to be applied for compensation purposes, and one could not but remember that in that case, on appeal, the Inland Revenue authorities were to fix the value as for estate duty purposes. That was not the annual, but the capital value, and from that it appeared probable that the monopoly value would be the capital value, so that a very considerable lump sum down would be demanded, and that would be a great temptation to localities. He believed that this new system would ultimately be applied to all licences, and then there would be an enormous temptation to the locality to continue and extend the trade.
  The Prime Minister had referred to the desirability of getting rid of the brewers' monopoly. Provision was made for charging the monopoly value, but there was a great difference between the monopoly and the monopoly value, and it did not follow because the monopoly value was to be charged, that the brewers' monopoly would be got rid of. As brewers would probably be the only persons who could pay the large sums required, the new system would tend to increase the brewers' monopoly. The monopoly value was really the result of the enormous profits a brewer was able to make out of a particular house, and those profits had been rendered possible only by the absence of free competition. Beer now cost the brewer enormously less than it used to; the taxation was not nearly so high; materials cost less than half the amount formerly paid; by improved processes much more liquor was obtained from the same quantity of material; and yet the customer paid the same price for his liquor. Because of the monopoly, the ordinary laws of political economy did not operate, and consequently these enormous profits were possible. That was what gave the monopoly value, but the monopoly was something distinct, and that the brewer would still desire to obtain. The number of houses being limited, unless he secured the control of a certain number, the brewer could do practically no trade, therefore he would endeavour to secure the control of the new public-houses, although he had to pay the monopoly

  1375
  price. He was disposed to agree that, although it might not be a question of auction, it would practically be a question of the highest offer. The monopoly value was the price that somebody would pay for the monopoly, and the brewer would pay the highest price, because he would not only get the advantage of the liquor sold, but also secure the trade of that particular house for his brewery. He would probably offer as satisfactory a person to carry on the house as anybody else, and fully comply with all the other conditions, so that the justices would be almost bound, if they were to secure the full monopoly value, to give the licence to the brewer.
  With regard to the seven years term, it was a great defect that the Bill made no provision for the annual review of the conduct of the licence-holder. He felt, however, that if a substantial sum was to be exacted for the licence, there was some inconsistency in expecting a man to take it as a licence for one year. He did not object to a longer term being given, but he thought seven years ought to be the extreme limit to which they should be prepared to go. It would be a great advantage if all the licences in a district were to terminate at the same time, because if ever the community wished to deal with licences under a new system, the fact that the licences were dropping out at different periods would be a serious obstacle. The question of the abolition of licences on the ground of redundancy would not affect new licences, because they would probably be granted for the most pat I in places where there was a considerable c population without a licensed house; but the power of abolition should nevertheless be retained in order that the local authorities might, if they thought fit, institute an entirely new method of dealing with licensed houses. The same would apply if once a substantial reduction were made in the number of public-houses; those that remained without misconduct would probably continue until it was decided to make a distinct and definite change in the whole licensing system.
  He agreed that the question of profits did not come into the determination of the value of premises
  1376
  licensed or unlicensed. When a public-house was put up to auction the profits made in the house were not disclosed; it was sold as a house with a licence attached, and the question of the actual profits made did not come up. In the case of hotels and restaurants there might be some difficulty in arriving at the licensed value of the house as apart from its other value, but he did not think the task was beyond the ingenuity of surveyors and valuers to accomplish. He hoped, therefore, that the proviso to the Solicitor-General's Amendment would be omitted. He did not think that, notwithstanding the payment of the monopoly value, the compensation difficulty would recur, because the conditions which had created the difficulty would not exist. The present difficulty had arisen because an extremely valuable privilege had been granted for a comparatively nominal payment. The moment the full value was paid the privilege would not have a saleable value, and the compensation difficulty would naturally disappear. The one bit of comfort in the Bill was that sooner or later this system of charging the full monopoly value for the licence would, he believed, become universal, and he did not wonder that the trade were growing somewhat uneasy over the matter. Present licence-holders had no moral or legal right to freedom from competition, and the granting of a number of new licences would destroy the monopoly value of those already in existence. Moreover, licence-holders had no right, moral or legal, to the continuance of their licences at the nominal fees now charged, and he believed that before five years had passed Parliament would exercise its power of very materially increasing the licence duties. The only consolation about this measure was that, although the clause was crude, immature, and insufficiently thought out, it was better than the original proposal, and opened up a prospect of considerable reform.
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid he was in the difficulty of not knowing whether he had to reply to a speech made in favour of or against the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman had gone through every possible objection to every scheme

  1377
  yet suggested, and had then represented that the only way of settling the question was to have free trade in liquor.
  MR. WHITTAKER: No.
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid the hon. Member might not have seen what his remarks led to, but he suggested that the only way to destroy the brewer and the existing publican was to grant so many licences that their business would not really be worth carrying on. As the friend of the trade the hon. Gentleman had given a warning to them that they ought to take care that under the system set up by this Bill licences should not be granted in such numbers as to cause the "monopoly" value as it was called to sink from its present value to nothing. But having gone through his arguments, the hon. Member left the House without any result, because, although he had been good enough to tell the House that the proposal of the Government was not thought out and was crude, he wound up a long and interesting speech without making a single suggestion as to what ought to be done. It was clear that it was impossible to do anything which would meet with the approval of the hon. Member who took, and who was quite entitled to take, an extreme view upon this question, and who never spoke with the view of giving the Government any assistance.
  MR. WHITTAKER: That is not my business.
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid there was really no difference of policy between the two sides of the House with regard to these new licences, and the matter was, therefore, one on which an hon. Member might give his views, not with the intention of embarrassing the Government, but of assisting them in setting up a system. Having said so much, he passed from the hon. Member, because he gathered that the hon. Member did not mean to vote against this clause and that he did not desire its withdrawal; because, having thought out nothing for himself, he would rather take the crude and unthought-out plan of the Government than have the law as it was. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for
  1378
  Wolverhampton seemed to think that, on the whole, the Amendment was preferable to the existing law. He rose, apparently, not so much to criticise the Government's scheme for new licences as to make some observations about financial matters. He could not say why the right hon. Gentleman had made the remarks he had made because, as the right hon. Gentleman said that in so far as new financial treatment was concerned the hands of persons acting in the future would be unfettered, he did not see what harm the Bill could do. So far as he had been able to follow the debate the only criticism which he need answer was that of the hon. and learned Member for Stretford. His hon. and learned friend first asked what was a monopoly value and he then answered that question himself, and the hon. Member for the Spen Valley agreed with the answer that a monopoly value really meant what the highest bidder would pay. But it had been made perfectly clear, as regarded the monopoly value, that the magistrates had no power to put up the premises to auction. There could be no question of the highest bidder. The only question the magistrates had to decide was this. When the magistrates granted a licence to a house, the value of the house rose. What caused that increase of value? The licence. In the circumstances, the Government thought it desirable to put into the Bill a definition of monopoly value. He was sure it was better to have it described as they attempted to describe it than to leave it for the magistrates to try to interpret it in their own way. This Amendment was the only way, he thought, of preventing what they all desired to prevent, the growth of such interests in new licensed houses as had arisen, rightly or wrongly, in the past. As to the latter part of the Amendment, it was quite clear that a distinction must be drawn. In the case of a large hotel, in Piccadilly for instance, no doubt in one sense the licence was the necessary adjunct of the business, but the licence would be a very small portion of the profits that arose, although the business could not be carried on without a licence. He commended the Amendment to the House, not at all as a crude proposal. It was one that they had thought out, and until he heard a better one he should

  1379
  continue to admire it, even though it was in his own language.
  SIR ROBERT REIDthought the Government were right in their objections. The monopoly value had nothing to do with security. The monopoly value was that which flowed from the granting of the licences, and he should have thought that the words made use of by the Majority Report of the Royal Commission, "the value of the licence and the goodwill created thereby," would be better and at the same time might be fairly acknowledged as a working definition. Such a definition would fairly meet the case and roughly describe the interest it was sought to conceive. He saw no difficulty in ascertaining the value roughly except in regard to the monopoly which was to be spread over seven years. It must always be a matter of conjecture as to what the monopoly value was seven years before. The Solicitor-General proposed to make an exception under his proviso with regard to the big hotels, but the case of a large hotel was exactly the same as that of a small public-house. Whatever benefit flowed from the licence ought to be reserved to the community; the profits of an hotel might flow in a more indirect way, but that was a question for an arbitrator to deal with. He did not think it would be right to exempt hotels from the liability to pay on profits flowing from the licence. One other point, the fixing of the monopoly value for seven years must always be more or less of a speculative matter and the more lengthy the period fixed the greater certainty there would be that they would not get the amount of monopoly value they desired to have. He thought seven years was long enough and be earnestly hoped the period of seven years would not be extended. He objected to the distribution of the monopoly value among the local authorities, as the amount that each locality would have would depend on the number of new public-houses, and this would be a considerable temptation to the justices, who were amenable to local efforts, to raise large sums by granting new licences, which was a real danger to be guarded against.
  MR. GRETTONsuggested that it would be possible even at
  1380
  the present stage of the Bill to carry out what was evidently the wish of both sides of the House, namely, that the destination of the money to be derived from the new licences should not be the local taxation fund. It might be possible to leave out of the clause the words which assigned the destination of the money and next year by the Finance Bill if possible, or by some other means, to assign the destination of the money. They were agreed on both sides of the House that there should be no arbitrary direction given to the licensing justices to force the new licences on any particular class of applicants. He held with the hon. Member for Stretford, and the hon. Member for Spen Valley, that this assignment of taxation—the monopoly value as it was called—could lead to the extinction of the small man when he was applying for a licence. He thought he could claim to have some knowledge of these matters, and he could not conceive any method by which they could arrive at the monopoly value. The words were unfortunate. The monopoly value could only he ascertained by ascertaining what this particular thing would fetch from a possible purchaser. If, having a house to let, they let it below the rent which it would fetch, they let it below the value. He could not conceive how any valuer or expert could arrive at what was the monoply value, unless he took into consideration what the property would fetch among various applicants. How could they get rid of the "big monopolists?" He adopted the words of hon. Gentlemen opposite. At any rate, both sides of the House were agreed that, in this matter, they should not have the market all to themselves. How could they get rid of them in this direction? If the big monopolist had more funds at his command, naturally he would be able to buy at a higher price, or to give a higher rent, and in that connection be must inevitably raise the value. He was not alone; there were others in the same position, so that the large brewer would be the man who would succeed in getting the licence. He did not think it was the intention of the House of Commons— he believed it was not the intention of the Government—that the small man, the private individual, should

  1381
  be excluded from ever thinking of obtaining a new licence. It should be remembered in this connection that the expenses on going into licensed premises were very heavy indeed. Every alteration of the law put new requirements on the tenants, and larger outlay was needed for fittings. All this was a heavy charge, which must be paid by the little man as we I as the large trading company. These were matters which ought to be taken into consideration, and if they were going to extract from the little man a very large sum, and also going to limit him to a short term, it seemed that the discretion of the magistrates would be so bound up in this matter that the small man could never hope to hold a licence.
  He would have an opportunity of saying more on this subject on a later Amendment, and for the present he would confine his remarks to one matter which he thought had escaped attention. He did not express any opinion on the subject, which was one of public policy, but he thought he was justified in calling attention to it. The new Clause 4, as drawn, would inevitably, he believed, stop that reduction in licences which in many localities was valued by the justices and the public generally. It would prevent undoubtedly the surrender of several old licences for a new licence. He need not go into the whole of the arguments on this subject, but he had taken the opinion of a good many in the trade, and they told him that under the conditions of the heavy payment which would be exacted for a new licence, anyone who had already paid he ivily for an old licence—because the present holders of old licences had not got them for nothing—would not be likely to surrender an old licence in order to acquire a new licence which would involve him in a further heavy payment. If the House thought that the system of surrendering old licences for new ones should be retained, at any rate the discretion of the magistrates should be retained in this matter. He would suggest that an Amendment might be made at a later stage of the Bill for the purpose of preserving that power of the magistrates. He would point out in connection with this matter, that in the eyes of the law there was no such thing as the removal of a licence from old to new
  1382
  premises. In the eyes of the law it was technically the granting of a new licence under Section 50 of the Licensing Act of 1872. He had not a strong opinion on the subject, but if the House thought it wise to preserve the power to the magistrates to transfer an old licence to new premises, a small Amendment to the clause would be necessary.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid that if he understood the Amendment aright its object way to separate the profits from the sale of intoxicating drink, from the profits derived from letting rooms and supplying food.
  SIR EDWARD CARSON: Yes, sir; that is the purpose of the Amendment.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid he believed it was undoubtedly true that in season hotels the tendency of late years had been to consume less and less intoxicating drink. The consequences of that was that the charges for rooms and board had a tendency to increase in proportion as the demand for intoxicants decreased. He believed he was right in stating that a licensed hotel could obtain more money for its rooms and for food than a boarding house possessing similar accommodation as well as equally good furnishing. If that was so, it was scarcely fair and just to the community to draw a hard-and-fast line in separating the profits from drink and from the other sources of revenue of an hotel. The truth of his assertion could easily be substantiated by inquiries His contention was that the licensed house, which obtained more money than a boarding-house in the way he had suggested, should not be let off at the exact line of profits derived only from the sale of wines, beer, and spirits, but that the house should be taxed to some extent upon the extra profit which was made out of the letting of the rooms. It was curious that rooms should fetch more on licensed premises, but it was a fact that they did. The reason he believed was this, that while there was increasing sobriety among the class of people who used these good hotels each year, still even moderate drinkers liked to live under a roof where they could obtain a little drink of that kind if they wanted it.
  MR. WORSLEY-TAYLORcalled the attention of the Solicitor-General to the contrast between the manner in which existing licences were to be dealt with under the Bill and the proposals with regard to new licences. He invited the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the question whether the system proposed for the new licences was altogether in the true interests of the public as the clause and as the Amendment now stood. He took it that they wanted to secure first of all adequate control and supervision over the licences. There was no quesion that that would be secured in regard to the existing licences, because they had to come up for renewal year by year. He agreed with the hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division, however, that there would be a less degree of control in regard to the seven years licences, which it was in the power of the magistrates to grant, than in the case of existing licences, and he looked upon that as a drawback. Secondly, they wanted to secure control in the sense that the State should have the power to step in when a licence was held to be redundant, and to withdraw it on just terms. Thirdly, they wanted to secure that the country should have the best class of houses. Their object should be to get the best possible class of house for this particular business, the best possible class of tenant and the best class of entertainment provided for the public in the shape of food and drink of good quality. This object could not be obtained unless they dealt fairly and liberally with the persons who wished to conduct licensed premises honourably, and who wished to put money into the business. To his mind that was one of the great advantages of that part of the Bill dealing with compensation. If a man knew that, after five, ten, or fifteen years, his licence might be withdrawn as no longer necessary in the interest of the public, and that he could get back, not the whole money he had invested in the improvement of the premises but a reasonable amount, then he would be more ready to spend money on his premises, and to deal liberally with the public. That was secured by the mode of dealing with existing licences proposed by the Bill. He entirely agreed with the power of experiment granted by the Bill. It wets exceedingly widen so that the justices
  1384
  might attach to the grant of the licences such conditions as they thought fit in the interest of the public. But there was only one form of experiment which they might not try, and that was that they might not grant a licence upon conditions which were applicable to the 100,000 existing licences. He regretted that the justices should not have that power. He should like to know whether it was possible to give justices a right to enable applicants for new licences to come in under the old conditions, whereby they could have new licences and he subject to the payment of compensation. He hoped that in making this suggestion he was not too late.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that the House had already decided that compensation should apply only to existing licences.
  MR. WORSLEY-TAYLORsaid he bowed to the Speaker's ruling. As to the provision in the Amendment of the Solicitor-General regarding monopoly value, he doubted whether it would work in the interests of the public. The words of the Amendment were perfectly clear. What the licensing justices were to secure was the monopoly value which teas defined as the difference between the value of the licensed premises and of the same promises if not licensed. He would take a common case. Suppose there were premises which, with an annual licence, commanded a rent of £100, but which, without the licence, would only command a rent of £30. The monopoly value would be £70. Taking a concrete case; how much would it cost to build a house for the purposes of licensed premises of a similar class. He was told that it would be something like £2,000. The return on that £2,000, if the licence were granted, would be £100—a fair return, representing 5 per cent. But then the licensing magistrates would sly—" We are required by this Amendment, which defines the monopoly value, to ask you to pay £70, and when you have paid that you will be able to get £100 as the return for your capital expenditure of £2,000. But you will have to pay us for the privilege of getting this £100, £70." The result of this Amendment would be that no private person or trust company would venture to put money into a licensed house, and the only possible individual who

  1385
  could be expected to take the risk of investing his money under conditions of that kind was the brewer, and especially the large brewer; and if the large brewer did not do so, the alternative would be that either there would be no houses at all in some localities or that clubs would spring up. They were aware in the North of England what that had meant. He knew of one club where the subscriptions came to about £15 or £16, and the amount from the sale of drink to £650. Under these circumstances, he asked the Government to consider the adoption of some words which would mitigate the severity of the requirements laid down in the Amendment. He suggested whether some stronger and clearer words might not be introduced which would allow the justices to consider the expediency of securing that the owner of licensed premises should have some fair and reasonable return on his capital.
  MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid under the new system justices would have no power to give a licence to an applicant for nothing. The licensee must be prepared to pay what was called the monopoly value of the licence. It had been contended that such a system would throw the whole trade into the hands of the big capitalists, because the value of the licence would be beyond the means of the small free tenant and the term for which the licence was granted would be too short to enable the tenant to recoup himself for the necessary outlay in the erection of the licensed premises. The licensee would be called upon to pay for the right to trade during a limited period, and there was nothing to prevent the magistrates from capitalising the value of the licence and allowing the licensee to spread his payments over the whole period for which the licence was granted; and if that were done he saw no difficulty in the way of any prospective tenant of moderate capital applying for a licence, and meeting the payments for the licence out of the profits of each year. Further, the risk that a licensee would lose his licence at the end of the period for which it was granted would be an insurable risk, at a moderate premium. Except in cases where the circumstances of a neighbourhood had greatly changed during the period there was a strong probability
  1386
  that licences granted under this system would be renewed at the end of seven years. While, therefore, he should have felt very strong objection to any proposal which tended to cause licensed houses to drift into the hands of the large brewery companies, he believed magistrates would in this case have large powers to give preferences to free licences and to make the terms of payment easy, so that effect might be given to the force of public opinion in the regulation of the trade in such a manner as would conduce to its being carried on far more satisfactorily than at present, and far more in harmony with the public interest.
  SIR JOHN GORSTasked what would be the position of trust public-houses under this proposal, because they aimed at selling as little alcoholic liquor as possible, and as much tea, coffee, and other temperance refreshments as possible. Magistrates had to obtain the full monopoly value for a new licence, and therefore the owners of trust public-houses would be called upon to pay for the carrying on of a lucrative trade which they did not intend to avail themselves of. This was a burden which trust public-houses ought not to have placed upon them. If the words now proposed were put in there would be no protection for trust public - houses, and the magistrates would exact from the owners of such houses the full monopoly value, thus placing them at a great disadvantage. The Prime Minister had declared himself favourable to every possible experiment being tried for the regulation of the sale of alcoholic liquors, and no experiments had been more successful in this direction than trust public-houses. He wished to know whether under the words now proposed to be substituted it would be necessary for those houses which had no desire to sell alcoholic liquors to pay the high monopoly value for a licence.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he desired to support the appeal which the right hon. Gentleman had made. After what had been said he should not himself have formed the impression that the justices were obliged to take the view which had

  1387
  been put forward. In many places in his constituency there were hotels which were the property of the Crown held under leases which directed the licensee to decrease the sale of intoxicating drink, and they carried out that instruction. He should like to know how such lease: in the future would be affected by this proposal.
  Mr. BRYNMOR JONESexpressed the opinion that if an application was made by a man who proposed to carry on his house as an hotel and who did not propose to have a bar of any kind in the house, but merely required a licence for the purpose of supplying his guests in the hotel, for a licence granted under such conditions the licensing justices should only exact the value of the difference between premises held under such conditions and a private house. It was not an open or competitive licence that would be granted, and the same was the case with regard to the trust public-houses. When an application was made for a licence for a trust public-house the justices should take some security that the application was a bonâ fide one, and that the public-house would be carried on as a trust public-house, where the sale of intoxicating liquors would not be encouraged, and that in those circumstances they should not be compelled to exact a larger monopoly value than the value of the house carried on as a trust public-house. He was quite satisfied with the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman, which he thought would encourage the trust and discourage the open public-house.
  MR DUNCANsaid it was somewhat difficult to know how the monopoly value of these new licences was to be ascertained, because the value was to a very large extent, in the first instance, problematical. The houses established would be in new districts, and it would not be known, for a time at any rate, what custom they were going to receive. So far as he had observed from the advertisements in the trade papers, although no mention of profit was made, yet turnover was in many cases named. A public-house was said to have a return of so many barrels of beer or so much spirits, and when the premises
  1388
  were offered for sale the question of turnover entered very largely into the monetary value. If licences were to be granted for a short period, at the end of which the magistrates were to have the right to revise the amount of monopoly value which the public was to receive, it might be that, in the case of a licence granted to one of the trust companies which restricted very largely the sale of intoxicants, the magistrates could reduce the amount originally fixed as the value of the licence. The Solicitor-General had, he thought, rather unfairly attacked the hon. Member for Spen Valley by saying that his only remedy was to have free trade in the sale of liquor. That was not his understanding of his hon. friend's argument. It was simply that magistrates had the right to destroy the monopoly value by issuing licences broadcast. That was an undoubted power which they had refrained from using, not intentionally for the benefit of the licence-holders, but for social and other reasons. One of the main objections to the Bill was that although this monopoly value was to he scoured in the issue of the new licences yet the public was never going to receive anything of its undoubted interest in the licences already existing. When the Bill was passed an increased value would undoubtedly be given to public-houses by the position they would have obtained by the increased expectation of renewal on account of the suppression of redundant licences. He hoped the House would not accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Blackpool. Not only should new licences not be put upon the old system, but the old licence should be put upon the new system.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the question of the interpretation of the words "as licensed premises" was one of considerable importance. It would be a serious matter if magistrates were compelled to impose the full competitive value, as that would absolutely destroy any chance of setting up public-house trusts, the idea of which was not, to make a profit at all. He

  1389
  suggested the insertion of some such words as—"regard being had to the effect which the conditions attached to the licence may have upon such value."
  SIR EDWARD CARSON: That must always be a factor.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it was really a question of the technical interpretation of the words "as licensed premises." Legal gentlemen of great experience had suggested that the justices would have to consider the premises, not with regard to the conditions imposed, but as ordinary licensed premises, and in order to prevent the possibility of any difficulty arising it should he made perfectly clear that the conditions imposed by the magistrates were to be taken into account when assessing the value of the premises.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that on the question of policy, leaving the legal question to his right hon. friend the Solicitor-General, there could be no doubt as to the intention of the Government. It was never intended that it should be obligatory upon magistrates to put a licence up to public auction or anything analogous thereto. If one of the conditions attached to a licence was—as it might well be—that the house should open only on six days a week, it was manifest that the same amount of money could not be extracted from the licence-holder as might be for a seven days licence. The matter ought to be discussed quite apart from the public-house trust question. One of the objections raised to the auction idea had been that it would drive out the free licence-holder, and give an unfair advantage to a certain class of brewery principals. That, evidently, the magistrates ought not to he compelled to do. If, by imposing less onerous terms, it might be made possible for a free licence-holder to obtain the licence, he thought it would be legitimate for the magistrates to impose those less onerous terms. As to the principle, they were perfectly agreed. Whether the words on the Paper carried with them that principle he was not competent to say with authority, but personally he should have thought they did.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that on this question the House was very much in the hands of those who thoroughly understood the licensing law, and the view taken of these words by certain distinguished lawyers was somewhat alarming. As the question had been raised, he thought it ought to be definitely cleared up.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid it was satisfactory to find that there was no difference of opinion as to the intention and as to what ought to be the effect of this clause. The only question was whether, in view of the opinions which had been expressed, the language of the clause actually carried that intention into effect. Personally, he would have said that it did. The clause contained these expressions, "having regard to proper provision for good management," "securing to the public any monopoly value," and that the monopoly value "is to be represented by the difference between the value which the premises will bear in the opinion of the justices, as licensed premises, and the value of the same premises if they were not licensed." If those three things were taken together, as they ought to be, there should not be any doubt in dealing with such cases as had been mentioned. But, in view of the opinion expressed by some eminent critics, he thought the Government would be well advised to give further consideration to the matter, and see whether there was any ground for the doubts which had been expressed.
  SIR EDWARD CARSONhad not the least doubt that under the clause as it stood it would be perfectly possible for magistrates to deal with each particular case according to the conditions imposed. The granting of a licence under the new system would not be merely the granting of a licence and nothing more. The premises would not become simply licensed premises; they would become licensed premises with conditions attached. The licence itself would have the conditions attached, and according as those conditions were added the value of the premises to which the conditioned licence applied would be increased or decreased. For instance, if the condition were imposed that a house should open oily on three days a week, or at particular

  1391
  hours, the value of the house to which that licence applied "as licensed premises," would be a great deal less than the value of premises holding what was now called a full licence without restrictions. The fallacy which underlay the contrary opinion was due to an attempt to detach the conditions from the licence itself, and to consider the premises as though they had a full licence without restrictions. Many such cases might arise. There might be instances where they would only want a refreshment bar. The matter was all-important, and it had not been overlooked. He would look further into the question, and if it was found necessary an alteration in the direction indicated would be made in another place. As to the Question put to him by the hon. Member for Leicester in regard to the value of a house with and without a licence, he was very anxious to answer the Question, but he did not think he ought to commit himself in that way. Really the point was not a very large one, but he could not see his way to answer the hon. Member's conundrum.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid the question was a large one.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid the case under consideration was that of a public-house conducted with the idea of not selling too much intoxicating drink, although that particular condition might not be attached to the licence. The words in the Bill did not cover the case where the owners endeavoured as far as possible to discourage the sale of drink.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid he should prefer the words remaining as they were. The present form of the proposal would oblige the justices to insist upon all the conditions they imposed being attached to the licence.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Bill—
  "In line 2, after the word 'management' to insert the words and a reasonable return on the expenditure incurred in respect of the premises.'"—(Mr. Worsley-Taylor.)
  Question proposed, "That those words I be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid that the particular case referred to in the Amendment seemed to be a very peculiar one. The hon. Member suggested the case of a man incurring an outlay of £2,000 upon building a house that would not let without a licence at more than £30 a year. He could not think that such a case was likely to arise, and if it did it would certainly be a very exceptional case. He could not conceive of a man incurring such an outlay, and running the chance of getting a licence, for if he failed to obtain the licence he would have the building thrown upon his hands. He would suggest that the words "and the suitability of the premises" would meet the purpose of the hon. and learned Member. But he would consider the point in order to see if anything could be done.
  MR. BOUSFIELDsaid he regarded the subject matter raised by the Amendment as one of the most important which had to be considered in connection with this clause. But he did not think the difficulty which the hon. Member had in view was met by the Amendment. It could only be met, he thought, by allowing the magistrates to grant a licence for such a term as would provide for the return of the capital expenditure incurred in respect of the premises. There were two alternatives suggested. One was suggested by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment now before the House, and the other would be moved by another hon. Gentleman with regard to the extension of the time. The difficulty with which they were faced was a very great one. He was thoroughly in sympathy with the principle intended to be introduced by the clause. The principle, as he understood it, was that a new licence should be granted under such circumstances that the public should secure the monopoly value of the licence, that there should be no equitable or moral right to the renewal of a licence, and that the magistrates should be perfectly free to consider in the public interest, without any question of compensation, whether the licence ought

  1393
  to be granted again. If that was to be done it was quite obvious that they must see that the term for which the licence was granted and the conditions were such that the licensee would have a fair opportunity of reimbursing his capital expenditure. He was afraid the Amendment the hon. Gentleman had proposed did not meet the situation they would have to face at a later period on this clause. The new licensee must be able to go into the premises for such a term and on such conditions as would enable him to recoup himself for his capital expenditure. Otherwise, taking, for instance, the case of a licensee who had incurred a capital expenditure of several thousand pounds, the magistrates would say at the end of seven years that this term was not enough to enable him to recoup his expenditure, and they would consider that he had a moral right to a renewal of the licence.
  MR. CRIPPSsaid that when it was proposed to open new premises plans were submitted to the magistrates, and the applicant got a provisional licence. What his hon. and learned friend wanted to provide was that, a provisional licence having been granted, the fact that large capital expenditure had been incurred should be taken into consideration when a renewal was applied for.
  MR. A. K. LOYDsuggested that the hon. Member for Blackpool should accept the words "and a reasonable return on the expenditure necessarily incurred in providing suitable premises."
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid the Government could not possibly accept this suggestion.
  MR. WORSLEY-TAYLORsaid that, in view of the Solicitor-General's promise to take the matter into consideration, he was prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR JOHN GORSTmoved to amend line 6 by leaving out the words "licensed premises" and inserting the words "so licensed by them." He had only been induced to intervene because of the strong opinion expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Blackpool and the hon. and
  1394
  learned Member opposite, both of whom had large experience in these matters. His object in moving the Amendment was to enable the unlearned to understand perfectly well what the clause meant.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Bill—
  "In line 6, to leave out the words 'licensed premises' and insert the words 'so licensed by them.' —(Sir John Gorst)—instead thereof."
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid he could not grasp the difference between the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman and the words in the clause.
  SIR JOHN GORSTbegged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he wished to move to leave out the provison the first sub-section of the Amendment proposed by the Solicitor-General. He believed that it would turn out that this Amendment would be supported, or opposed, by hon. Members on quite different grounds, and from different points of view. The fact was that this Bill was of a very ambiguous character. It was said that it was a measure of temperance reform, while others regarded it from its financial aspect. It was on financial grounds that he moved his Amendment. The principle of the clause was that the monopoly value was the value accruing to the premises by the fact that they were licensed, and by the restriction of competition. If the value created by the fact that competition was restricted was to go to the State, or the public, he did not see why the collateral profit which was increased by the fact of monopoly should not also go to the public. In the case of hotels there might be ground for special consideration, but this proviso did not refer to hotels alone but to all public-houses. There was no public-house in which the profits were not partly derived from the sale of articles other than intoxicating liquors, and the

  1395
  publican was enabled to charge more for them on account of the privileged position which he occupied. For instance, a man who wanted soda with his whiskey had frequently to pay for that soda three times as much as he would in an unlicensed house. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Bill—
  "In line 7, to leave out from the word 'licensed' to the end, of the Bill." —(Mr. Edmund Robertson.)
  Question proposed. "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid it seemed to the Government to be absolutely necessary in setting up this new system of granting licences to draw a distinction between what he might call ordinary public-houses and hotels and restaurants. Take one of the large hotels, the profits
  of which largely depended on the fact that it supplied accommodation, it was impossible to say that that profit should go to the public. They must draw he line at the profit connected with the sale of liquor. It was for that reason that they had introduced the proviso.
  MR. WHITTAKERsaid that what he and his hon. friends desired to secure was that the whole of the extra value given to the premises by the licence, whether it was from the sale of think or of food, should accrue to the community. He believed that unless this proviso was omitted, all sorts of difficulties and complications would arise, tend the object they had in view would not be secured. He begged to support the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 222; Noes, 126. (Division List No. 281.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Chamberlain, RtHn J. A.(Worc

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

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden

  Charrington, Spencer

  Greene, SirE W(B'rySEdm'nds

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Gretton, John

  Arrol, Sir William

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

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Groves, James Grimble

  Anbrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Colston, Chas, Edw. H. Athole

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hammond, John

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

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

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Balfour, Rt. HnGerald W(Leeds

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Denny, Colonel

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Beach, Rt. Hon, Sir M. Hicks

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Disraeli, Coningsby, Ralph

  Hobhouse, Rtn H(Somers't, E

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnE.

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Bill, Charles

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hoult, Joseph

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Brassey, Albert

  Fergusson, Rt. HnSir J.(Manc'r

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Finlay, Sir Robert Banantyne

  Jessel, CaptainHerbert Merton

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Bull, William James

  Fison, Frederick William

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Butcher, John George

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Kennedy, VincentP. (Cavan, W.

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

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

  Campbell, J. H. M.(DublinUniv

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Keswick, William

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Cavendish, V.C W(Derbyshire.

  Forster, Henry William

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Foster, PhilipS.(Warwick, S.W.

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

  Lawson, John Grant(Yorks. NR

  O'Brien. Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham

  O'Dowd, John

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Stroyan, John

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Pemberton. John S. G.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Percy, Earl

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Long, Rt. Hon. Water(Bristol,S.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Tuff, Charles

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Purvis, Robert

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Pyn, C. Guy

  Tully, Jasper

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Vincent,Col.Sir CEH(Sheffield

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Remannt, James Farquharson

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Renwick, George

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis(EdinburghW

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Ridley, Hon.M W. (Stalybridge

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A C E (Taunton

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Ridley. S. Forde(Bethnal Green

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Maxwell, RtHnSirH E(Wigt'n

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Robinson, Brooke

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Wortley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Wylie, Alexander

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Samuel, Sir HarryS.(Limehouse

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Murray, Rt. HnA Graham(Bute

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  TELLERS FOR TRE AYES.—Sir

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

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

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

  Spear, John Ward

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Allen, Charles P.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Levy, Maurice

  Asher, Alexander

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lloyd-George, David

  Benn, John Williams

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lundon, W.

  Blake, Edward

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Brigg, John

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Burns, John

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Newnes, Sir George

  Burt, Thomas

  Hardie, J Keir(Merthyr Tydvil

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Caldwell, James

  Harwood, George

  O'Brien, Kednal(TipperaryMid

  Cameron, Robert

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Malley, William

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Higham, John Sharpe

  O'Shee. James John

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

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

  Parrott, William

  Cremer, William Randal

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Partington, Oswald

  Crombie, John William

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Cullinan, J.

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Price, Robert John

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Joicey, Sir James

  Rea, Russell

  Delany, William

  Jones, DavidBrynmor (Swansea

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Joyce, Michael

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kearley, Hudson, E.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Lambert, George

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Edwards, Frank

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Robson, William (Snowdon)

  Elibank, Master of

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall(

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  1398

  1399

  Runciman, Walter

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Seely, Maj. J E B(Isle of Wight)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Shackleton, David James

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

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

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Tomkinson, James

  Woodhouse, Sir JT.(Hudders'fd

  Sheehy, David

  Toilmin, George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Slack, John Bamford

  Ure, Alexander

  Whittaker and Mr. Duncan.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  And, it being after half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  LICENSING BILL [6TH ALLOTTED DAY].
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment [27th July] proposed to the Bill, on Consideration, as amended.
  Which Amendment was—
  "In page 3, line 33, after the word 'public,' to insert the words 'subject as follows: (a) Such conditions shall in any case be attached as, having regard to proper provision for good management, the justices think best adapted for securing to the public any monopoly value which is represented by the difference between the value which the premises will bear, in the opinion of the justices, as licensed premises, and the value of the same premises if they were not licensed. Providedthat, in estimating the value as licensed premises of hotels or other premises where the profits are not wholly derived from the sale of intoxicating liquor, no increased value arising from profits not so derived shall be taken into consideration; (b) The amount of any payments imposed under conditions attached in pursuance of this section shall not exceed the amount thus required to secure the monopoly value.'"—(Sir. Edward Carson.)
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. H. LEWISsaid he moved the Amendment standing in his name not in any hostile sense to the proposal of the Government, but in order that everybody should clearly understand the meaning of those proposals. He took it for granted that anything like selling licences by public auction
  1400
  was excluded by these words, but he wished to now in what way it was intended to arrive at this monopoly value. Were the magistrates to have a valuer of their own, or was it intended that they should ask for tenders not binding themselves in any particular, or in what particular mode was it proposed that the magistrates should ascertain the monopoly value so that it should not exceed the amount mentioned in Subsection (b) of the Amendment? It was for this reason, and for the purpose of asking the hon. and learned Gentleman, for the information of the House, to explain the purport of the Amendment and the way in which it was proposed to ascertain the monopoly value that he now begged to move.
  Another Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Bill—
  "In line 12, to leave out paragraph (b)."— (Mr. J. H. Lewis.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid it had been thought necessary to insert this clause for the purpose of showing that what the magistrates were to consider was not the question of who was the highest bidder but what, having regard to proper provision for good management, they deemed to be the monopoly value. It was impossible that they should ask for tenders. The application would be made exactly as it was made at the present time in respect to specific premises. The magistrates would form their conclusions as to what the premises were worth without a licence; and they would also form their conclusions as to what a suitable applicant would give for the premises if he were taking them as licensed premises. It was not a matter that could be reduced to a strictly

  1401
  scientific process. Honourable and skilful valuers differed in their valuation, but that did not prevent juries from making up their minds as to the value of property with which they were called upon to deal. These matters had been presented in a very exaggerated way. The question of valuation would right itself. The valuation must be a valuation relative to the disabilities created in connection with the new licences. When it was said, "How will it pay a man to take a licence at such an enormous sum for a few years?" the answer was that if the transaction would not pay people would not enter into it. It was impossible to lay down any abstract principle of valuation. Supply and demand, situation, length of term, and other questions entered into the matter. On such considerations and on such evidence as might be necessary the magistrates would come to a determination what sum they ought to ask for the monopoly value. The object of this subsection was to provide that the magistrates should not, reckless of other matters, grant a licence to a man who offered to give a great deal more than another. Such a system would lead to the selection of licence-holders without regard to character or the methods by which they conducted business, and would tend to foster a system under which their chief object would be to drive a great trade.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid the right hon. Gentleman had not answered, so far as he could discover, the Question of the hon. Member for Flint Boroughs as to whether the justices in the administration of this clause would have power to employ valuers. The right hon. Gentleman had said that they would take the evidence of skilled witnesses; but would all their advice be confined to what they heard from skilled witnesses, who, in all probability, would be brought forward by the brewers? He submitted that inasmuch as under the Act of 1872 it had been found necessary to give the justices power to employ valuers to ascertain annual values, it would be necessary to give the same powers here when the value to be ascertained was the much more complicated monopoly value. It might be said that the views taken by
  1402
  valuers of the value of a property very often differed very widely, and it might also be said that their views sometimes varied according to the interest of the parties for whom they were engaged; it would, therefore, seem only businesslike to allow the magistrates to employ a valuer to give them advice from the public point of view, without bias. He hoped before the Bill reached its final stage this point would be considered.
  MR. H. C. RICHARDSthought there would be great difficulty in the way of giving the magistrates power to employ skilled valuers, unless it were stipulated that the valuer retained by the magistrates should never undertake other business in the same neighbourhood; because, unless that were done, there would be the danger of the valuer coming forward in support of a licence, and the fact that he was the valuer of the magistrates would give his support much greater weight than it would otherwise possess. With regard to provisional licences, he believed that this proviso would give rise to many applications of that character. Applications would be made upon plans for certain sites, and better that magistrates should be able to signify their requirements as to the position and nature of the premises rather than have to consider competing applications. There was certain to be a number of applications for every probable new licence in any district with a steadily increasing population. If there was no such proviso as that now proposed, there would be great danger of magistrates who were members of municipal authorities attempting to drive batgains and accepting the highest bidder, and that, he submitted, would be a graved scandal. He appealed to the real friends of temperance on the other side not to support the omission of these words, as by so doing they would simply bring about the state of affairs suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries earlier in the afternoon. If the magistrates were not to consider the personal of the site, the matter would resolve itself simply into a question of money, and that would mean that all new licences would go into the hands of capitalists to the exclusion of the honest publican
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid the hon. and learned Member opposite might rest assured that valuers would have no more difficulty in giving evidence in one year of a precisely opposite effect to that which they had given in a preceding year, than the hon. and learned Member himself would have in advocating different sets of views on different occasions. With regard to this new sub-section, the monopoly value was to be the difference between the value of the premises unlicensed and the value of the premises licensed. The value to whom? Was it the value to the applicant? If so, surely the applicant ought to know what was the value of the difference to him. Then the value to a brewery company would be much greater than the value to an ordinary applicant. To a brewery company deriving both the wholesale and the retail profits the monopoly value might be £1,000 as compared with £500 to the man who would have only the retail profit. Other things being equal, why should the magistrates refuse the £1,000 in order to accept the £500 In that way the brewery companies would be given a great advantage. But, being more desirous of securing good management than of obtaining the capitalised value of the new licences, he recognised that the clause was a step in the right direction, and in that spirit, though he would like the proposal to have gone farther, he thought it should be supported.
  MR. DUKEthought this new departure in licensing was capable of affording a solution of almost all the difficulties arising out of almost all the difficulties arising our of the present state of things in the country. But from the clause as it stood it was not quite clear how the justice were to be guided in arriving at the monopoly value. He doubted whether at present they had any sufficient or suitable machinery for that purpose. Believing as he did that the sub-section would be the means of preventing the growth of the tied-house system, he should support it; but he thought the House ought to have an explanation on the point he had raised, because it was a question of arriving at the value not in a country district where everything about a man was known, but in important urban districts where the amount involved might be large, and it
  1404
  was necessary to prevent the justices from being misled by the representatives of existing systems into fixing upon the new licences such exaggerated values as would result in making the new houses nothing more than replicas of the most inferior houses under the present system.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid the Solicitor-General appeared to distinguish between two kinds of monopoly value, and that was really where the difficulty in this question would arise. There were, indeed, two separate monopoly values—the value to the retailer, and the value to the brewery company of the monopoly which they were able to establish in regard to the output of beer through the channel of a particular public-house. The remarks of the Solicitor-General seemed to imply that the clause was to be limited to the monopoly value to the retailer. He believed the new system would have the effect of increasing the number of tied houses. The position of the tied tenant was such that the retail monopoly value diminished as the wholesale monopoly value increased; and if only the retail monopoly value was to be taken into account, it would be within the power o a brewery company who owned the premises to reduce that value to vanishing point, at the same time reserving to themselves the great monopoly value which they at present possessed. That was a serious matter, and would really destroy whatever value this proposal might otherwise have possessed. They had given the magistrates power to employ a valuer to determine the amount of compensation, but they did not possess any such power in regard to ascertaining the monopoly value. He hoped thin omission in the Bill which had been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Somerset would be remedied.
  MR. HELMEsaid he trusted that the Bill would provide the magistrates with funds to carry out the important suggestions which had been made, and not leave them without professional advice in determining values.
  MR. J. H. LEWISsaid he had formally moved the Amendment

  1405
  standing in his name on the Paper. He had made this proposal in no hostile sense, and he simply wanted to obtain an explanation of the sub-section. He wished to know whether the Government would provide for this extremely important I point by enabling the magistrates to appoint a valuer for this purpose.
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid he did not think this matter was so important as the hon. Member seemed to think. He had never known an application for a new licence where there had not been the strongest opposition, and those opposing the granting of a licence would certainly try to increase the monopoly value. As regarded Section 47, what was done there was that the magistrates, at the expense of the applicant, employed a valuer. He did not see why in this case, if it became necessary, the magistrates should not appoint a valuer in the same way.
  MR. DUKEreminded the Solicitor-General that in a great many of these cases the application would be refused.
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid he saw no reason why the magistrates should not say to the applicant that they were not in a position to decide the matter without appointing a valuer, and that if he went on with the application he would have to pay the cost of the valuation.
  MR. J. H. LEWISasked permission to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Proposed words inserted in the Bill.
  MR. DISRAELImoved the omission of Sub-section 3 of Clause 4,which provides for the granting of a new on-licence for a term not exceeding seven years, which shall not require renewal during the continuance of the term. As the discussion on Clause 4 had proceeded they had gone from bad to worse, and the clause was now so involved and difficult to understand that he feared magistrates would not know how it would work, and the result would be that very few new licences would be granted. Those magistrates who had had
  1406
  any experience in this matter would be disgusted at the way this question had been treated and the difficulties which had been thrown in the way. The Solicitor-General had said that there would always be a great deal of opposition to the granting of new licences, and that this would tend to raise the value of the licence, but that had not been his experience. The opposition was generally in the direction of showing that the licence was not needed and that there was no demand for a public-house in that particular part of the district. Under this Bill the magistrates would become public-house brokers and valuers,and they would be taking upon themselves duties for which they had no machinery. He protested against this granting a longer period for a licence; if they could put these new licences upon the same basis as the old licences he ventured to think that the clause would work smoothly. This differentiation in regard to licences was not a thing which people understood, and they would not understand why in one case a certain sum had to be paid for the licence whilst a much larger sum had to be paid in another case. These new licences ought to be put upon the same basis as the old ones, at the same time retaining all the monopoly value, but ascertaining that value by some other machinery and not through the magistrates, who were totally unequipped for performing such a duty. He dreaded the first application that would be made to the bench with which he was connected for a new licence, for although his bench might be quite satisfied that the neighbourhood wanted the licence they would be sure to be very reticent about granting it. This Bill bristled so much with technical points and difficulties that it would be almost a dead letter. He submitted that it was a very bad thing to allow any class of licensee to hold his licence for seven years without the usual annual review. He was absolutely in favour of the annual licence, and he hoped that the Government would even now see that they were making this 4th Clause so involved that no body of magistrates would be able to work it. The Government contended that by obtaining the monopoly value for a licence they had done away with the vested interest, but in his opinion

  1407
  the vested interest existed under these new licences in a far more dangerous way that it had ever existed under the old system of annual licences. Those hon. Members who looked more to the legislation in regard to new licences for temperance reform than to the extinction of existing licences by compensation could only feel dismayed at the manner in which this clause had been mutilated and twisted.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 3, line 313, to leave out Sub-section (3) of Clause 4."—(Mr. Disraeli.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'not,' in line 37, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. BOUSFIELDwished to know what would happen if this Amendment were carried. He took it that the result would be that one year licences would continue to be granted. There was no system of compensation in regard to one year licences, and therefore he presumed that they would stand exactly upon the same footing as licences now stood. He hoped this section would be made more workable than it was as it stood. A large majority of Members of the House approved of the principle contained in the section. The fact was that the only principle on which this clause could rest, if they were not going to have the old system of equities grow up in connection with new licences, was that the term given under the clause should he sufficiently long to compensate the licence-holder for the capital expenditure he made when he applied for a new licence. That, he thought, was absolutely necessary to the success of the new system.
  MR. GRETTONsaid the small brewer would not be able to apply for one of the new licences because he would not be able to make the outlay on the premises, and at the same time pay for the monopoly value. He did not think it was the Government's intention that new licences should be granted exclusively to large brewery companies. The only possible way in which a valuer could ascertain the monopoly value was to find out what the new licence would fetch in the open
  1408
  market, and there the large brewery companies would be able to offer the highest price. It was not possible under this section, with only a seven years limit, for a small man surrendering a very large proportion of his profit to recoup himself if he did not obtain renewal after seven years. Only a large company owning many licences, some of which might succeed, would be able to recoup itself from the wholesale profits and not from the retail profits—and so be able to compete for a new licence. What he wanted to urge upon the House was that further discretion should be granted to the magistrates for the express purpose of their being able to grant licences to free licence-holders. He claimed for them equal consideration to that accorded to the trust companies. There was another aspect of the matter. The conditions were so onerous and difficult that very few brewery companies would be able to apply for those new licences, and the only solution of the question was in districts where there were large towns, where public authorities themselves would have to erect premises and hire out the licences for various periods. If that was to be the solution, however, not many Members would approve of it. What they wanted in this clause was more elasticity—that the magistrates might have power to extend the term if they considered that the small man was the best person to occupy the house.
  MR. BONDasked whether the intention of the Government was to make things slightly easier to the proposed licensee, to give him better security for the licence he was applying for, or was it intended to make things harder than they were already, and not to allow any new licence to be granted at all, except on terms so onerous and difficult that no one would apply, except now and again a brewer or hotel-keeper. Suppose the object was to make things easier, the clause was singularly ill-adapted to carry out that purpose. The discussion had proceeded upon the assumption that a term of seven years, neither more nor less, would be offered to any applicant who came forward, but, as a matter of fact, the clause said nothing of the kind. It left the discretion in the

  1409
  hands of the magistrates; they might not grant more than seven years but they might grant any term less than that. He supposed they might grant a term of a year only. What was the position of a man who wanted under this provision to obtain a licence? First of all the monopoly value was taken from him. Over and above that, he had got to pay for the licence, provide a house, fit it up, and his money so expended he could not hope to get back in full or anything like in full if the licence was refused, and yet he was supposed to come forward and be content if the magistrate should decide to grant the licence for one year only; at the end of that year he would have to come again and have the monopoly value charged against him once more. If it was really intended by the Bill to make it possible for the small men to take a licence and make reasonable profits, the discretion left by the clause to the magistrates should be taken away. They should not be allowed to grant a licence under these circumstances for one year, but a fixed term should be set up in the Bill and a less term than that should not be granted. If the object of the Government were to remove the sense of hardship the clause would produce and to mitigate the deterrent effect of the clause, the right course was to lay it down that if the applicant satisfied the other conditions and paid the monopoly value he should have a definite term in order that he might have security against disturbance. That object would certainly not be effected by striking out the sub-section altogether, although it might be by introducing proper Amendments. Therefore he could not vote against the Amendment.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid he understood the Amendment had reference to Sub-section 2, although they were to a certain extent discussing Sub-section 3. He thought the blouse was to be congratulated on the fact that the hon. Member for Derbyshire had intervened in the debate. He was an authority on this question. He was in a certain sense the father of the Bill, for he introduced the deputation from the trade to the Prime Minister. At any rate, the speech the hon. Member had just delivered was an illuminating one. Speaking as a
  1410
  large brewer he referred to the little man who, having no money, had no chance against the big brewer, but the speech of the hon. Member, as he understood it, was directed not so much in favour of the little man, of whom he had no fear, but against the trust companies. As a matter of fact, there were two points involved in the Amendment. The first was, that the new licences might be granted for seven years, and the second was, whether the monopoly value should go to the licence-holder or to the owner. He maintained that the interpretation of the Amendment was that the monopoly value did not go to the licence-holder, He thought that they, on that side of the House, quite understood and appreciated the difficulties in connection with this matter; still, they thought that the monopoly value should go to the licence-holder and not to the brewer.
  MR. CRIPPSsaid he naturally approached this question from au entirely different point of view from that of the hon. Gentleman opposite. His desire was to make the Bill as workable as possible. He was not concerned to discuss the monopoly value at present, although his view was that the monopoly value might be made the subject of Imperial taxation. He understood that, in the view of the Prime Minister, the clause did not in any sense interfere with the system of granting a licence for an annual term as at present.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!
  MR. CRIPPSsaid that to his mind that was very satisfactory, because it brought the licence within the review of the magistrates from year to year, and that was one of the most important safeguards of our licensing system. There was another point he wished to put to the Prime Minister. If they were to take the monopoly value, they must allow a sufficiently long period of time to give something in the nature of real security to the person who applied for the licence. If they made the term as short as seven years, they would either have tied houses pure and simple, or a system of municipal public-houses, which would be worse still.
  MR. GROVESsaid that it could not be claimed, so far as their contributions to the debates were concerned, that the voice of the brewers had been heard too much in the land. The brewers had refrained from obtruding their opinions on the House with regard to the question of new licences; but they recognised the earnest desire of the Government to place the question of new I licences in the future on an entirely different footing from that in which it had stood in the past. There had been very large contributions on the theorising side of the question during the debates, and it might be as well if they had a word on the practical side. If the Bill was to be a workmanlike measure, they most decide either to make the new licences annual, with a reasonable prospect of renewal, or to fix such a period as would give the applicant a reasonable security for the outlay which the magistrates demanded of him. An applicant for a new licence did not come before a bench of magistrates with an ordinary dwelling house. He produced plans for a new house, or of an old house altered, fitted for the requirements of the neigh-bourhood. These would show that a large outlay was required, and, as he had said, they must give the applicant an annual grant with a reasonable prospect of renewal, or fix a period which would afford a reasonable security for the investment of his money. He desired it to be understood that the brewers did not wish their own personal views on this matter to have more than undue importance. In the future they wished to stand in the same position as any ordinary applicant. The hon. Member opposite endeavoured to draw distinction between what he called the honest publican and the brewer's nominee. He did not think that the licensing magistrates would consider, in granting a new licence, whether the applicant had £500 or £1,000, or from what source he derived his capital, but only the requirements of the neighbourhood. He thought that if the Government hampered the discretion of the licensing magistrates by fixing the maximum at seven years they would make this clause practically unworkable.
  MR. CORBETTsaid that he regarded elasticity as to
  1412
  the period of licences as of very great importance, because if the justices were obliged to grant licences always for seven years, licences would be dropping in irregularly from year to year, whereas if they had the discretion to grant for a lengthy period they would be able to group licences together according to particular districts, these would come up for renewal at the same time and the licensing justices could examine the question as a whole with regard to what was best for the interests of the neighbourhood. He sincerely hoped the Government would not agree to any concession to grant licences beyond seven years. There would be many difficulties if a longer period were granted.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that same of the criticisms which had been passed upon the sub-section were based upon misapprehensions of what it was the clause proposed to do and not to do. He had been asked by the hon. and learned Member for Stretford whether there was any intention on the part of the Government to suggest to the magistrates that their best course was to give new licences for the term of seven years. There was no such suggestion in the clause, and there was no such intention in the minds of the Government. The Bill simply said that new licences should not be granted for a longer term than seven Years. It had been argued that that was a suggestion to the magistrates to grant new licences for seven years. But could any one suggest a form of words limiting the period to seven years which could not be said to suggest that the period should be seven years? Besides, the potential licensee would have something to say in the matter. He might prefer a licence for one year or two years, or any term of years up to seven, and the magistrates, whatever the period for which they might have a theoretical preference, would yield to his wishes in the desire to secure him as the best licensee. It had been also asked whether the attempt to capture the monopoly value for the public did not necessarily involve a long tenure. He did not think so. It had been assumed by those who had argued against the Government clause that the monopoly value would be a large sum of money in all cases. It would, in some

  1413
  cases, he believed, be a large sum, in other cases it would be practically nothing. This would depend not wholly, but largely, on the terms exacted by the magistrates. Their requirements as to the fashion in which a house should be built, or as to the alteration to be made, might entirely absorb the monopoly value. All the Government desired was that where monopoly value really existed it should go to the public, not to the licensee. The business of the magistrates was not to extort money for the public either by putting up licences for auction, or by exacting harsh terms from the licensee. Their business was to get the best man they could to manage the business, and to arrange with him so that there should be no monopoly value, but only a fair value. That being the principle, could it be better carried out than in the way the Government had attempted to carry it out in the clause? He did not believe the clause was in the least degree unworkable. He did not believe any jealousy would be excited as between the old licence-holders and the new. The circumstances of each would be different and the terms would be different. He did not think any complications would ensue at all. The only doubt he had ever entertained was whether, in certain circumstances, the magistrates might desire improvements on so large a scale, or impose conditions so onerous as to not only swallow up all the monopoly value, but to deter any reasonable business man from taking the premises at all on a seven years lease. He hoped and believed that this would not be so, and that the seven years lease would be found sufficient to cover all the risks. He hoped the House would accept the sub-section in the form the Government proposed.
  MR. BONDsaid he wished to move an Amendment extending the term for which new licences might be granted from seven to fifteen years. He doubted whether it would be considered that there had been adequate discussion on the surprising new proposals put forward at that late stage of the Bill. It had been argued by the Prime Minister that when
  1414
  magistrates were considering whether they should grant a new licence they would be disposed to take into account, in determining the monopoly value, the expenditure to which the applicant had been put in constructing the premises. But that was a misapprehension. There was a distinct direction that magistrates were to attach such conditions to the licence as to obtain for the public the whole benefit of the monopoly value, and there was nothing whatever said about taking into account the expenditure the applicant had been put to. That would be an additional burden upon him after he had paid the monopoly value of the licence. That being the case, it seemed to him that the magistrates I should be given the very fullest power of granting to licensees such a term as would enable them to reap the ordinary advantages which as traders they might expect to get out of premises which they had constructed to supply the needs of a particular trade. Unless it was the settled purpose of the Government to make it almost impossible for new licences to be granted in any circumstances, he thought they might reasonably accept the Amendment. If justice was to be done to the requirements of the community and a legitimate trade was to be carried on in districts where it was needed, then he thought magistrates should at least have power to grant to licensees terms which would enable them to recoup themselves for the expenditure to which they had been put, and earn a legitimate profit upon the trade which they carried on.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 3, line 37, to leave out the word 'seven' and to insert the word 'fifteen'—(Mr. Bond)—instead thereof."
  Question proposed, "That the word 'seven' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that there seemed to be confused in this discussion the interest of the future licence-holder and the interest of the public. The licence-holder need not be considered. No man need apply for a licence if he was going to be injured. The interest of the public was another matter, and he agreed with his hon. friend that it was desirable to grant licences on terms

  1415
  which should bring forward good buildings and good men. There was, however, no evidence to show that the alteration from seven to fifteen years would attain that result.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid he wished to move to insert as a proviso at the end of the clause—
  "Provided that no new licence shall be granted where the premises are in the vicinity of any place of worship or school."
  There was no doubt as to the desirability of such a condition being attached to a new licence. As the First Lord of the Treasury had pointed out, they had to consider not the pecuniary interests of the applicant but the interests of the public. In the United States this condition was attached to all licences, and it would also be part of the new Transvaal liquor law. A new system as regarded new licences would be established under the Act, and it was desirable that a general direction in the sense indicated should be given. The Amendment was
  one of substance, and he hoped the Government would be able to accept it.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 3, line 42, at the end, to add the words Provided that no new licence shall be granted where the premises are in the vicinity of any place of worship or school.'"—(Mr. Herbert Roberts.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that it was impossible to accept this Amendment, for two reasons. First, there must be a definition of "vicinity," otherwise the magistrates would Le "at sea"; and, second, if the Amendment were adopted, it would inflict great injustice. At the end of a term of years, whether one year or seven years, the next licence would be a new licence. It would be impossible to grant that licence if in the meanwhile a chapel or a church had been built in the neighbourhood.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 121; Noes, 216. (Division List No. 285.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Asher, Alexander

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Grant, Corrie

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Newnes, Sir George

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Norman, Henry

  Benn, John Williams

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Brigg, John

  Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

  Partington, Oswald

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Harwood, George

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Helme Norval Watson

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Price, Robert John

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Rea, Russell

  Caldwell, James

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

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Cremer, William Randal

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Crooks, William

  Joicey, Sir James

  Runciman, Walter

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lambert, George

  Seely, Maj. J.E.B.(Isle of Wight)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Langley, Batty

  Shackleton, David James

  Duncan, J. (Hastings)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Edwards, Frank

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Elibank, Master of

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Ellice, Capt. EC(S. Andrw'sBghs

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Slack, John Bamford

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lloyd-George, David

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Lough, Thomas

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Sullivan, Donal

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

  Tennant, Harold John

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T(Huddersf'd

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Toulmin, George

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  TELLERS FOR TEE AYES—Mr.

  Ure, Alexander

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Herbert Roberts and Mr.

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Tomlinson.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Arrol, Sir William

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Long, Col. CharlesW.(Evesham

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Long, Rt. HT1. Walter (Bristol,S.)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lowe, Francis William

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Lucas, Col, Francis (Lowestoft)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Balcarres, Lord

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. GeraldW(Leeds

  Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S.W.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gardner, Ernest

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

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

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. Hicks

  Gordon, Maj. Evans(T'rH'mlets

  Maxwell,RtHn.SirH.E.(Wigt'n

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Bigwood, James

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Bill, Charles

  Greene, SirE. W.(B'rySEdm'nds

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Bingham, Lord

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Bond, Edward

  Gretton, John

  Morgan, David. J.(Walthamstow

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Groves, James Grimble

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Brassey, Albert

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Mount, William Arthur

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham(Bute

  Bull, William James

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Butcher, John George

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Campbell, J.H.M(Dublin Univ.

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Heaton, John Henniker

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

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Peel, Hn. Win. Robert Wellesley

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Percy, Earl

  Chamberlain, RtHn J.A.(Worc.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Hobhouse,RtHn11.(Somers'tE

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Hoult, Joseph

  Pym, C. Guy

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

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hunt, Rowland

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Renwick, George

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

  Cross, Herb, Shepherd (Bolton)

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

  Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Keswick, William

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Davies, Sir HoratioD.(Chatham

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir FredDixon

  Lawson, JohnGrant (Yorks, N.R

  Samuel, SirHarry S.(Limehouse

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Lee, Arthnr H.(Hants., Fareham

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  1418

  1419

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Tully, Jasper

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

  Stanley Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Vincent, Col. SirC. E.H (Sheffield

  Wylie, Alexander

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'dUniv.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Thompson, Dr. EC(Monagh'n, N

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

  Tuff, Charles

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Question, "That the Amendment be made," put, and agreed to.

  And it being after Eleven of the clock, Mr. Speaker proceeded, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 5th July, successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given, and on every Question necessary to dispose of the allotted Business to be concluded on the 6th allotted day.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 4, line 33, after the word 'number,' to insert the words 'and seven shall be substituted for three as the minimum number.'" —(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 4, line 33, at the end, to insert the words, 'The justices of any borough, not being a county borough but having a separate commission of the peace, shall be entitled to appoint one of their number to act with reference to the determination of any question as to the refusal of the renewal of a licence under this Act, and any proceedings consequential thereon, on the
  committee appointed under this section by quarter sessions, and for those purposes any justice so appointed shall be deemed to be an additional member of the committee.'"—(Sir Edward Carson.)
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 5, line 7, to leave out from the word 'for,' to the word 'committees,' in line 8, and insert the words 'constituting where requisite.'"—(Sir Edward Carson)— instead thereof."
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 5, line 8, to leave out from the word 'sessions,' to the word 'standing,' in line 10.'"—(Sir Edward Carson.)
  Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 224; Noes, 135. (Division List No. 286.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

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

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bond, Edward

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Arrol, Sir William

  Brassey, Albert

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bull, William James

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Butcher, John George

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Balcarres, Lord

  Campbell, J.H.M.(DublinUniv.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

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

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Davenport, William Bromley

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

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Davies, SirHoratioD.(Chatham

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Beach, Rt. Hn. SirMichaelHicks

  Chamberlain, RtHn. J.A.(Worc.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Chamberlayne, T.(S'thampton)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir FredDixon

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Charrington, Spencer

  Doogan, P. C.

  Bigwood, James

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Bill, Charles

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Bingham, Lord

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

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

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

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

  Renwick, George

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Long, Col. CharlesW.(Evesham)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Forster, Henry William

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

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

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

  Lowe, Francis William

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Gardner, Ernest

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Greene, Sir E.W(B'rySEdm'nds

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Spear, John Ward

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

  Gretton, John

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord(Lancs.)

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Groves, James Grimble

  Maxwell, RtHn. Sir H.E(Wigt'n

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G(Oxf'dUniv.

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

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

  Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R.(Dulwich)

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Tuff, Charles

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Tully, Jasper

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Valentia, Viscount

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

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

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E(Taunton

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Hoult, Joseph

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

  Houston, Robert Paterson

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

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

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

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Wortley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Percy, Earl

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Wylie, Alexander

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Keswick, William

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Pym, C. Guy

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Randles, John S.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  NOES

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Caldwell, James

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Allen, Charles P.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Edwards, Frank

  Asher, Alexander

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Elibank, Master of

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Ellice, Capt. E.C(SAndrw'sBghs

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Crooks, William

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Benn, John Williams

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Blake, Edward

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Brigg, John

  Delany, William

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  1422

  1423

  Grant, Corrie

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Seely, Maj. J.E.B.(Isle of Wight

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Shackleton, David James

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Harwood, George

  Mitchell, Edw.(Fermanagh, N.)

  Slack, John Bamford

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Newnes, Sir George

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Norman, Henry

  Sullivan, Donal

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

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

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

  Tennant, Harold John

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

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

  Tomkinson, James

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Malley, William

  Toulmin, George

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Shee, James John

  Ure, Alexander

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Partington, Oswald

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Price, Robert John

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Lambert, George

  Rea, Russell

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Langley, Batty

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Rickett, J. Compton

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

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T(Huddersf'd

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Runciman, Walter

  Mr. Whittaker and Mr.

  Lundon, W.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Goddard.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Question, "That the Amendment be made," put, and agreed to.

  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 5, line 10, to leave out from the word 'and,' to the first word "for,' in line 14.'"—(Sir Edward Carson.)
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 5, line 35, after the word 'an,' to insert the word 'existing.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 6, line 9, after the word 'an,' to insert the word 'existing.' "—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 6, line 14, at the end, to insert the word 'and.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 6, line 17, to leave out the word 'but,' and insert the words 'Provided that.'—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas)—instead thereof."
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 6, line 20, to leave out the words quarter sessions for the whole county,' and insert the words the justices sitting at each such separate sessions'—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas)—instead thereof."
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 6, line 28, after the word 'alone,' to insert the words 'or sweets alone.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 6, line 36, at the end, to insert the words, Provided that where a provisional grant and order of confirmation of an on-licence has been made before the passing of this Act under Section twenty-two of The Licensing Act, 1874, and is subsequently declared to be final under that section, the licence shall, although not in force at the date of the passing of this Act, be deemed to be an existing on-licence."—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
  Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 221; Noes, 132. (Division List No. 287.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Arrol, Sir William

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

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

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gardner, Ernest

  Maxwell, RtHn. Sir H.E(Wigt'n

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

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

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

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

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

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Greene, Sir E.W(B'rySEdm'nds

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir MichaelHicks

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Gretton, John

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Bigwood, James

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Bingham, Lord

  Groves, James Grimble

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Mount, William Arthur

  Bond, Edward

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Harris, F. Leverton(Tynetn'th)

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

  Brassey, Albert

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R.(Dulwich)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Bull, William James

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Butcher, John George

  Heath, James (Statfords., N.W.

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

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

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Henderson, Sir A.(Statford, W.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Percy, Earl

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Cecil, Lord Wugh (Greenwich)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Chamberlain,Rt Hn. J.A(Worc.

  Hope, J.F.(Shettield, Brightside

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Chamberlayne, T.(S'thampton)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Charrington, Spencer

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Pym, C. Guy

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Handles, John S.

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rateliff, R. F.

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

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Renwick, George

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Kenyon, Ho. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

  Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.)

  Keswick, William

  Ridley, S.Forde(Bethnal Green

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Davies, Sir HoratioD.(Chatham

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

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

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

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Dimsdale. Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnE.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Long, Col. CharlesW.(Evesham

  Spear, John Ward

  Duke, Henry Edward

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

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

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

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G(Oxf'dUinv.

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

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

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Wylie, Alexander

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E(Taunton

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Tuff, Charles

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Tully, Jasper

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

  Valentia, Viscount

  Willoughby de Ereshy, Lord

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Vincent, Col. SirC. E.H(Sheffield

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

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Vincent,' Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Shee, James John

  Allen, Charles P.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Partington, Oswald

  Asher, Alexander

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hammond, John

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry

  Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

  Price, Robert John

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Harwood, George

  Rea, Russell

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Helene, Norval Watson

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Benn, John Williams

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Blake, Edward

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

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Brigg, John

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Runciman, Walter

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Caldwell, James

  Joicey, Sir James

  Schwalm, Charles E.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Jones, D. Brvnmor (Swansea)

  Seely, Maj. J.E.B.(Isleof Wight

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  Shackleton, David James

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Kennedy, VincentP.(Cavan, W.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lambert, George

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Crooks, William

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Layland- Barratt, Francis

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Delany, William

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Tomkinson, James

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lundon, W.

  Toulmin, George

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Trevelyn, Charles Philips

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Edwards, Frank

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney)

  Elibank, Master of

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Ellice,Capt E.C(SAndrw'sBghs

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Murphy, John

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Newnes, Sir George

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

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Norman, Henry

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T(Huddersf'd

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Malley, William

  William M'Arthur.

  Bill to be read the third time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 283.]

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now. adjourn." —(Sir
  1428
  A. Acland-Hood.)—put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes before Twelve o'clock.