Sitting of 7 June 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Bill [Lords]. To be read a second time upon Tuesday next.
Barrow-in Furness Corporation Bill [Lords]; Bournemouth Corporation (Tramways) Bill [Lords]; Bristol Corporation Bill [Lords]; Filey Improvement Bill [Lords]; Great Western Railway Bill [Lords]; Holywood Tramways Bill [Lords]; North Wales Electric Power Bill [Lords]; Portmadoc, Beddgelert, and South Snowdon Railway Bill [Lords]; Preston Corporation Water Bill [Lords]; St. Mary Woolnoth Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
Standing Orders. Ordered, That so much of Standing Order 91 as fixes Five as the quorum of the Select Committee on Standing Orders be read and suspended. Ordered, That for the remainder of the Session Three be the quorum of the Committee.—(Mr. Halsey.)
Loch Leven Water Power Bill. "To confer further Powers on the Loch Leven Water and Electric Power Company; and to extend the time for the purchase of lands and for the completion of part of the authorised works of that Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP I).
The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS informed the House that the Committee on Group I of Private Bills, not being appointed to meet until Wednesday, 8th June, the parties opposing the Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 4) Bill (Portsmouth Order) had appeared before him and proved that the evidence of Mr. Mosely Somers Gardner, Surgeon General Faught, Mr. Edwin Bradshaw, and Mr. George Ebenezer Stares was essential to their

915
case; and that their attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House. Ordered, That Mr. Mosely Somers Gardner, Surgeon General Taught, Mr. Edwin Bradshaw, and Mr. George Ebenezer Stares do attend the Committee on Group I of Private Bills Tomorrow, at half-past Eleven of the o'clock.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
St. Marylebone Electric Lighting Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—Cambrian Railways Bill [Lords]; Nuneaton and Chilvers Coton Urban District Council Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

PETITIONS.
  ALKALI, ETC., WORKS REGULATION BILL.
  Petition from Manchester, in favour; to be upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Leith; Dalgety; and Sorn; to lie upon the Table.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES, ETC., BILL.
  Petition from Portsmouth, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND VALUES (ASSESSMENT AND RATING BILL).
  Petition from Burton-upon-Trent, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Burley in Wharfedale; Manaccan; Otley; Stoke Newington; Devonport (two); Southampton (two); Upton Cross; Ilfracombe (two); Barnstaple; Woolfardisworthy; Welcombe: Newton Abbot (two); Mortonhampstead; Kettering (four); Hornsey; Watlington; Caversham; Britwell Salome and Ewelme; Russell's Water; Henley on Thames; Watlington; Chalgrove; Glasgow (six); Notting Hill; Darlington; East Dereham; Forest Hill; Derby (four); Ingatestone (two); Cooksmill Green; Norton Heath; Hatfield;
  916
  Brentford; Saint Albans; Salford, Leyton; Coatbridge (two); Holbrook; Bayswater; Tamworth; Battersea; Lymm; Northenden; Bowdon (two); Blackburn; Hammersmith; Bedminster; Finchley; Wavertree; Bristol (six); Lanark; Anniesland; Bridlington; Blaydon; Whickham; Carstairs; Mitian; Silverwell; Saint Agnes; Dunston-on-Tyne; Appledore; Bideford; Lancaster; Gloucester; Kidderminster (two); Birmingham (three); Little Milton; Great Milton; Wilmslow; Brighton; Stirling North; Lancaster; Galgate; Warton; Wray; Tewitfield; Arkholme; Holme; Waterloo; Caton; Silverdale; Worksop; Kingsteignton; Newtown; Northfield; Flixton; Davyhulme; Esh Winning; Durham; Mount Hawk; Carnforth; Lozant Callington; Camelford; Aslacton; Harwich; Govan; Selly Oak (two); Edinburgh; Little Hulton; Altrincham; Sale; Knutsford; Saffron Walden; Radford; Oxford; Bellshill; Tayport; Fenny Stratford; Exeter (two); Chudleigh; Lustleigh; St. Martin; Rushden; Stanwick; Rowley Regis; Cumberland; Dumfries; Perranporth; Coverack; Manchester (four); Wheal Frances; Montrose (two); Arbroath (two); Kennington Lane; Bovey Tracey (two); High Blantyre; Walsingham (two); Forfar; Forfar North; Brechin; Spring Hill; St. Keverne; West Dean; Bradford; Greenock; Ecclefechan; Stoke Newington; Nottingham; Coventry (two); Women's Liberal Federation; Folkestone; Mawnan; Hinckley; Thornaby on Tees; Stockton on Tees (two); Bath (two); Bridge; Radstock; Camerton; Wells; Wishaw; Withington; Brixham; Deptford; Woburn Sands; Bletchley; Eltham; East Ham; Wanstead; Tenby; Great Malvern (two); Malvern Link; Small Heath; Bolingey; Fife; Keighley (four); Winterbourne; Chelston; Iron Acton; Highbury; Penzance; Islington; Teddington; Upper Boddington; Surbiton; Hanworth; Hampton; Abingdon; Salford (two); Southport (three); Princetown (seven); Grasslot; Maryport (four); Congleton; Shepley; Portsmouth; Fakenham; London; Gunwen; Greenock; Beeston; Alveston; Wigton; Morecambe; Matterdale; Newbiggin; Dundee; Stainton; Newton Heath; (four); Norwich (four); Polmont; Blowick; Everton; Newchurch; St Just (three); St. Ives;

  917
  Prestleigh; Pilton; Middlesbrough (two) Ayr; Torrington; Newtown; Denby Dale (two); Skelmanthorpe; Lower Cumberworth; Congleton; Stevenage; Walkern; Macclesfield (four) Kirkford; Randwick; Standish; Drayton; Ryecroft; Stirling; Kilsyth; Stirlingshire; Penrith; Hampton Hill; Slaithwaite; Brigham and Cockermouth; Thornbury; Ilkeston; Luton; Rye Hill; Bolton (two); Lower Withington; Eastville Park; Hertford; Middlewich; Davenport; Chester (two); Tallywain; Intake; Lancashire and Cheshire; Fulshaw; Morley; Wilmslow (two); Frampton Cotterell; Luddenden Dean; Luddenden; Earthcott Green; Grimsbury; Cosham; Heatherlands; Chipping Warden; Thornaby on Tees; Lambeth; Portobello; Lancaster; Westminster; Calverton; Mold; Wilsden; Kinross; Skeeby; Thornton; Townhill; Taunton; Almondsbury; Pocklington; Chorley; Elvaston; Hulton; Olveston; Stroud; and Fareham; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Penzance Tottenham (two); Leith; Westbury on Trym; Clacton on Sea; and South Tottenham; to be upon the Table.
  RE-VACCINATION BILL.
  Petitions against; from Poplar; and Keighley; to lie upon the Table.
  RE-VACCINATION BILL.
  Petition from Bermondsey, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SEA FISHERIES BILL [LORDS].
  Petition from Lowestoft, against; to lie upon the Table.
  VALUATION BILL.
  Petition from Ely, against; to lie upon the Table,
  VALUATION BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Sunderland; Southwell; and Goole; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS ETC.
  COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) REGISTRARS (SALARIES, ETC.).
  Return [presented 31st May] to be printed. [No. 198.]
  INDIAN ARMY (MEMORANDUM).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 3rd June; Sir Howard Vincent]; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES AND QUARRIES.
  Copy presented, of Reports of His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines for the year 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PRISONS (RULES FOR CONVICT PRISONS).
  Copy presented, of Draft of New Rules proposed to be made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the government of Convict Prisons [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 199.]
  METROPOLITAN GAS (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire and report as to Gas Testing in the Metropolis [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 3rd June, 1904, authorising the lease of a house and small yard attached, at the landward end of the West Pier, Kingstown [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 2nd June, 1904, granting a retired allowance to Matthew Farrelly, Examining Officer, 2nd Class, Liverpool, Customs [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (NATURAL FERTILISERS).
  Address for "Copy of Memorandum on the subject of the existence of natural fertilisers in India in proximity to land suitable for growing cotton, prepared by the Department of Agriculture in India."—(Mr. Emmott.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Holidays of Metropolitan Police Force.
  MR. LOUGH: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the amount of leave granted to members of the Metropolitan Police Force; whether he is

  919
  aware that, in accordance with a Memorandum issued by Sir Edward Bradford on the 8th September, 1900, many men lose fortnightly leave owing to its falling due during the time they are on annual leave, and that they are debarred from adding this fortnightly leave to their annual leave; and whether he can arrange, as in the case of postmen, that both leaves may be taken consecutively.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The annual leave granted to the several ranks of the Metropolitan Police, is as follows:—

  Superintendents

  42 days

  Chief and Local Inspectors

  21 days

  Sub-Divisional Inspectors

  19 days

  Inspectors

  17 days

  Station Sergeants and Divisional Clerks

  15 days

  Sergeants

  13 days

  Constables

  10 days

  In addition to annual leave, one day's leave is granted fortnightly to all ranks except that of superintendent. The Commissioner has for some time had under his consideration the question of granting an extra day's leave in lieu of any day of fortnightly leave which happens to fall within the period of annual leave; and I understand that he hopes shortly to be able to make arrangements for this purpose, but it will not be possible to allow the extra day to be taken continuously with the annual leave.

  Undersized Fish Bill—Date of Second Beading.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now say when it is proposed to take the Second Reading of the Undersized Fish Bill.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I am afraid I cannot fix a day for the Second Reading of this Bill. I understand, however, that arrangements are on foot which afford some promise that certain objections which have been taken to the Bill may be mitigated.

  Water Supply of Erbusaig School, Ross-shire.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether
  920
  he is aware that the water supply for Erbusaig Public School, Ross-shire, consists of surface water drained into a shallow well unprovided with a suitable protecting cover; that the water is liable to all sorts of animal pollution; and that in dry weather the supply ceases; and, seeing that the water is often quite unfit for drinking purposes, and that an ample supply of spring water may be obtained from the hill face three or four hundred yards from the school, will the Local Government Board for Scotland suggest to the local authorities the expediency of having the water conveyed to the school by pipes from this source.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I am informed that the water supply for Erbusaig School, though ample at present, is conducted into the premises from a shallow surface well and is liable to be affected by drought. A plentiful supply of good water is, however, always obtainable within eighty yards of the school.

  Discipline in Scottish Poorhouses— Amalgamation of Scottish Poorhouses.
  MR. HALDANE: To ask the Secretary for Scotland, with reference to the Report of the Departmental Committee on Poor Law Medical Relief, whether the Local Government Board have yet considered the question of the discipline and punishment of inmates of Scottish poorhouses; and, if so, to state what steps they intend to take in the matter.
  MR. HALDANE: Also to ask the Secretary for Scotland, with reference to the Report of the Departmental Committee on Poor Law Medical Relief, whether the Local Government Board have yet considered if any, and what, poorhouses should be amalgamated with others on the ground that they contain few inmates; and, if so, to state what action they intend to take in regard thereto.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I have to refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave yesterday to Questions addressed to me by the hon. Member for Berwickshire in regard to this matter.†
  † See page 800.

  Certificates of Deduction of Income-Tax on Coupons of Consol Certificates.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the Bank of England now refusing to give certificates of deduct ion of tax on coupons of Consol certificates cashed in the past, but yet within the statutory limit for obtaining a refund of income-tax, except upon such certificates being asked for by the persons or bankers presenting the coupons for encashment, and in view of the number of persons residing abroad who are not able to fulfil these conditions by reason of their not knowing by what London bankers or agents these coupons were presented for encashment, he will issue instructions to the Inland Revenue Department to obtain, as they have done in the past, certificates of deduction of tax from the Bank of England on the production of an affidavit from the owners of the Consol certificates and the coupons that they belonged to them during the period for which they are making a claim for refund of tax.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) It is hardly likely that cases of hardship such as suggested by the hon. Member could arise. But, if such cases should occur in connection with coupons already cashed, they shall be investigated and considered on their merits.

  Sale of the Fitzgerald Estate, County Mayo.
  DR. AMBROSE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Fitzgerald Estate, situate at Turlough, Castlebar, county Mayo, is about to be sold; that negotiations are taking place for the sale of the untenanted lands to graziers; and whether, in view of the fact that there are several small farmers in the neighbourhood of those grazing lands, he will see that those lands are purchased with a view to the enlargement of the holdings of those farmers.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Negotiations are pending, I understand, for the sate of this estate; but, so far, no originating application in respect of sale has been lodged with the Estates Commissioners. Should such an applica-
  922
  tion be made, the Commissioners will have due regard to all the circumstances of the estate before sanctioning advances.

  Electric Lighting for the Four Courts, Dublin.
  MR. HEMPHILL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the delay in introducing electric lighting in the Four Courts, Dublin; and, if so, whether he will take steps to expedite the action of the Board of Works in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The question of lighting the Four Courts and other public offices in Dublin by electricity is under consideration; but, until negotiations now proceeding with the Dublin Corporation as to the cost of current are concluded, it is not possible to decide whether the expense of the change will be justified.

  Prevention of Corruption Bill—Second Reading.
  MR. CHANNING: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the general demand for the passing into law of the Prevention of Corruption Bill, and will take steps to secure the Second Reading at an early date with a view of it being passed this session.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I should be glad to see this Bill passed, but the state of public business does not enable me at present to make any definite arrangement as to taking the further stages of the measure.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Training Vessels and the Western Highlands.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether arrangements will be made for a training vessel to visit Lochbroom, Ross-shire, and other parts of the Western Highlands this summer.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): The "Cleopatra" has

  923
  recently visited Lochbroom and is now at Stornoway. It has been arranged that she should visit Gare Loch later in the month.

  Punishment of Natives in the Transvaal Mines.
  MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has now any information confirming or contradicting the statements of the Native Chiefs Umzimkulu and Umhalla that natives in the Transvaal mines are convicted for trivial offences, and after the expiry of their sentences are sent, against their will, for six months' service in the mines.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): I have not yet received a reply to my communication to Lord Milner on the subject, but expect it directly.
  MR. WHITLEY: I will repeat the Question next Monday.

  Chinese Labour in the Transvaal.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state how many women and children accompanied, or will follow, the thousand Chinese coolies who are now on their way to the Transvaal.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I understand that though emigrants were made thoroughly aware of provision made for taking out families and special accommodation on board was ready, none took advantage of the privilege, and that it is impossible to say how many may send for their families later on, which they have been encouraged to do.

  India's Contributions to, and Benefits from, the Imperial Institute.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state what is the total amount of the funds contributed by the chiefs, princes, and people of India, either as direct donations or through their local Governments, to the Imperial Institute; what is the proportion of that amount which has been spent on the erection of the
  924
  Institute and on its endowment, respectively; what has been the total cost to Indian revenues of the Indian section of the Institute since its foundation; also the present annual giant made by India for its upkeep, and towards the maintenance of the Research Department; and what are the special benefits that India is deriving from the expenditure under the last-mentioned heading.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,: The total sum subscribed by India for the Imperial Institute was £114,528. As the Indian subscriptions were paid into the general fund, aggregating £426,000, from which the Institute was built and endowed, it is not possible to say to what extent they were appropriated for the building or for the endowment. The total of the annual grants from Indian revenues for the maintenance of the Indian section over a period of thirteen years amounted to £20,361 up to 31st March, 1904. The Indian Government expended 10,000 rupees on a collection of raw products, which from time to time it has supplemented and renewed. The present annual grant for the maintenance of the section is £1,525, which includes a sum of £200 as a contribution to the Research Department of the Institute in return for laboratory reports on Indian products. This work is done on behalf, and at the instance, of the Government of India, and is important and valuable.

  Protection for Mecca Pilgrims.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the pilgrims who recently returned to Cairo from the pilgrimage to Mecca complain of the ill-treatment they received at the hands of the Bedouins, especially in the neighbourhood of Mecca; the caravans being attacked and the pilgrims, men, women, and children, maltreated and subjected to various indignities; and, having regard to the fact that the pilgrimage was made under arrangements sanctioned by the Egyptian Government, will he consider the expediency of making representations to that Government with a view to securing protection for the Mecca pilgrimage next year.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The Egyptian Government are already considering what arrangement can be made for the better protection of the pilgrims next year.

  Repatriation of Macedonian Refugees
  Mr. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps are being taken by the Turkish and Bulgarian Governments to repatriate the Macedonians who took refuge in Bulgaria; and, if so, whether any monetary gifts or advances, other than gifts from charitable societies, are being made by those Governments to the returning refugees to enable them to make a new start.
  Earl PERCY: Mixed Commissions have been formed by the two Governments at eight points on the frontier line where the refugees are allowed to cross and a note is taken by both the Turkish and Bulgarian officials of their names, their native places, and the goods they bring with them. Moreover, the cooperation of the French Consul at Adrianople and of the British Military Attaché at Constantinople has been accepted to supervise the work of repatriation. The Bulgarian Government allotted £4,000 towards repatriation and have since decided to borrow £40,000 from the Banque Agricole and to distribute it among the refugees in the form of loans repayable, without interest, after five years. 3,000 liras have been advanced by the Turkish Agricultural Bank, assisted by the Imperial Treasury, for seed and other purchases.

  The Macedonian Gendarmerie.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can present copies of General Giorgis' proposals as to the establishment and organisation of the Macedonian gendarmerie and a statement showing which of those proposals have been accepted by the Turkish Government.
  Earl PERCY: The Papers in question are of a confidential nature, and His Majesty's Government are not at present
  926
  at liberty to communicate them to the House.

  Macedonian Reform—Reports of Assessors.
  Mr. CHARLES ALLEN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Assessors in Macedonia have as yet made any tours in the country districts of Macedonia; and, if so, whether they were accompanied by Turkish officials; and whether the Government can lay upon the Table any reports received from them.
  Earl PERCY: The Austro-Hungarian Assessor has left Salonica for Uscub. The Russian Assessor is ill and will be replaced temporarily by Monsieur de Giers, the Russian Consul-General at Salonica. The elaboration of the scheme of reforms has, we understand, up to the present necessarily made large demands upon their time, and His Majesty's Government have received no representations from the Austro-Hungarian and Russian Governments that the freedom of action of their agents has been hampered by conditions insisted upon by the Turkish Government. No reports from them have as yet been communicated to us.

  Administration of Colonial Possessions.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any decision has yet been reached as to the transfer of the British East Africa and Uganda Protectorates from the Foreign Office to the Colonial Office.
  Earl PERCY: It is proposed that the transfer shall take place next year.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: May I ask whether, under the circumstances, the noble Lord will consider the advisability of refraining from leaving any sort of irritation behind him in the way of land settlements.
  EARL PERCY: We should of course be equally anxious to avoid giving any cause for such irritation whether the Protectorates are transferred or not.
  Mr. BAYLEY: Will Zanzibar and Pemba also be transferred to the Colonial Office?
  EARL PERCY: I must ask for notice of that Question.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Will the transfer take place at the beginning of the financial year?
  EARL PERCY: I should think it probable.

  Income-tax Abatements
  Mr. FIELD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that an owner or lessor is obliged to pay income-tax on the valuation of house property (if not himself the occupier) even though he derives no net income from same (the head rent, local taxes, and repairs often absorbing the gross income derivable from same), and that in the case of a claim for abatement or exemption no deduction is allowed for the diminution of income owing to money expended for the repairs of house property, he will consider the advisability of amending the law so that the owner may not lose the benefits of the statutory abatement or exemption and be obliged to pay income-tax on an income he does not receive.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,: The statutory deduction from the assessment upon a house of one-sixth of its full annual value—which is granted by Section 35 of the Finance Act, 1894—is, I think, amply sufficient in ordinary cases to cover all necessary expenditure in connection with the up-keep of the property, and no further allowance seems to be called for. As regards head rent (to which the hon. Member refers as absorbing part of the income derived from such property) the owner of the house is entitled to deduct income-tax from the payment made to the ground landlord, thus throwing upon the latter the burden of the duty, and such head rent would not be regarded as part of the owner's income for the purpose of ascertaining his title to exemption or abatement.

  Over-payments of Income-tax
  Mr. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, having regard to the fact that the London and Westminster Bank, Limited, as agents for the Cape Government, deducted 1s. 3d. in the £ from dividends paid 15th April, 1903, and that this is 4d. in the £ in excess of the amount due for income-tax on that date, will he state how much of the £3,300 thus overpaid has since been refunded by the Inland Revenue to stockholders; and will arrangements be made for moneys overpaid to the Inland Revenue as income-tax by agents for Government loans to be refunded to such agents.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY of the TREASURY (Mr. Victor CAVENDISH,: The amount refunded in respect of this transaction is not separately recorded and cannot be stated. Arrangements are made for moneys overpaid to the Inland Revenue as income-tax to be refunded in all cases when application is made in the prescribed manner.

  Female Learners in Provincial Post Offices.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been directed to cases in provincial post offices in which young women, who have passed their examinations satisfactorily, have been retained from two to four years as learners, receiving only five shillings a week; and whether he has taken any action to diminish the number of such cases.
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord Stanley,: I am aware that in some cases paid female learners have had to wait a considerable time before vacancies occurred to which they could be appointed, and, as I recently explained, wherever it is found that the number of vacancies on the establishment is not so great as was anticipated, steps are taken to diminish the number of learners.

  Hospital Accommodation in Ross-shire.
  Mr. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the statement contained in the last report of the medical officer of health for Ross and Cromarty relative to the need of hospital accommodation for the county, will he state

  929
  what decision the Local Government Board have arrived at on the subject.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The question of hospital accommodation for the district of the county of Ross has received and is still receiving the careful consideration of the Local Government Board. I shall be happy to give the hon. Member more detailed information privately, as it would take too long to give it in answer to a Question.

  Water Supply to Ross-shire Schools
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the statement! contained in the last report of the medical officer of health for Ross and Cromarty in regard to the necessity for a suitable supply of pure water for the public schools, will he state how many of the 135 public schools in Ross-shire have a water supply laid on to the premises.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I have not details as to how each school in Ross-shire is supplied with water, but out of the fifty-three schools on the mainland as to which I have information thirteen have water laid on; the remaining forty are supplied from an adjoining well or stream. In Lewis almost every school has the supply laid on.

  Tralee and Dingle Railway.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is able to state in what position the negotiations respecting the Tralee and Dingle Railway are at present; and whether he will submit to the House the proposed agreement previous to its being accepted, and whether it will contain clauses to safeguard the public rights.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,: The negotiations are still in progress. The terms of any arrangement which may be arrived at between the Government and the Great Southern and Western Railway Company will be communicated to the county council.
  *MR. NANNETTI: Are we to understand that this House will have no voice in the settlement of the agreement?
  Mr. WYNDHAMwas understood to replay in the negative.
  MR. MURPHY: Is the arrangement to be submitted to the county council for its approval or is it merely to be indicated to it?
  MR. WYNDHAM: It is one of the parties to the transaction.

  The Irish Society's Londonderry Estates.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in the pending sale of the Irish estates of the Honourable the Irish Society, offers of sale have been made to non-agricultural tenants within the county borough of Londonderry, and to the owners of villa residences outside the city, whereas in many cases outside the county borough the society have refused to sell to agricultural tenants their holdings; and whether, considering that the Irish Society are merely trustees for the citizens of Londonderry and surrounding districts, the Estates Commissioners will consult the Londonderry Corporation and the Londonderry County Council, as representing the beneficiaries, before sanctioning the sale of the estate, or any part thereof, or, in the alternative, will he appoint a Committee of this House to see that the objects of the trust created by charter are duly carried out, and that the beneficiaries do not suffer any loss by the pending sale.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The local rumours and apprehensions on which this Question is evidently based are, as in many other cases, totally devoid of foundation. I am informed by the Irish Society that it has offered to sell to every agricultural tenant on these estates. The terms offered and accepted were identical in the case of every agricultural holding, except on some seven holdings in close proximity to the city of Londonderry. No similar offers have been made to non-agricultural tenants within the city boundary. The question whether the agreements made by the Society with their tenants come within the scope of the Act in all such cases will be for the consideration of the Estates Commissioners. The issue of the usual notices by the Commissioners before vesting the

  931
  estate will afford all parties interested therein an opportunity for making any application they may be advised. I wish, however, to guard myself from admitting that the property of the Irish Society is bound by any trusts for any specific purpose which could be inferred in a Court of law or which prevents the Society from selling to its tenants on terms of which it approves. The reply to the concluding inquiry is in the negative.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: Did not a Select Committee of this House decide that the Irish Society were only trustees?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am not aware; but that does not preclude their selling the property to tenants under the terms of the Land Act of last session.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Does the Land Act of last session apply to villa residences?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member is as familiar with the terms of the Act as I am.

  Irish Joint Stock Banks and the Banking Arrangements for the Land Act.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is aware that a number of the leading Irish Joint Stock Banks have been in communication with the Irish Office since October last on the subject of the banking arrangements in connection with the Land Purchase (Ireland) Act and other matters, and that these banks have recently conveyed to the Irish Office their dissatisfaction with the decision on the question arrived at by that office; and, if so, whether, in view of the importance of the subject, he will give facilities for discussing it in the House.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: We have been anxious to meet as far as possible the wishes of the Irish Joint Stock Banks, and with this object in view we have made it plain that the annuities payable by the purchasers can be paid into any bank for transmission to the Land Commission Account at the
  932
  Bank of Ireland. If the hon. and learned Member desires to discuss the question in this House a suitable opportunity would be afforded by the Irish Land Commission Vote. But perhaps I may be allowed to suggest that the most convenient course would be for representatives of the banks to meet the Chief Secretary and myself to discuss the matter privately before any such debate takes place, as I believe a preliminary discussion would be more likely to lead to a satisfactory understanding between us.

  Overtime at Omagh Post Office
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the overtime performed in the Omagh Post Office during the past year has been frequently arranged by a sorting clerk and telegraphist and performed by that officer and another member of the staff, and that the amount of extra duty performed by those two officers during that period exceeded that of the remainder of the appointed staff; and, if so, will he give instructions to have the overtime at Omagh equally distributed among the sorting clerks and telegraphists at that office.
  LORD STANLEY: During the past year the duty of arranging the overtime at Omagh has occasionally devolved upon the senior sorting clerk and telegraphist, but only in the absence of his superior officers. I am satisfied that the extra duty at Omagh has, on the whole, been distributed in the most suitable manner.

  Corners in Cotton—The Zurich Congress
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that at the Zurich Cotton Congress, on the Motion of a German representative, the Congress unanimously decided to urge the Cotton Exchanges of New York, New Orleans, Liverpool, and Alexandria to consider the measures to be adopted to prevent persons who have no direct interest in the cotton trade from operating in the market to the detriment of the whole industry, and also to draw the attention of the Governments of Europe to this matter; and whether the Government will co-operate

  933
  in treating this subject as an international question.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: Yes, Sir. I have seen the newspaper reports to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If those reports are accurate, evidently the conference at Zurich desired to rely on the non-Governmental action of the authorities in the various centres of the cotton industry, and there seems nothing in the resolution at which they arrived which would require Governmental action on the part either of this country or other countries. If any request comes to this Government for joint action, that request will be carefully considered, although there are advantages in action being taken altogether outside the action of Governments. Perhaps I may add, for the information of the hon. Gentleman and the House, that this question is being very carefully considered by the Commission on Food Supplies.
  MR. MARKHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of making it a criminal offence to attempt to corner necessaries of life.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, that is one of the extreme propositions which, I have no doubt, are being considered by the commission.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Mr. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, the following fifteen Members in respect of the Shop Hours Bill: Mr. William Abraham (Rhondda), Sir Frederick Banbury, Mr. Cameron Corbett, Sir Charles Dilke, Sir Walter Foster, Mr. Ernest Gray, Mr. Bonar Law, Mr. William Lawrence, Dr. Macnamara, Captain Norton, Sir Francis Sharp Powell, Mr. Herbert Robertson, Mr. Thornton, Mr. Herbert Samuel, and Mr. Whitley.
Report to lie upon the Table.

LICENSING BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 1:—
Amendment again proposed—
"In page 1, line 5, to insert, at the beginning, the words 'During the period of seven years after the passing of this Act.'"—(Mr. Ellis Griffith.)
Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Amendment again proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"To leave out the word 'seven,' and insert the word 'fourteen."—(Colonel Williams.—)
Question again proposed, "That the word 'seven' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid that the Colonial Secretary the previous night stated that the Amendment would involve a proposal of confiscation, but he Mr. (Atherley-Jones) declared that it was this Bill and this Bill only which would possibly involve confiscation, because by it they were endeavouring to establish a vested interest by brewers and publicans in their property. At the present time it was idle to talk of confiscation There was really no confiscation involved in dealing with licences under the existing law. It was otherwise under the Bill, and what they were attempting to do was to modify the effects of this Bill. If this Bill were passed, they were obliged to recognise that the principle of compensation had been assented to by the House, and therefore they were endeavouring to give the brewers and publicans time to consider their position and provide for it, and to insure at the end of that time having that free hand which they believed they at present enjoyed. He disputed that there was any analogy between the compensation proposed by this Bill and that proposed by the Workmen's Compensation Act. The present position was as nearly as possible analogous to that under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Many of them were not opposed to

935
the principle of compensation, they were not opposed to the principle of compensation by the brewers and publicans in their interest, but what they said was that it was not right to crystallise for ever a number of public-houses. There had grown up a kind of idea among publicans that they had something like a moral right, but 80 per cent of the public-houses were owned by brewers, and it was ridiculous to suppose that they had been under a misapprehension. The clearest proof that they had not was that three of their number were at the present time directors of the Licensed Victuallers Insurance Company. It was absurd to say that there was anything approaching a vested interest in these public-houses, and he believed, if they gave the publican fourteen years notice, they would afford him no excuse not to insure. He repudiated the idea of hardship in the case of a publican who lost his licence just after the period of the time limit. The man paid just the same as a person who insured his life for the years during which his premiums were paid and not for any prospective period. The man who insured his life for seven years and then omitted to renew his insurance might as well complain that he had not the misfortune to die during the period he paid. These arguments were fantastic. It might be that a few of the owners of the 1869 beerhouses would suffer and not be able to insure and he was not attached to any hard and fast rule. He thought special provision might be made for them. They desired not to act harshly or ungenerously, but they believed this was a great social evil and that the Bill would not promote temperance, though it might affect some slight improvement in certain localities. They wanted temperance carried on upon lines which could only be secured by permanently establishing full recognition of the principle that licences were licences, and not vested interests.
SIR GEORGE BARTLEYsaid that in considering this question it seemed to him that the Committee, or other some Members of it, were under a misapprehension as to the subject of the time limit. He was, perhaps, rather sceptical whether the reduction in the
936
number of public-houses would have very much effect in reducing intemperance. He had studied the statistics in connection with that matter a great deal, and he could not reconcile the fact that reducing the number of public-houses would as a natural sequence reduce intemperance. Taking the case of London, of which he knew, perhaps, more than of any other town, he admitted there were too many licensed premises, and, of course, he would like to see a reduction in the number, especially of the smaller houses and of those established under the Act of 1869. The time limit was an attractive sort of thing, but it seemed to him that it was a mistake, and he could not think that the object of the Bill would be promoted by incorporating it in the measure. If he was interested in the liquor trade, which he was not, he did not know that he should mind whether there was a time limit or not, because, whatever period might be introduced, they would still be on the horns of a dilemma. No man would put money into a business if it were liable to be ruthlessly interfered with in the way some hon. Gentlemen appeared to think this trade should be. It seemed to him, therefore, that the introduction of the time limit would really retard the object which hon. Gentlemen opposite professed to have in view. Of course, they approached this matter with different ideas. Some thought that the insertion of a time limit implied that at the end of the period, whatever it might lie, seven, fourteen, or twenty-one years, they would have the houses put in a position that they could be shut up forthwith if the magistrates thought fit. But, in his opinion, at the end of the period they would remain in practically the same position as they were at present. Of course, he knew they were not all agreed upon that point, but he, for one, could not believe that the houses would necessarily be shut up at the end of a time limit. A public-house, after all, was a reasonable and proper institution if properly conducted. The only way of approaching this subject fairly and properly was to seek to do away with the houses which were redundant, and he thought, looking at the Amendment, that without a time limit they would be able to effect a great deal more in that direction than if they had a time limit. Reference had been made in

937
the course of the debate to the fact that about 25 per cent. of the houses in London would be done away with under the Bill. It seemed to him that if they could get rid of 25 per cent. of the worst public houses in London, even if the Bill did nothing else, it would be a very good result indeed to have achieved, and he Could not understand hon. Gentlemen opposite objecting to the passing of a measure which would have such an effect. They professed to desire to promote temperance, and yet they were objecting to a Bill which would, they admitted, have the effect of closing 25 per cent. of the public-houses in the Metropolis.
MR. LOUGH: There is no security that that will be done.
SIR GEORGE BARTLEYthought there was absolute security that it would be accomplished if the general public desired it, and that it would be done even without the time limit, and he repeated that that would be a great result to have accomplished. He claimed that those who were really interested in the promotion of temperance should support this Bill. After all, it did not settle the thing for ever. It would take a good many years to close all these public-houses, but hon. Members must not think it was possible to bring about such a state of affairs at once. Let them remember that the public-house met a great public want and that the working-man had as much right to use the public-house as anyone else.
Then it seemed to him that the arguments which had been used in regard to compensation were very strange. After all, the money which was to provide the compensation was to be obtained from the publican himself. Some hon. Gentlemen said that it was not the publican's own money, and that the nation had a right to claim it—that it was, in reality, public property. But, that argument did not seem to him to be a good argument. In his view the money was as much the money of the brewer and of the publican as anything could be, and whether the system of I compensation was to be limited to a number of years or not, it still remained the fact that the money came absolutely out of the pockets of the brewers and the publicans. If this Bill succeeded
938
in simply closing 25 per cent. of the public-houses in London it would, as he had said, be a very good thing indeed; but, in his opinion, it would do much more, because it would deal with those houses which were licensed before 1869, and it would bring them within the new category of houses which there was power to close. If the measure enabled them to deal with a large portion of those houses, that fact alone justified the House in treating it as a great step in advance. He did not wish to discuss this matter at any length. He was very keenly interested in temperance. He believed they were all agreed that one of the greatest curses of this country was the excessive drinking which went on; and he believed also that they were unanimous in desiring to do away with that. There were many ways of securing that end, and he was glad to think that it was gradually being accomplished, that there was less heavy drinking, especially among those of the working classes who had better homes. That, indeed, was the key to the whole situation, for it was in that direction that the signs of improvement were most marked. Still, the fact remained that far too large a sum was spent in alcohol. It was not, however, by abusing the publican and by declaring that he was the man who did the mischief that they were going to alter the present state of affairs. It was of no use punishing him. No doubt many of the smaller public-houses constituted a great temptation to people to drink to excess, and, inasmuch as this measure would enable a large number of these smaller houses to be closed, he could not understand why hon. Gentlemen opposite should oppose it, especially as the compensation to be paid in respect of the licences was to come out of the pockets of the publicans themselves. As he understood it the publicans did not object to the Bill, they rather accepted it.
DR. HUTCHINSON: Upon what authority does the hon. Gentleman say that the publicans accept this Bill?
SIR GEORGE BARTLEYsaid he had not noted any indication that they were objecting to it. He thought, perhaps, that if they had been more worldly wise

939
they would have objected to it, and then, perhaps, some hon. Gentlemen opposite who called themselves temperance advocates would have voted the other way. From all he had heard, however, the trade was prepared to accept this arrangement. At any rate, inasmuch as he was convinced that it would tend to reduce the temptation to drink, although he feared it would not make the nation as sober as he would like it to be, he did look upon it as a step in the right direction and should support it. At the same time it did away with a great injustice and hardship, seeing that it made it impossible for magistrates to take away licences from men who were carrying on their business properly without any compensation whatever. As the publicans had agreed to make their own contributions to the compensation fund he looked upon this Bill more as a measure for securing compulsory insurances. It was a system under which everybody would have to pay pro rata according to the value of his house, and he certainly contended that that was a system based on reasonable grounds, and as a temperance reformer he was, therefore, prepared to support the measure. If they could get rid of Party feeling for two or three days, he believed nearly every Member would support the measure.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he hoped he might be excused, although he was a Scotch Member, for taking part in the debate, because he felt that if the principle of the Bill were once applied to England, it was sure very soon to leap across the border. He could say with perfect sincerity that he took no Party view at all of this matter. He believed that the Bill was a pernicious and most dangerous measure, and it was for that reason alone he opposed it. If it were a good Bill, if he believed it would have the good results predicted by some of its supporters, he, regardless of Party ties, would have given his adhesion to it. It was most unfortunate that the present Motion had been brought forward in the way it had, because it had tended to prevent an absolutely clear issue on an important question being presented to the Committee. It was, however, no use finessing in reference to a question of that kind, and he hoped that hon. Gentlemen opposite would not allow any small
940
technicality to prevent them joining in the protest which it was desirable to make at this stage. The time limit was a matter which could not be discussed unless they touched upon the principles of the Bill itself, because the time limit was woven into the texture work of the Bill in every way. He was glad to think that if this subject was involved in a fog it was not, at any rate, a legal fog. One point was perfectly apparent in regard to the whole question, and that was that the lawyers had been much more definite than anybody else upon the matter, and the Courts of Justice which had had to consider the arguments and the different statutes had been perfectly unequivocal as to the legal position of the licence-holders. Putting aside the 1869 licences, which stood in a different position, licences were not only in name but in reality annual licences, and although the Lord Chancellor spoke of the duty of exercising judicial discretion he explained afterwards that he used the phrase only in the sense that he desired to distinguish between judicious and capricious discretion. The real source of difficulty in this matter arose from the manner in which the licence had been valued in the past. No one asserted that the licence duty in the least degree corresponded with the annual value of the premises and the immense benefit conferred upon the licence-holder. It was just the same as a lease on a peppercorn rent. Holders of these leases obtained an enormous property for which they paid an insignificant rent, and they were practically in the same position as the licence-holder. The State had taken no consideration whatever for it, and the consequence was that the mere granting of a licence apart from the remuneration returned for the same created an immense property. There was no objection to calling it property in the least. It was an immense property of precarious duration, but the weakness of the magistrates in past times had been displayed by granting too many of these licences and that had brought about the present state of affairs. There were undoubtedly too many licences in existence.
The question whether it was true that drunkenness corresponded with the multiplicity of licences in a district was one well worth consideration, and in regard to that the Majority and Minority Reports of the Royal Commission were

941
well worth considering. They had unanimously come to the conclusion that it was extremely necessary in the interests of the community to diminish the number of public-houses in order to arrest the gigantic evil which existed by reason of the prevalence of drunkenness in this country. The question was how to secure that end. For his part—and here he was speaking merely his own opinion, he was not professing to represent the views of others—he believed that when once the State put a hand to this business it led them into enormous difficulties. He believed that the right course and the best course was to leave this matter to be dealt with on the priniciple of mutual insurance, or on the principle of ordinary insurance, for it was well known that underwriters and insurance companies in the present day would undertake all kinds of risks. Indeed, it was quite curious to see what strange risks they did undertake, and even the risk of a judgment being reversed in the House of Lords had recently been insured against at Lloyd's. He had, in his own mind, no doubt that if this question were settled in a sense adverse to the contentions of the Government there would arise in the natural course of commerce a complete system by which on payment of a very moderate premium indeed all these risks would be insured against. The same point was discussed at the time when they had before them the Bill known as the Workmen's Compensation Bill, and he remembered how the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was told that insurance was impossible. He replied at once that it was nothing of the kind, and that he was quite confident that for a small premium the risks could be covered. Events had proved the accuracy of his judgment, and these risks had since been covered by payment of a small premium. If the State were to interfere at all, he would very much prefer that it should do so by itself undertaking the insurance, because then there would not be the risk of dealing with the individual holders of licences. But he did not desire that the State should interfere. At any rate the premium would come out of the pocket of the licence-holder who would have exactly what was offered to him by the Bill with the certainty that either the licence would be renewed or, in the case of non-renewal, he
942
would get the compensation for which he paid the premium. He would rather see the State itself undertake the insurance against this risk than have a scheme like the one before the Committee adopted.
By this Bill a question of compensation which had been suggested as a compromise had been elevated into a principle. If Lord Peel's Report were put into the clauses of an Act of Parliament to-morrow he would feel not only pleased but grateful. Its purpose was not to bestow compensation; not to deprive magistrates of their real control, but to suspend it for a period of years. There was no doubt that Lord Peel's Report, if carried into effect in its entirety, would be a great advantage, but he had always had one feeling in regard to it. It was a most delicate and ingenious mechanism, and it was so delicate that it was hardly made for rough weather. Once they took a single part of that Report away they would find that the whole edifice would break down. The danger always in compromises of that kind was that your adversary could take the principle and strip it of its safeguard, and then you found yourself naked in the face of your enemies. The writings of his hon. friend the Member for Spen Valley had been appealed to, he had used the word compensation and people now appealed to that doctrine. Some hon. Members said they were moderate men, but then they all professed to be moderate men. He did not think many hon. Members were likely to lend themselves to fanaticism on this question. Hon. Members opposite had taken up the principle of compensation and struck out the safeguards, and now they came forward with it as a supposed concurrence in favour of compensation, while nearly all of them meant different things. Last year the Prime Minister was interviewed by a deputation upstairs and they complained of the injustice done to licensed victuallers. The right hon. Gentleman expressed his sympathy with them and agreed that there was an injustice, and so he brought in this Bill. Those hon. Members who now supported the Prime Minister took credit for the fact that they were making the licensed victuallers themselves pay a sum of money to compensate one another. Therefore, the argument was that an injustice to a number of people was

943
remedied by taking money out of their own pockets. It simply meant that if fifty people were suffering an injustice they were to take money out of all their pockets and bestow it upon one of them, and then the argument was that that injustice had been remedied. He thought it was a very strange remedy to make them compensate one another, because they could do that without an Act of Parliament.
Last night the Colonial Secretary presented a very fascinating picture of this Bill, and said it would do a great deal of good and that everyone would be treated according to the principles of eternal justice. The right hon. Gentleman told them that the effect of this Bill would be to enable justices to reduce the number of licences and to diffuse the loss by a principle of mutual nsurance and compulsory premium. Every word of that was true, and that was really the effect of the Bill. This measure did enable the justices to reduce licences without violence to the most tender conscience, and it also diffused the loss by distributing the money and by means of compulsory premium. Those were the effects, but was that all? That was where the Colonial Secretary's statement seemed to him to fall entirely short of the actuality. Those effects were mixed up with other effects of a totally different complexion. He would take a concrete case. Take a place where there were 1,000 licensed houses where there ought to be only 750. In such a case what did this Bill say to the justices? It said—"Look at your schedule and count up the number of licences, and when you have made a calculation according to the provisions of this Act you may reduce to that extent and you may do it year by year. You may if you like reduce it by means of capitalising, but you will tie your hands if you do that for the next thirty or forty years." The Bill must necessarily restrict the power of the justices from doing what they did at the present moment. If there was a frightful state of things which could be remedied by a diminution of licences under the power which the justices had at the present moment, and if it was laid down that the justices could only diminish those licences according to the scale and schedule of
944
this Bill, was it not transparent that they were restricting the power of the justices? But as soon as the outraged sense of a community led the magistrates to take this step, down came the Government with a Bill to restrict their power, and that was the very thing which he complained of. In addition to that, this Bill bestowed fixity of tenure upon the licensee. In the case he had mentioned of 1,000 licences which ought to be reduced to 750, suppose the justices could reduce them by 150 by means of this Bill. All the remainder of those 1,000 licences would have fixity of tenure, whereas before they were liable in the eye of the law to be discontinued. At any rate, their position was so shifted by this Bill that they were not liable to be discontinued, or if they were discontinued they would receive a full equivalent in cash. That must necessarily increase the value of those houses which had fixity of tenure. His hon. friend the Member for Spen Valley expressed the opinion that £125,000,000 sterling would be the value of the public-houses which would come under the operation of this Bill. Mr. Arthur Chamberlain, for whom he had a profound admiration, placed the amount at £300,000,000. He was inclined to think that Mr. Arthur Chamberlain had not over-stated the value of those licences. He wished to give one illustration from the Majority Report. On page 55 the Royal Commission stated what was the value of the public-houses in the county of London and they also gave the actual value of the premises less their value without a licence, and they put that in the county of London at £30,000,000. That might be right or wrong, but it was what the Majority Report stated, and if £30,000,000 represented the capital value within the county of London, he should be very much surprised if £125,000,000 would cover it throughout England and Wales.
*MR. WHITTAKERsaid the authority for the figures in the Report stated that the value of the licences for the whole country would be £150,000,000.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid at any rate it was a very large sum of money. What the Colonial Secretary had omitted to

945
state in his speech was that in addition to the features he had described there were two other features. In the first place, by this Bill they cut down the power which magistrates had exercised ever since there had been a licence in England; and in the second place, they imparted to property which was said to be worth £125,000,000 at all events a fixity of tenure which must enormously increase its value. Where was that increased value going to come from, and who was going to find the balance? The effect of what was now being done was to make it impossible to apply new methods in the future. Experiments were going on now upon this question in many parts of the world in order to ascertain the best method of treating this fearful evil. It was being dealt with by all the States of the Union, by Australia, Canada, and Scandinavia, and all these places were excellently dealt with in the memorandum issued by his hon. friend. Who was prepared to say now what would be found to be the best method to deal with this question during the course of the next ten, fifteen, or twenty-five years? It was a subject upon which all the experiments were comparatively new and of which the results were being compiled only by degrees. He thought he might safely make one prediction, and it was that whatever system was found to be best, the one that would be most generally condemned would be the system which they had at the present time in this country. It was perfectly certain that a system under which this dangerous traffic was farmed out upon monopoly principles to individuals for private profit must cease. Numerous books had been written on this subject, and no one could read them without coming to the conclusion that the system in this country must come to an end and could not possibly be continued indefinitely. Would the Bill perpetuate that system? That was the crucial question which they had to ask. Would this Bill perpetuate a system which had been condemned by all those authorities who had dealt with this subject? The Colonial I Secretary said it would not. Perhaps in law it would not. This Parliament would be able to pass a law for any purpose, and it could repeal this Act in case it; became law. But look what practical difficulties would be created by this Bill. If this Bill were passed there would be a
946
legal fixity of tenure recognised in the eyes of the law in every public-house in the country, and they could not try the experiment of local option without buying out every single one of the public-houses in the local option district at an inflated price enhanced by the fixity of tenure created by this Bill. This Bill would make local option practically an almost superhuman work to accomplish with the feelings there were in this country upon it. The large sums of money which would have to be paid on the adoption of local option would be double the price at which those licences stood now, and they would be greatly enhanced in value by fixity of tenure. This Bill was for all time, if anything in human affairs could be for all time. This fixity of tenure would be as fixed and certain and protracted a tenure as any of them might have in land.
Suppose they tried the system of high licensing, that would mean merely that when they were giving an enormously valuable monopoly they did not wish to give it wholly to the individual, but they wanted a part of it for the State. The Prime Minister had spoken of monopoly in terms of regret, and he said it had been a great mistake and that it was a great pity that the system of monopoly had been introduced. He agreed that it was a great misfortune, but suppose they were to try by high licensing to interfere. If they were to endeavour to remedy this evil by a system of high licensing, what would be said? They would be told, "You have not the courage to confiscate our property openly, and so you are indirectly destroying it by this system of high licensing." That was the same way in which property in Ireland was eaten up by unfair rents. Fair rents, free sale, fixity of tenure, were things which all arose round every monopoly. He would tell the Committee where the value of a time limit came in. He thought the Majority Report ought to be quoted in support of a time limit. On page 54 of that Report it was stated that—
"It has been suggested that there are advantages in settling specified periods at which Parliament should review the working of the system, so as to facilitate the introduction of such changes as the circumstances of the time render necessary. We concur generally with this view, and recommend that recurring periods of seven years would afford a favourable opportunity to make what fresh departures, may seem necessary. In the absence of Parliamentary action, the system would continue for

947
another septennial period, when Parliament could again review the situation. We recommend, therefore, that the system should be worked by septennial periods, and a capital sum borrowed at the commencement of each period on the seven years charges. The advantages of this plan over one giving, say, a seven years time limit to be followed by a very large reduction all at once, are obvious."
Then the advantages were given. He read that extract to show that it was desirable to have pauses. He did not quote it in support of this particular Amendment or of the scheme he had been advocating, but simply to show the value of a time limit or a pause at which they could reconsider the position and determine whether they should continue the system any further.
Mr. LLOYD WHARTON: Our object was to secure that there should be a stocktaking.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he did not wish to deal with this question controversially, but to show that what he recommended went beyond what the hon. Member had been recommending as stocktaking. What he wanted was that some fresh opportunity in seven years—or it might be fourteen years—he deprecated the term being fourteen years—should be given for Parliament taking a new departure if in the light of the working of this novel proposal it should be found desirable to make some new proposal. Why were they so afraid that Parliament would do injustice in future? He begged hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House to remember that, whatever they might think of this proposal, they were entering on an unknown system. It differed from any system that had been tried anywhere else. It would have the most serious effect of depriving the magistrates of their wonted power, it would increase enormously the value of public-houses, and bestow fixity of tenure. Following the advice given by the majority of the Commission let Parliament have an opportunity of considering this in the light of what was going to happen. Do not shut the door for all time. He thought they might fairly expect that as their predecessors had always had confidence in the justice of Parliament in dealing with important public questions so they might be sure that those who
948
followed them would deal justly hereafter if only they reserved for them the opportunity. Pass this Bill and he thought it would be fatal to temperance reform. There were many who thought the same of the measure as he did. There were many hon. Members on the other side who he knew had misgivings on the question.
There was another reason against the bringing forward of this measure. He did not wish to state it angrily, but he felt strongly on the matter. When this Parliament was returned it was on the understanding that it was on the one question which was alone before the electors. [Cries of "No!"] Well, that was his belief. He thought he could quote the language of the Prime Minister in his appeal to the country.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: The hon. and learned Gentleman may quote my address as often as he likes, but if he suggests that I or any other Minister suggested that only one subject was to be dealt with by this Parliament it is really absurd. There were other addresses besides mine. Let him read the address of the Leader of the Opposition.
SIR ROBERT REIDstated that he did not say the Prime Minister or anybody else said there was an understanding that nothing else was to be dealt with by this Parliament. What he said was that there was only one question at the election, and if he had been allowed to finish, what he had to say was that the result of that was that many persons gave the Government their support on that one question in the belief that there would be no really substantial and important questions contrary to their opinions dealt with in the course of this Parliament. He said for himself, at all events, that it was unfair to pass a Bill of the kind now before Parliament in the present circumstances. It was a perfectly new departure, and they ought to have an opportunity of taking the sense of the people in the constituencies themselves before so dangerous and far-reaching a Bill was allowed to be placed on the Statute-book.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CARSON,said he would not follow his hon. and learned friend who had just spoken into the constitutional disquisition he gave of the powers of the present Parliament. This Parliament had been elected for the ordinary time, and it was almost impossible to conceive that a Parliament elected for a period of six or seven years should only be allowed to deal with the one issue which the hon. and learned Gentleman said was before the country. The question of the time limit had seemed to him all through the debate to be entirely dependent on how hon. Members made up their minds upon this one question as to whether the provision in the Bill giving the trade—to use a term which included the publican and the brewer—the right to insure at their own cost, was a just and expedient measure. The more they examined the question the more they found that it came back to that; and the whole reasoning of his hon. and learned friend was based upon this, that Parliament had no right to give the trade that privilege—if it were a privilege—and they had no case to demand it. If that were so the Opposition were right that there should be a time limit. He entirely disagreed that under the present condition of things, which the hon. and learned Member seemed to ignore, the owners of licences had no claims upon Parliament for the particular privileges which re given to them by the Bill. It was quite true, as the hon. and learned Member had said, that as regarded some of these licences in the eye of the law they were only annual licences, but did he really think that that fact disposed of the present situation as regards the licences? In the eye of the law that might be true, but at the same time the law recognised licences as a taxable entity and a rateable entity and had allowed them to grow up in the course of our commerce as matters which could be sold just like any other property. When the hon. and learned Member stated how the Lord Chancellor and other Judges decided in the case of "Sharpe v. Wakefield," did he venture to Jay down that the question was disposed of by saying that licences were held upon an annual tenure? He thought the
950
matter was very clearly put by Lord Lindley, who said—
"It is true that no owner or tenant of a public-house has a right to have his licence renewed; but the expectation that it will be I renewed unless there is some good reason why I it should not, is founded upon human nature, and is perfectly reasonable and cannot be ignored by any fair-dealing man. Outlays are made on the faith of it, and the expectation gives a market value to the house which can be very closely estimated by persons accustomed to value such property."
So closely could it be estimated that our own law enacted that upon the death of the owners of these houses it should be estimated not upon any consideration of annual value, but upon a value of from twenty up to thirty years. The hon. and learned Member knew perfectly well that when a licensed house was taken for public purposes not; only was the value of the licence to the existing holder considered, but in one case the Courts decided that with regard to a reversion expected upon a twenty-six years lease, the outstanding portion would have to be compensated for. What was the use in face of that state of things to try to close the matter by simply saying that a licence was only held for a year in the eye of the law? That was the reason—and this the hon. and learned Member entirely ignored—why the present system as regarded the reduction of licences had absolutely broken down, because it was impossible to have these two systems of law running side by side and expect magistrates who were asked to deprive men of their property to take one view of the law and to I ignore the other. The first decision that the House had to come to was whether it was just or not that for the purpose of reducing licences for the public benefit they should allow this system of I insurance to be set up at the cost of the trade itself. Was that expedient? It was expedient because without it the present system had failed. If it were both just and expedient, and they had to start upon that basis for the consideration of the time limit, what had the time limit got to do with it? Were they, when they admitted the system of insurance to be just, to say to a man that, although it was just, and, in the public interest, expedient, they were going to ask him at some future time for no consideration to forego this just principle?

951
He said that that was impossible. It would really come to this—they would say to the owner of these licences, "We allow you to set up an insurance at your own expense, but at the end of seven years, you must be in a worse position than you are at the present moment." That was what it came to.
Mr. ASQUITH: How?
SIR EDWARD CARSON: The right hon. Gentleman asked bow. It was for this reason, because at the end of seven years the property vanished altogether.
MR. ASQUITH: How does it?
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid he thought that that was the meaning of the Amendment. If it was not, he would take the other alternative—viz., that the publican would be exactly where he was now. Well, were they going to have all this agitation about the country at the end of the next seven years and would the position be any better? As the hon. and learned Member for Blackpool had pointed out they had a case to present to the magistrates now, what, a fortiori, would be the case at the end of seven years? The publican would say, "We have actually contributed hundreds and thousands, if not millions, to the extinction of other public-houses for the benefit of the public, and when I ask you for a renewal are you going to say that I am to be extinguished without any compensation at all?" He did not agree with his right hon. friend that that was the meaning of the majority of those who put forward this Amendment. He was perfectly sure a great number of hon. Members meant that at the end of the time limit there was to be what had been called a clean slate. He did not see any other logical way of making any advance at all. If that question was to be put to every candidate at every election when the seven years were up, as to whether he was going to vote for the renewal or non-renewal of the Compensation Bill, did they make any progress at all on this question t No. The licence-holder, if there was to be this extinction at the end of seven years, would be in a worse position than he was now. Now he had a chance, and he had shown that the chance was a very valuable one. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Ber-
952
wick had said that his objection to the Bill was that it made any change in the present system impossible, and that it meant good-bye to all temperance reform of any kind. Was there ever a more exaggerated—he might almost say ridiculous—statement, that because they admitted the justice of the claim, under existing circumstances, to have this insurance fund set up, this House was never to proceed with any further temperance reform. The hon. Baronet went on to suggest that this Bill, so far from being framed in that way, should be framed with the view to experiments in local option, public-house trusts, or municipalisation of the liquor traffic. Was the right hon. Baronet in favour of local option?
SIR EDWARD GREY: I stated as a general principle that you would make no real progress in temperance reform until you enabled progressive local communities to make experiments, and I specified instances of three ways in which experiments might be made. I did not advocate any of them at the expense of the other. My general principle was that this Bill, by establishing by law the existing system, would be an almost insuperable barrier in the way of temperance, reform.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid so far as he was concerned he was not in favour of local option, and was not in favour of municipalisation of the liquor traffic, and he did not see why the House should spend its time in the framing of legislation with a view of at any time giving facilities for the setting up either of local option or municipalisation. But he would make this concession to the right hon. Baronet, and to his hon. and learned friend, that if their view was that local bodies should be left free to try these experiments, while ignoring the just claims of the owners of licences, and if the Bill prevented that, then all he could say was that he was very glad the Bill did so. He thought that met the whole case put forward. While it did not in the least prevent the setting up of local option or municipalisation of the liquor traffic, it might hamper, and he hoped it would hamper, any setting of that up unless they were prepared to do justice to those who had interests which the law allowed them to have. While the right

953
hon. Baronet was very clear about the privileges of Parliament, he gave the Committee a curious instance of the power of Parliament. He told them almost in the same breath that if once they set up the insurance system they would never get rid of those licensed houses at all, and at the same time he told them that the freehold of off-licences which existed before 1902 was got rid of by Parliament without paying a penny of compensation at all. Why? The opinion of the country was ripe, and when the Bill was going through the House there was no difficulty whatever in bringing these off-licences under the ordinary jurisdiction, the same as the various other licences. The truth of the matter was, that if opinion in this country ever became such that they wished to confiscate property, he supposed they would do it. If the opinion of this country was ever ripe for local option, and at the same time for granting fair compensation to those whom the law had allowed to acquire property, he was perfectly sure that public opinion would be carried out in that direction. But he submitted that it was absolutely ridiculous to say that, because they had allowed a system of insurance for the purpose of protecting interests which the law had recognised, Parliament was to be impeded in the future from proceeding further in the reform of the liquor laws.
This Bill was a modest Bill. It was an effective Bill in the direction in which it was brought in. What it meant to do was to get rid of the difficulty of inducing the magistrates to reduce those houses by placing in their hands a fund contributed by the trade which would enable them without any difficulty to get rid of a large number of houses. Why should they hamper themselves in relation to that by putting provisions in this Bill dealing with a situation in fourteen or twenty-one years time? It might be that an entirely different situation would then arise. In fourteen years a very large number of the surplus public-houses would have been got rid of. In twenty years a still larger number would have been got rid of. It might be, but he did not at all admit that it would, that the other remaining public-houses might be then better able to
954
contribute larger sums for further reforms. But at all events they were not now in a position to survey what would be the existing state of affairs when the reduction under this Bill had taken place. He could not see why they should hamper themselves or hamper future Parliaments by setting up a system at the end of a number of years when they did not know what the existing circumstances of that time would be. Let the Bill not be mutilated, because that was what the Amendment was meant to do. The measure had in it at least three useful provisions, which must be admitted by any impartial critic as in the interest of temperance. It brought a third of the licences of the country from a state of being freehold and therefore not amenable to the jurisdiction of the magistrates to the condition of the remaining licences. His hon. friends who had already addressed the House always said that they would leave that out of the question for the moment, and that they would come back to it, but they never did. But, after all, they must admit that they were not under the magistrates, and that they were the most undesirable class of licensed houses in the country. Then they had the large sum of £1,200,000 a year on which capital could be borrowed for the immediate reduction of these houses. Was it nothing to get £1,200,000 a year from the trade to extinguish the worst class of houses? It was at all events a step forward. There was another matter not referred to in the course of the debate, namely, the fact that they were going to prevent in future any monopoly arising from the creation of new licences. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] Yes, he said that distinctly, and when they came to that clause in the Bill, if there were any Amendments in that direction they would certainly be considered. He asked hon. Members who gave the go by to those benefits, which were all in the direction of temperance reform, to look at the matter in this way—if thirty years ago when Mr. Bruce brought forward in the House his Bill, which was a great temperance reform measure, such a measure as was now brought in by the Government had been accepted, and if ever since then £1,200,000 a year had been available in the hands of the magistrates for the extinction of licences, including the beerhouse licences, and if for thirty years they

955
had never created new licences or created a monopoly, where would this country have been now? Would it not have been in a far better position for advancing any temperance reform than it was by reason of the proposals which had been rejected from time to time by extreme men on both sides? After all, thirty years was a short time in the life of a nation, and if, looking back over those thirty years, they believed they would have been in an entirely different position if such a Bill as this had been passed, he asked the House to pause before they put into this Bill an Amendment which would largely retard its working and which might, he thought, eventually destroy its usefulness.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down made one observation in which they were all agreed, and that was that if Mr. Bruce's Bill had been carried into law considerable progress would have been made in temperance reform. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman, however, that Mr. Bruce's Bill contained a time limit and, in fact, that the proposal now before the Committee was on the lines of that Bill. The Amendment before the Committee at the present moment was simply a proposal on the lines of Mr. Bruce's Bill.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid that his recollection of Mr. Bruce's Bill was that it had no compensation fund, but that it gave a fixed period of ten years in which licences could not be disturbed.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the Amendment before the Committee was considerably more liberal, because it proposed fourteen years, which was a much better proposal. The right hon. Gentleman in the beginning of his speech described this Bill as a Bill for the purpose of giving a right to the owners of licences to insure them. But they had that right at the present moment. The right hon. Gentleman said it was a privilege that was to be extended to them; but it was a privilege that they possessed and exercised at the present moment. There were insurance companies with directors of brewery companies on their boards which insured
956
licences at present. What was the use of a Bill to enable the brewers to do what they could and were doing at the present moment. The right hon. Gentleman quoted Mr. Justice Lindley, and he himself was perfectly certain that every Member on that side of the House would be very pleased to accept Mr. Justice Lindley's definition of what the state of the law was; and he was glad to see that the learned Solicitor-General quoted it with acceptance. The right hon. Gentleman said that according to Mr. Justice Lindley what the licence-holders had at the present moment was a reasonable expectation, and that that expectation was justified by a knowledge of human nature. But the Government now proposed to convert what was an expectation into a property; and that was what they were objecting to. Of course the licence-holders had a reasonable expectation. Take a well conducted hotel in a district where there was a real demand for it. Everyone knew that that licence would be renewed from year to year. It was a perfectly reasonable expectation for the holder of the licence to come to the conclusion that he would hold it for fourteen, fifteen, or twenty years. He could speculate upon it; he might sell it, subject to conditions; and it was perfectly right that the law, if he could materialise, as it were, his expectation, and could sell it, should assess him upon it. But it was a very different thing for the Government to convert the expectation into a property. After all, there was an element of uncertainty in a licence which was absolutely ignored by those who defended the Bill.
At the present moment there was a very important element of uncertainty in every licence, and it was greater the worse the property was. The Government now proposed to deprive those licences of the element of uncertainty. What was it? There was the demand of the neighbourhood, the necessity of the neighbourhood, the knowledge that the magistrates not only could, but were bound to consider the needs of the neighbourhood, and might come to the conclusion that the licence was not the sort of licence they wanted to keep; and, therefore, a house might be deprived of its licence. That was the element of uncertainty. But the

957
Government now said, "You cannot expropriate a man from his holding without compensation." Was not that converting the licence into a freehold? If a thing which was an annual holding was put into the position of a perpetuity, which they could not expropriate except on payment of compensation, that surely was a freehold. He observed that the word was used by the learned Solicitor-General. He said that the beerhouses of 1869 were freeholds. What was the difference between the beerhouses of 1869 and the property which the Government were now creating under this Bill? He should like to know from any hon. Gentleman opposite if he could point to any distinction between the beerhouses of 1869 and the state of things which would be created by this Bill for all licences. The only difference was that the magistrates might deprive a man of his licence upon payment of compensation. But the public could deprive a man of his freehold property on payment of compensation on proof of public necessity, such as schools, cemeteries, or railways; but that did not make his property less a freehold. The Government were putting licences on exactly the same footing as any other freehold. Take the holder of a living. A man could be deprived of his living for misconduct only. He could not be deprived by a vote of the parishioners on the ground that he was not one of the necessities of the neighbourhood. Otherwise a great many would be deprived from time to time if it were left to the neighbourhood. But that was a freehold, notwithstanding that the holder could be deprived for misconduct. What were the Government doing by this Bill? They were putting licences on the same footing as a living, with the exception that a living was terminable by life, whereas a licence was not terminable by anything. It was a freehold subject to deprivation on proof of misconduct by the man who held it. Was not that a freehold? His hon. friend the Member for Dumfries said that the Bill would stand in the way of all temperance reform in the future, because it would convert licences into freeholds. The learned Solicitor-General asked how was that? He would quote the speech of the right hon. Gentleman's leader, who was probably the highest authority he
958
would accept on this question. Last night, referring to the beerhouses of 1869, the Prime Minister said—
"It is the freehold tenure of the beerhouses, which, of course, you cannot take away and which was established by Mr. Gladstone in 1869, which has always been the obstacle in the way of temperance reform in dealing with licensed houses."
One day somebody in this House would quote that sentence with simply one alteration, and that would be the name. Someone would say, "It is the freehold tenure of licensed houses, which, of course, you cannot take away and which was established by Mr. Balfour in 1904, which has always been the obstacle in the way of dealing with licensed houses." The case for a time limit and against perpetuity could not be more succinctly put than in that sentence of the right hon. Gentleman.
The Colonial Secretary last night said, and he was so pleased with it that he repeated it twice—he himself was so pleased with it that he would repeat it again—
"My view of this Bill is, that it is just like the Workmen's Compensation Bill. It is simply putting the burden of compensation upon the trade."
It was a happy illustration; but he would point out that there was a time limit in the Workmen's Compensation Bill. A workman's life was not valued at what it would be valued at law, its full value; it was valued at three years purchase, and not more than three years purchase could be given to a workman under the Compensation Act. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no right but an equitable claim. Here was the brewer's equitable claim. He lost his licence and his living; but he got not three years purchase, but a full fourteen or twenty-five years purchase. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman was he still prepared to carry out the illustration of the Workmen's Compensation Act? He would further point out that three years was the maximum under that Act whereas the fourteen years in the Amendment was the minimum, because at the end of fourteen years it did not necessarily mean that the licence-holder would be deprived of his living. Not at all. He might go

959
on under certain conditions; but the three years was the limit beyond which compensation could not be given to the workman. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman was as pleased with his illustration now as he was before. If he was, he ought to be a supporter of the proposal in the Amendment. But, after all, said the learned Solicitor-General, this was a modest and effective Bill. About the modesty of it he would have something to say later; as to its effectiveness, he had no doubt it would be effective for the purpose the right hon. Gentleman acclaimed. He was nothing if not open. He was perfectly candid. He said that if this Bill put an obstacle in the way of schemes of temperance reform he hailed if. That was candid and frank. He went through all the schemes of licensing reform, not one of which commended itself to him. Was it not perfectly clear that the Bill was really a Bill to prevent licensing reform in the future.
The Prime Minister yesterday—he listened to him with some sympathy—poured scorn on the clergy. He asked why the clergy should meddle; what did they know about legislation? How long was the Prime Minister of that opinion? He recollected perfectly well not so very long ago the clergy actually indicated the lines upon which a certain Bill should proceed. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR dissented.] He would beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. He must have forgotten; he himself had referred to it so often that he could not possibly forget it, and he certainly hoped to refer to it again. The clergy indicated the lines on which certain legislation should proceed in a resolution in Convocation. Those lines were absolutely followed. They were an authority then, not on high ethical matters in the air, but upon secular matters of legislation. Now they must not interfere at all. It practically meant "I gave you your share; you go on devouring and digesting what I have flung to you; do not be greedy; it is the brewer's turn now, and you must not be jealous." That was really the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman; and he himself rather sympathised with him. Then the brewer said to the clergy, "It is all right; but if you go on like this we will disestablish your Church." And the
960
right hon. Gentleman was with the brewers in that matter. Well, let it go on; it was a very pleasant quarrel; and in those quarrels honest men came by their own, and really they might do so. But let him put in one word for the clergy. After all, the temperance question was a moral question; it affected the morals and good conduct of the community and he believed they had some right to talk on a subject of this sort. He would also put in a word for the temperance societies. It seemed to be assumed that the last people who had a right to speak on this subject were those who had given their lives to the study of it. Temperance societies were not all teetotal societies. The Church of England Temperance Society was not a teetotal society; but its members had given their lives to the study of this one question from a disinterested point of view. They had no interest in it except the interest of the community. They might be right or wrong; but they had no interest except a public one. But the people who were interested in this matter directly would be voting on this very Amendment. The brewery companies were not extreme; they were not included in the extreme men to whom the Solicitor-General referred. The Prime Minister's view of legislation seemed to be, whether it concerned education or temperance, that the only people whose opinion they ought to seek and whose opinion was worth having was the opinion of the people who were either financially or personally interested in the advice which they gave. That was an absurd proposition. At any rate, let them consider the men who had devoted their time quite unselfishly to the consideration of this subject. There was no use talking about this being a modest Bill or a Bill in the interest of temperance. It was perfectly clear what the Bill was. Who was it that said what a pity it was they could not consider the Bill for three minutes free from Party considerations? Here was what was said at a brewery company which met before the Bill was introduced. The chairman said—
"We mean to have a Compensation Bill, and unless the Government do justice to this trade they will find opposed to them a huge and solid phalanx of common sense and public opinion. Let the Government beware of that array. It

961
is a dangerous rock to hurl themselves against, and greater Governments than this have perished in the attempt."
That was from the Licensing World. The right hon. Gentleman was steering between this brewery rock and the clerical whirlpool, and he thought the clerical whirlpool was the least harmful. Here was another trade society's declaration, which held this threat out to the Government—
"I do not think the Government will go against the trade, for we put them in power, and if they treat us properly we will keep them there."
That was the meaning of the opposition to the time limit. It was treating them properly in order to keep the Government "there."
"But if they do not we will chuck them out."
The Government were standing drinks to "the chuckers-out" Justin order to propitiate them. That was what it meant. The Opposition said, "At any rate, let there be a limit to the quantity." Give them something. He thought, however, it was carrying electioneering in this country rather too far. It was undoubtedly a gross and corrupt practice. The Government had come to the conclusion that as between the clergy and the publicans, the publicans were the better electioneerers; but he did not think that the Government had a right to wreck all hope of temperance reform in the future by means of a Bill of this sort, when they knew they had not the country at their back. They had not received any sanction from the public for it; and they knew perfectly well that if the public had an opportunity of expressing an opinion on it they would soon turn the Government out. All it meant was a threat from the trade to turn them out and the Government said, "Do not put us out in such weather as this; we are not teetotalers and we cannot stand all this rain and water." That was really what it meant. It was all very well to make a great pretence of justice; to talk about justice and equity and all those high-sounding words; but this was not equity; it was electioneering from beginning to end. Property—what was the good of talking about property? Property was a thing that a man had a legal right to. Who had a legal right to
962
a licence? The Solicitor-General and the Colonial Secretary admitted there was no legal right, and Mr. Justice Lindley was quoted to prove that there was no legal right. The Bill was simply a barrier in the way of any legal right to all permanent and effective temperance reform.
Mr. GROVESsaid he would venture to answer to the best of Ms ability statements that had been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member who had just spoken referred to the certainty of licences being insured against forfeiture for non-requirement. He assumed that the hon. Gentleman was perfectly aware that he had rather overstated his case in claiming that licences could be insured against forfeiture on the ground of non-requirement. He challenged any hon. Member to mention a company which would insure licences on that ground. That was one of the principal clauses which insurance companies now inserted in their policies. Those statements, which had been repeated again and again, were entirely without foundation. It was impossible to effect an insurance with any insurance company for the forfeiture of a licence on the ground of non-requirement. Another mistake made by hon. Members on both sides of the House was in stating that there had been a considerable increase in the number of licences in late years. Those who had any knowledge of the figures would know that there had been a steady and consistent reduction of licences for a long period of years, and that this year the number had fallen below 100,000. That was a point which they ought to bear in mind. Again it had been stated very frequently that brewers were in favour of this Bill and that it was practically a Brewers' Endowment Bill. In speaking of brewers it was well to bear in mind that they were not speaking of individuals, but were dealing with a large body of shareholders numbered by hundreds of thousands, who on the faith of the renewal of licences from year to year had invested their money in brewery securities. Another point on which there had been great misconception was that the publicans, as a body, were in favour of the Bill. He challenged any Member of the House on either side to

963
find a single publican in favour of the time limit as applied in this Amendment.
One point they might congratulate themselves upon during the progress of the debate and that was the statement made in the course of the eloquent and able speech of the hon. Member for the Spen Valley. He stated an entirely new fact of which doubtless he was not previously aware of. He said there were more ways of killing a cat than by hanging. It was quite true. Perhaps the hon. Member had never travelled in a far distant country where informer times the practice of Hara-kiri or the "happy despatch" existed. When a certain person became undesirable, he was invited to make away with himself and to perform the "happy despatch." and he was always presented with a jewelled knife for the purpose. He thought he was not far from the point when he said that by the Bill now before the House, in the gradual extinction of superfluous licences the holders of licences were invited to perform the "happy dispatch," but they were not presented with a jewelled dagger by which to perform the operation. Hon. Members opposite objected to compensation and desired to insert a time limit, which he submitted was altogether inconsistent with the principle of the Bill. What would the representatives of the shipowning, coalmining, or landed interest say if the Government proposed to make them liable to expropriation of their property at the end of fifteen or twenty years? But it was just as proper that it should be said in regard to those interests as to the brewing interest, and he hoped that when the right time came the Government would give due consideration to the suggestions that would be made by the representatives of the owners of licensed property. The present proposal was directed against the very essence of the Bill; it could not be worked in conjunction with the Bill, and if the principle were adopted the measure would have to be entirely redrafted. What had the members of the Radical Party done during the last twenty or thirty years in the direction of temperance reform? They had not lifted their hand for any measure of reform such as the country would accept, and now when a measure of real reform had been brought forward—a measure
964
based on justice and equity—they lifted not their hands but their feet and desired to kick it out of the House.
Mr. CORBETTsaid the only persons who regarded this Bill as a temperance measure were connected was the brewing industry. The hon. Member for Salford in declaring that a time limit would be intolerable if applied to the shipowning or coalmining interests, had overlooked the fact that neither of those interests was asking the State to recognise in them a property to which, all the Judges declared they had no legal right. Attempts had been made to prove that although there was no legal right to the renewal of a licence, there was such a moral right as to make it a property entitled to recognition; but the arguments by which the contention had been supported were such as would never be admitted in regard to any other property. It was argued, for instance, that because death duties were charged and the property passed from hand to hand that constituted a vested interest entitled to compensation. In the neighbourhood of his own property a public-house was sold for £25,000 more than it would otherwise have fetched on the ground that it was nest to a prohibition area. The purchaser would be charged death duties; but no human being would contend that that individual had established any right to demand that he (the hon. Member) should discontinue his prohibitionist policy or pay compensation, and there was no more ground for saying that the persons who speculated upon the probability of magistrates renewing the licences had established any right to compensation. Another curious argument was that because a licence had been renewed for a long series of years a right had grown up which must be fully recognised. On an estate for which he was a trustee, a family of tenant farmers had lived since the year 1178, but nobody would contend that they had thereby acquired rights against the landlord. He regretted to hear the Prime Minister say that the Bishops and clergy had no special qualifications to deal with the provisions of a measure of this sort. The broad moral issue before the Committee was whether they should go backward or

965
forward in the matter of temperance legislation, whether they should declare that the public required extra safeguards against the trade, or that the trade required further protection against; the public, and the Bishops and clergy, if qualified to be moral teachers, were surely qualified to have an opinion; on such an issue. The Prime Minister appeared to consider that the brewers were the only persons qualified to have; an opinion on the subject, because, when he received the deputation from the I trade, he was asked to receive also a deputation from the great temperance societies, but he refused the request, and also marked his reply "private" so that the grounds of his refusal could not be communicated. If the Bill were a real temperance measure why should the temperance societies have been refused a hearing while the trade were admitted?
The Solicitor-General had given I the most startling reason for the Bill vet put forward, viz., the reluctance of the justices to refuse licences unless they were able to give compensation. The reason given by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary was not that too few licences had been refused, but that justices had been too precipitate, and had not had due regard for the hardships involved. On that point he had thrown out two challenges, neither of which had been accepted. He had offered, if it could be shown in any of the cases put forward by the trade deputation that the licensee had suffered financial loss, to pay whatever sum the Lord Chancellor declared that individual would have received had this Bill been the law of the land. The trade, however, had failed to bring forward any case of hardship which this Bill would have alleviated. Nearly all the speakers who had tried to prove that the Bill would diminish the number of licences, had gone on the assumption that the quarter sessions would raise the fullest amount in their power. That was certainly not the contemplation of the Bill, otherwise the quarter sessions would not have been given the option of raising no fund at all or of raising only a portion of the maximum amount. It was a significant fact
966
that all those who did not believe in the reduction of licences as a remedy, and who, like the Home Secretary, thought such a step would not reduce intemperance, believed in this Bill. They were sometimes told that in addition to the advantage of reducing licences, this Bill was going to deal justly between man and man. But would it do justice between man and man. Take a brewer in a small town where he had a monopoly. If they took away one of his licences they would actually increase the profits of his business because his trade would not be reduced but his distributing expenses would decrease accordingly. And yet under this Bill that brewer would be compensated upon the market value of that house which he had purchased at a high price in order to maintain his monopoly.
It was said that the licence-holder was going to be compensated out of his own money, but was that so? This tax was not limited to brewers, because hotel and restaurant keepers I would have to contribute in such cases as the brewer he had mentioned who would have actually suffered no loss. Under these circumstances they were doing a real service by trying to impose a limit on the operation of this Bill. Nobody would venture to1 say that as a matter of fact the beerhouses licensed prior to 1869 which enjoyed the greatest security had been the best conducted. Nobody would assert that in those places where the magistrates had been most slack and where the security had been the greatest the conduct of public-houses had been any better. As a matter of fact, the conduct of those houses had not been so good where the magistrates had been slack as in places where the magistrates had been strict. Insecurity generally rested upon the risk that some I other individual might take advantage of his opportunities for selfish gain, but the insecurity in regard to this trade rested uot upon the charge that anyone might interfere for selfish gain, but upon the charge that magistrates might interfere in the interests of the public, and that was just the sort of interference which led to good management. The passing of this measure in an unlimited form would be, to his mind, one of the very greatest calamities that could fall upon the nation. It was all very well for hon.

967
Members to pretend that this was a temperance measure; but there were many men and women in this country who had given their lives to temperance work, and it was not saying too much when he declared that not one of those men and women would welcome this proposal, or who would not hail with a sense of relief the limitation of its period of operation.
Mr. BRYCEsaid he wished to confine himself to one branch of this question, which seemed to him to be the critical part of the Amendment. The question was whether the system was to be a perpetual one, based on doctrines and grounds which would be equally valid ten, fifteen, or twenty years hence. He would address himself to the question whether the grounds upon which the Government made their proposals were grounds of efficacy or justice or whether it would be better to limit their proposals to such a time as justice required. The question was whether the licensing justices should be empowered by their mere fiat to increase and practically to double the value of the property they were dealing with. When a man was given a licence his property was greatly enhanced in value, and he did not think it was right that any official should be given the power of giving the property of a private individual an increased value in this way. The ground put forward by the Government was that when a licence was granted an expectation was formed that it would be renewed. He did not know what the First Lord of the Treasury meant when he talked about a moral claim. How could there be a moral claim in this matter, because the licence was granted expressly for one year only and no expectation was raised by the form in which it was granted? It was said that the practice had grown up, but that did not constitute a legal right. Surely it was an element in the case that the amplest warnings had been given that licences might be withdrawn without compensation. They had had one Bill after another in which the House had been asked to take away the rights, or the supposed rights, of licence-holders without any compensation. They could not have had a more complete and full notice to licence-holders in this respect than those repeated Parliamentary
968
attempts. The value of a licence was a monopoly value, but that value would be destroyed by increasing the number of competitors.
Not long ago the Liverpool magistrates thought they would do more good by allowing the free sale of drink than by granting a monopoly, and they tried the experiment of giving a licence to everybody of good character who applied for it. In circumstances like that the value of existing licences enormously declined. If a licence-holder had got anything like a legal claim, then it was injured by destroying the monopoly. That was what the Liverpool magistrates did, and that was what any magistrates could do now. If the magistrates to-day were to enormously increase the number of licences in a given area they would decrease the value of existing licences just as effectively as if they removed the licences from the present holders. In that case, would there be any ground for compensation? He thought everyone admitted that there would not. If there was no legal claim in that case where they destroyed the value by increasing the number of licences, why should there be any legal claim when they refused to renew a licence? For the sake of argument, he would admit that the licence-holder had got, not a right, but a saleable interest in his licence, which seemed to be an equitable interest, upon the expectation of renewal, that was upon the idea he had that because it had been the practice to go on renewing licences his licence ought to be renewed. That idea had grown up because the practice had been continuous and because it had been so uninterrupted that it had been taken to be regularly fixed. Everybody admitted that if the licence had been withdrawn this expectation would not have arisen. Surely it was an expectation which was founded entirely on what was represented to be an unbroken rule, and it would be destroyed for the future by the destruction of that rule. The destruction might equally well be done by giving formal notice, and therefore if formal notice were given, and a reasonable time allowed to claim compensation, that expectation altogether disappeared. That was the proposal in Mr. Bruce's Bill. The authors of that Bill said—"We will

969
allow that there is a certain well-grounded expectation. We will recognise that expectation for a certain time, but as we are giving you ample notice that that expectation will not be recognised we shall pay no compensation after a term of ten years." The equitable moral claim depended entirely on expectation. That expectation existed on what was admitted to be unbroken usage. That usage could be broken by giving solemn warning, and the only question was what was the proper length of time during which that solemn warning should be given. His hon. friend the Member for Anglesey suggested that it should be seven years, and his hon. friend the Member for East Dorset suggested fourteen years. It might be one or the other, or it might be a longer term. It might be twenty years, but that was not the point. The question was whether it was their duty to destroy the expectation on which the so-called moral claim was made by giving notice that after a certain time it would not be recognised. He had never been able to understand why a moral claim of this kind should be eternally maintained. It must come to an end if due notice had been given that it would be no longer recognised. He knew, of course, the argument that had been frequently used that licence-holders under this Bill would pay a mutual insurance, and that it was because they were going to do so that they ought to be in exactly the same position at the end of the period as at the beginning. But they had had their quid pro quo. Licence-holders would have a quid pro quo in that they would be undisturbed during the term of years or receive compensation. That the present proposals were regarded as of benefit to the trade by those who were interested was shown by the fact that brewery shares had risen in price.
The question was asked, What would happen when the time limit expired? During its operation the number of licensed houses would be reduced, though he felt very doubtful whether the reduction they were told to expect would take place. But assuming that it would, it was to be assumed also that the better licensed houses and those which were more wanted would survive, and therefore the chance of licences being taken away when the time limit expired
970
would be a great deal smaller than at present. By that time, too, it would be perfectly easy for licence-holders to insure themselves. He could understand the view that they would get some reduction of licences under this Bill, but he could not understand how it could be supposed that they would be equally free to deal with the temperance problem after this Bill had passed, when they would have created a vast vested interest which did not now exist. This Bill had a past, a very instructive history. It arose out of a deputation which waited on the Prime Minister, and which did not wait on him in the interests of temperance. The problem with which they had to deal was a great one, and many experiments had been tried in different parts of Europe, in America, in Canada, and in our colonies, some of them had been more or less successful. To allow local authorities to try one experiment after another, and to see which succeeded best, was a hopeful method of dealing with the problem, but a Bill like this closed the door altogether on that possibility. They were interdicting the one proper method of dealing with the problem, and they were creating what he might call a wire entanglement in front of the problem. They would indispose the public to listen to any proposition that might be made by creating this enormous preliminary difficulty in the interests of the liquor trade: that was why he so deeply regretted the step which the House was now asked to take. The Solicitor-General said that thirty years was a short period in the life of a nation. He himself was not sure that it was a short period in the life of this country. When he thought of the evils from which the country suffered in every branch of social life in connection with intemperance, he was bound to say that the retarding of temperance reform thirty years was a very serious matter. He confessed that he thought a Bill like this was calculated to throw the greatest possible difficulty in the way of any future reform which might be proposed, and he hoped the House would not take the deplorable step of creating a vested interest for all time.
*SIR EDGAR VINCENTsaid the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen had pleaded the

971
urgency of temperance reform, bat it appeared to him that the alleged urgency which he fully admitted was hardly consistent with opposition to the present proposal. Undoubtedly if the Bill were rejected the cause of temperance would be put back, if not for thirty years, at any rate for a considerable period. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the system of compensation which was now to be established was to be perpetual. The reply appeared to be that the application of the present Bill for a few years would render the further reduction of licenced and the consequent compensation unnecessary. In his belief, if this Bill were passed without important modification the licences would be reduced in a few years to the necessary number, and the redundant houses would be abolished.
MR. BRYCE: Does the hon. Gentleman mean by that that no further temperance reform is necessary?
*SIR EDGAR VINCENTsaid on the contrary he believed that the present measure, so far from blocking the way to further temperance reform, indicated the best path along which temperance reform should proceed. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that it was immoral and wrong by giving compensation to increase the value of licensed houses. He would point out that Clause 4 provided for an entirely new system for the granting of new licences. There had been a great deal of argument as to the abstract right of the licence-holder to get his licence renewed. It appeared to him that the question of abstract right was of infinitely less importance than the practical result of the application of the new Bill. It was clear that the effect of the time limit would be to destroy to a large extent the efficiency of the Bill in the direction of the reduction of licences. The capital powers could not be exercised if the period were reduced to seven years, and if the time limit were extended to twenty years they fell on the other horn of the dilemma by creating an intolerable condition of injustice between the licence-holder who was abolished in the nineteenth year and the licence-holder who was abolished in the twenty-first year. While the former would receive compensation, the presumably better-conducted house, the licence
972
of which was refused in the twenty-first year, would receive no compensation at all. Another great injustice would be inflicted by levying the tax which it was proposed to establish on a licence-holder after the twenty-first year, exposed as he would be to the immediate abolition of his licence without compensation, in order to pay the interest on the capitalsum paid to his more fortunate colleagues who had had their licences abolished previous to the twenty year limit. They would thus create a difference between the well-conducted and the badly-conducted houses and give all the advantage to the less well-conducted. Criticism of the Bill appeared to have erred in underestimating the effect of the Bill on one side, and in over-estimating it on the other. Regarded as a measure of practical temperance reform, he thought the merits of the Bill had been very largely undervalued. The fund available for compensation would amount approximately, to 10 per cent, of the present annual value, on which it would be possible to raise a capital sum equal to twenty-five times its amount, or two and a half times the total nominal value of the licensed houses available for compensation purposes. It might be fairly estimated that the compensation price would not be more than ten years purchase, so that the Bill as it stood, the capital powers being exercised, would afford a sum adequate to promote the reduction of the present licences by 25 per cent. Surely even to extreme temperance reformers such a reduction would be adequate.
As to the argument that the Bill blocked the way to further temperance reform, he maintained that, on the contrary, the Bill indicated in the clearest manner the way in which temperance reform could best proceed. If hon. Gentlemen opposite could carry the country with them they had only to take the schedule to the Bill and increase the compensation facilities by increasing the fund from 25 per cent, to 50 or 60 per cent. This would be achieved by increasing the proposed maximum schedule from an average of 10 per cent, to a higher percentage. Arguments had been used pointing to the conclusion that the Bill was bad because it had been well received by the trade. He could not see why the trade was particularly favoured by the Bill. The

973
measure amounted practically to a warning by the community that a reduction in the present number of licences was contemplated and a command to the trade to insure itself against a possible loss to individuals which would ensue upon that reduction. The principle of mutual insurance had been advocated. That was the underlying principle of the Bill. Insurance was not the less valid because imposed by the Government. He appealed to all those who, like himself, were anxious to promote in every practical manner temperance reform and who were totally unconnected with or interested in any brewery concern, to view whatever proposals were put forward in this direction not so much by their effect on the trade as by their probable effect on the community. If it could be shown, as he believed it could, that the result of the application of the Bill would be a large reduction in the number of licensed houses and a probable reduction in the amount of drunkenness, then he contended that the Bill was entitled to their most hearty support.
Mr. CHARLES DOUGLASsaid the question raised by the Amendment was vital to the Bill as a whole. Many Members had argued with great care a question which was not really in dispute, viz., whether or not there was any claim, moral or otherwise, to compensation or consideration in the ease of non-renewal of a licence. The only question at present before the Committee was whether the compensation should be restricted or unrestricted. The argument of the Prime Minister was substantially that a time limit would be inequitable because licence-holders, after having been compelled to pay an annual turn, would receive nothing at the end of the period in return for the money they had paid. But the whole theory of compensation by the trade was that those whose licences were renewed were not merely left as they stood but were gainers by the process of reduction. In his judgment it would be wholly inequitable to make one trader compensate another for the loss of his licence unless the former gained by the latter's loss. By diminishing the number of licences competition was reduced, and the profits of the remaining licence-hold era were increased,
974
and that was the only equitable ground on which compensation could be asked. The Bill would not only reduce present competition but largely restrict future competition, because there were to be imposed on new licences new conditions which would tend to reduce the number of applicants. In addition to that, the licence-holders who remained would have a much better security for the renewal of their licence than they now had, and that in the opinion of many people, was the main reason for the introduction of the Bill. The licence-holder would receive all these benefits during every year that he paid into the compensation fund, and they constituted a very good return for the payments he was asked to make. At all events, there was nothing in the fact that he had to pay into the fund to prevent Parliament considering, as an entirely separate question, the point whether they should take the opportunity afforded by the readjustment to give fair, and, if necessary, long notice that the present arrangement would be terminated at the end of a given number of years. If they were dealing with property, that would certainly be out of accord with the usual methods of procedure, but the matter here to be dealt with was merely an expectation, and it would be perfectly fair to liquidate that expectation by giving a reasonable number of years notice. If they had a time notice they would have a slower rate of reduction because they would have less funds available. He was bound to say that he thought the estimate of the last speaker was an unduly sanguine one. Surely ten years purchase was not such an unreasonable rate of compensation as had been spoken of by right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench. If that were so, then the rate of reduction would not be 25 per cent, of the total, or anything approaching it. He admitted that if they had a time limit and gave a time notice that they were going to terminate the present system they would create a new situation. That notice was one of the merits of the proposal to bring an end to the present system, because it created an opportunity of dealing with the situation which really needed fresh treatment. That was the point made by the Solicitor-General that afternoon.

975
Whatever hon. Members might think of the various methods of reform in detail, it was useful to have an opportunity for dividing opinion between those who thought the present licensing system was good through and should be continue, and those who believed that a fundamental changes was necessary. He confessed that he was only interested in the question has to how this Bill was going to affect the future licensing question in this Country. The question of a time limit was not real question, but what was more important was how far the public would be able to retain the rights they possessed at present, and how far they would be able to control this matter which affected them so closely. One solution mentioned during the debate had been the gradual transfer on fair terms of the licensing trade to disinterested management in some form or other. He regarded that as the most hopeful way of getting rid of the evils which existed in the trade now, without making any revolutionary departure from the present system. He thought such a solution was an essential step to take. It was very easy to say, as the Prime Minister said on the Second Reading, that the whole matter was entirely the fault of the people who drank too much. No doubt it was, but the business of the House of Commons was to do what it could to create circumstances in which there should be less and not more inducements to people to drink too much, and create circumstances in which there would be less abuse of the licensing system. So long as it was to the interest of those who were retailing liquor that their customers should drink more than was good for them, so long would they fail to get the best method of selling liquor which would do the least injury to the community. The real question was whether the future of licensing reform of this kind would be prejudiced by this Bill. Would this measure enhance the value of licences or not? He had in his possession an estimate made for specific business purposes in regard to the value of a number of public-houses in various part of the country, and the value of the licences and goodwill apart from the, buildings were put down at something like five years purchase of the net profits.
976
Surely if that were so the fact that they were now proposing to pay ten years purchase was an argument in favour of the contention the this Bill was increasing the value, licences. It was admitted t by one of the provisions of this measure that they were going to have a change in the value of licences, because if they were not going enhance the value of licences what was he meaning of that extraordinary provision that the value of the licences was to be estimated as if the Bill had not been passed. What was the meaning of having that provision in the Bill? Evidently there were two values in view, one representing the value of the licence at the present time, and the other the value which the Bill was going to give it. This was also proved by the fact that they were going to have increased borrowing powers if they did not have a time limit, which would enable them to make larger reductions in the number of licences. Surely this meant that they were going to give a better security.
By this Bill a perpetual right of renewal was created, subject only to good conduct, and when renewal was reused without misconduct there was to be compensation. Whether they called it a freehold or not, the licence-holder would have a very much more valuable security under this Bill than he possessed now, and they were creating for the first time in regard to general licences, as distinct from beerhouse licences, actual property in licences, and they were transforming a moral claim into legal property. The additional value they were creating was an additional obstacle to future reforms, whether they took the shape of local option, municipal management, or public trusts, or whatever way the licences were to be removed from private holders, and this Bill was creating a great additional obstacle unless it contained an element of time limit. If they had a time limit temperance reforms would be possible. The right hon. Gentleman had talked of confiscation, but what could be worse confiscation than to take from the public the right to deal with a trade which had been absolutely in their hands for so many years? Without a time limit this Bill was unrestricted confiscation, and therefore he should oppose it at every stage. He was

977
sure that when the people of this country realised what this Bill meant in regard to the future control of the liquor traffic, they would take a view which would perhaps lead them to deal leas leniently with the trade than they might otherwise be disposed to do.
*Mr. TRITTONsaid that as a considerable amount of reference had been made in the course of this debate to the Church of England Temperance Society, perhaps the House would grant a few moments indulgence to one who had been the treasurer of that society for a great many years. The Prime Minister had apparently got the idea that the clergy and Bishops of the Church of England were not to be considered good judges upon any point appertaining to temperance legislation. The Church of England Temperance Society wag composed very largely of the clergy, and they had for many years been doing their beat to check the drink traffic and to adopt some scheme by which legislative help might be given to that desire. Like many other societies, they were not absolutely unanimous in regard to this measure, and some of them strongly opposed this Bill and desired to see it ended, whilst others, like himself, desired to see the Bill amended and not ended, because they believed that it had very many good points in it. As one who had taken a very considerable and a very deep interest in this question for many years, he looked at the Bill and asked himself how it met the case he had at heart, if at all; what did it do to reduce the excessive number of licences? and he confessed that he thought it did a great deal towards reducing them, and upon that score he welcomed its introduction. He also thought that a licence should not be taken away unless compensation was given, and he had often thought that if he had been a licensing magistrate, which he was not, he would never have consented to put down a man's licence unless the man was compensated. He, therefore, agreed with that part of the Bill; and coming as it did from the trade itself, he could not understand how any one could object to compensation being given. The one fatal blot upon this Bill was that it mentioned no time at which
978
the right of the publican to compensation should cease. He was not in favour of endowing for all time this trade. He did not agree with the view that when they made a new departure of this kind they should turn an annual licence into a vested interest. Why should they? Why should they go out of their way to safeguard the interests of the drink trade and entrench that trade beyond the reach of harm, and prevent any amendment in favour of temperance reform in the future? He had been told that his view in regard to this was wrong, and as he had been told so by hon. Members who were learned in the law, he would just quote from a speech recently made by one who was also learned in the law, who was a Member of this House, and whose retirement from it he ventured to think was a great joss to this Assembly. He alluded to Sir Edward Clarke. Sir Edward Clarke was speaking at the Albert Hall a few days ago at the annual meeting of the Primrose League, and he said—
"He thought it was a deplorable thing that a time limit should be suggested by way of amendment. He hoped that this legislation with reference to licences might at least disentangle the Party to which he belonged from its constant connection with the trade. It had not been good for the Conservative Party nor for the trade that the interests of both should have been too closely mingled, bat if a time limit were adopted it would be found that during the time, and especially towards the end of the period, there would be a recrudescence of the agitation by a great and important trade, and that they would not be able to do what they might be able this year to do, namely, to put an end finally to the need of appealing to Parliament in respect of these questions."
He himself did not want to see that result. He did not want to see an end of temperance reform. He agreed with the opinion of Sir Edward Clarke as to the disentangling of the Party to which he belonged from, its constant connection with the trade, but he did not want to see in this the last year of power of the Conservative Party, before they want out to wander for a long time in the wilderness, this trade entrenched in this way. Had it done any good for the country? Had it helped the material and moral welfare of the country? He would like to have the opinion of the Home Secretary upon that point, for in no other place in the country were the evils of drink so brought home to a man. He saw opposite a

979
right hon. Gentleman whose presence from their discussions he regretted they were soon to lose, and he remembered that in 1893, when the right hon. Gentleman introduced his Local Veto Bill—with which, however, he did not himself agree—the right hon. Gentleman saying that it was what he had seen of the evils of drink during his tenure of office as Home Secretary that had made him a temperance reformer He asked that there should be no barrier put in the way of temperance reformer and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to say whether this trade required such tender handling as it was receiving in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman must allow that all the sad cases which came before him demanding his decision were all more or less connected with this evil of drink. It was because he believed that drink had done more than anything else in the world to send many poor souls to perdition that he earnestly hoped this Amendment might be adopted, and that by this Bill the way might not be barred for ever to temperance reform.
*MR. HENDERSONcongratulated the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down upon the speech which he had just made, the ting of which, he said, was in the tail. He himself wished to credit all sections of the House with a strong desire to deal with this great social evil, but the question in his mind was whether the scheme before the House contained the right proposals for dealing with this question. It must be admitted that any scheme before it could be satisfactory should have regard to the existing public opinion in the country, and secondly that it ought not to create barriers or restrictions that would make it well nigh impossible for any successive Government to deal with the question. He was inclined to think that this scheme had not the support of public opinion behind it. They all remembered that the Conservative Government in 1895 appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into the administration of the liquor laws, having due regard to the public interest. That Committee reported, and the first conclusion at which it arrived was that a great evil remained to be removed and that hardly any sacrifice would be too great which would
980
result in a marked diminution of this national degradation. The Committee made certain recommendations, which they expected to have the effect of minimising the evil which had been so conclusively proved to exist. Had the Government had any regard to the findings and the recommendations of their own Royal Commission? If this measure was judged in the light of the proposals and recommendations of the Commission, it must be admitted that no heed whatever had been paid to them. He wished they could be satisfied that the Government had paid more heed to the conclusions of their own Royal Commission than they had to the importunity of the trade itself. Not only had they paid no regard to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, but they had paid no regard to the public expression of opinion on the question. The strength of that public opinion was proved by the petitions which had been lodged against this Bill. No such evidence could be found in favour of this scheme. The only evidence in its favour came from those who were interested in passing this Bill through the House of Commons. It ought to be borne in mind that it was possible that public opinion might grow and desire to deal in a more drastic form with this great evil. Any scheme which this House was asked to adopt ought not to erect barriers, impose restrictions, or create any prejudice against its successors dealing with the question. The community as a whole was largely interested in this question, and was greatly affected by it. Therefore the community ought to be taken into consideration in any scheme put forward. They had been told that this was a compromise, but a compromise surely was something in the nature of a concession which ought to be mutual. There could be no compromise in this scheme because the party most interested in it, namely, the community, was not consulted. It could not be a compromise if the public were ignored while the trade was taken into consideration. This was proved by the action of the Prime Minister himself, who, when asked, received a deputation from the trade. That deputation waited upon the Prime Minister, not to make out a case for the reduction of licences,

981
not to urge that the evil should be curtailed, but to report the magistrates who had begun to do their duty to the public and to carry out the first recommendation of the Royal Commission by reducing the number of licences, and upon the ex parte statements of that deputation the Prime Minister promised that the question should be dealt with at an early date.
Personally he was not prepared to speak in support either of the Bill or of the present Amendment. Even if a time limit were inserted Parliament would be departing from the principle which had governed the licensing law since 1828, and creating a fixity of tenure which had never yet been held to exist by a Court of Law. Then one of the greatest blots on the Bill was its permissive character. The only thing definitely determined was the restriction of the power of the magistrates. As soon as the question of the public interest came in, and the question of putting the Bill into operation arose, the provisions read, the quarter sessions "may," not "shall," do so and so. The Bill afforded the maximum of protection to the trade, and the minimum of protection to the public. It had been said that under the Bill it would be possible to reduce licences to the extent of 25 per cent., but nobody bad dared assert there was any obligation upon the authorities to effect such a reduction. Many of its present opponents would be prepared to support the compensation scheme if they could thereby impose a permanent obligation upon the local authorities to effect a 25 per cent, reduction in the licences. Instead of that, power was to be taken from the local justices and given to the quarter sessions, the members of which might please themselves whether or not they created the necessary fund. So far as he was concerned, he would not accept any compensation scheme hedged round with such provisions as were to be found in the Bill; on the contrary, he would give it his most strenuous opposition. Public opinion on the temperance question had considerably advanced during the last ten or fifteen years Every section of the community was beginning to recognise that the evil of intemperance must be grappled with in the interests of the community as a
982
whole by bringing the licensing authority nearer the people most affected. As one who spoke directly in the name of the workers of the country, he affirmed that from every standpoint the workers were the greatest sufferers from the trade. Of late years a change had taken place in the composition of many benches of magistrates; thanks to a Liberal Government it had been made possible for a certain number of working men to secure seats upon the magisterial bench, and so to introduce the local element into the administration of the licensing law. Under this Bill the little power they possessed was to be transferred to quarter sessions the members of which had lived all their lives in a totally different atmosphere, and the working men were to have no representation whatever. There was not a Labour representative in Parliament who could qualify for a seat at quarter sessions, so absurdly high were the qualifications demanded.
*THE CHAIRMANintimated that the hon. Member's remarks were hardly relevant to the Amendment before the Committee. The point he was discussing would come up at a later stage.
*MR. HENDERSONsaid he was endeavouring to point out that inasmuch as the authority was to be transferred from the local bench to quarter sessions, the question of whether the transfer should be for an unlimited period or for seven or fourteen years was of vital importance. However, he would pass from that to his last point, which was that, with the growth of public opinion, everybody interested in the question had been looking forward to the time when there would be introduced a great scheme of constructive temperance reform by which the community as a whole would be enabled definitely to grapple with this evil. That hope would be permanently destroyed by the present Bill, because when once it got into operation, with all its financial and other provisions, any Government which attempted to deal with the question on other lines would be at once met by the cry that they must observe existing contracts—for the Bill would create contracts and give a property that had never been held before. Nothing was so difficult in connection with legislation as to carry a measure which was going to have the

983
effect of upsetting existing financial arrangements. In the interests of the workers he was going to give this measure his strenuous opposition, because he believed that it would not facilitate the reduction of licences. No one would persuade him that members of the trade opposite would come down to the House and give all this attention to promote a Bill which was going to facilitate a reduction of the licences which many of them were interested in. Hon. Members opposite knew full well the permissive character of this Bill, and they knew that the reduction of licences although small in the past, would be smaller in the future. It was because he believed that the Bill would have this effect that he had determined to oppose it.
*Mr. COHENsaid the hon. Member who had just sat down had attributed to all those who differed from him that they were influenced by sordid motives. He wished to assure the Committee that he had no interest direct or indirect in any brewery companies, and his opposition to this Amendment proceeded purely from considerations of what he considered were the highest principles of justice. He regarded this Amendment and this Bill exclusively from what seemed to him proper and equitable high principles, and it was no drawback to this Bill if it secured those principles and at the same time incidentally benefited brewers or the owners of public-house licences. The hon. Member for Spen Valley, on the Second Reading, said that he was not in favour of compensation, but he consented to it from considerations of policy, and he said that he was willing to consent to compensation as an act of grace. He followed the hon. Member's arguments very closely, but he could not see where considerations of grace would be involved in returning to people that which was their own money and their own property. He regarded that as a matter of honesty, and he declined to regard it as a matter of policy or an act of grace. He had always objected to the maxim that "Honesty is the best policy," because it was wrong to be honest merely because it was, forsooth, good policy. He considered that it was dishonest to deprive even brewers and publicans of property which was their own. The hon. Mem-
984
ber who had just sat down said they had been looking forward to a great measure of temperance reform. The hon. Member had not been long a Member of the House, but he had no hesitation in telling him that he would continue to look forward to a great measure of temperance reform if he relied upon those hon. Members who were always advocating drastic temperance proposals. He should not describe the hon. Member for Spen Valley and the hon. Member for Camborne as temperance reformers, but temperance advocates. The most conscientious and the most ardent advocates of temperance reform always seemed to him to support measures which thwarted and prevented temperance reform because they advocated only drastic measures.
The hon. and learned Member for Dumfries delivered a very powerful speech until he arrived at the end of it, when he was led away by the usual temptations of hon. Gentlemen opposite to refer to the last general election. There were, however, one or two observations in the hon. and learned Member's speech to which he should like to reply. He said that the justices in the past had not reduced the number of licences. That was quite true, and that was just one of the reasons why he was supporting this Bill. Hon. Members who had experience of the action of magistrates in petty sessions knew that there was a reluctance on their part to refuse the renewal of licences when there was no discreditable behaviour on the part of the licensee, although they might think there were too many public-houses in the district. There was a natural, and, he thought, almost a creditable reluctance to visit upon well-behaved licensees the loss which would result from that refusal. The hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs said that if they wanted to raise money by mortgages to the total amount of their annual income they would have to spend all that money; and, of course, although they could make a sweeping reduction of licences they would come to an end of their resources. That argument was irrelevant. He said so because he had never heard of any proposal in any portion of the United Kingdom to hypothecate the total amount of money at the command of the magistrates for the removal

985
at one fell swoop of all the licences which would come under the scope of the Bill. He considered that sound finance required that they should only mortgage part of their income, and that they would reserve something as a nest egg to continue the extinction of licences when the first outlay of capital had expired. He, personally, was not a tremendous believer in salvation being got from the reduction of licences. For twelve years on the London County Council he had opposed the abandonment of licences in connection with the properties of the Council. In the last ten years eighty-two licences had been abandoned by the County Council at a cost to the ratepayers of £272,000. That, to his mind, had only retarded temperance reform, because the policy pursued had made more valuable the surviving licences in the neighbourhood. The result was that they would have to pay more for them when they came to extinguish any of them. He could not understand why some hon. Members so much desired to deprive licence-holders of compensation. The refusal to give compensation reminded him of the days when highway robbery prevailed in the country. Then a man went up to another, and pointing a pistol at him, said. "Your money or your life." That, at least offered the victim a choice. Now it appeared the hon. Member opposite wanted both the money and the life, as they took the money in the shape of rates and then desired to confiscate the licence after a given time. He felt sure that this Bill would be an important step in the direction of true temperance reform, and he hoped it would be followed by other measures in the same direction. He would vote against the Amendment for a time limit.
*MR. LYELLsaid it was a matter of surprise to him to find how widely hon. Members on both sides of the House differed on this question, in view of the fact that they had so much common ground to start from, and that they travelled so far along common lines of thought in their efforts to find a solution. They were all agreed that there was too much liquor consumed, and, if anyone had any doubt on that point, he could refer to the records of the hospitals,
986
lunatic asylums, and jails. If he did so he would not have any doubt on the subject any longer. They were all agreed that there was too much money spent on liquor, and that was a point which, he thought, had not received so much attention as it deserved. It had been proved that there were many people earning from 24s. to 30s. a week spending 6s. to 7s. a week on liquor, and that without incurring any reproach whatever from neighbours and friends of being drunk. There was nothing more certain than that money spent on liquor, which was a luxury, was money not spent on food, clothes, proper housing accommodation, and the necessities of life, without which no family could be brought up in such a way as to afford the expectation or the chance of their becoming efficient citizens in the future. They were all agreed that there were too many licences. Some hon. Members on the other side of the House thought that a reduction of licences might not necessarily mean a reduction of the amount of liquor consumed or of drunkenness. If that were the case it only proved that the unnecessary licences were much more unnecessary than even he and his friends thought they were. The object of all hon. Members was to effect a reduction in the number of licences in London and elsewhere with as little hardship as possible to all concerned. The Government proposal had been laid before the House, and it had been said for it that in London a reduction of 25 per cent. might be secured by its operation; but, with all due deference to the opinion of the hon. Member for East Islington, he ventured to say that that could not be done without borrowing and spending up to the hilt the capitalised fund for paying the compensation. And how long were they to suppose it would be possible before a new capital fund would be available for any further reduction? A hundred, eighty, or sixty years? And were they to sit down with folded arms to wait for all these years before any further reduction could be undertaken? On the other hand, on that side of the House a time limit was proposed as a solution of the difficulty. Well, the Government refused to accept this solution. And on what ground? They regarded it as wanting in equity.

987
What was there inequitable in a time limit if the time was a fair one?
He could not help feeling that a great deal of the difficulty arose from a certain amount of confusion of thought in the minds of hon. Members opposite. One after the other got up and confessed—some of them reluctantly—that there was no property in a licence, and yet these same hon. Gentlemen all the time were unconsciously thinking of a licence as property. They had been told that a licence was property or quasi-property from the point of view that it was dealt with by the officers of the Inland Revenue on the basis that there was an expectation of renewal; but no one had ever considered that there was an expectation of a renewal of an ordinary public-house licence for more than fourteen years, and fourteen years was precisely the term proposed by the hon. Member for West Dorset as the number of years purchase or grace. But the Government had put forward the idea that there might be gross injustice in one man losing his licence just before and another just after the expiry of the time limit. He failed to see any injustice in that whatever. They were not going to follow the principle of the parable in which one man was paid a penny for one hour's work, and another man only received a penny for twelve hours work. In this case one man had thirteen and a half years profits, and if he lost his licence he was surely not going to be compensated at the rate of fourteen years profits for the loss of six months profits. If the other man lost his licence after fourteen and a half years he was to get nothing at all because he had received fourteen years gross profits. He failed to see any injustice in that at all. On the contrary, it seemed to him to be a very adequate measure of justice.
Then as to the question of the remaining houses, hon. Members opposite had, time after time, spoken as though this was a question of insurance, and insurance only. But there was another aspect of this levy on the houses which were going to be left. He ventured to think that it was something in the nature of an increased premium paid in return for an increased monopoly. And here they bad one of the
988
typical injustices of this Bill illustrated. The areas in which the levy was to be made were not scientifically adjusted. Take the county of Dorset, for instance, part of which he had the honour to represent. The number of licences to population through the country districts was not conspicuously great, though he was not quite sure whether it would satisfy the requirements of the Minority Report of the Peel Commission. But the old parts of Poole and Weymouth were largely over-licensed—the proportion being one to every 163 of the population in Poole. When a question of reduction went to the quarter sessions Poole had not a single magistrate on that Court. The county licensed houses were mainly well conducted, and their risk of non-renewal was very small. Why should they be assessed to contribute to the reduction of licences in Poole and Weymouth where nine-tenths of the licences might be swept away in these towns without putting another pennyworth of business into the pockets of the country licence-holders. That would be a very gross injustice to the country licence-holders. But if the area in which the levy was made were more scientifically adjusted and the levy made on the remaining licences in the towns to pay compensation for the licences suppressed, there would be no injustice, and the amount of the levy and probably more would be automatically returned to the pockets of the remaining licence-holders in the increased profits they would earn.
Lastly, there was the question raised of undesirable tenants taking up licences during the last year or two of the time limit. He did not think that that was a question which could seriously affect the case. The law was there which could control the licences, and if the law was inadequate it could very easily be strengthened, and if the law were enforced brewers would not put in men who would lose them their licences. Moreover, it would not be known necessarily that a particular house was going to be suppressed. Indeed, it would be found that it was to the interest of the licence-holders not to conduct their houses badly but to compete with each other as to who was going to conduct his house best so as to secure a renewal of his licence. The hon. Member for Carnarvon had stripped the

989
flimsy pretences thrown over the Bill. The hon. Member called it an electioneering Bill. He quite agreed; but he did not agree with the hon. Gentleman when he said it was a good electioneering Bill; on the contrary, he thought it was an uncommonly bad electioneering Bill. Let him get the publican in a quiet corner, where there was no one around to take the news to the brewer, and ask his opinion, and he would find that the unsophisticated publican had a very shrewd idea indeed of the Bill, and had no delusion as to the solidarity of interest as between himself and the brewer. He ventured to think that at the next general Election the effect of the Bill would be more far reaching than the Government imagined.
*SIR MARK STEWARTsaid he thought that there was considerable confusion of ideas on both sides of the House with reference to this Bill. Directly the Government brought in the Bill it was received on that side with acclamation. It was thought by the country to provide a great want; but although its general principle was approved, it was felt that there was something lacking to make it a perfect measure. From recent experience, and throughout his life, he had been quite consistent in regarding compensation with a time limit as essential. He had argued the matter when no one was willing to hear him; he had fought elections on it, and might have to fight elections on it again; and he had won on principles which were repugnant to many, but which he had endeavoured to make as palatable as he could, In many parts of Scotland there was a strong feeling that a publican ought not to be dispossessed without compensation; and as the Bill gave compensation, he did not think it should be rejected in the summary manner advocated by hon. Gentlemen opposite. During the twenty-five years he had sat in the House, he had seen Bills which might have proved most useful rejected. He recognised in this Bill a real attempt on the part of the Government—and he gave them every credit for the attempt—to put down the number of public-houses where they were not necessary or useful. He was not one of those who
990
thought that the working classes wished for a moment to be without public-houses. He knew perfectly well they liked public-houses; and a public-house conducted in moderation would be most useful in a district. But there were a number of bad low public-houses which were not necessary, and which ought to be at once put down. There was no machinery at present to do that. The licensing magistrates in England would not do it. He himself had gone down from London to Scotland to oppose a licence; but the licence was afterwards replaced by the licensing justices. That was unsatisfactory. The licensing justices would not act because they did not like to take away a man's living without compensation.
So far he spoke in praise of the Bill. Now he had to take a different view. Would the public benefit from this Bill as they should? Here was a great monopoly confined to a very few, and protected by very careful laws, in order that those who had licences should manage their houses properly. At present, a licence could not be said to be a freehold or a vested interest; but if the licences were to be perpetuated their value would be increased enormously. Was not the country justified in asking, if this enormous profit were to be made, that it should have some hold on the licences. Giving licences in perpetuity was what moderate temperance reformers could not stand. He was not now speaking of any particular church or class. He had been a member of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, but he had also access to a fair amount of information from Dissenters. The great Nonconformist body, the United Free Church of Scotland, held its General Assembly at the same time as the Church of Scotland; and he knew the feelings of hundreds of these men. They were unanimous in saying that they could not approve of this Bill without a time limit. They were really interested in the matter on behalf of their flocks and congregations; and to ignore such public opinion was to throw away an opportunity to gain knowledge, which was a very great loss in considering a question of this sort. When they went deeper and asked individuals what they thought of this Bill in which they were all concerned

991
they would find that the people knew all these things far better than English legislators could explain them; because the Scotch were far ahead of the English in these matters and could explain these matters far better for themselves than they could be explained in an heated debate in this House. He implored the Government to consider this matter. It was out of the question to say they could not graft a time limit onto this Bill. How could it be said that in fourteen years time this Bill would have done its work. Would an Act hold good for fourteen years without amendment? It might require revision and that was all he asked for. They might call it a time limit, or revision, or what they liked, but that would satisfy the country to some extent. If a time limit were not incorporated the result would be that the moderate temperance party, which embraced many thousands of voters, would take a line of their own at the next election and would silently vote for the policy in accordance with their views on this question. There was nothing which troubled Scotchmen more than religion and politics; they cared little about other matters, but if once strife was stirred up in either religion or politics they would fight to the last gasp. He appealed to the Government to give the matter more consideration. The Bill would go through far more easily and in far less time if some assistance was given in the way of a time limit. Let the Government call it what they liked, but let them give something by means of which their supporters could assure their constituents that they were not handing over any property or vested interest to the trade.
*Mr. HELMEsaid the clause to the Amendment which the Committee was now asked to consider, appeared to him to propose such a drastic change in the law that he was a little astonished to hear the hon. Member for Stretford say that he was surprised that temperance reformers wished to mutilate a Bill of this sort. Outside this House a strong public opinion had shown itself. In the numberless petitions that had been presented, the Committee had evidence that there was a growing feeling that the proposals of this Bill were not supported by public
992
opinion outside. A duty, therefore, seemed to be thrown on the Committee to endeavour to meet this by, at any rate in this House, appealing to the Government not to throw away the opportunity still within their grasp. So far as he could make out, this opinion centred itself in the strong objection to destroying the discretion which the justices had hitherto exercised in giving or withholding a licence. If the Committee looked for a moment at the grounds on which these licences were granted they would be bound to admit and recognise that it was not the private interest of the applicant that was considered, but the public need of the locality, and for that reason a licence was granted for a year, and a year only. In his opinion the magistrates had not exercised their discretion ruthlessly and without consideration to the trade in the past. There was a feeling that in each case justice must be done, and that there must be no partisanship. Many of his constituents who differed from him, and had done their best to prevent him sitting in this House, were now pressing him to the utmost extent; in their power to secure an alteration in this Bill by the introduction of a time limit, and were urging him to amend and even, if necessary, obstruct the passage of the Bill in order to bring about that result. The desire of the public to deal justly with all interests concerned must be admitted. The public authorities could always afford to be generous in dealing with such a question as was now before the House, but he honestly believed that public opinion had formed a stern resolve and that it would re-assert itself, if thwarted now, and insist upon controlling the drink traffic. He, therefore, thought the Government was unwise in the course it was pursuing.
On the previous evening the Prime Minister had said that if it was proposed that the public should pay this insurance, the attitude of the Government would be different in respect to the question of the time limit, and had asked was it right and fair, considering the fact that this sum of money was to be drawn from the trade, to press for a time limit? He certainly thought it was because the extraordinary profits that could be made by the licence-holder were due to the

993
power given to him by which he was subjected to no competition in respect of the sale of drink, and therefore, in his opinion, the public had a legitimate claim to a portion of the profits made in exchange for the monopoly which had been conferred upon the licence-holder. The Government ought to realise that the general welfare of the community had as much right to be considered as the pockets of the licence-holders. The policy behind the Bill would obstruct the progress of reform, and he submitted that it would have been quite sufficient had the Government provided a compensation fund, drawn from the trade, and placed it at the disposal of the magistrates without any limit on their discretion. The magistrates had always desired to deal fairly with the interests of the individual, and they could have been trusted to exercise their discretion fairly. Moreover other trades had to insure against certain contingencies, and it would have been perfectly easy for the liquor trade to secure itself against the arbitrary exercise of the powers of the local Bench. Of late years there had been a gradual giving up of licensed houses which had become effete or worn out, but that process would now be stopped, because the houses would be given a permanent value which did not formerly exist. Parliament ought not to block the way, and thus render more difficult the carrying out of a wise and careful scheme for the improvement of the liquor trade. He deprecated Members being so filled with the Party spirit as to permit a system of "see-saw" legislation by which legislation forced through by a mechanical majority now, in spite of the protest of the Opposition, had on a future occasion to be repealed or materially altered by another Parliament. If practicable he would propose a time limit in connection with the schedule, so that the amounts payable under the Bill would be fixed only for a certain number of years. The country would then be given an opportunity of reconsidering the position, if the Government still refused a response to the appeals which had been made from both sides of the House, and a future Parliament be spared the necessity of adopting a system of high licence fees as a punitive measure
994
rendered necessary by the policy of the present Bill.
And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Considered in Committee;—
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:—
  Amendment again proposed—
  "In page 1, line 5, to insert, at the beginning, the words 'During the period of seven years after the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Ellis Griffith.)
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Amendment again proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "To leave out the word 'seven,' and insert the word 'fourteen."—[Colonel Williams.)
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'seven' stand part of proposed Amendment."
  *Mr. A. K. LOYDsaid if only those who were against this Bill were in favour of a time limit, he, being in favour of the Bill, would have been content to give a silent vote against a time limit. But he had been much impressed by the fact that many of those who agreed with this measure in its principle and its scope were desirous of seeing a time limit engrafted on it. The argument in favour of a time limit proceeded on the assumption that a time limit for compensation for the non-renewal of a licence was exactly similar in its effects to a notice to terminate an agreement. The proposition of the right hon. Member for Aberdeen that the claim for compensation rested entirely on expectation, and if only a reasonable

  995
  notice to terminate that expectation could be given no hardship could arise was based on entirely fallacious reasoning, because, in the first place, a great deal of the claim rested on the compulsory outlay and continued outlay up to the very end of the period. Moreover, under a notice to terminate an agreement or expectation the person under notice knew the exact date of the end of his interest, and as it approached could curtail his expenditure, withdraw, and, re-invest his capital and minimise his losses in every way; but under a time limit for compensation for non-renewal of a licence a totally different position was presented. The licence-holder was ignorant as to whether he would or would not be deprived of all further interest, and, until the blow fell, would be not only unable to curtail outlay and withdraw his capital, but compelled to continue his outlay in order to keep his premises suitable for their purpose. Under those circumstances it was not possible for the licence-holder to regard a time limit as an opportunity given to him to enable him to minimise his losses and so protect himself from a fixed future disability. Here, both the fixed date and the liberty to curtail outlay would be wanting. So much, for the underlying fallacy of treating a time limit to compensation as equivalent to a notice to end an agreement. Now what were the arguments for the time limit itself? It had been argued that there was no right to compensation at all, and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen had frequently said that there was "no right," "no property," "no vested interest." The Government had been accused of conferring for the first time a right and creating vested interests where none existed. But the people of this country believed a great injustice was being done; that a loss was being sustained by the licence-holder for the public good through no fault of his own, and it was that which was the basis of the compensation which was being called for throughout the country. The public cared no more for these distinctions as to "vested interests," "rights," or "properties," than they did for a metaphysical discussion, and if the Committee could be spared all these refinements about vested rights, property, and the like, an immense deal of time and labour would be saved.
  996
  Another argument adduced was that this Bill interfered with the discretion the magistrates had exercised from time immemorial; and that was a plausible argument because, in a way, the discretion to which it was now found necessary to append this compensation was the same discretionary power which had long been exercised without any such compensation. But what was left out of sight was the fact that the discretion of the magistrates up to within recent years was exercised on grounds entirely different to those on which it bad come to be exercised since. Thirty years ago and till recently, the only grounds upon which magistrates refused to renew an existing licence were either that the house was grossly misconducted or unfit, or that the premises were "unnecessary.". In those days, "unnecessary" meant that the premises were no longer required to be used as a public-house, because business had receded from them; population had moved away from the locality, and the expense of police supervision was out of proportion to the public convenience to be served by the renewal. Those facts used to be brought to the attention of the magistrates by the police, and the magistrates found as a fact that the premises were unnecessary and refused; the licence. Nobody ever suggested that a licence refused under such circumstances should be compensated for. But in recent years the discretion of the magistrates had begun to be exercised under a lively sense of responsibility for the moral well-being of the community, and from a very high sense of the importance of the reduction of licences as a step in that direction. Thus it was that their discretion was not only used in the case of what might be called those derelict houses from which trade had receded, but in connection with those which though doing a good business were "not required" in the sense that they bore too large a proportion to the population. His sole ground for wishing to see this matter settled was that now this discretion was being exercised as part of a great temperance movement and the magistrates were only prevented from exercising it to a larger extent by the fact that they felt that it must now be exercised on going concerns and not those which were in the old sense of the word

  997
  "unnecessary," and that they could not exercise it without inflicting very grave loss on the man whom they damnified, and who had done nothing to deserve it. Their sense of justice was outraged by the fact that they could not exercise their descretion on modern lines without inflicting harm on a very deserving class of men.
  He did not agree with the hard terms that were flung at the licensed victualler's trade. The trade existed to meet a public demand and was carried on under police and magisterial supervision and he doubted whether there was a man in the House who at some time or another had not been glad to avail himself of the shelter of a public-house or an hotel either at home or abroad. It was not fair only to dwell upon the black side of the case and describe all these houses as being engaged in a "hellish traffic." This sort of bitter and unjust abuse could only be directed to creating prejudice and making the Committee indifferent to the question of whether injury and injustice was inflicted upon the persons so spoken of. He associated himself most earnestly with every attempt to see this traffic carried on under proper conditions, but he objected to these men being described as following any but a respectable calling. Exception had been taken to the Government speaking of this Bill as a temperance measure. Nobody had suggested that the deputation from the trade which waited on the Prime Minister was actuated in so doing by a desire to promote temperance. But the deputation was caused by the fact that the discretionary power of the justices was being exercised not merely upon "unnecessary" licences in the old sense of the term, where business was extinct, but upon houses in the full swing of business which were "unnecessary" only in the modern temperance reform sense by the population scale. And temperance reform (on modern lines) was being retarded owing to the magistrates feeling the difficulty of applying their discretion to "unnecessary" public-houses, in the new sense of the term. Now when this was brought to the attention of the Government why were they not entitled to say they would produce a measure to remedy the existing state of things, and by releasing the dead-lock give a fresh impetus to temperance reform. It was argued in favour of the time limit that this Bill as it stood would tie the
  998
  hands of future Parliaments. That was an absolute impossibility. Any Member who did not like an Act was at liberty to try and change the law. If public opinion called for a change in the licensing laws, it would be as open to Parliament to make that change as it was to them to make the present change. All that this Bill did was to put the publican, who had been up to now in a most anomalous position, into a position of being compensated for any damage he might sustain on public ground and without fault from a refusal to renew his licence. It was also said that after a time all the redundant licences would be suppressed, and that there would be no further occasion to reduce licences; and, therefore, no occasion to compensate. If that were so, the time limit now asked for would be automatically applied and therefore it was not necessary to incorporate it in the Bill. But if the need for reduction continued he could not understand the argument that something was to be done now to relieve the magistrates of a dilemma but that we should enact that at the end of a certain time that dilemma should be revived. The Bill was modelled on the principles of elementary justice and no time would come in the future when it would be just to insist upon continuous outlay and a high standard of excellence up to the moment of deprivation and then suddenly destroy the business on public grounds only, without any compensation. The compensation was to be raised from the trade itself. To put a time limit on the Bill was, he thought, a great mistake, and he should feel compelled to vote against it.
  MR. HARWOODsaid the hon. Member who had just sat down seemed to have spoken under an entire misapprehension. He had said that they did not care about rights or property. But the whole thing was a matter of property. It was a matter of money, and whilst hon. Members on that side of the House were perfectly prepared to do what was right to the publican they had also to consider the public. It was all very well to say that they did not care about rights, but that was exactly what they were there to discuss. He believed in public-houses and he would be very sorry to live in a country where no public-houses existed. He was opposed to local

  999
  veto; and was of Dr. Johnson's opinion that an inn was the only place in the world where one could be absolutely certain of having a welcome when one came and where they would be sorry to see one leave. This discussion had shown the delicacy of the position in which the Opposition were placed in arguing this question, because there were two senses to the term "time limit," and they had been confused throughout the debate—the first was applied to the Bill and the second was applied to compensation. The Amendment technically before the House referred to the time limit in connection with the Bill and suggested that the Bill should be for seven, fourteen, or other number of years. It had been said if there was a time limit it would be unfair to the licence-holders, who would pay for along time upon their licences and then when the time came for them to be got rid of they would get nothing in return, but that was the question of the time limit with reference to compensation. It was most unfair to talk about a time limit as if it would do some injustice. The question was whether the Bill should be for seven years or other period or for an indefinite time. No time limit in that sense could cause injustice to be done to anybody. Those who had been compensated would have gone and those who had not would have remained in a better position than they were before, because they would have gone through the zone of fire and would have got a reputation for respectability and good conduct which would enable them to obtain licences far more easily than now. He was perfectly certain that it would be an immense relief to great bodies of the Government's own supporters—he could speak for those in his own constituency—who had faith in the experiment if they could feel that it would not commit them in perpetuity. The Prime Minister had said that there had been a great mistake made in the past in dealing with the licensing question generally and that it would be very difficult to go back upon what the nation had done wrong in the past. In the past they had allowed a number of people to have the use of valuable property without paying enough for it, and now the Bill proposed to hand over the fee simple of the property to them. The time limit was at the very
  1000
  genesis of the Bill itself. They were going to do away with bad houses, but there would come a time when they would have reduced licensed houses sufficiently. He warned hon. Members on the Liberal side that the public would not stand unlimited reduction of public-houses. Within a reasonable time the licences would have been reduced to a sufficient extent and what was going to happen after that?
  It had been said that the reduction of licences had been proceeding very slowly. The majority of the reductions made in the last few years had been made by the voluntary giving up of poor houses by the trade. The tied-house system had altered the whole character of licences. Brewers had got a number of houses that did not pay and they were getting rid of these, or only keeping them on to prevent other people having houses. Since, however, these brewers had heard the words of the Prime Minister, promising to bring in a Bill, they had recognised that these non-paying houses had a value. This was a very serious aspect of this question. They would have a great number of wretched and worthless houses perpetuated because they had a value under the Bill. They would have got them for nothing if they had waited, but under the Bill they would have to pay a preposterous price for them. The result of the Bill would be that the public in the future would have to buy back from the trade the licences, which they now proposed to make freehold, at their enhanced value, and in that way it would be the public who would have to pay compensation in the end. The public, in fact, were going to be done. He did not say they were going to be done intentionally, but that would be the result.
  It was a possibility that the great masses of the people might in the future take this matter into their own hands. The working classes were the customers now, and they were the managers, but in the future the working classes would want to manage as well as be customers, and would want better public-houses and better liquors. He wanted to see liquor sold at an honest,

  1001
  decent, and fair price, and the Government by this Bill were putting a barrier in the way of that. They were saying that the people should never have facilities to take the matter into their own hands, and the people would feel resentment and anger when they discovered the hedge which had been set up round their freedom of action. The Prime Minister stood up like Jane Shore in a white garment to defend his illogical position which they were now trying to remedy. Well, he remembered, when he was a boy, a man being granted a licence in the neighbourhood in which he lived. His father was one of the magistrates, and the man came to him afterwards and said, "Mr. Harwood, you put £3,000 into my pocket." It turned out to be rather more, but that remark induced him to ask himself why they should put thousands of pounds into people's pockets in this way. He wanted to put the same question to the First Lord of the Treasury now. For his own part, he felt so strongly the undesirability of making elasticity impossible in the future, that, out of consideration for those who had invested their money in the business, he was prepared to go a long way in the matter of compensation—even to the length of finding compensation out of national funds—rather than have the time limit done away with, for that would make it impossible to have elasticity in the future. He begged the Government not to make it impossible in the future to remedy the mistakes of the past, but to put this business at last on a sound footing.
  SIR PHILIP MUNTZsaid that having during the last few weeks studied this question very closely, he should support the Bill, which he considered would promote temperance reform. If he were to say what he thought about the time limit, he would not be able to confine himself to Parliamentary language. He thought it was one of the most discreditable suggestions that had ever been made in that House. Under it, after a given period a man who made the insurance would be robbed of the benefit of the premiums he had paid. He could not conceive how such a proposal could be made by any fair-minded man. If a time limit were in-
  1002
  troduced this question would not be disposed of now. It would come up again. The trade was a great power. It would ask who had passed the Bill containing the time limit which robbed it of its premium; and it would answer, "The Unionist Party" That was why hon. Members opposite had introduced the Amendment They had introduced it to create a split between the Unionist Party and the trade. The publicans would blame the Unionist Party. That was the strongest argument—one of the strongest arguments—against passing the time limit. If the Unionist Party did not reject the limit they would suffer, and justly suffer, for having consented to one of the most dishonest Suggestions ever made in that House.
  Mr. THOMAS SHAWsaid that judging from the speech to which they had just listened, this debate had lasted none too long. The Committes were gradually getting at the truth of the situation. According to the hon. Gentleman who had so powerfully and so incisively addressed them, and who had been rendered practically speechless by the proposal, Parliamentary language was not sufficient to convey the full force of his sentiments to the House. The offence of the time limit was that it would cause a split—Oh, sad disaster!—between the Unionist Party and the liquor trade. No wonder the hon. Gentleman was well nigh speechless. The Unionist Party was in danger of being disrupted from top to bottom. A split with the trade meant wreck and political ruin, and anything which savoured of a bait to detach any Member of the Unionist Party from that alliance between a sectional interest and the State alarmed the hon. Gentleman whose speech had formed so interesting a contribution to the debate. But the remarks of the hon. Member who had just sat down had little to do with the merits of the time limit itself. They were rather concerned with tactical considerations affecting the Unionist Party. The time limit went down to the root of the situation, and involved no less a question than whether the trade was to be the master of this Government and country, or the Government and the country were to be masters of the trade. He hoped he would be able

  1003
  to express his views in Parliamentary language, but he was bound to say he much regretted the attitude of the Prime Minister, who had definitely announced that there was to be no compromise on this matter. One satisfactory feature of this debate was that, so far as the law on the matter was concerned, nobody was in doubt. His hon. and learned friend the Member for Dumfries had stated the whole situation with regard to the question of compensation and with regard to the legal position of the licensed victualler, and he confessed he heard with not a little satisfaction the speech of the Solicitor-General, because it did not controvert by one iota the proposition laid down by his hon. and learned friend, What the right hon. Gentleman did say was that there was no right of property, and that there was only a licence. The right hon. Gentleman quoted with approval, and if he might presume to say so, he entirely assented to the citation from that distinguished judge Lord Lindley, who declared that the nature and quality of the thing on which he was inquiring was a certain expectation on the part of the licensee that his licence would be continued. How had that expectation arisen? It had not arisen from the action of Parliament, and he would put the matter in this way: Suppose Parliament wished to-day to confer on any person the right to carry on a business, and to make it clear that it was not a right in perpetuity, or in the nature of property, it could only be done by Parliament declaring on the face of the document that it was a licence, and, if it was desired to make it clear beyond all question that there was no perpetuity, by stating on the face of the document that the licence was for one year only. That was what Parliament had done in this case, and he saw no legal or moral ground for a person whose licence was thus limited by Parliament claiming compensation as if it were a perpetual right.
  The Prime Minister said that at the end of the time limit the same question would emerge. He perfectly appreciated the position taken up by the Prime Minister in his speech. His own view of the time limit was simply this: Owing to what had been done in the history of the licensing question, the local
  1004
  authorities had, so to speak, conducted themselves with such exuberant confidence in the trade, and with such a constant desire not to injure the trade, that gradually the trade had conceived the notion that it had, as against the Government and as against this House, a right which it ought to be compensated for. In short Parliament had in practice been disabled in this matter, but that disablement did not exist in law, and it never existed in imagination until a short time ago. What was the answer made in the discussions on local veto? It was that the present law, if properly administered, was sufficient. The Unionist Party, now in danger of this split, announced that principle so continuously and so vehemently that at last the justices thought there might be something in it, and they began to administer the law as they found it. They discovered certain overlapping, a certain over-supply in particular districts of the country. Then they were checkmated by the Prime Minister. That was the situation and nothing else than that. The Prime Minister scolded the justices of the country for the exercise of their rights. The announcement of the right hon. Gentleman produced an instant arrest of the reduction of licences, and now he came forward with this Bill, backed by the entire power of the trade, for temperance reform. All the strong language, "uttered or unexpressed," about temperance reform, about the avoidance of robbery and the like, made no impression when they considered that what was proposed to be done was simply to carry on the campaign started by the Prime Minister, who was checkmating the actual and steady and growing reduction of licences by a measure of this kind. What did the time limit mean? It might appear to many minds that from the practice that had gone on Parliament was in a measure disabled from revoking the licences it had granted. The meaning of the time limit was simply that it was a notice to the licence-holders that at the end of a fixed time they must consider that disablement had disappeared and that Parliament had resumed the absolute freedom to recall what it had an absolute freedom to grant. The time limit seemed to him to be the only convenient method by which

  1005
  Parliament and the local authorities under Parliament could revindicate and reassert for themselves that power which was contained on the very face of the licence—the power of declaring that a thing granted for a year should never be relied upon, against the funds of this country or of anybody, for more than a year.
  He was against the idea of compensation, believing there was nothing to give compensation for. He did not think the Bill was a compensation Bill. It had been rightly described as a compulsory insurance Bill; and that was what made the Bill, to his mind, a perfect surplusage in legislation, because if Parliament chose to effect its reform and not to compel insurance, the trade was astute enough, clever enough, and well advised enough to insure itself up to the hilt. Still, when compensation was in the field he wished the question to be fairly treated, and he would vote for fourteen years. His hon. and learned friend the Member for Stretford had given the Committee the advantage of his experience in arbitration, and had said that under the Lands Clauses Act these licences had been valued, roughly, at about ten years purchase. In the North he might say that that figure was not reached. It was considerably less than that, and he was told that in Ireland it was still less. He would take it at ten years purchase. He would put this question to the Government: If Parliament is getting quit by ample notice of its disablement, how can there be any claim to a longer notice than four years beyond the full purchase price of any licence? The time limit was simply a declaration by Parliament that at the end of that time the state of matters existing before the action of the justices was arrested at the hands of the Prime Minister would be resumed. He had great difficulty in understanding the language of the Prime Minister with regard to the clergy of all denominations, of whom he said that when they came to discuss the purely secular methods by which Parliament ought to deal with questions of legislation affecting the public at large, their training gave them no special title to be heard. The employment of spiritual weapons was their sphere. This he said with regard to a
  1006
  body of men who were dealing with what he himself described as the reform of a great moral evil. It would be a bad day for this country when the clergy of all denominations were specially disfranchised from giving a hint to Parliament as to how it should act.
  Mr. A. J, BALFOUR: I never said that.
  Mr. THOMAS SHAW: The Prime Minister said they had no special title to give an opinion.
  Mr. BALFOUR: No special title—the title of all of us.
  Mr. THOMAS SHAWthought the clergy, as such, had a special title in regard to a moral evil. He did not wish in the slightest degree to over-strain the view presented by the right hon, Gentleman. But the view which he himself presented was that there were two forces with which the Prime Minister had been confronted; one apparently was legitimate, the other he considered, as proceeding from the churches, had no special title to be heard in the region of secular methods affecting legislation. What were the secular methods that had been used in other quarters? A brewer at a recent meeting said to his fellow-brewers: "In your just resentment and revenge even the most powerful Government of modern times may feel your hand heavy upon them." That was a secular method. This kind of language the Government would attend to. "All Governments depend on votes, and if the Government wants the votes of licence-holders they must promise us the protection we demand." There was a good deal of secular method about that; it was the method which this Government alone understood—the bludgeon in the hands of a powerful and overmastering interest like the liquor trade. The liquor trade had not been idle in recent weeks. It had tried public meeting? but with all the engineering that had taken place it could not have them. It had made most elaborate arrangements for public meetings being crowded with the supporters of the trade before anybody else could get in, but no public meetings that one had heard of had been

  1007
  held. This was what was now announced by circular dated April this year—
  "The entire work of many years of organisation, and the whole future of the trade, will depend upon a few weeks activity at the present time."
  That was a secular method. They now saw exactly the force that had come upon the Prime Minister. He had adjured the Bishops, but he succumbed to the secular methods of the brewers. Why was there to be no compromise even on the time limit? The trade had intimated that they would not have it. Two interests were concerned in this matter, and during these discussions too much attention had been paid to the one and too little to the other. There was the interest of the trade, strong, powerful, clever, well organised, and full of money, and this interest had been well attended to the Government were on its side. The other interest was that of millions of people who, by ignorance, by poverty, and misfortune, were beset by the temptations of the greatest social curse in our midst. It was poltroonery on the part of the Government of this country to do nothing to protect them against this powerful interest. By accepting the Amendment Parliament would give the power of closing the chapter of temptation in localities, but the Government protected the strong and oppressed the weak by resisting any idea of compromise.
  He would now venture very humbly to express his difference from certain opinions which had been delivered in the course of the debate as to the finality of this measure. He quite agreed with the Colonial Secretary that the omnipotence of Parliament could not be impaired, and with regard to the obstacle to reform he was not sure that he quite agreed with his right hon. friend the Member for Berwick, who said the Bill closed the door against reform; the resistance to this time limit seemed to him to open a door. If they were by their constitutional position confronted by a steadily hostile attitude in another place, if the Liberal Party were prevented from repealing the Act, then they would have to look around and find some other way of checkmating this powerful interest, and they would do it by imposing a heavy charge on this monopoly. With a time
  1008
  limit Parliament would not attack the question with the same force, but if there was to be no compromise, if perpetuity was to be maintained, if from the passing of this Bill there was to be a perpetual right in the licensee as against the public, then the public would call for the prompt and effective imposition of such a tax as would restore to the public their right. The triumph of no compromise would be short-lived. It might provoke at a very early time the imposition of such a tax as would restore to the State its mastery over the trade. The trade was powerful beyond all computation. He had seen passages in which it declared that it put this Government in, and that if the Government did not do its behests it would chuck this Government out. That was the language not of Britons but of Tammany. Tammany knew the men it had to deal with. According to its own view the trade held the Government in the hollow of its hand. In this time limit discussion the House had reached a point when those who were pleading for it asked that a restoration should be effected which would give Parliament mastery over a trade whose methods, unabashed and openly avowed, were methods of public political corruption.
  Mr. GEORGE WHITEsaid he was sure that the Committee would sympathise with him in the position in which he found himself after the very eloquent speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down. He would not delay the House at any very great length, because the hon. and learned Gentleman had put before the Committee, in language which he could not be expected to imitate, many of the things he desired to say. He felt that they had had far too much discussion upon the mere trivialities of this question, but the hon. and learned Gentleman had placed the subject on a higher level than before, and he would be only too glad if the discussion could be kept on that level until the end of the debate. After all, this was a great moral question, and he, for one, felt that the position was such that the plain speaking in which the hon. and learned Gentleman had indulged was the kind of speaking which the subject merited from the Opposition. Some hon. Members opposite

  1009
  might think that the country looked with complacency at the way in which the question had been brought forward; bet he, for one, felt that the atmosphere outside was very different from the atmosphere inside the House. Some of them on that side of the House had had a good deal of opportunity of knowing what the public feeling was in regard to this matter, and he ventured to say that there had been no question before the public for many years on which there had been such a determined expression of opinion on one side only in regard to the issues involved in this struggle. There had been no records of any public meeting throughout the length and breadth of the land, expressing an opinion in favour of the Bill now before the House, while hon. Members on both sides of the House had had plenty of opportunities of learning the opinion of large assemblies of their fellow citizens, and also of a great number of those who had to do with the moral welfare of the country. The sooner they got rid of the sham idea that this Bill originated, as was pretended, on the other side, with the desire to limit the number of public-houses, the sooner they should assume the attitude of honest men in face of the public at large.
  The claim of the Colonial Secretary, that the origin of the Bill was a desire to aid the magistrates to reduce the number of public-houses was one of the most extraordinary that could be submitted to an intelligent assembly. They knew perfectly well that it was meant to prevent the magistrates reducing the number of public-houses to a larger extent than at present. After having refused to receive a deputation of those interested in temperance reform, the Prime Minister received a deputation of those interested in a trade which was inimical to the best interests of the nation, whether considered from a commercial, social, or moral point of view. After the speech made by the Prime Minister to that deputation of the trade, to pretend that this Bill was a measure of temperance reform was a great sham. Having been introduced at the call of the trade, it was not to be expected, on the face of it, that it was calculated to promoted temperance. It was not too much to say that this movement was a
  1010
  grossly corrupt political act, and an act which was quite unworthy of the Prime Minister and of the Government of which he was the head. Strong opinions had been expressed about this trade by leading statesmen in the past generation or two, and he would read one of these from a leading statesman to which hon. Members on the other side of the House ought to pay some attention. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "A priest-ridden nation is much to be pitied, but a publican-ridden nation is very much to be despised, and we look forward to the time when all political Parties shall proclaim war to the knife against this swollen social tyranny."
  Those were the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham; and he thought he might venture to appeal to the Committee whether that tyranny was less swollen now than when those words were uttered. The extension of the tied-house system had swollen that social tyranny still more than a generation ago.
  It had been assumed, but not proved, in the two interesting speeches delivered by the hon. Member for Exeter and the hon. Member for East Islington, that this Bill would reduce the number of licences by 25 per cent in ten years. If such a reduction could be proved, then hon. Members interested in temperance reform would not oppose the Bill. But they could not accept such a statement because it was not backed up by figures. He would take his own city in order to show the position in which they were placed. The city of Norwich had more fully licensed houses than any other city in the kingdom irrespective of population, except Liverpool and Birmingham. Of course he excluded London. Leicester had just half the fully licensed houses which Norwich had, and yet it had three times the population, and he would like to know how long it would take under the Bill to bring the position of Norwich to that of Leicester. He could give example after example to show that the number of licences which had been reduced from one cause or another in many cities and towns was larger, in his judgment, under the present system than this Bill could effect. It had been assumed that the maximum sum which could be raised under the Bill would be raised—an assumption of which he had great

  1011
  doubts. In various parts of the country there were magistrates who would be only too glad to put the Bill into action, but in other parts of the country where they would not. Even if the maximum sum were raised, it seemed to him that the process of reduction would be so extremely slow that it could not at all answer the expectation of those Gentlemen opposite who had argued that a great reduction in the number of public-houses would be effected.
  They were told that one advantage of the Bill would be that it would give fixity of tenure, and that the tenants of the houses would be a much more respectable body of men than at present. As a licensing magistrate he could assure the Committee that they did their duty and only granted licences to respectable men, and he did not know how they were going to improve their quality. Fixity of tenure to a publican was not dependent on an Act of Parliament, but on an agreement between him and the brewer. It was true that the publican was supposed to enter into that agreement as a voluntary agent, but they knew that he was anything but that. If they were to deal with fixity of tenure, they must deal with the tied-house system. He did not know to whom the hon. Member for Berkshire was referring when he said that many hard things had been spoken about the publicans in the debate. He had not heard anything against them. It was not the individual they complained of, but the trade and the outcome of the trade; and in this respect the publican might fairly exclaim "Save me from my friends." He could not see how the publican was to get much advantage from the Bill. If he believed that there was any probability of a large reduction of licences from the operation of this measure he would not be so strong in opposition to it as he found himself at the present moment. While he admitted that the bringing in of the principle of compensation was dangerous, if he felt that the Bill was in any sense a temperance reform measure, he would give it support instead of opposition. The country was ripe for temperance reform and the Government were throwing away a golden opportunity of dealing with this great social question. It could not be supposed that the trade wished to
  1012
  reduce drinking, because the greatest profits of the business were made from excessive drinking, and therefore it would be contrary to human nature to suppose that they would be in favour of a Bill which would largely reduce those profits. He hoped this question would not be considered as one of £ s. d., but that something would be done to limit instead of increasing temptations for the people; and it was because he felt that this Bill would do nothing of the kind that he supported the Amendment.
  Mr. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid he would not venture to say a word to the hon. Members on the other side of the House, but he would ask hon. Gentlemen beside him to consider that in the vote they gave that night they would decide between the interests of the public and the publican. It was generally admitted that a situation had arisen under which some allowance for compensation ought to be given to publicans who were deprived of their licences. He was himself in favour of some time limit by which after a certain period the public would be able to assert a right to its own, and he felt that those who voted with the Government on this question would be voting to deprive the public of their interest in this property of licences. He wished to submit this point—was it wise to hand over an important trade like the liquor trade to a monopoly, and to part for ever with the right to deal with it in the public interest? The present system involved tied houses, monopolies, and the suppression of small interests; and it was not for this Parliament to pass over every interest in the trade to any body of men whatever. Up till now, the whole licensing business had been in the hands of the local justices of the peace and quarter sessions, both of which were non-elective bodies, and irresponsible to the people. The question was, how long the country would allow the conduct of the liquor trade to be in the hands of non-elected bodies. If this Bill passed, the trade would be placed in the Lands of the non-elected quarter sessions, and he did not think that that would be safe. He did not believe any temporary advantage to be obtained from a small reduction of licences could be compared with the injury that would be inflicted by handing over this great trade to a non-elective body to the betrayal of the

  1013
  public interest. He did not know personally how the public in England regarded this subject; but he had gone up and down Scotland to find out how this measure was viewed by the people in the North. The result of his inquiry was, that the feeling prevailed that a more unpopular measure than this had never been brought forward by a Government. The Scottish people believed it to be unjust in conception and wrong in principle. His hon. friend had referred to the opinion of the Church Courts in Scotland. He had had the privilege of testing that opinion, and he ventured to say that the Prime Minister had strained the loyalty of many men who had been his devoted followers by the introduction of this measure, and it would lead to serious and great difficulty to some of those who supported it when they went down for re-election at the dissolution, whenever it came. He heard no part of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for the Border Burghs with more satisfaction than his declaration that it would be necessary for the nation to resume its right over its property, and that the Government soon to be in power would adopt such an addition to the tax on licences as to have the effect of sweeping away the improper premium given to the trade which this Bill granted. If he was spared to that time, he would give such a measure his hearty support.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: My hon. friend who has just sat down told the House that in his opinion this was the most unpopular measure ever proposed by any Government. I do not know whether he is right or wrong. I do not pretend to have his insight into the movements and currents of temporary popular opinion; but, at all events, I should have thought he would have realised that that accusation entirely disposed of the speech which he appeared so much to admire—the speech of the hon. and learned Member for the Border Burghs, who explained that it was a purely electioneering measure. I do not know which of those twin brethren, who agree apparently absolutely on this question, is right, but it is quite clear that the accusation brought so freely against us that we have been animated by no motive more dignified or more worthy than the lowest form of electioneering tactics is hardly consistent
  1014
  with the other accusation that we have brought forward the most unpopular Bill which any Government has succeeded in fathering. I do not mean to waste the time of the House at this late hour, at the end of a second day's debate on a single Amendment, by dealing with the personal aspect of the question at any length. But as so large a number of speakers have professed to judge the Bill as a whole, and this Amendment in particular, from what they were pleased to term the origin of the Bill in a speech which I made to a deputation representing the licensed victuallers, perhaps I may be allowed to say one or two words on that subject. It is quite true that that deputation waited upon me. It is quite true that I made a speech on the subject, in which I see nothing to regret, to qualify, or withdraw. Hon. Gentlemen appear to suppose that it was that deputation which first brought into existence the idea that the publican was, even as other citizens in this country, a man who deserved compensation when he was deprived of property. [Cries of "It is no property."] I will come to the question of property in a moment, but my view is that he does possess property, and that view was not invented and did not begin with the deputation to which reference has been made. It has always, so far as I know, been the view of the Unionist Party that true temperance reform was only possible if you recognised that the trade should not be deprived of that which equity demanded should be given to them, that temperance reform could only be carried out on those lines; and I think we may claim to be the true temperance reformers. Hon. Members laugh. I thought it probable that that would be contested; but now I will make a proposition which will not be contested, which is that hon. Gentlemen opposite have never done a single thing for temperance reform except to make platform speeches outside this House, and have resisted every reasonable attempt to carry out temperance reform within it. They have been violent critics but barren critics, a union of qualities not unknown in other departments of human activity.
  Now I do not wish to say more about the personal aspect of the matter than that. I have always been in

  1015
  favour, in dealing with the question of licences, of giving adequate, equitable compensation to the licence-holder. I have always counted myself—I know I am not counted by hon. Gentleman opposite—I have always counted myself among temperance reformers; but I honestly confess that when I hear speakers of the authority and ability of the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs and the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke recently—the one with considerable wit and the other with considerable solemnity—accuse me individually and the Government to which I belong collectively of being animated by nothing but the smallest, pettiest, and meanest motives in bringing forward this Bill, I do not resent the charge even from such high authorities as themselves, but I confess I do form a somewhat lower opinion of the general motives which actuate hon. Members opposite. They themselves will not, I presume, suggest that they never consider electioneering motives in some of the speeches, some of the representations or misrepresentations which they make of their opponents' actions. I do not wish to bring it specially before their notice on the present occasion, but I, at all events—though I doubt not that their motives, like the motives of others, may be mixed—I have never doubted that in their speeches upon the temperance question they have a strain of genuine, earnest desire for the improvement of their countrymen in the matter of temperance. Well, I give them credit for that. If they refuse credit to me for similar motives I make no complaint, but I do think it casts rather a lurid light on the manner in which they consider the great political questions which have been and may be handed over to their charge, and I think that little is to be gained either inside or outside this House by this persistent and, as I think, utterly contemptible method of controversy, of finding it absolutely inconceivable that among the motives, the mixed motives, the bad motives, if you please, of your political opponents there may be occasionally some small, faint glimmer of conscientious convictions.
  I will not pursue the personal topic any further, and as I desire to give the right hon. Gentleman who, I presume, will reply to me full opportunity for the
  1016
  exercise of his great dialectical gifts I do not propose to survey in any detail the arguments that have been advanced in the course of this debate. But I may perhaps be allowed to point out one or two singular fallacies into which even the hon. and learned Member for the Border Burghs tumbled accidentally in the course of his speech. He actually advanced the argument, which has been advanced by a good many other Gentlemen opposite but which I did not expect from him, that you are to estimate the justice or injustice of the number of years for which the time limit was to be fixed by the number of years purchase of the business with which you are dealing. He said the Amendment to the Amendment gave a time limit of fourteen years. He quoted an hon. and learned friend behind me, who said that the average number of years purchase given to the trade in arbitration cases was ten. "Therefore," said the hon. and learned Member for the Border Burghs, "if only ten years purchase is given, what reason have you to complain of a fourteen years limit to the Bill?" I never heard such an argument. It implies a profound confusion of ideas which I cannot think prevails generally on the Benches opposite. But even if the property of a man was worth only two years purchase, it would not console him to say that at the end of fourteen years you would take it away from him altogether without any compensation. To say to a man whose business is worth only two years purchase, "I will allow you to enjoy your property for only fourteen years, and you must take that enjoyment, not only as sufficient payment, but as seven times more payment," involves a confusion of ideas which even the hon. and learned Gentleman, when he comes to think over it, must be bound to admit.
  It has also been frequently stated by hon. Gentlemen opposite that because we do not insert a time limit in this Bill we give a freehold value to the holder of a publican's licence. That, again, is a profound confusion between the length of time during which compensation may be asked for and the amount of compensation which may be given. You can always, by varying the amount of the compensation, deal with an everlasting; tenure, which is a freehold tenure, or

  1017
  with a short tenure. The Committee will see this in the separate treatment of beerhouse licences from ordinary public-house licences under the Bill. A beerhouse licence may be, in sufficiently intelligible language, described as a freehold. Of course, value for value, the owners of beerhouse licences will get a larger number of years purchase than the owners of ordinary publicans' licences. [HON. MEMBERS: No!] But they will, and they do. We are not now dealing with hypothetical values. We are dealing with actual values upon which the owners are rated. There is no doubt that the fact that publicans have not the same kind of security in their licences as the owners of beerhouses have will, of course, make their compensation much less; but that is no reason why you should bring the process of giving that compensation more rapidly to an end. As I have said, the compensation given to them will be less, value for value, than that given for a freehold tenure. But that does not carry with it the inference that while a freehold should have no time limit you may put a time limit on the short tenure. We do not desire to endow, and I believe we do not endow, any trade or portion of a trade by this Bill. What we endeavour to do is not to endow the publicans with something which they have not got, but to give them security in something that they have got, and what they have got is something less than a freehold, which is not, on that account, undeserving of the name of property. I am not going to argue with the lawyers opposite, who seems satisfied with the way the law now stands, under which a man, in the same breath, is said to possess something that may be rated and taxed but something that is not property. They are quite happy over that, and I do not wish to disturb their complacency. But I will venture respectfully to say that a thing which can be valued, a thing which can be bought, a thing which can be sold, a thing which can be taxed, and a thing which can be rated is not wholly unworthy of the name of property.
  Well, if we do not endow this trade, if we give it nothing which it is not barely entitled to, if we do not, as I am sure we do not, give it freehold tenure, what are the objections which have been raised to our scheme? One thing which it does is never referred
  1018
  to by these Gentlemen who denounce it as the most wicked, most unpopular, and most foolish attempt to deal with the temperance question ever known—not one of them has ever referred to the beer-house question, with which this Bill attempts to deal. They are going to reject that. They have never attempted to deal with the monopoly question; this Bill, as far as regards future licences, does attempt to deal with it. I think that the language of Clause 4 may be still further improved in that direction. But the intention of the framers of the Bill was that future licences should not constitute a monopoly, and should be subject to those experiments which hon. Gentlemen opposite are so anxious to see tried seven or fourteen years hence, but are so reluctant to see tried at the present moment. Then this Bill, which deals with beerhouses and which deals with the monopoly question, does most undoubtedly deal, and in a very large fashion, with the reduction of licences. There have been some Members who in their ardour of advocacy have denied that any large reduction would be made by this Bill. How you can expend £1,200,000 a year on the purchase of licences without materially reducing them I do not know. We live in an age of large figures, but I really do not know how you are going to achieve that result. If I may without offence distinguish the Party opposition to this Bill from the more genuine elements of opposition which I have no doubt exist in the breast of Gentlemen opposite and in the breasts of some of my hon. friends on this side, I believe their anxiety about the time limit, in so far as it arises from those motives, is due to a fear lest we are shutting the door on any kind of temperance reform in the future other than the present Bill. I believe the more moderate and reasonable opponents of the Bill are prepared to say that this Bill is good as far as it goes, I that it will reduce licences, that it will deal with the beerhouses and with the future monopoly question, but that those benefits, great though they may be, are too dearly purchased if they are purchased at the cost of preventing this House at any future period from touching the question of temperance again. Well, I do not know whether if even that statement were true I should agree with the

  1019
  conclusions drawn from it; but I can assure my hon. friends, and those on the other side of the House who feel as they do, that this is a pure illusion. There is nothing I know in this Bill which is going to stand in the way of any future reform.
  May I recall the Committee for a moment to arguments addressed to it by the right hon. Member for Aberdeen when it was much thinner, at about six o'clock? The right hon. Gentleman made a speech in favour of the Amendment, and he said—
  "Why should not you have a time limit; how would it hurt the trade, when you remember that at the end of fourteen years by the operation of this Bill you will have greatly diminished licences, and that the houses which remain will presumably be the houses that are necessary, and the houses whose security of tenure from that fact is so great that they will without difficulty be able to insure themselves? Why should you under those circumstances have this general system of compulsory insurance proposed by the Bill?"
  And then the right hon. Gentleman, having finished that section of his argument, apparently forgot it, and went on at a later stage of his speech to say that at the end of fourteen years we ought to be able to try every kind of experiment, local veto, and all the other schemes, possible and impossible, which have been from time to time suggested. Do let the Committee consider those arguments. The houses that are left after fourteen years are to be so necessary and so useful to the community that it would be easy for them to insure themselves, because of the difficulty of dispossessing them, and at the same time they are to be the subject of general experiment, they are to be abolished at a sweep by the advocates of local veto, they are to be municipalised, or they are to be conducted without profit, in accordance with the principles of a third scheme. And all this with reference to houses which, if they are to be subject to this kind of confiscation, would not be able to insure themselves at all. Obviously no insurance office not managed by lunatics would insure public-houses which the vote of the locality could abolish without compensation that day week. I mention that casually in order to bring me up to this point. Parliament is omnipotent now and it will be omnipotent in the future with regard to
  1020
  this and every other trade. If Parliament desires to try any new experiments justly, it can do so if it chooses to pay the compensation justly required. If it desires to do so unjustly, it can carry out these experiments without paying any compensation. There is nothing in this Bill which prevents just or unjust treatment of the trade by some future Parliament, and there is no way by which any Parliament can bind its successors. For my part, I should resist to the utmost anything in the nature of unjust treatment of the trade, and so far as I understand some of the schemes advocated here and there by hon. Gentlemen opposite, I should resist them even though they included adequate compensation to the trade, because I believe they are absurd, but whether they are absurd or whether they are not, the liberty of future Parliament is in no way bound.
  I hope every Parliament will be bound by the laws of equity and will not try in future experiments at the cost of any trade in this country without paying adequate compensation to those who carry on that trade. That liberty Parliament has; the liberty of injustice it also has; both remain untouched and undiminished by anything the House may do in connection with this Bill. May I ask my hon. friends on this side and hon. Gentlemen, if there are any, on the other side, whoso votes still hang in the balance, whether they seriously think that it would be wise in the interests of temperance to destroy a Bill which is going in the immediate future to do a great good, because, possibly, fourteen years hence Gentlemen opposite who are not agreed upon any of these alternative schemes may perhaps come to some agreement upon an unknown and unforeseen plan not now before us? If we brought in a Bill for municipalisation would they have supported it? They would not. If we had brought in a Bill with compensation for the working of the liquor traffic without profit, would they have supported it? Well I cannot imagine it; but if we had brought in a local veto Bill many of them might have supported it; but they are absolutely divided amongst themselves as to any alternative to the present system, Surely it would be folly on our part, when we have for the first time within our reach, and almost within our

  1021
  grasp, something which will, without inflicting injustice upon any man, woman, or child in the community, immediately effect a great and beneficent change in our licensing laws and which will not fetter the discretion of future Parliaments in anything they may desire to do in the same direction—surely we should be almost criminal in our negligence if we were to add yet another to the many failures which Parliament has already made in dealing with this question. Let the barren critics of whom I spoke earlier in my speech make what clamour they like on the present occasion; they have been too powerful in the past; they have found too great an echo for their criticisms and their opposition; but at all events let us insist, in the course of this Parliament, if we are to carry into effect that which is a practical and effective addition to the temperance forces of this country, and which is, I believe, not less in favour of temperance, not less in favour of higher morality, in that great branch of national morals because it also endeavours, I hope not imperfectly, to follow the dictates of eternal justice.
  *MR. SLACKsaid he had considerable diffidence in following the eloquent speech of the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether, in the interests of temperance, it would be wise to destroy this Bill. He would answer that question—"A thousand times, yes." He regarded the Bill as the most serious attack on temperance and sobriety made in this House in our time. He had listened with great interest to the speech of the Prime Minister, and contrasted it with the speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman on the Second Reading, because some of the utterances in the latter speech seemed to him to be unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman, his history, and the great position he occupied. The speech the right hon. Gentleman had just delivered seemed to him to be singularly inconsistent with the position he assumed yesterday, when he was so strenuous in resisting a clear issue being submitted to the House, namely, the application of a time limit to compensation under the Bill. The Prime Minister referred to himself and his Party as temperance reformers. That seemed to him to be the most amazing
  1022
  and—he would use the word in no objectionable sense—the most ridiculous proposal that could possibly be put before the House. The right hon. Gentleman asked what efforts had been made by the Liberal Party to deal with a traffic described by a great Conservative statesman as "devilish and destructive." Such efforts had constantly been made, but they had been as constantly checkmated by hon. Members on the other side. The proposals of the Liberal Party had been on lines diametrically opposite to those embodied in the present Bill, because the Party believed in extending, and not limiting, local control over the liquor traffic. This Bill not only crippled and confined local control, but transferred it from the local justices who knew the local circumstances to the Court of quarter sessions at a distance. In the view of thoughtful, serious, and moderate men, no more unpopular measure had ever been introduced into the House of Commons by a responsible Government, but having regard to the threats which had been uttered by the powerful brewery interest he was not surprised the Government had brought it in. The existence of 100,000 brewery shareholders in the country was a factor to be taken into account when a general election was approaching; those votes were cast solidly for the Unionist Party at the last election, and the Government were naturally anxious to secure a continuance of that support. As to the Prime Minister's contention that a licence was property because it was something which had a market value and could be taxed, patents and copyrights had a market value and could be taxed, but they nevertheless were subject to a time limit, being temporary monopolies granted for only a limited number of years.
  He objected to the Bill root and branch; it fundamentally altered and revolutionised our licensing system; and there had been no mandate or demand of any kind for the injurious changes it proposed. The absence of a time limit was a cardinal defect. The compensation proposal was not a terminable arrangement; it established a permanent claim wherever a licence was proved to be unnecessary; it assumed what the law denied that a licence granted for only one year was entitled to a perpetual

  1023
  renewal, and conceded a value based upon that assumption. If the Government had said, "It has become customary to renew these licences, and so an expectation has arisen that they will be renewed, and accordingly capital has been invested in them, therefore we should allow a compassionate consideration;" then they would have secured a large public support for this Bill. But the Bill ignored the legal status of the licence, and created a value of an estate in the licence which it did not legally possess. The State had created a monopoly and given it to an individual. The brewer had acquired this at a fancy and swollen price, and now the State was asked to buy it back at a price fixed by its present owner. The licence was originally created to supply a public need, and the Bill provided that where a licence was taken away because it was no longer needed compensation should be paid. That was a bad principle, because if granted on the ground that the public required it—and taken away on the ground that the public did not require it—that was the best possible reason why no compensation whatever should be paid, or if paid at all, only for a limited period. It was a case for a temporary remedy, one limited in the durations of its operation. The opponents of the Bill and those who advocated a time limit had no personal interest to serve. They supported it merely because they believed the Bill to be subversive of the moral and social progress of the country. The benefits claimed for the Bill by the Solicitor-General were illusory. In Birmingham last year 80 per cent, of the suppressed licences were those of pre-1869 beerhouses. By their full control over the full licences the justices were able to get rid of these beerhouses. The existing system was really begining to work well, because in 1903, 539 licences were finally refused and over 300 were surrendered, and that notwithstanding the fact that this legislation was threatened, and I after the Prime Minister's lecture to the magistrates. As to the effect of the Bill, in Cumberland last year twenty-three licences were refused renewal; valuing the licences at £1,000 each, only eight could have been refused under the Bill. In Liverpool last year the number of
  1024
  licences was reduced by twenty-four. Under this Bill, putting their value at £2,000 each, there would have been a reduction of only eighteen. In Manchester forty licences were suppressed last year, while under this Bill the number could only have been fifteen. It was unseemly and improper that this Government should make such violent assaults on the Constitution of the country as they had done. He was convinced that they would never have been returned in 1900 if they had made known their intention to bring in Bills like this and others they had passed.
  Much had been heard about "spoliation" and "confiscation," but there was no spoliation in taking from a man at the end of a year that which was given him for one year only, and property which did not exist could not be confiscated. The Bill would block the way for future reform. At present there was an absolute right in the justices to refuse a licence without compensation, but immediately the Bill was passed the trade might properly say there was confiscation if the licences were refused without compensation.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place and claimed to move that the Question be now put.
  Question proposed, "That the Question be now put."
  Mr. CROOKSendeavoured to speak while the Question was being put from the Chair.
  *The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to address me on a point of order he can do so during the division if he will sit covered.
  MR. CROOKS (sitting covered)said—Mr. Chairman, I desire to know whether you intend to put the closure in operation when a Member is on his feet and speaking. I am anxious to address the House on this most important subject before the vote is taken. That I claim I am entitled to do, having regard to the fact that I represent a very large working-class constituency.
  *The CHAIRMAN: I have accepted the Motion for the closure. If that

  1025
  Motion is rejected the hon. Member will have an opportunity of addressing the Committee.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 289; Noes, 205. (Division List No. 135.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Aird, Sir John

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden

  Denny, Colonel

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dewar, Sir T.R. (Tower Hamlets

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

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Arrol, Sir William

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Horner, Frederick William

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Austin, Sir John

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F Dixon

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Balcarres, Lord

  Doughty, George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.)

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

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

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

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants., W.

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Kerr, John

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

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

  Keswick, William

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Kimber, Henry

  Bignold, Arthur

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Bigwood, James

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Flower, Sir Ernest

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

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F (Middlesex

  Forster, Henry William

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

  Brassey, Albert

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

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Garfit, William

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Bull, William James

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

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

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Butcher, John George

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

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Carlile, William Walter

  Gore, Hn G.R.C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Lowe, Francis William

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

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

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.

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

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc.

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Grenfell, William Henry

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Chapman, Edward

  Gretton, John

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Malcom, Ian

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Groves, James Grimble

  Manners, Lord Cecil

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

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hain, Edward

  Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

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

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hamilton, Marq of(L'nd'nderry

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Milvain, Thomas

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Moore, William

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Robinson, Brooke

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Tuff, Charles

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

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Percy, Earl

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Pretyman Ernest George

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und Lyne

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Pym, C. Guy

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

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

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Randles, John S.

  Spear, John Ward

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

  Rankin, Sir James

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur Ormskirk)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Renwick, George

  Stock, James Henry

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Ridley, Hon M.W.(Stalybridge

  Stroyan, John

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

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thornson

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

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

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Allen, Charles P.

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Dunn, Sir William

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Elibank, Master of

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Ellice, Capt E. C (SAndrw'sBghs

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Joicey, Sir James

  Bell, Richard

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Boland, John

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Brigg, John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Ffrench, Peter

  Kilbride, Denis

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Field, William

  Kitson, Sir James

  Burns, John

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Labouchere, Henry

  Burt, Thomas

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Lambert, George

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Langley, Batty

  Caldwell, James

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Cameron, Robert

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Grant, Corrie

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick

  Leng, Sir John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Levy, Maurice

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Hammond, John

  Lloyd-George, David

  Cremer, William Randal

  Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

  Lough, Thomas

  Crooks, William

  Harcourt, Rt Hn Sir W (Monm'th

  Lundon, W.

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Cullinan, J.

  Harwood, George

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hayden, John Patrick

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  M'Crae, George

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Delany, William

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  1028

  1029

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Reddy, M.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Mooney, John J.

  Rigg, Richard

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Tomkinson, James

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Toulmin, George

  Murphy, John

  Roche, John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wallace, Robert

  Newnes, Sir George

  Rose, Charles Day

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Runciman, Walter

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Norman, Henry

  Russell, T. W.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Weir, James Galloway

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

  Schwann, Charles E.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

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

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

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Shackleton, David James

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  O'Doherty, William

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  O'Malley, William

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Parrott, William

  Sheehy, David

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

  Partington, Oswald

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Slack, John Bamford

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

  Perks, Robert William

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. Robert Spencer.

  Price, Robert John

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Priestley, Arthur

  Sullivan, Donal

  Rea, Russell

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he desired to raise a point of order before the Question was put from the Chair. He submitted that this Amendment was contrary to the Standing Orders, and was, therefore, completely out of order. He was basing his point of order on the Chairman's own ruling. He submitted that the effect of the Amendment was to convert this Bill into a temporary Act. This must necessarily be the effect of this Amendment coming at the beginning, because it made the machinery temporary, it made the compensation temporary, and they were told that the two principles of the Bill were contained in the first clause. Therefore it converted the law into a temporary law, and was contrary to the Standing Orders. Standing Order No. 45 said—
  "The precise duration of every temporary law shall be expressed in a distinct clause at the end of the Bill."
  If the words of the Amendment were inserted there was no provision in the Bill which could continue at the end of seven years.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has overlooked Clause 4. The point which he has raised has been in my mind, and
  1030
  if Clause 4 were not in the Bill, then I think the hon. Member would be right. But with regard to new licences it has not been suggested that it is only a temporary Bill. After a two days debate it is rather late to raise this point. My attention had already been called by one or two Members to the point referred to, and I had pointed out to them the distinction I have just named.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid a two days debate did not make the Amendment in order if it was contrary to the Standing Orders. He submitted that if these words were inserted the whole Act would be a temporary one.
  *The CHAIRMAN: I do not agree. The clauses to which they would refer would be Clauses 1, 2, and 3, and not Clause 4.
  MR. J. H. LEWISasked whether in those circumstances it would be in order to limit the length of time during which the provision relating to new licences should apply.
  *The CHAIRMAN: Probably, but I should like to see the hon. Member's Amendment when we reach the clause.
  Question put accordingly, "That the word 'seven' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 306; Noes, 187. (Division List, No. 136.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Aird, Sir John

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden

  Davenport, W. Bromley

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Dewar, Sir T.R. (Tower Hamlets

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Arrol, Sir William

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Horner, Frederick William

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham

  Austin, Sir John

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Balcarres, Lord

  Doughty, George

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

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

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

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

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Kerr, John

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  Keswick, William

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Kimber, Henry

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

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

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Labouchere, Henry

  Bignold, Arthur

  Field, William

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Bigwood, James

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Fisher, William Hayes

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

  Boulnois, Edmund

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

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

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F (Middlesex

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Brassey, Albert

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Forster, Henry William

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

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

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Bull, William James

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Garfit, William

  Lowe, Francis William

  Butcher, John George

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Carlile, William Walter

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

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'rHamlets

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

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

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis-Edinburgh, W

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

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

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Chapman, Edward

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Malcolm, Ian

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Gretton, John

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

  Groves, James Grimble

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Milvain, Thomas

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

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hammond, John

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Mooney, John J.

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Moore, William

  Cremer, William Randal

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Cullinan, J.

  Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

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

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Robinson, Brooke

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Roche, John

  Tuff, Charles

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Norman, Henry

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Wallace, Robert

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

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

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  O'Doherty, William

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  O'Malley, William

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse

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

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

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

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Percy, Earl

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Sheehy, David

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

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

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath

  Pym, C. Guy

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Randles, John S.

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

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Rankin, Sir James

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord(Lancs.)

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

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Stock, James Henry

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Stroyan, John

  Renwick, George

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Delany, William

  Harwood, George

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Denny, Colonel

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Allen, Charles P.

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

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

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Dobbie, Joseph

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

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Elibank, Master of

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Bell, Richard

  Ellice, Capt E.C(SAndrw'sBghs

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Boland, John

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Emmott, Alfred

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Brigg, John

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Fenwick, Charles

  Joicey, Sir James

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Burns, John

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Burt, Thomas

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Caldwell, James

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Grant, Corrie

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick

  Kilbride, Denis

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Kitson, Sir James

  Crooks, William

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Lambert, George

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Hain, Edward

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Langley, Batty

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Harms worth, R. Leicester

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  1034

  1035

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Leng, Sir John

  Price, Robert John

  Tennant, Harold John

  Levy, Maurice

  Priestley, Arthur

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rea, Russell

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Reddy, M.

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Lough, Thomas

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Thomas, J. A. (Glamorgan, Gow'r

  Lundon, W.

  Rigg, Richard

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Tomkinson, James

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Toulmin, George

  M'Crae, George

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Rose, Charles Day

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Runciman, Walter

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Russell, T. W.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  Schwann, Charles E.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Shackleton, David James

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Murphy, John

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Newnes, Sir George

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

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

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

  Slack, John Bamford

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

  Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Parrott, William

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Partington, Oswald

  Spear, John Ward

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Colonel Williams and Sir William Houldsworth.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Perks, Robert William

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Sullivan, Donal

  Whereupon Mr. A. J. BALFOUR claimed, "That the Main Question be now put."
  Question put accordingly, "That the words 'During the period of seven years
  after the passing of this Act' be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 192; Noes, 290. (Division List No 137.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Harwood, George

  Allen, Charles P.

  Delany, William

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Denny, Colonel

  Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Dobbie, Joseph

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

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Dunn, Sir William

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Bell Richard

  Elibank, Master of

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Ellice, Capt E. C (SAndrw'sBghs

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Brigg, John

  Emmott, Alfred

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Burns, John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Burt, Thomas

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Caldwell, James

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  Cameron, Robert

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Grant, Corrie

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Kilbride, Denis

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Kitson, Sir James

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hain, Edward

  Labouchere, Henry

  Crooks, William

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Lambert, George

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

  Langley, Batty

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Harcourt, Rt Hn. Sir W (Monm't

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Tennant, Harold John

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Price, Robert John

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Leng, Sir John

  Priestley, Arthur

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Levy, Maurice

  Rea, Russell

  Thomas, J. A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Reddy, M.

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Tomkinson, James

  Lough, Thomas

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Toulmin, George

  Lundon, W.

  Rigg, Richard

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Roberts, John H (Denbighs.)

  Wallace, Robert

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roche, John

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  M'Crae, George

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Rose, Charles Day

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Runciman, Walter

  Weir, James Galloway

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Russell, T. W.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

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

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh'N.

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

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

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

  Shackleton, David James

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Murphy, John

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

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

  Newnes, Sir George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Norman, Henry

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Slack, John Bamford

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Parrott, William

  Soares, Ernest J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. Robert Spencer.

  Partington, Oswald

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Perks, Robert William

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Aird, Sir John

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Doughty, George

  Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc.

  Dyke, Rt.Hn.Sir William Hart

  Arrol, Sir William

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants., W.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Chapman, Edward

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Austin, Sir John

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

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

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Ffrench, Peter

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

  Field, William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Finch, Rt Hon. George H.

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

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

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

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

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Bignold, Arthur

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Gardner, Ernest

  Bigwood, James

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Garfit, William

  Boland, John

  Cullman, J.

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Gordon, Hn. E.(Elgin & Nairn)

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gordon, Maj. E. (Tr. Hamlets)

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F (Middlesex

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Gore, Hn G.R.C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Brassey, Albert

  Davenport, William Bromley

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

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tr. Haml'ts)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Bull, William James

  Dickson, Charles Scott

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

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Butcher, John George

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Carlile, William Walter

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Grenfell, William Henry

  1038

  1039

  Gretton, John

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Malcolm, Ian

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Groves, James Grimble

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Mildraay, Francis Bingham

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Hammond, John

  Milvain, Thomas

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Mooney, John J.

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Moore, William

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Sheehy, David

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford,East).

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

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

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich).

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Horner, Frederick William

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

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

  Stock, James Henry

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Hunt, Rowland

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

  Stroyan, John

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

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

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  O'Doherty, William

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Kenyon-Slancy, Col. W. (Salop.

  O'Malley, William

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Kerr, John

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Keswick, William

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Kimber, Henry

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Tuff, Charles

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Valentia, Viscount

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Percy, Earl

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

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

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

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

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Webb, Colonel William George-

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Pym, C. Guy

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

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E.(Notts

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Randles, John S.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Lowe, Francis William

  Ratcliff, R. F.

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

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Macdona, John dimming

  Renwick, George

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Robinson, Brooke

  And, it being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

DEAN FOREST BILL.
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee of Three Members, to be nominated by the Committee of
Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented seven clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.—(Mr. Victor Cavendish.)
Adjourned at twenty minutes before One o'clock.

MESSAGE FROM THE KING.

  THE LATE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
  The King's Answer to the Address of the 17th of May last reported by the Lord Steward (E. Pembroke and Montgomery) as follows:—
  "I have received your Address praying that I will give directions that a monument be erected in the Collegiate Church of St. Peter, Westminster, to the memory of the late Most Honourable the Marquess of Salisbury, with an inscription expressive of the high sense entertained by the House of Lords of his rare and splendid gifts, and of his devoted labours in a Parliament and in great offices of State. I shall give directions in accordance with your Address."

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Torquay Tramways Bill. A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
Acton Improvement Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
Trafford Park Dock and Railway Bill [H.L.], now Trafford Park Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Canal Rates and Charges (Regents Canal) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]; Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill [H.L.]. Committed. The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Harlow and Sawbridgeworth Gas Bill [H.L.]. Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Harrow Road and Paddington Tramways Bill. The LORD CHANCELLOR informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The order made on the 13th and 17th of May last discharged, and Bill committed.
Bristol Tramways (Extensions) Bill [H.L.]. The LORD CHANCELLOR informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The orders made on the 24th of March and 17th of May last discharged, and Bill committed.
Midland Railway Bill. The LORD CHANCELLOR informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The orders made on the 28th of April and 17th of May last discharged, and Bill committed for Friday next.
Plymouth Corporation Bill. Read 2a, and committed.
Sheppy Gas Bill. Read 3a and passed.
Richard Jaeger's Patent Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Colney Hatch Gas Bill; North Staffordshire Railway Bill; Gomersal Gas Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Wolverhampton Corporation Bill; Oakengates, Dawley, and District Joint Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Bill; Great Central Railway Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Dartrey be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Belmore, and that the Earl of Dartrey be Chairman of the said Committee; read, and agreed to.
Commons Regulation (Merrow) Provisional Order Bill; Commons Regulation (Oxshott) Provisional Order Bill; Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Local; Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill; North British Railway (General Powers) Order Confirmation Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
Carlisle Corporation Bill; Lytham Improvement Bill; Radcliffe Tramways and Improvement Bill; London United

907
Tramways Bill; Middlesborough, Stockton-on-Tees, and Thornaby Tramways Bill; Thames River Steamboat Service Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a"; and referred to the Examiners.
Paisley District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill (No. 92); North British Railway (General Powers) Order Confirmation Bill (No. 93). Read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, (1899) deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Kintore (E. Kintore), and reported from the Committee.
Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]; Read 2a (according to order).
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (Birmingham) Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Govan Burgh (Electricity) Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Elysée Palace Hotel Company, Limited, Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company Bill [H.L.]; University of Leeds Bill [H.L.]; York Town and Blackwater Gas Bill [H.L.]; Chesterfield Corporation (Tramways and Improvements) Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Croydon Gas Bill; Chippenham Gas Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS (RECESS).
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the following Papers, having been commanded to be presented, to this House by His Majesty, had been so presented on the following dates by delivery to the Clerk of the Parliaments, pursuant to Standing Order No. CXI., viz.:—
PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS (RECESS).

  TRADE REPORTS—I. (ANNUAL SERIES)
  No. 3168. Turkey (Basra); No. 3169. China (Newchang) (May 20); No. 3170.
  908
  Turkey (Smyrna, etc.) (May 26); No. 3171. France (Havre, etc.); No. 3172. France (Budget for 1904); No. 3173. Russia (Rostov-on-Don); No. 3174. China (Chinkiang) (May 28); No. 3175. United States (Boston) (May 31); No. 3176. France (Brest) (June 3).

  II. (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  No. 610. Industrial Development of Italy; No. 611. Navigation Schools in Germany (June 3).
  MINES AND QUARRIES.
  I. Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, by J. S. Haldane, Esq., M.D., F.R.S., J. S. Martin, Esq., His Majesty's Inspector of Mines, and R. A. Thomas, Esq., on the health of Cornish miners (May 25); II. (General Report and Statistics for 1903: Part I. District Statistics)—Statistics of the persons employed, output, and accidents at mines and quarries in the; United Kingdom, arranged according to the Inspection Districts (June 3).
  COLONIES (ANNUAL).
  No. 415. Falkland Islands (Report for 1903) (May 25); No. 416. Leeward-Islands (Report for 1902–1903) (June 3).
  FISHERIES (SCOTLAND).
  Twenty-second Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, being for the-year 1903: Part II. Salmon Fisheries (May 25).
  MILITIA AND VOLUNTEERS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Report of the Royal Commission on the Militia and Volunteers (May 25).
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
  Return for the month of January, 1904 (May 25).
  MARRIAGES, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS (IRELAND).
  Supplement to the Thirty-seventh Report of the Registrar-General, containing decimal summaries for the years 1891–1900 (May 25).
  DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  Statistical tables for the year 1903 (May 27).
  TUBERCULOSIS (HUMAN AND BOVINE) (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Interim Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the relations of human and animal tuberculosis (May 27).
  FRANCE (No. 2) (1904).
  Notes exchanged between the Marquees of Lansdowne and the French Ambassador on signature of the Convention and Declarations of 8th April, 1904 (May 31).
  Despatch from the Governor of the Transvaal, enclosing a return with regard to the magistrates of the colony (May 31).
  ARMY (MEDICAL DEPARTMENT).
  Report for the year 1902 (June 1).
  BANKING AND RAILWAY STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Report for December, 1903 (June 1).
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS.
  Report of Proceedings as regards Ireland for the year 1903 (June 1).
  SOUTHERN RHODESIA.
  Correspondence relating to the proposed introduction of Indentured Asiatic (Chinese) Labour into Southern Rhodesia (in continuation of [Cd. 1200], July, 1902) (June 1).
  COMMERCIAL, No. 5 (1904).
  Further findings of the Permanent Commission established under Article VII. of the Sugar Convention of 5th March, 1902, and further reports of the British Delegate (in continuation of "Commercial" No, 6, (1903)) (June 1).
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION BOARD (IRELAND).
  Annual Report, for the year 1903 (June 2).
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Thirty-first Annual Report by the Accountant for Scotland to the Scotch Education Department (June 2).

  EXPLOSIVES ACT, 1875.
  Twenty-eight Annual Report of His Majesty's Inspectors of Explosives, being their annual Report for the year 1903. (June 3.)
  The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3161. United States (Philadelphia); No. 3162. China (Kiungchow (Hoihow)); No. 3163. Netherlands (Java); No. 3177. United States (Porto Rico); No. 3178. Portugal (South Portugal); No. 3179. Greece (The Cyclades).
  WEST AFRICA.
  Statement of the revenue and expenditure and the trade of the Gambia, Sierra Leone, and the Gold Coast, from the year 1895, and of Lagos and Southern and Northern Nigeria from the year 1900.
  EXPLOSIVES (EXPLOSION AT THE FACTORY OF MESSRS CURTIS AND HARVEY, LIMITED, AT CLIFFE, KENT).
  Report to the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department, by Major A. Cooper-Key, His Majesty's Inspector of Explosives, on the circumstances attending an explosion of nitroglycerine in the separating house of the factory of Messrs. Curtis and Harvey, limited, at Cliffe, Kent, on the 18th February, 1904.
  METROPOLITAN GAS COMMITTEE.
  Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire and report as to gas testing in the Metropolis.
  STRIKES AND LOCK-OUTS (BOARD OF TRADE (LABOUR DEPARTMENT)).
  Report on the strikes and lock-outs in the United Kingdom in 1903, and on Conciliation and Arbitration Boards.
  SIGHT TESTS.
  Report on the sight tests used in the mercantile marine, for the year ended 31st December, 1903 (in continuation of [Cd. 1580]).

  MINES AND QUARRIES.
  Reports of His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines and Quarries, for the year 1903.
  Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

  INDIA (PROGRESS AND CONDITION).
  Statement exhibiting the moral and material progress and condition of India, during the year 1902–1903. (Thirty-ninth Number).
  POST-OFFICE (MONEY ORDERS).
  Statutory Rules and Orders, 1904. No. 747.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL.
  Returns relating to the Council—I. Return showing, up to 31st March, 1904:—

  The amount of Consolidated Stock.

  The application of the money raised by such stock.

  The sums carried to the Consolidated Loans Fund.

  The application of the Consolidated Loans Fund.

  An estimate of the expenditure of the Council for all purposes, for the year ending 31st March, 1905.

  II. Return showing, up to 31st March, 1904:—
  All moneys raised by the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Council since the passing of the Act for the purposes mentioned in the Act.
  Particulars in relation to every parish, district, union, or place in respect whereof a loan has been obtained from the Metropolitan Board of Works or the Council since the passing of the Act.

  PUBLIC RECORDS (HOME OFFICE (CENSUS PAPERS)).
  Schedule, containing a list and particulars of clashes of documents which were returned to the office of His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department, and which are now in the Public Record Office, but are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation therein.
  AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND) ACT, 1899.
  Three Minutes by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland sanctioning forms of instruction for the county borough of Cork and the urban district of Athlone.
  POLLING DISTRICT.
  Orders made by the county councils of the counties of—West Riding of York, altering certain polling districts in the Hallamshire Parliamentary Division; Warwick, altering certain polling districts in the county; Stafford, altering certain polling districts in the Handsworth Parliamentary Division.
  PRISON ACTS, 1865 TO 1898.
  Draft of new rules proposed to be made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the government of convict prisons.

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  Report by the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons that the provisions of the Loch Lever Water Power Order and the Loch Lever Water Power Order (Extension of Time) Orders are of such a character that they ought to be dealt with by Private Bills and not by Provisional Orders.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to be on the Table.

SEAMEN'S AND SOLDIERS' FALSE CHARACTERS BILL [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FORWAR (The Earl of DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, this Bill has been prepared after consultation between the Board of Admiralty and the Army Council. The object of the first clause is to provide a summary punishment for persons who make fraudulent use of good conduct certificates of discharge granted to seamen, soldiers, and Marines. As the

913
law at present stands it is a misdemeanour I at common law to forge a character or to utter a forged character, but these offences are punishable on indictment and not summarily. Whilst providing that offenders may be punished summarily the Bill will not, of course, interfere with the power to proceed by indictment in aggravated cases. A number of cases have arisen which render necessary such a provision as is contained in Clause 1. The object of Clause 2 is to prevent false characters being given by men offering themselves for enlistment. Your Lordships are probably aware that for some time past we have demanded characters from all men who wish to enlist, but we have no way of punishing those who present false characters. This clause makes it an offence to furnish a false character. We had one very flagrant case in February last, of a man presenting a most excellent character from his brother-in-law. We subsequently found that this man had spent nearly the whole of the last seven years in prison and that his brother-in-law had given him this good character in order to get rid of him. Clause 3—the Last clause in the Bill—has been inserted because doubts have arisen as to whether Section 16 of the Naval Enlistment Act of 1853 applies to a man entering the Naval Reserve Forces. At the time of the passing of that Act the Naval Reserve Forces did not exist, and it is to remove any doubts and to ensure that the necessary provisions shall apply to these people that this clause has been inserted. I move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

STREET BETTING BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order); an Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Five o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.