Sitting of 21 July 1908

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Stratford-upon-Avon, Towcester, and Midland Junction, Evesham, Redditch, and Stratford-upon-Avon Junction, and East and West Junction Railways (Amalgamation) Bill [Lords].—Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Honourable Artillery Company Bill [Lords]; Leith Burgh Bill [Lords]; London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill [Lords]; Ravensthorpe Urban District Council Bill [Lords].—As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP K).
Sir GEORGE WHITE reported from the Committee on Group K. of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at Twelve of the Clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton Railway Bill [Lords]; Wath and Bolton Gas Board Bill [Lords].—Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [Lords].—Reported, with an Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill [Lords].—Reported, with an Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords].—Reported with an Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords].—Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed
Bill to be considered To-morrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [Lords].—Reported, without
1690
Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:—Galashiels Drainage and Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment; Liverpool Corporation (General Powers) Bill; Widnes Corporation Bill; Tyne Improvement Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to:—Metropolitan District Railway Bill [Lords]; Taff Vale Railway Bill [Lords]; Northern Assurance Company Bill [Lords]. Commercial Union Assurance Company Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Acts relating to crofters holdings in Scotland; to amend The Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897; to facilitate the provision of small agricultural holdings in crofting parishes in Scotland; and for other purposes connected therewith." [Crofting Parishes (Scotland) Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Glasgow and South Western Railway." [Glasgow and South Western Railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
Glasgow and South Western Railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].—Ordered (under Section 7 of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.

PETITIONS.
  DAIRIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Aberdeen, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Sudbury (Suffolk); in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against: From Gloucester; Sheffield (Attercliffe) (two); and Stow-market; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour: From Brynmawr; Burgh; Caldecote; Kingston-upon-Hull; Morecambe; Moretonhampstead; Newhaven; Pontnewynydd; Portsmouth; St. Brides; Silvertown; Sudbury; Wood Dalling; and Wrexham; to lie upon the Table.

  PORT OF LONDON BILL.
  Petition of the Sheppey Rural District Council, against, praying to be heard by counsel; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  INLAND REVENUE.
  Copy presented, of Fifty-first Report of the Commissioners, for the year ended 31st March, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COMPANIES (WINDING-UP).
  Copy presented, of Seventeenth General Annual Report by the Board of Trade under Section 29 of the Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 244.]
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Copy presented, of Report on the Research Work of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in relation to the Plaice Fisheries of the North Sea. Vol. I. Special Statistics (Size and Weight), 1905–6 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS, 1877 AND 1907.
  Copy presented, of Order dated 17th July, 1908, entitled the American Gooseberry Mildew (Kent) Order of 1908 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 4066 to 4070 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EXPLOSIVES.
  Copy presented, of Thirty-Second Annual Report of His Majesty's Inspectors of Explosives, being for the year 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ALIENS ACT, 1905.
  Copy presented, of Return of the Alien Passenger Traffic between the United Kingdom and Ports in Europe or within the Mediterranean Sea during the three months ending 30th June, 1908; together with the number of Expulsion Orders made during that period requiring Aliens to leave the United Kingdom [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL POST).
  Copy presented, of the Foreign and Colonial Post (Cash on Delivery) Amendment (No. 1) Warrant, 1908, dated 2nd July, 1908 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Regulations relating to the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Bethnal Green Branch Museum, and the Museum of Practical Geology, Jermyn Street [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Cost of Public Education in Great Britain, France and Germany.
  MR. HAROLD COX: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he can give figures showing the total cost of public education, so far as it is met either by national or by local taxes, in the United Kingdom, in France, and in Germany, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I regret that the information in the possession of the Board is not sufficiently complete or up-to-date to enable them to give statistics of any value as to France and Germany. With regard to the United Kingdom, the latest figures are contained in a Return to the order of the House issued on, 2nd August, 1906 [No. 305.]

  Dividing Societies—Fee for Exemption from Valuation.
  VISCOUNT MORPETH: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury why a fee is charged to dividing societies asking for exemption from valuation as a repayment for trouble and expense, whilst no fee is charged to those societies which do send valuations involving as much labour and expense as the examination of applications for exemption; and whether he will take such steps as will prevent the preferential treatment of one type of society from discouraging other societies, on whom the fee is imposed from applying for registration under the Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The noble Lord is wrong in his assumption that the annual returns and quinquennial valuations involve as much labour and expense to the office as the granting of certificates of exemption from valuation. In the former case the labour and expense is borne by the society and in the latter by the office. In the former case the office receives them and uses them for statistical purposes provided they are duly audited or valued according to the provisions of the Friendly Societies Act. In the latter case the office has to examine the rules and the accounts in order to be satisfied that the particular society is one which is entitled to a certificate of exemption. The fee is not obligatory on dividing societies, as it is open to them to place themselves in the same position as accumulating societies by bein valued, and this is in fact done by some of them. The fee is only £2 every five years, and the total cost works out at 8s. a year. The relative numbers of the two classes of societies registered before and since the regulation came in force do not bear out the suggestion of the fee having had the effect of discouraging the registration of dividing societies. I do not propose to take any steps in the matter.

  Cost of Transport of Discharged Soldiers in India.
  SIR J. JARDINE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether in the present and future years any of the cost of bringing home from India soldiers who have done three years service there, but decline to extend
  1694
  their services for a longer period in that country, will become a charge on the revenues of India; and whether an item under the head of sea transport for troops of £59,246 5s. relates to such return of soldiers, and if it has been charged to the Indian Treasury.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) I understand this Question to refer to Paragraph 5 of the Second Report of the Committee of Public Accounts. The three years men therein referred to are not soldiers who, having done three years service in India, declined to extend their service in that country, but soldiers who, having enlisted for three years service with the colours and having been sent to India, declined to extend their Army service and had to be brought back to this country. The £59,246 5s. claimed from the War Office represents a portion of the extra cost of transport caused by such short-service men having to be brought home and replaced at the expense of the Indian Treasury. Enlistment for three years with the colours has been discontinued. Such adjustments are exceptional, but the matter has not yet been finally closed.

  Ennis Urban Council Loan.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will consider the advisability of sanctioning the loan asked for by the Ennis Urban Council for the purchase of the tolls and customs of the town of Ennis.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) I have examined with close attention the memorial transmitted to me by the hon. Member for Clare. As I have previously explained to the hon. Member, the Ennis Urban Council have been unpunctual in their repayments of loans, and, though they now declare their readiness to be punctual in the future, they have not resolved to remove the chief cause of their un-punctuality, the late date for striking a rate. I would, moreover, remind the hon. Member that the high rate prevailing in Ennis, amounting to 8s. 6d. in the £, is an almost insurmountable obstacle in the way of the loan from the Board of Works, but, if and when the preliminary step of an earlier date for striking the rate is

  1695
  taken, I shall be willing to further consider the application of the urban council for the loan of £2,500.

  India—Deaths from Plague—Famine Relief.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil): To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can state what were the number of deaths from plague, cholera, and small-pox, respectively, in the Presidencies of Madras, Bombay, Bengal, including East Bengal, the United Provinces, and the Punjab for each of the last five recorded years; also the amount spent on famine relief,

  Expenditure on Famine Relief.

  1902–3.

  1903–4.

  1904–5.

  1905–6.

  1906–7.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Madras

  —

  —

  —

  6,493

  —

  Bombay

  266,620

  109

  2,043

  24,192

  81,671

  Bengal

  15

  —

  201

  —

  56,102

  Eastern Bengal and Assam

  —

  —

  8

  —

  7,074

  United Provinces

  95

  —

  —

  59,590

  128,576

  Punjab

  1,101

  —

  —

  328

  6,291

  Remissions and Suspensions.

  Remissions.

  1902–3.

  1903–4.

  1904–5.

  1905–6.

  1906–7.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Madras

  21,085

  31,530

  261,511

  73,114

  33,521

  Bombay

  911,733

  163,533

  124,200

  155,000

  164,000

  Bengal

  Not available

  10,933

  6,267

  3,800

  3,400

  Eastern Bengal and Assam

  3,333

  5,533

  7,467

  5,400

  10,800

  United Provinces

  28,867

  123,600

  32,533

  355,267

  197,133

  Punjab

  205,200

  16,000

  7,733

  38,400

  64,200

  and the amount of remissions or suspensions of land revenue in each of the provinces named on account of the total or partial failure of crops for each year during the same period.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) With regard to the first Question the hon. Member is referred to the Return (No. 160) of deaths from plague, cholera, and small-pox recently presented, which gives the information asked for to the end of the calendar year 1906. Figures showing the expenditure on famine relief and remissions and suspensions of land revenue for five years ending 31st March, 1907, are subjoined.

  Suspensions.

  1902–3.

  1903–4.

  1904–5.

  1905–6.

  1906–7.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Madras

  Not available

  4,733

  10,267

  8,400

  4,933

  Bombay

  Not available

  201,733

  352,067

  622,467

  354,533

  Bengal

  Not available

  6,667

  8,333

  667

  133

  Eastern Bengal and Assam

  Not available

  800

  6,600

  7,667

  2,333

  United Provinces

  68,267

  1,400

  28,200

  38,267

  24,200

  Punjab

  157,067

  160,667

  118,200

  188,200

  155,667

  Note.—Figures taken from the financial estimates of the Local Governments, with the exception of remissions in Madras which have been taken from the Madras Land Revenue Reports.

  Government Clerks at Simla.
  MR. LAIDLAW: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India if the recommendations of the Committee appointed by Lord Curzon to inquire into the position of the Government clerks who remain in Simla during the winter, and which reported in 1905, have yet been carried out; if not, what is the cause of the delay and what are the intentions of the Government of India regarding them.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) The proposals of the Government of India regarding the Government clerks who are permanently settled in Simla, and do not move between that place and Calcutta, have not yet reached me. I will inquire when they may be expected.

  India—Governor General's Council.
  MR. REES (Montgomery Boroughs): To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India what are the emoluments of non-official additional members of the Governor General of India's Council, and what has been the previous calling of the members appointed during the last five years, provided, in case of the latter part of the Question, the required information is available without resort to search.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) A non-official additional member of the Governor
  1698
  General's Legislative Council, who has to leave his ordinary residence and reside at Calcutta for the purpose of attending meetings of the Council, receives an allowance of Rs. 1,000 for each month or part of a month during which he may attend the session, plus a sum of Rs. 1,000 for travelling and other expenses incidental to a change of residence, provided that the total amount paid to a member for any one session shall not exceed Rs. 5,000. These rates also apply to members who may be specially required to attend meetings of the Council at Simla (Article 1146, Civil Service Regulations). The following gentlemen have been appointed since 1st July, 1903:—Tikka Sahib Riperdaman Singh of Nabha, son of the Chief of a Native State. Merchants (3): Mr. F. Cable; Mr. A. A. Apear; Mr. D. M. Hamilton. Landowners (5): Newab Saiyid Muhammad Sahib Bahadur; Sir Ramashwara Singh, Maharajah of Darbhanga; Newab Fateh Ali Khan, Kazilbash, C.I.E.; Newab Bahadur Khwaja Salimulla of Dacca; Mr. Gangadhar Rao Madhar Chitnavis. Lawyers (5): Rai Bahadur Sir B. K. Bose, K.C.I.E.; Dr. Asutosh Mukhopadhyaye; Rai Sri Ram Bahadur: Munshi Madhao Lai; Dr. Rashbehari Ghose, C.I.E. Educationists (3): Mr. Theodore Morison; Dr. Ramkrishna Gopal Bhandarkar; Mr. G. K. Gokhale,

  1699
  C.I.E. Retired Civil Servant (1): Mr. S. Ismay, C.S.I. Retired member of the Provincial Civil Service (1): Maing Ba Tow, K.S.M.

  Post Office—Headquarters Medical Staff.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will state the name, age, length of service, medical qualification, salary from imperial funds, and professional emoluments from other sources, of each of the medical staff at head-quarters, male and female.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I do not think any useful public object would be served by obtaining such a Return.

  Unemployed Grant to Scotland.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask the Secretary for Scotland how much of the grant of £200,000 in the last financial year in aid of the expenses under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, was allotted to Scotland; how it was apportioned as between the various places which received grants; and how much was raised locally in each of these places.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) In reply to the first part of this Question I may refer my hon. friend to the Answer given to the hon. Member for Sutherland on 16th June. As all accounts for the year ended 15th May have not reached the Local Government Board for Scotland, I am unable to state the sums raised by each distress committee. The following are the figures for five of the fourteen distress committees:—

  £

  Aberdeen

  142

  Dundee

  76

  Edinburgh

  598

  Partick

  259

  Pollokshaws

  75

  With regard to Glasgow a sum of about £8,000 was collected for purposes of relief, but was placed at the disposal not of the distress committee but of a committee specially created for the purpose.

  Conscience Money received by Treasury.
  MR. C. B. HARMSWORTH: To ask Mr.
  1700
  Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount of conscience money received by the Treasury during the past five financial years respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The amounts of conscience money received by the Treasury and paid over to the Exchequer in the last five financial years have been—

  £

  s.

  d.

  1903–4

  267

  18

  4

  1904–5

  1,032

  10

  1

  1905–6

  334

  19

  9

  1906–7

  1,440

  7

  7

  1907–8

  641

  16

  6

  Religion of Police Sergeant at Poyntzpass.
  MR. McKILLOP: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether there is any particular reason why the sergeant of police at Poyntzpass is almost invariably a Protestant; and whether, since the principal ratepayers in the village are Catholics, he will consider the advisability of recommending that occasionally a Catholic sergeant should be appointed.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The sergeant at Poyntzpass station is a Protestant, but there is no rule that this should invariably be the case. The Inspector-General informs me that the sergeants of the Royal Irish Constabulary are distributed in the way best suitable to the needs of the different localities, and he does not think it desirable to give any pledge as regards appointments to any particular stations. There is no present intention of removing the sergeant now at Poyntzpass, who has given every satisfaction to his superior officers.

  Disturbance at Poyntzpass.
  MR. McKILLOP: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that recently a serious attack was made by a number of young men on two Catholics in the Ponytzpass police district; whether any arrests have been made in connection with the affair; whether the police have taken any action in regard to it; and whether he will direct that

  1701
  steps be taken to protect people from molestation by persons who frequent the roads in this district in the evenings with criminal intentions.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) At Armagh Assizes on 7th July, Patrick M'Sherry, a Catholic, was tried for firing a revolver at one Andrew Bicker, in the locality of Poyntzpass, and was acquitted. The defence set up was that M'Sherry and another man were being stoned by a crowd, whereupon M Sherry fired a shot in self-defence. No person was struck by stones on the occasion, and the police have no evidence that stones were thrown, and consequently cannot take proceedings. I am informed that party feeling is somewhat rife at Poyntzpass and that the police use all possible efforts to protect each side from molestation by the other.

  Volunteer Officers' Decorations.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether officers of sixteen years service and upwards in the Volunteer Force will be entitled to, and will receive, the medal for long service, whether they do or do not transfer to the Territorial Force.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The hon. Member presumably refers to the decoration for officers. The concession of the grant of the decoration after a period of sixteen years service reckoned under the Volunteer Regulations is applicable only to those Volunteer officers who have been unable to join the Territorial Force.

  Distress in Glasgow.
  MR. R. BALFOUR: To ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the serious distress existing in Glasgow and neighbourhood owing to the depressed condition of the shipbuilding and other trades; and what steps the Government are taking, or propose to take, in co-operating with or otherwise assisting the local distress committees.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I am desired by the Prime Minister to reply to this Question. The Government have
  1702
  fully in view the condition of affairs referred to by my hon. friend, and in the event of the Supplementary Estimate now before the House being voted the claims of Glasgow will be fully considered.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Trinidad Dock.
  MR. LAMONT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will arrange in future that cruisers on the West Indian station should dock at Trinidad instead of leaving their station and steaming 1,500 miles to dock at Bermuda.
  MR. McKENNA: The visits of cruisern on the West Indies station to Bermuda are governed by various considerations. When such visits take place, the opportunity is naturally taken of docking airship which requires it. I will, however, consider my hon. friend's suggestion in case it should be convenient at any time to have a ship docked at Trinidad.

  Pembroke Dock Workmen.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state the number of men employed at Pembroke dock as compared with those employed on the same date in 1907 and in 1905.
  MR. McKENNA: The numbers are as follows—

  13th July, 1905

  2,644

  12th July, 1907

  1,960

  11th July, 1908

  1,967

  Sale of Obsolete Warships.
  MR. A. G. C. HARVEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what sum was obtained for each of the ships broken up during the financial year 1906–7; and what was the date of construction and original cost of each ship.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,): Appended—

  Statement showing prices realised for vessels sold during 1906–7, date of construction, and original cost.

  Vessel.

  Price realised.

  Date of Construction.

  Original cost.

  £

  £

  £

  "Albacore"

  1,450

  1884

  32,783

  "Active"

  7,300

  1871

  132,102

  "Amphion"

  11,500

  1885

  202,113

  "Belvidera"

  1,800

  1810

  38,305

  "Bellona"

  7,200

  1891

  91,243

  "Brisk"

  6,200

  1887

  86,743

  "Boscawen I."

  5,800

  1860

  193,903

  "Bulldog"

  900

  1872

  9,059

  "Caledonia"

  5,400

  1810

  85,241

  "City of Ottawa"

  760

  Not known.

  Not known. Transferred from War Dept., 1906.

  "Cockatrice"

  3,800

  1881

  50,218

  "Curlew"

  3,625

  1886

  57,348

  "Danae"

  3,600

  1867

  70,296

  "Drake

  1,400

  1875

  22,991

  "Durham"

  4,325

  1845

  34,190

  "Emerald"

  5,400

  1877

  107,424

  "Edith"

  130

  Not known.

  Not known. Transferred from Coast Guard Dept., 1869.

  "Fanny"

  490

  1851

  9,700

  "Formidable"

  4,300

  1825

  64,342

  "Greyhound"

  2,000

  1860

  45,177

  "Hyaena"

  850

  1874

  10,970

  "Iron Duke "

  15,000

  1871

  208,763

  "Jackal"

  2,375

  1845

  25,265

  "Katoomba"

  8,500

  1891

  116,993

  "Leda"

  2,100

  1828

  30,356

  "Melampus"

  1,650

  1820

  32,108

  "Mercury"

  1,375

  1826

  27,673

  "Mildura"

  7,200

  1891

  115,974

  "Narcissus"

  15,000

  1887

  265,345

  "Nimble"

  1,225

  1860

  21,282

  "Pallas"

  6,200

  1891

  137,758

  "Pylades"

  5,900

  1885

  82,071

  "Pearl"

  6,600

  1892

  146,881

  "Peacock"

  3,125

  1888

  40,784

  "Pheasant"

  2,900

  1888

  38,563

  "Pigeon"

  3,500

  1889

  41,924

  "Pitt"

  4,025

  1816

  78,787

  "Phœbe"

  9,850

  1892

  138,249

  "Redpole"

  3,325

  1889

  40,999

  "Ringarooma"

  8,500

  1891

  128,738

  "Rose"

  800

  1880

  3,896

  "Salamander"

  3,200

  1891

  54,117

  "St. Vincent"

  5,350

  1815

  110,549

  "Skylark"

  1,120

  1855

  9,906

  "Seamew"

  1,300

  Not known. Transferred from Inland Revenue Dept.,

  9,900

  1857

  "Sheerness"(tug)

  1,150

  1859

  8,409

  "Superb"

  19,000

  1876

  531,846

  "Tartar

  5,450

  1887

  84,457

  "Tauranga"

  8,500

  1891

  128,727

  "Undine"

  1,500

  1884

  10,000

  "Widgeon"

  3,325

  1890

  39,859

  "Wye"

  2,800

  1873

  21,500

  Torpedo Boats in the Hamble River.
  SIR ROBERT HOBART: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any further arrangements have been made for mooring torpedo boats and destroyers in the Southampton Water or the Hamble River, in view of the importance of this matter to yacht owners and fishermen in the present season.
  MR. McKENNA: No destroyers or torpedo boats have been stationed in the Hamble River yet, and the question of the suitability of the river for the purpose intended is engaging the careful consideration of the Admiralty.
  MR. ASHLEYwas understood to say that destroyers had already been in the Hamble River.

  Rosyth.
  MR. NIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the abandonment of the Rosyth naval base scheme is in contemplation by His Majesty's Government.
  MR. McKENNA: There is no intention to abandon the Rosyth scheme.

  War Office—Workmen's Bonuses.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, in a contributory pension scheme for the workmen in Woolwich Arsenal and the other War Office Departments, he would view favourably a proposal that his Department should contribute an amount equal to the amount to be contributed by the workmen, and should advance the amount already earned as bonuses by the men as a nucleus for the pension fund.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): It is impossible for the War Department to commit itself to the financial proposition suggested in the Question, a proposition which is quite novel as far as a Government Department is concerned, and I do not think the conditions under which bonuses are earned under the Superannuation Act would admit of advances being made. The workmen
  1706
  at Woolwich Arsenal have more than once put forward pension schemes, but they were all of them actuarially unsound. The War Office has supplied the workmen with actuarial calculations to assist them in formulating a self-supporting scheme and has suggested the lines it might take. If they can produce a scheme, I shall be prepared to consider it sympathetically and to give facilities for its operation.

  Suspended Land Revenue in Bombay.
  MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for India if he can state the amount of land revenue, mentioned at page 11 of the Explanatory Memorandum on East Indian Accounts, as having been suspended in Bombay in previous years of famine and collected in 1906–7; whether, during the present famine in Northern India, the land revenue is being only suspended and not, remitted; and whether the demand of large arrears as well as the heavy current land tax, as soon as famine conditions cease, prevents the recovery of the peasantry and is the chief cause of their progressive impoverishment and discontent.
  THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,): The arrears on account of suspended land revenue in the Bombay Presidency were reduced by £268,000 in 1906–7. With regard to the second question, the Explanatory Memorandum states at page 25 that a large proportion of the land revenue suspended an account of the famine this year and last year, will necessarily be remitted, but it is not possible at present to estimate the amount. Such remissions are made with the object of facilitating the recovery of the peasantry from the losses occasioned by the drought.
  *MR. SMEATONasked if these suspensions did not seriously retard the recovery of the peasants from the effects of famine, by compelling payment in the year immediately following the famine, and whether there was not evidence that this iron system of collection of revenue which should never be

  1707
  collected at all, had really been a contributory cause of the unrest in India?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I am not aware of that, but I may say that suspension is frequently followed by remission.

  Dinizulu's Trial.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the composition of the special Tribunal by which it is proposed to try Dinizulu, and to say what law and what rules of evidence will be applied in the conduct of the trial.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,): I am not yet in a position to make a statement, but hope to be in a position to do so shortly.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Is there to be a special tribunal to try Dinizulu?
  COLONEL SEELY: Yes, I have already announced there is to be a special Court, but I am not yet in a position to state how it will be constituted.

  Dinizulu's Salary.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the attention of the Secretary of State has been called to a statement made by the Attorney-General on 3rd June that there was a contract between this country and Dinizulu for the payment of his salary, and that the legal situation showed without any doubt an obligation on this country which he was sure the House would be glad to hear this country did not mean to neglect; whether this represents the view of His Majesty's Government; and, if no, when His Majesty's Government intend to fulfil this obligation by paying the arrears of salary due to Dinizulu.
  COLONEL SEELY: I need hardly say that the Secretary of State has given the most careful consideration to the opinion which the Attorney-General has expressed
  1708
  that His Majesty's Government are under an obligation to see that Dinizulu receives his salary. His Majesty's Government abstained from taking any action in the matter when they understood that active steps were on the point of being taken to prosecute Dinizulu's claim against the Natal Government by legal action in the Colony. They are not aware of the reason why this action has been so long delayed, but they now consider that a continuance of the present situation, besides being detrimental to the interests of the prisoner, whose resources are almost exhausted, tends to prolong an unfortunate and embarrassing conflict of opinion between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Natal. They are anxious to remove the cause of this difference forthwith; and they cannot view with satisfaction the prospect of efforts being made to enforce by legal action what they regard as an honourable obligation of the Crown. They have therefore decided that Dinizulu's salary so far as it has accrued shall be paid from Imperial funds, and this House will in due course be invited to vote the necessary sum.
  AN HON. MEMBER: Will any steps be taken to recover the amount from the Transvaal Government?
  COLONEL SEELY: I cannot say.

  Straits Settlements Sunday Labour Ordinance.
  MR. HOLT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to a Report of a Select Committee of the Legislative Council of the Straits Settlements on the working of the Sunday Labour Ordinance, 1892; whether he is aware that this Report finds that this ordinance has tended to handicap British shipping in its competition with foreign shipping; and, if so, whether he will represent to the Government of the Straits Settlements that this ordinance ought to be so amended as to place British and foreign shipping on terms of absolute equality.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Secretary of State has had this Report under his

  1709
  consideration and he is informing the Governor that he will not object to effect being given to the recommendations of the Committee as an experiment.

  Chinese in the Transvaal.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the number of deaths among the Chinese coolies in the Transvaal during the month of June, 1908; how many were repatriated during that month; and how many remained in the country on 30th June.
  COLONEL SEELY: I understand that twenty-seven died and one was repatriated. There remained 21,636 on 30th June.

  Indian Traders in Natal.
  MR. C.B. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in possession of the text of the Bill dealing with the licensing of Indian traders that is now before the Legislative Assembly of Natal; and, if so, whether he will cause copies of the Bill to be circulated to Members of this House.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Governor forwarded a copy of this Bill to the Secretary of State in May, and correspondence on the subject has been proceeding since. I do not think that it is desirable to lay the Bill by itself until the correspondence is complete, but I shall be glad to furnish a copy to my lion, friend if he desires it.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of laying a copy in the Library to which Members may have access?
  COLONEL SEELY: If it is the general desire I will do so.

  Sale of Fiji Land.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the new arrangements for the sale of land in Fiji; and whether the Government will see that the rights of the natives to the soil of their own country will be safeguarded and respected in every way.
  COLONEL SEELY: Papers will shortly be laid before Parliament which will, I hope, satisfy my hon. friend that the rights of the natives have been adequately safeguarded.

  Imports of Spirits into Southern Nigeria.
  MR. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the attention of the Secretary of State has been directed to the great and rapid increase in the importation of spirits into Southern Nigeria, and to the demoralisation and other evils consequent on this traffic; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter, and in that case what is their nature.
  COLONEL SEELY: The attention of the Secretary of State has been called to this subject. The question of the extent of evils consequent on the traffic is one on which there is a wide difference of opinion among those best qualified to judge, and the Secretary of State proposes to institute a formal inquiry into the matter.
  *MR. ASHLEY: Is there any duty on spirits going into the country?
  COLONEL SEELY: Yes, but it is a matter of opinion whether it is prohibitive.
  MR. ASHLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of increasing it?
  COLONEL SEELY: That is one of the matters which will be considered when the inquiry is instituted.
  In answer to Mr. ELLIS—
  COLONEL SEELYsaid Papers would probably be laid, and suggested that another Question should be put as to that in a week's time.

  Cairo Sewerage Scheme.
  MR. J. M. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, under the scheme recently adopted for disposing of the sewage of Cairo, the great sewer is to be laid for several miles in the bed of the Jebal Canal which in the Nile mouths

  1711
  supplies water to the districts beyond the village of Matarieh; whether, if so, there is reason to fear that a leakage from the sewer into the canal may some time occur; and whether, in view of the possible risks of this, he will advise the Egyptian Government to give opportunities for public discussion of the scheme before embarking upon it.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): I beg to refer the hon. Member to replies returned to Questions asked on this subject by the hon. Member for the Tyneside division of Northumberland on the 16th ultimo and 7th instant. Till I receive the Report for which I have called I can say nothing on the point in question.

  Turkish Outrages at Van.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received any information with regard to the atrocities against the Armenian population committed by Turkish soldiers at Katechen or any other places in the neighbourhood of Van.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have had a telegraphic report, founded on information, from the Vice-Consul at Van, to the effect that recent events have revealed widespread revolutionary activity and that a large quantity of arms, dynamite, etc., has in fact been discovered at Van. It is stated that there is no reason to complain of the conduct of the Turkish authorities generally, but there were some cases in which the search for arms was conducted with excessive severity, and the villagers at Khatchen complained to the Vali of abuses in connection with it. The guilt of certain Zaptiehs has been admitted by the Vali, and they are being punished. The troops are said to have behaved well with the exception of the Redifs, and attention having been drawn to the matter by Mr. Barclay the Porte has ordered a Special Commission of inquiry into the conduct of the Redifs. I expect a fuller report by despatch.

  Persian Troubles at Tabriz.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary
  1712
  of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Consul at Tabriz refused protection to Persian constitutionalists during the recent repression; and, if so, will be explain why he adopted this attitude.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Admission to the Consulate was refused in consequence of instructions sent to limit the taking of "bast" to cases in which life was in imminent danger. In this case it was desired, apparently, to use the Consulate for political purposes, a proceeding which His Majesy's Government cannot admit, as it would necessitate intervention by force on their part in the internal affairs of Persia. It appears that the political party named in the Question have lately not been repressed, but have got the upper hand at Tabriz.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: Is not the action of the Consulate at Tabriz in strong contrast with that of the Consul at Teheran?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: No, Sir. At Teheran the action taken was necessitated because lives were supposed to be in danger.
  MR. LYNCH: Is our Consul-General at Tabriz still at his post?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I believe so.

  Post Office Savings Banks Forfeited Deposits.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can explain the item, Stock purchased with money received in respect of forfeited deposits in the Post Office Savings Banks (page 86 of Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom); and whether he can explain under what circumstances the deposits were forfeited.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): This stock was purchased by the National Debt Commissioners with money forfeited under the provisions of Section 12 (1) of the Savings Bank Act, 1891. The amount

  1713
  forfeited was in respect of some thirty-one cases reported during the year, where the depositor had more than one Savings Bank account, and the amount in the combined accounts exceeded £200—the maximum on which interest can be credited under the Savings Banks Acts.

  Small Holdings Inquiries.
  MR. MONTAGU: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now say what decision he has arrived at with regard to the repayment by the Treasury of the expenses incurred by county councils in ascertaining the demand for small holdings.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: After careful consideration I have come to the conclusion that one-half of the out-of-pocket expenses incurred by a county council in ascertaining the demand for small holdings might properly be refunded by the Exchequer. In due course, a proposal to this effect will be submitted to Parliament.

  The Imprisoned Suffragettes.
  MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if there is in the Prison Department any medical evidence to show that twenty-two and-a-half hours solitary confinement out of every twenty-four hours is conducive to physical and mental health; and, if not, will he order the discharge of all female political prisoners who are subject to such solitary confinement.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): The prisoners referred to in the Question have been specially visited by the Medical Inspector of Prisons, and he found no reason to think that the health of any of them has suffered from the conditions of their imprisonment. He has, however, recommended that they should be allowed two periods of exercise instead of one, and this has been arranged for. They will also be allowed to work in association so far as this is found to be consistent with discipline.

  Motor Car Speed.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to any inventions for recording the speed of motor-cars and for automatically shutting off the engine and applying the brake at a given speed; and whether he will cause an examination to be made of any such apparatus submitted to him with a view to determining whether it is likely to prove suitable for compulsory use.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Several such inventions have been submitted to the police authorities at New Scotland Yard, and have been examined by them, but my authority only extends to licensed public carriages in the Metropolis; and if the hon. Member's Question refers as I understand it to do, to motor-cars generally throughout the country, he should address it to my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board.

  Unemployment.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if there have been any precedents in recent years for such a rapid increase in the percentage of unemployment among the skilled trades in this country during the summer months as have occurred during the present year.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): The facts in my possession do not enable me to give a precise Answer to the hon. Member's Question, but it is the case that the percentages of members of certain trade unions returned to the Board of Trade as unemployed have recently shown an increase which is unusual at this time of the year.

  Mile End Road Tram Dangers.
  MR. B. S. STRAUS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, on 15th July at about 6 a.m., a horse was electrified by a live stud n the Mile End Road, severely burned on the flank and forelegs, and would have been killed if he had not been promptly pulled off; and whether he will, in the

  1715
  interests of public safety, withdraw the Board of Trade provisional certificate.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Board of Trade are informed by the London County Council that on the date named a horse came in contact with a stud which was electrically charged, and sustained some slight injuries. The use of the system in operation on the tramway in question has been sanctioned as an experiment for a period of six months from the 23rd ult. If at the end of that period the council desire a renewal of the sanction, the number and nature of any accidents that have occurred will, of course, be a factor in the consideration of the question.
  MR. B. S. STRAUS: May I ask whether it is going to be stopped permanently?
  MR. CHURCHILL: So far as the Board of Trade is concerned, we have given a provisional sanction for six months, and until this period has expired we can do nothing. Whether the line is stopped permanently or not, I cannot say.
  MR. B. S. STRAUS: Cannot the Board of Trade withdraw the certificate?
  MR. CHURCHILL: The sanction was provisional in the sense that at the end of six months it must come up for review, and I am informed that we have no power to withdraw it within that period.

  Kingston Vaccination Officer's Error.
  SIR MAURICE LEVY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Kingston vaccination officer has sent a notice to Mr. Hubert Bo well, Carisbrooke, Heathfield, Hampton, pointing out that his child will be four months old on 18th July, and giving him notice in the terms of Form Q., in spite of the fact that Mr. Bowell made a declaration of conscientious objection to vaccination which was witnessed by a local magistrate, and posted to the vaccination officer, three weeks previously; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): I am informed that a notice in the terms of Form Q was sent to Mr. Bowell on 23rd June, five days after the receipt of a declaration of conscientious objection which he had made. This was done by inadvertence during the absence of the vaccination officer on his holidays, and he desires to express his regret for any inconvenience to which Mr. Bowell may have been put in the matter.

  Distress in Gateshead.
  MR. J. JOHNSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware of the amount of distress prevailing in Gates-head through unemployment; whether he is aware that the local distress committee have expressed their inability to deal with it, and that the distress committee have opened a fund; and whether to relieve the suffering, he will agree to grant an amount out of the surplus funds voted by Parliament under the Unemployed Act, 1905.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am aware of the circumstances at Gateshead, and that the distress committee have appealed for subscriptions. The money voted by Parliament last session for the purposes of the Unemployed Workmen Act was for the service of the financial year ending on 31st March last, and consequently no payment out of it can now be made. I may add that there is a strong and united administration by the public bodies in the borough, and that they appear to have matters well in hand.

  Milk Bill.
  MR. SNOWDEN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can yet say when the promised Bill for the regulation of the milk supply will be introduced.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: It will not be practicable to introduce the Bill until after the holidays.

  Public Health Acts Amendment Act.
  MR. J. W. WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local

  1717
  Government Board whether he will state the number of applications received from rural, urban district, and borough councils, respectively, for the adoption in whole or in part, of the Public Health Acts Amendment. Act, 1907; and also to what number of these the necessary authority has been already given by the Local Government Board.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The number of cases in which I have received applications for Orders under the Act, and in which the formalities prescribed by the Act have been complied with by the local authorities is sixty, made up as follows:—Sixteen in respect of boroughs, forty-one in respect of urban districts, and three in respect of rural districts. Seven Orders have already been issued and the other cases will be disposed of as speedily as possible.
  MR. J. W. WILSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the applications received are not in any way hindered or delayed?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Every despatch is used in advising the local authority in this matter.

  Grants to Distress Committees.
  MR. CLELAND: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the distress committees in England were informed that no further grants would be made between 31st, March and August, and that their final applications for grants to carry on their work until August must be made before the beginning of April.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Early in March last the Local Government Board informed the distress committees by whom schemes of work had been undertaken which might possibly extend beyond the 31st of that month that no payment could be made out of the grant for 1907–8 after that date. The Board stated that it was not contemplated that a payment should, save in exceptional circumstances, be made from the grant in aid of work carried on after the end of the financial year, but they added that if in any case some further payment was needed by the distress
  1718
  committee to enable them to complete any work then in hand for which a contribution from the grant had been made, an application for that purpose should at once be sent to the Board.
  MR. C. E. PRICE: What was the actual time of sending out the Circular intimating that the grants would lapse on 31st March?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: 10th March.
  MR. C. E. PRICE: Was alike Circular sent out by the Local Government Board in Scotland?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: That Question should be addressed to the Secretary for Scotland.

  Imported Meats.
  MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what amount of boneless scrap meat was imported into this country during the year 1907, from the United States, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada respectively; what precautions are taken to detect disease in the animals from which the meat is derived or to provide against unwholesome conditions of handling, chemical treatment, and packing in the countries of origin; and whether this meat is inspected after the process of thawing upon arrival in this country, so as to prevent decomposed meat passing into the possession of manufacturers.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Imports of boneless scrap meat are not specially distinguished by the Board of Customs, and hence the amount imported cannot be definitely stated. Some information on the subject and also as to the methods of inspection in the countries of origin will, however, be found in the Report made to the Local Government Board by Dr. Buchanan on Certain Imported Meat Foods of Questionable Whole someness, a copy of which I will send to my hon friend. Thawing mostly takes place after the meat has reached its destination in small shops, sausage factories, etc., and in these circumstances it is not practicable to make

  1719
  sufficiently frequent inspections to prevent the use of unwholesome meat. Looking to these and other considerations, I have caused Regulations to be prepared with the object of preventing the importation of meat in the form of scraps which cannot readily be identified with definite parts of the carcase.

  Central Welsh Education Board.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether any and what steps have been taken by the Board of Education to deprive the Central Welsh Board of any and which of the powers hitherto exercised by it over secondary schools in Wales.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): The Answer is in the negative.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether it is proposed by the Board of Education to deprive the Welsh Central Board of the powers hitherto exercised by it with regard to the distribution of the Welsh secondary school grants, and with regard to its position as intermediary for the purpose of communication between the Board of Education and the Welsh secondary schools.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The secondary school grants in Wales have hitherto been paid through the Central Welsh Board although the Treasury Grant has always been paid direct, but that body has had no power or discretion as to the allocation of the secondary grants as between particular schools. Similarly, correspondence between the schools and the Board of Education has been despatched through the Central Welsh Board, but the functions of that body were limited to forwarding the Board's letters. The Board decided, with a view to economy and simplicity of administration, and in order that Welsh secondary schools should not be placed at any disadvantage as compared with English schools, that the methods of direct communication adopted in the case of these same schools as regards
  1720
  pupil teacher work and in the case of other secondary schools as regards the whole of their work should be applied in future. Arrangements will, of course, be made, if desired, to secure that the Central Welsh Board shall be supplied with copies of important communications between the Board of Education and the schools.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Has there been any recent change in the relations with the Board of Education?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: There has only been a change in the channel through which communications pass.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the Board of Education propose to deprive the Welsh Central Board of any of the statutory powers conferred upon it by the Intermediate Education (Wales) Act, 1889; and, if so, under what statute such action is to be taken.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The Answers in the negative.

  The Terrace.
  MR. HARWOOD: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he will consider the possibility of applying a verandah to a small portion of the Terrace, so that Members could enjoy the fresh air even when it was raining.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. L. HARCOURT,): I do not think I should venture to deface the architecture of the Terrace by a verandah, but I might point out to my hon. friend that, there is at all times an abundant supply of excellent fresh air in the Chamber of this House itself.
  MR. YOUNGER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that on most afternoons about five o'clock both Parties cannot agree about the freshness of the air?
  MR. L. HARCOURT: Both sides are subject to the accidental passage of gas barges.
  MR. HARWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether any suggestion cannot be carried out without defacing the architecture?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Grants for Horse-breeding.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if the Board have taken over from the War Office the organisation of the horse-breeding industry; if the Treasury has given or promised a sum of £30,000 for this purpose; and whether any sum for a similar purpose is to be granted to the Irish Department of Agriculture.
  THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSES-HOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY,): The reply to the first and second parts of the Question is in the negative. The scheme if adopted will apply to the United Kingdom as a whole.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: If any extra money should be granted for this purpose will care be taken that Ireland has its proportionate share?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The hon. Member had better wait till the extra grant is made.
  EARL WINTERTON: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the scheme will be laid before the House?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: No, Sir.

  Allotments.
  MR. C. B. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what number of allotments of over one acre in extent has been applied for under The Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, 1907.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: We are not at present able to give this information, but we shall obtain and publish it in our Annual Report.

  Small Holdings.
  MR. C. B. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what approximately is the proportion of applicants for small holdings under The Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907, who desire to purchase their holdings.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Under 5 per cent., so far as our information goes.

  Canadian Cattle.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if any representations have been received from the Government of the Dominion of Canada asking that the embargo on Canadian cattle should be removed, and, if so, whether a favourable reply was given to such representations; and whether, having regard to the high price of beef now prevailing and the entire absence of disease among cattle in Canada, any hopes are held out of early action in the matter on behalf of the Government.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Representations on this subject were received in 1905 from the Canadian Government by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and a reply in the negative was given to the proposals made. There is no present intention of introducing fresh legislation on the subject.
  MR. FELL: Did the Dominion when making representations on the subject expressly deny there was any disease in Canada?
  MR. G. D. FABER: Is not the land boundary between America and Canada 3,000 or 4,000 miles in length?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I should like notice of that Question.
  MR. FELL: What was the date of the latest communication from Canada? Was it 1905?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I believe so.

  Deptford Foreign Cattle Market.
  MR. REMNANT: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the very stringent regulations now in force at the Foreign Cattle Market at Deptford and elsewhere, which prevent the possibility of any disease being communicated to any British cattle or sheep, and especially in view of the recent rise in the price of butcher meat, which involves hardship to the labouring classes, the Board will at once rescind the ordinance prohibiting the importation of Cattle and sheep from the Argentine Republic and other countries for immediate slaugther at the Deptford Foreign Cattle Market and other markets throughout the country, which would enable not only the price of butcher meat to be reduced but these foreign markets to resume their former activity and thereby greatly reduce the ranks of the unemployed; and whether he is aware that, while Argentine and other foreign animals t cannot be imported alive into this country, Argentine sheep are regularly imported into Antwerp and a proportion of the skins, heads, plucks, and carcasses of these sheep are brought from Antwerp, admitted without inspection, and sold in England, thus depriving the British working classes of the necessary employment in connection therewith.
  *MR. CHAPLIN: Before the hon. Gentleman answers that Question I desire to ask one or two others. Is it not a fact that, shortly after the last occasion when an order prohibiting the importation of live cattle and sheep from the Argentine Republic and permitting their landing at Deptford was relaxed, two cargoes of animals suffering from foot-and-mouth disease were discovered just in time to prevent their being landed; and whether it is not the fact that so insidious is this disease that no regulation, however stringent, with regard to the control of Deptford Market could afford any guarantee that it would not escape beyond the precincts of the market, and so be spread to other parts of the country? Further——
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman had better answer this Question first.
  MR. CHAPLIN: May I ask, Sir, whether, after the hon. Gentleman has answered the Question on the Paper, I shall not be permitted to ask him a further Question?
  *MR. SPEAKER: There have been already put five or six. It is rather a long catechism.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I may answer the right hon. Gentleman's Questions generally in the affirmative. The statutory obligations of the Board with regard to the importation of animals are such as to preclude the admission into this country of cattle and sheep brought from the Argentine and the other countries scheduled under the Foreign Animals Order of 1903. The adoption of precautionary measure in relation to the importation of hides, offals, etc., has frequently been considered, but it has always been held to be impracticable. No outbreak of disease in this country has been circumstantially traced to such agencies.
  *MR. CHAPLIN: I think the time has now come when, as I understand your ruling, I am entitled to put a further Question to the hon. Member for South Somerset, and I should like to ask, in view of the statement that Argent no sheep are regularly imported into Antwerp, if the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease at Edinburgh was not directly traced to the importation of fodder and hay from Antwerp or its neighbourhood?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: That is so.

  Applications for Small Holdings.
  MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he will consider the advisability of instructing county councils definitely to inform all applicants for land whether or not their applications are entertained, and if not entertained the reasons therefore and further, where refusal follows due to the applicant's lack of capital, the amount of capital deemed to be necessary shall be stated, so that the applicant be enabled to obtain the amount necessary through credit banks or otherwise.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Board understand that county councils usually inform applicants for small holdings whether their applications can be entertained or not. The Board do not see their way to adopt the suggestion made by my hon. friend, but they are ready to inquire into any specific cases in which applications are refused, and indeed they are doing this daily.

  Gooseberry Mildew in Kent.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he can state how many outbreaks of gooseberry mildew have been detected in the county of Kent; in what manner the Board propones to deal with them; and whether he will undertake that the Board will support any measures, however drastic, which the local authority may consider necessary to stamp out the disease.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Three outbreaks have been detected, and they are being dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the American Gooseberry Mildew Order of 1907. The Board will gladly take into immediate consideration any proposals that the local authority may make with a view to the eradication of the disease.

  Congestion in the Island of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland,

  Rates.

  Arrears of Assessment due by.

  1. Major Matheson.

  2. Tenants over £30 Rental.

  Tenants under £30 Rental.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  County Rates—

  1,364

  19

  4

  81

  7

  7

  919

  12

  5

  (Ross and Cromarty)

  Parish Rates—

  Stornoway

  844

  18

  10

  57

  0

  9

  653

  6

  3

  Uig

  1,550

  19

  0

  66

  1

  10

  363

  6

  4

  Lochs

  1,350

  11

  6

  16

  0

  2

  237

  5

  5

  Barvas

  752

  0

  4

  26

  14

  8

  845

  19

  1

  A portion of the above arrears has been paid since 31st March last. I have no
  having regard to the fact that farm lands in the Island of Lewis to the extent of 19,631 acres are not under lease, will the Congested Districts Board communicate with the proprietor with a view to these farms being broken up, especially bearing in mind that the Deer Forests Commissioners scheduled the bulk of this land as suitable for new holdings.
  I beg also to ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the fact that the families of the landless cottars in the Lews represent a population of 7,500, equivalent to 25 per cent, of the inhabitants of the island, will he state why the Congested Districts Board have not secured land for more than thirty-two new holdings and twenty-nine fishermen's dwellings, seeing that there are numerous farms not under lease available.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): I may inform the hon. Member I am taking steps to ascertain the views of the proprietor on the subject.

  Rate Arrears in the Island of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is now in a position to state the amount of arrears of rates due by the landlord of the Island of Lewis on 31st March last, and the amount of arrears due from tenants paying over £30 and under £30 respectively.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The following is the information desired by my hon. friend—
  information as to the particulars of arrear of burgh rates, Stornoway, and

  1727
  they are therefore not included in the above statement.

  Scottish Fishery Cruiser.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the fact that the last Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland shows that although the fishery cruser "Vigilant" was detailed for duty on the West Coast of Scotland, she was kept fully employed within the Clyde area during the greater part of last year, and only made an occasional cruise to Minch, will he consider the expediency of arranging for the new cruiser to be stationed off the Northwest coast of Scotland, especially bearing in mind that during last winter there were numerous complaints of illegal trawling off Gairloch and off the coast of Lewis.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The station of the new cruiser has not yet been definitely fixed. So soon as she has been built and become available for duty the question will be decided according to the exigencies and requirements of the service at the time with due regard to the claims of different sections of the coast.
  MR. WEIR: Can the right hon. Gentle man say when the new cruiser will be built? The matter has been a long time under consideration.
  MR. SINCLAIR: No, Sir.

  Scottish Banking Laws.
  MR. CLELAND: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state when he expects to be in a position to announce the appointment of a Departmental Committee to inquire into the existing bankruptcy laws of Scotland.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I hope, very shortly.

  Scottish Distress Committees.
  MR. BARNESI beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will explain why distress committees in Scotland were asked by the Local Government Board to put forward final claims before 31st March this year, seeing that they were told on 1st February
  1728
  last year that they were expected to deal with all cases which came before them at any time in the year after the expiry of March.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The 31st March being the close of the financial year it was necessary that all claims should be made prior to that date. The grants distributed prior to 31st March, however, were available for work executed after that date.

  Relief of Unemployment in Glasgow.
  MR. BARNES: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that the City of Glasgow had raised more money locally for the relief of unemployment than any other city in the United Kingdom, and, if the money advanced from the local common good fund were included, more than the whole of such other cities; and whether, having regard to that fact, and the further fact that unemployment is more prevalent there than for many years, he will assist, by all the means in his power, in making provision for approved schemes of employment.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I am aware that considerable sums have been raised in Glasgow for relief but am not able to give my hon. friend full comparative details with other cities. When funds are placed by Parliament at the disposal of the Government the circumstances prevalent in Glasgow will be fully considered.
  MR. WATT: Did the circulars of the Local Government Board give the distress committees to understand that funds would be forthcoming throughout the summer?
  MR. SINCLAIR: No; they were simply a notification of how the Act should be administered, and nothing more could be deduced from them.
  MR. BARNES: When will more money be available?
  MR. SINCLAIR: There is a Question on the Paper as to that.
  MR. CLELAND: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, up to the

  1729
  present, the City of Glasgow has raised and contributed locally a larger sum towards the operations of the local distress committee than it has received in the shape of grants from the Local Government Board; whether other places in Scotland have received proportionately much larger grants; and what are the reasons for such disparity in treatment.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The facts are not in dispute for the year ending 31st March, 1908. Glasgow Distress Committee received a total of £9,647 in grants, and raised by public subscription £8,000 odd; but that latter fund was not devoted towards meeting the expenses of the distress committee, though it was applied to kindred purposes by a Special Committee.
  MR. CLELAND: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that on 20th March the Glasgow distress committee wrote to the Local Government Board stating that the grant requested was an interim demand only, and that a further grant would be required after 31st March to carry on the operations of the committee; whether the Local Government Board informed the distress committee that after 31st March no further grants would be made until August; and, if not, why this course was not adopted.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I am aware of the correspondence which has taken place As to the latter part of the Question, I am not aware that the Local Government Board named any date when further grants would be available, but it is well known to all distress committees that the Local Government Board have no funds available for distribution after the close of the financial year on 31st March till a further grant is voted.
  MR. CLELAND: Did the Scottish Local Government Board tell the Edinburgh and Glasgow Distress Committee that if they did not apply before 31st March for an additional grant no further grant would be made? Was not that done by the English Local Government Board?
  MR. SINCLAIR: I am not sufficiently acquainted with the administration of the English Local Government Board to be able to say.
  MR. WATTwas understood to ask whether it would not be possible for him to follow the precedent of the English Board and give grants for emigration.
  MR. SINCLAIR: If any such request is made I will consider it.

  Greenock Strike.
  MR. STEWART: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction which exists among the trade unionists of Greenock owing to the intervention of the police, in April of last year, when non-union men were imported by the Brewers' Sugar Company, Limited, to take the place of the sugar porters and labourers who were on strike; whether he is aware that on the first day of the dispute labourers were imported from Glasgow, who immediately returned home on the facts being explained to them by the strikers, and that this peaceful persuasion on the part of the strikers formed the subject of complaint, and was brought before the magistrates at a special meeting, which was attended by Mr. Wingate, the secretary of the Brewers' Sugar Company, Limited, and by the chief constable, who suggested that application should be made for additional police protection; whether on the second day of the dispute, on the Glasgow labourers being again imported they were met at the Greenock railway station by the burgh police, who formed a cordon round them and escorted them to the harbour, and remained with them during the discharge of a cargo, preventing the strikers and their secretary from obtaining any access whatever to the imported men, who, under police escort, were also taken back after work to the railway station; whether such intervention by the police constitutes a violation of the Trade Disputes Act; and whether, having regard to the importance of the case and the precedent it creates, he will issue a general circular to the police authorities of Scotland pointing out

  1731
  that the action of the police in preventing the strikers from having access to blacklegs itself constitutes a provocation to a breach of the peace which it is their duty to maintain.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I received a communication on this subject, and on 31st December, 1907, a letter was addressed from the Scottish Office to the Secretary of the Greenock United Trades Council, stating that the Secretary for Scotland is advised that persons, acting on their own behalf or on behalf of a trade union, or of an employer, who attend any place of business where workmen are, for the purposes of Section 2 of the Trades Disputes Act, are not "loiterers," and that the police are not justified in treating them as such or in interfering with their exercise of the rights and purposes of the statute. The letter went on to say that the Secretary for Scotland is further of opinion, as advised, that the interference of the police on such occasions as those mentioned is only justifiable in circumstances where the police have reasonable grounds for apprehending that the intentions of those persons are not peaceful or are likely to lead to public disorder or breach of the peace. In the absence of any such reasonable grounds for apprehending a disturbance the exercise of those rights of persuasion expressly conferred and sanctioned by statute would certainly be construed as "peaceful." I will consider whether a circular is required. As at present advised, I think the publicity which the matter will receive through my hon. friend's Question may be sufficient.
  *MR. STEWART: Is there not sufficient material on which to issue a general statement in view of the specific allegation that the police contravened both the letter and the spirit of the Trade Disputes Act which was specially passed to——
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. That is an argumentative Question.

  Unemployment in Glasgow.
  SIR ANDREW TORRANCE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he will consider the
  1732
  position of Glasgow in its present condition of distress through the thousands who are out of employment; if he is aware that Glasgow citizens have contributed over £12,000 by voluntary subscriptions; that a deputation of Glasgow Members waited recently on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of the Local Government Board, and the Secretary for Scotland, urging that certain sums should be advanced to the Glasgow distress committee to enable them to continue their present work for the unemployed; and that the Lord Provost of Glasgow attended at Edinburgh with a deputation to the Loral Government Board (Scotland), and from that Board received a promise that help would be forthcoming, but that up to now no communication has been received to that effect.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I am requested by the Prime Minister to reply to this Question. I am fully aware of the condition as to unemployment which has prevailed in Glasgow. Any assurance of help that has been given has been conditional upon money being made available by Parliament during the current financial year. The Supplementary Estimates recently laid before the House contain a Vote for this purpose.

  Surcharge of Limerick Guardians.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that five Poor Law guardians in the Newcastle West Union, in the County of Limerick, were surcharged by the auditor £21, being for ten weeks at £2 2s. a week, which he considered they overpaid Dr. Ambrose, who was appointed to do duty for the medical officer of the workhouse and dispensary there at £7 7s. per week; whether he is also aware that at first Dr. Condon and Dr. Ambrose wore appointed for workhouse and dispensary at £4 4s. a week each, and that Dr. Condon having got ill Dr. Ambrose was requested to do the duty of both at £7 7s. a week; and whether, having regard to the fact that the guardians actually saved £1 1s. a week by Dr. Ambrose doing the combined duties to the satisfaction of the guardians

  1733
  and poor of the district, he will, as President of the Local Government Board, cancel this surcharge.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. It is not the case that there was a proposal to appoint Dr. Condon and Dr. Ambrose as temporary medical officers for the workhouse and dispensary respectively, at £4 4s. a week each. Dr. Condon himself was on sick leave when the temporary appointment was made. When the guardians proposed to appoint Dr. Ambrose at £7 7s. a week, the Local Government Board twice pointed out that the usual rate was £5 5s. a week, and warned the guardians that they would be personally liable if they paid a higher rate. Notwithstanding those warnings, the guardians paid the temporary officer at the rate of £7 7s. a week, and the auditor consequently surcharged the excess amount. The surcharge was upheld on appeal, and there is no power to re-open the matter.

  Newcastle West Union Audit.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the auditor at the last audit of the accounts of the Newcastle West union appointed eight o'clock in the morning for his audit and was finished by mid-day; and whether he will issue instructions to the auditor to fix an hour more convenient to district councillors having to come a long distance.
  MR. BIRRELL: The auditor appointed eight o'clock in the morning for opening the audit, that being the hour at which he arrived by train from Tralee. The next train does not arrive till two o'clock in the afternoon. The auditor did not leave till 3.30 p.m. on the same day, so that any persons who desired to attend had ample opportunity of appearing before him. The auditor has a good deal of preliminary routine work to do before he is in a position to receive and consider objections. The guardians have raised no objection to the commencement of the audit at such an early hour, but if
  1734
  they should do so the auditor would doubtless meet their convenience.

  Ireland and the Tuberculosis Bill.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether in view of the differences of opinion existing in Ireland on the subject of the methods proposed by the Government to deal with tuberculosis, and in view of the fact that public opinion has not had time to express itself on this complicated and important subject, he will postpone the Committee stage of the Tuberculosis Bill until the autumn session.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDasked whether in view of the fact that there was a general desire that certain portions of the Bill should be adequately discussed, the right hon. Gentleman would consider the advisability of referring the Bill to a Grand Committee.
  MR. BIRRELL: While I cannot agree that there is any serious difference of opinion in Ireland upon the subject of the Tuberculosis Prevention Bill, I feel that sufficient consideration could scarcely be given to it in Committee at the late hour which would be inevitable, having regard to the present state of business. I propose, therefore, to move for the discharge of the existing order for the Committee stage, and to reserve the Bill for consideration by a Grand Committee during the autumn sitting, when I have no doubt this very important and necessary measure will be carefully and yet speedily dealt with.

  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants.
  MR. JOHN ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the attitude taken by the Irish landlords towards the restoration of the evicted tenants, he would refuse to give further facilities for the disposal of estates at high prices without the immediate reinstatement of the Plan of Campaign evicted tenants, which formed part of the unfulfilled agreement of 1903.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners could not legally refuse to give facilities for the sale of estates upon the

  1735
  grounds suggested in the Question. Moreover, in the case of all the Plan of Campaign estates except the Clanricarde estate a settlement has been made, or is in process of being made, as regards the reinstatement of evicted tenants.

  Aerial Navigation and National Defence.
  MR. GRETTON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if questions of aerial navigation have received consideration by the Committee of National Defence; whether naval officers have been called into consultation; and if it is intended to entrust all experiments and construction to the military authorities.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): This is a matter which presents both naval and military aspects, and it is not desirable to say more at present than that it is engaging the attention both of the naval and military authorities who have been, and are, in consultation with one another on the subject.
  MR. ASHLEY: Is it the intention of the Government still further to reduce the sum of money granted to this important branch?
  MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir.

  Scottish Judges and Company Directorships.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that Judges of the Court of Session and Sheriffs in Scotland frequently act as ordinary directors of trading companies there and receive remuneration for so acting; whether he is aware that a company called the Arizona Copper Company has a Judge on its ordinary board; that this company has several times been in litigation in the Courts; and whether, in future appointments of Judges and Sheriffs, he will make it a condition that they shall not accept such posts in trading concerns.
  MR. ASQUITH: I have no reason to suppose that the practice referred to by my hon. friend is of frequent
  1736
  occurrence, but I understand that the statement in reference to the Arizona Company is correct. I have already stated my view that participation by a member of the bench in the direction of trading concerns is highly undesirable.
  MR. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my Question as to future appointments? Which is the most important—that a Judge or a Cabinet Minister should not be a company director?
  MR. ASQUITH: I think it more important the Judge should not.

  Colonial Office Vote.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he can state on what day it is intended to take the Colonial Office Vote.
  MR. ASQUITH: The Colonial Office Vote will be put down for next Tuesday, the 28th.

  The All-Red Route.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he can now state the Government's decision with regard to the All-red Route; and whether the principle of subsidising such a scheme has been definitely accepted.
  MR. ASQUITH: I cannot add anything to the Answer I gave in reply to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Mid Armagh on 9th July.
  EARL WINTERTONasked, having regard to the fact that the question was raised a year ago, whether a statement would be made before Parliament rises.
  MR. ASQUITH: I am dependent in this matter on the Committee. I can assure the noble Earl due expedition is being made in the proceedings.
  MR. HAROLD COXasked the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the declaration of the late Prime Minister against subsidies.
  MR. ASQUITH: Yes.
  MR. BYLES: May we take it that nothing definite will be done till the House has had an opportunity of discussing it?
  MR. ASQUITH: I must ask for notice of that Question.

  Report of the Hop Committee.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the urgent necessity of the case, he will undertake that an early opportunity be given to the House to discuss the Report of the Select Committee on Hops.
  MR. ASQUITH: I am afraid that the time at the disposal of the House will not admit of a discussion upon this Report before the adjournment.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDY: In view of the urgency of the matter, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to bring in legislation on the subject during the autumn session?
  MR. ASQUITH: I cannot give any such undertaking, but I will undertake to consider the Report very carefully during the holidays.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Will no opportunity of any kind be given the House to discuss this very important subject?
  MR. ASQUITH: I do not know whether it would be in order on the Appropriation Bill or on the Motion for adjournment.
  *SIR W. J. COLLINS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of adopting some or all of the practical recommendations contained in the Report?
  MR. ASQUITH: Yes, when time allows.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDY: I shall be obliged to raise this question on the first opportunity.

  Irish Supply.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDasked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that
  1738
  no provision had been made for a third day for the discussion of the Irish Estimates, whether he was aware that ever since the Supply rule was established, a minimum of three days had been given, and in more than one year under the late Government four days.
  MR. ASQUITHreplied that if they took the whole of the days in which debates connected with Ireland had been taken, this Session showed an advantage in favour of Ireland. Although there had been only two days allotted to the Irish Estimates, there had really been four and a half days given to Irish Supply, including the discussions on the Supplementary Estimates and the day occupied in getting the Speaker out of the chair. If Thursday next were not to be devoted to the Report stage of the Irish Universities Bill, he would have been able to give that day also. He would add that during the session the Government had introduced no fewer than ten Bills in which Ireland was concerned.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid his only anxiety was that no precedent should be set up for limiting the discussion of the Irish Estimates to two days, and he would be satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman would give him an assurance that that would not be so.
  MR. ASQUITH: I have no hesitation in giving the hon. Gentleman that assurance.

  A QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
  MR. MARKHAM: I wish, Mr. Speaker, to draw your attention to a speech delivered by the hon. Member for Jarrow on the 20th inst., and to ask whether that speech does not constitute a breach of the privileges of this House, being a direct reflection upon other hon. Members, The words I wish to take exception to, and which more especially constitute a grave libel on hon. Members sitting round the hon. Member, are—
  "Mr. Pete Curran, Labour M.P. for Jarrow, declared at Tottenham that being in the House of Commons did not tend towards a man's moral and intellectual improvement—[laughter and

  1739
  cries of 'Agreed']—and he questioned whether he was equal intellectually to what he was years ago. [Laughter.] He was doubtful whether he had ever before been in such bad company as that with which he had been compelled to be associated in his experience as t Member of Parliament, [Laughter.]"
  Arising out of the decisions of Sir Erskim May, I wish to ask whether that is not libel on the Members of the House, and more especially on the hon. Members amongst whom the Member for Jarrow sits.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member asks me my opinion on the speech I shall give him no answer. If he asks me whether in my opinion it constitutes a breach of privilege, in any way, I say not. Every hon. Member is entitled to form his own opinion of the company amongst which he sits.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Walter Francis Roch, esquire, for the County of Pembroke.
  ENDOWED SCHOOLS (MASTERS) BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 335.]

  TRUSTS BILL.
  First Special Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read. [Inquiry not completed.]
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 245.]

  LICENSING BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee).
  [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair].
  On Clause 1—
  MR. GRETTON MR. GRETTON (Rutland) moved an Amendment providing that the reduction of licensed houses should apply only to "any municipal borough or urban district having a population, according to the last Census, for the time being
  1740
  of over 10,000." He said the object of this Amendment was to secure that the reduction of licences should not apply to rural districts and those small urban districts usually associated with rural or agricultural parts of the country. No case had yet been made out, either on the Second Reading or in speeches in the House or outside it, for any wholesale reduction of licences in rural districts. So far as the Bill aimed at carrying out temperance reform by a reduction of licences, the arguments had been based on experience in large centres of population, great towns, and urban centres. They had heard such phrases as "low-class public-houses in slum areas," but it was impossible to find anything of that kind in the rural areas which the Amendment proposed to except. Public-houses in rural districts were very different from those in urban centres. The people who used them were generally of most humble circumstances; they receive as low a rate of wages as any class of persons employed in the country. The licensed house was their only meeting place after the day's work. They usually lived in small, houses, which did not contain accommodation for many persons to meet in a social circle. The local inn was the committee-room for all their meetings. Friendly societies held their lodges there, and the houses were the sole meeting places of those organisations which played so large a part in village life. Any wholesale reduction of licences in rural districts opened out a problem entirely different from that of reduction in great centres, and it would probably mean a great hardship to those who had few pleasures in life, and who used the public-house rationally. The Amendment might perhaps be opposed on the ground that there was excessive drinking in rural districts. He would not trouble the Committee with figures on that point, but the licensing statistics showed that in those counties which were chiefly rural there was no argument for the wholesale reduction of licences on the ground of excessive drunkenness. Then there was another class of consideration which he wished to advance, and that was the question of the wayside inn, which was a resting-place for the passing traveller. When the traffic on main

  1741
  roads was being opened up by cyclists, motor-cars, and touring vans, these inns became important. This class of inn was not to be dealt with by any scale of population. Its customers were wayfarers simply passing to and fro. There were many inns of that class; they were constantly under public supervision, and every passer-by could see what went on in them. Finally he would like to remind hon. Members opposite that the tied-house system which they so frequently condemned would be more difficult to get rid of or to modify if they reduced competition by greatly limiting the number of houses.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 8, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'in any municipal borough or urban district having a population according to the last Census for the time being of over ten thousand.' "—(Mr. Gretton.)
  Question put, "That these words be there inserted."
  *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,): The hon. Member has approached the question from the standpoint that if there is to be any compulsory reduction in the number of public-houses the more it is circumscribed the better. But I do not think he can seriously expect us to exclude from the operation of this Bill more than one-half of the licensing districts in the country. We hold that a gross excess in the number of licensed premises is no better a thing in the village than it is in the town. I would point out further that right hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they were proposing a reduction of licensed houses in 1904, made no distinction whatever between the case of rural districts and the case of towns, and as a matter of fact Quarter Sessions have put that Act into operation as readily in the rural districts as they have in the towns.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: In what proportion?
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I cannot give the statistics offhand, but everyone
  1742
  acquainted with the working of that Act knows that Quarter Sessions, so far as the limited powers conferred by the Act and the limited sum placed at their disposal have allowed them, I have been active in weeding out redundant houses as much in the villages as in the towns. The Bill does not propose, as one would have supposed from the speech of the hon. Member opposite, to sweep away the whole of the public-houses in all the rural districts, but I the scale has been most carefully framed so as to allow for the case of the more scattered populations in rural districts. So far as the outlying houses are concerned, we have already provided in the Bill specifically for those cases. Last night the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham pointed out the extreme inconvenience which would be caused if outlying houses, situated on a high road far away from a village, were swept out of existence merely by the operation of the scale, but if those who have directed criticisms to the terms of the Bill had only given to it the careful study which we on our side have been obliged to give to it, they would have found time and again that their criticisms had been forestalled by the provisions of the Bill, and that they were in consequence wholly out of place. If the hon. Member has such faith in the discretion of the licensing justices, he cannot doubt for a moment that they would in such a case be prepared to make modifications in the scale, nor is there any doubt but that the Commission would permit such a modification. I will give one illustration, which shows not only the necessity of extending this part of the Bill to the rural districts, but also the need of making the reductions compulsory and not leaving the matter to the discretion of Quarter Sessions. I take the county of Huntingdonshire, which stands at the head of the counties which has the largest number of public-houses. It has one licensed house for every 105 of the population, or if you take the adult males, one public-house for about every twenty-five men. It also stands not low in the table of convictions for drunkenness. Under the Act of 1904 the Court of Quarter Sessions have

  1743
  only suppressed eight houses out of a total of 513, and they have recently intimated to the Home Office that they thought it unnecessary to make next year any levy for compensation purposes or to make any further reductions. Lastly, I would draw attention to one further consideration. If this proposal were accepted the effect would be that the rural districts would still be called upon to pay a compensation levy, while they would either not benefit at all or in a less degree from the compensation fund. The contributions would be paid by the rural districts and the towns would receive them.
  *VISCOUNT HELMSLEYthought that the Undersecretary had fallen into the same mistake as others, when he stated that the only reason adduced for the acceptance of this Amendment was that Members of the Opposition thought that reduction of licences was undesirable. He fell into the error of supposing that the reductions under this Bill and under the Act of 1904, when the matter was in the discretion of the justices, which discretion was now sought to be taken away, was the same. It was quite a different thing to say that no reductions were desirable and that reductions under this Bill were undesirable. If the Government maintained the principle that reductions to a fixed scale were necessary in the rural districts, it was for them to say that the scale of reductions under this Bill was the best scale. The Government must have at the back, of their mind some reason for saying why the fixed scale in the schedule of the Bill was a proper scale for the rural districts. Was it based upon the theory, which could be disputed from the licensing statistics, that the number of convictions for drunkenness had any direct relationship with the number of licences? Because, if so he would like to take the statistics of four groups into which the counties given in the licensing statistics could be divided. There were those that had under thirty houses to 10,000 of the population; those that had between thirty and forty; those that had between forty and fifty; and those that had over fifty. The suggestion
  1744
  that a comparison between two districts was not fair because the convictions for drunkenness might be due to the activity or otherwise of the police did not apply when four districts were compared, because in that case the activity or inactivity of the police was averaged between the four. In the first group, where there were under thirty houses per 10,000 of the population, the convictions for drunkenness were fifty-seven. In the group which had between thirty and forty houses, the convictions were thirty-six; between forty and fifty houses, the convictions were fifty; and in that which had over fifty houses, the convictions averaged 33·22. That went directly against the contention which must be at the root of this scheme, that a fixed scale could be laid down suitable to all districts irrespective of local conditions and needs. It was true to say that a superfluity of licensed houses in towns might do more harm than in the rural districts. In towns a public-house at every street corner might attract those who passed them, but in the rural districts, each public-house had its own clientele, and the man who went into one was not likely to frequent another to which he was unaccustomed to go. In the country also the habitual drunkard was known, and there was the double safeguard that the publican could refuse to serve anybody he knew to be an habitual drunkard. These were reasons why in the rural districts it was not necessary to reduce licences to a fixed scale, as it was held to be elsewhere. The Undersecretary had given the House to understand that he knew what the effect of the scale, would be in every parish of the country, that it had been carefully framed with regard to all local requirement. Then why were not the figures upon which it was obtained given to the House? That was most important. It was said last night that the public-houses in the villages could not be reduced to one because of the words in the schedule.
  MR. HERBEET SAMUEL: Need not be reduced.
  VISCOUNT HELMSLEYdid not think that anybody ever alleged that public-

  1745
  houses were to be reduced to one in every parish. He contended that, for all that appeared in the schedule, if a licensing bench was composed of Radical teetotallers who had no desire to drink themselves and wished to prevent others doing so, public-houses could be reduced to one in any parish. But parishes and villages were different things. He knew of parishes in the north of England which contained villages five or six miles apart, and, if the Bill passed in its present form, and the rural districts were not excluded from its operation, there was nothing to prevent a village being without a public-house at all, and the people having to walk long distances to obtain that harmless social enjoyment to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley referred last night. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.
  MR. J. F. MASONpointed out that the Under-Secretary had taken the county of Huntingdonshire as an illustration of the necessity of this Bill because the justices there had done nothing under the Act of 1904 to reduce the number of licences. He happened to live in what appeared to be the most sober county in England, Oxfordshire, and curiously enough, the number of licensed houses in Oxfordshire per 10,000 of the population were three times as many as in the county which had the greatest number of convictions for drunkenness. The Act of 1904 was constantly quoted in comparison with this Bill. That Act did reduce a large number of licences; but it was impossible for any Member of this House to prove that the reduction of licences under that Act had had any effect in checking intemperance. The Act of 1904, in so far as it prevented drinking by the reduction of the licences, had been just as ineffective as all Bills of this kind had ever been. The noble Lord had alluded to the injustice that was likely to arise in the ease of a parish with a sparsely distributed population. He lived at one end of a parish four miles long, and the bulk of the population lived in two small hamlets at the other end, each of which contained a public-house. It seemed to him that
  1746
  if the population of that parish necessitated a reduction of public-houses there would naturally be a demand on the part of the bulk of the inhabitants of the parish to retain their proportion of licensed houses, and to sacrifice the small hamlets four miles away at the other end of the parish. That was one of a large number of injustices or inconveniences which would be inflicted on all those people in the country districts.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I should not have taken part in the debate if it had not been for the speech of the Under-Secretary, which was full of statements which I do not think he or his Department can justify. When he was challenged by one of my hon. friends behind me as to the figures on which his statement ought to have been based—I do not think it was so based—he was obliged to confess that he had no information which enabled him to make a positive statement on the subject. That is one of the difficulties with which we have been face to face, not only on this Bill, but on other Bills this session. The Government for the second or third time have brought forward legislation which ought to be justified by figures and Returns available in all quarters of the House. This Bill is assumed to be a wide-reaching Amendment of the Act of 1904, and during the debates many statements have been made in regard to the working of that Act—none more remarkable, I believe, none more unjustifiable, than that which has been made by the Under-Secretary. He has suggested that the Act of 1904, so far as it went, and he said it in a tone of cynical criticism, had done as much in the country as in the towns. I believe that statement is absolutely incorrect. I believe that the Under-Secretary will find if he prepares the necessary figures and Returns, that the operations of Quarter Sessions have been almost entirely in the towns and not in the rural counties; and in the vast majority of what are called rural villages, the number of public-houses is already so small that the operation of the Bill would be practically useless. The right hon. Member for Spen Valley shakes his head. I know

  1747
  he is a deservedly recognised authority on the subject of temperance and temperance legislation, but let me beg him to remember this, that other people live in and have knowledge of country villages, and I venture to say without fear of contradiction that, except in those villages where there are special characteristics, either in mining districts or where they are in the immediate neighbourhood of towns, the number of public-houses in our rural villages, in the vast majority of cases—in ninety-five out of 100 I believe—is regulated by consumption and demand, and the excess number is very limited. That after all is a matter of opinion. If the Member for Spen Valley and the Member for Westmoreland believe that statement to be incorrect, why do they not give the Government the information which they possess, and which would enable the Government to prepare a Return. That would be a complete answer? No such Return has been presented, and we are acting entirely upon guesswork. I frankly admit that my statement is based on my own experience. I know something of the South and West of England as the right hon. Member for Spen Valley and the hon. Member for Westmoreland know something of the North of England. We all of us travel about the country, and are enabled to form our own views. For myself, I believe that in the vast majority of country villages the Act of 1904 has not been required. A much more important statement was made by the Under Secretary, namely, that the Act of 1904 was somewhat limited in consequence of its powers and the amount of money available. What are the facts? If this Bill passes in its present form without any Amendment, what will be the difference? Under this Bill the necessary reduction of licences is to be made in fourteen years, and under the Act of 1904 the same reduction would be made in twenty-one years. Here again the Home Office, jointly on this occasion, shake their respective heads. Why, instead of shaking their heads or making affirmations, do they not give us the Returns? Calculations have been made by experts and recognised authorities, and the only way in which those calculations can be proved to be incorrect is by a statement produced by the Home
  1748
  Office giving figures which should be available to all Members and to the country at large. No such Return has been produced, and in the absence of any information we are justified in standing by the opinion which has been arrived at by competent experts who have followed the operation of the Act of 1904, and I hope the Government will challenge my statement if they can, though I believe they cannot, when I say that the Act of 1904 would effect the same reduction of licences in twenty-one years that this Bill is to effect in fourteen years. Indeed, I am not sure that I am not rather exaggerating the period which would be necessary under the Act of 1904, because, as a matter of fact, in the first year of that Act the operation was limited owing to the doubt on the part of Quarter Sessions and the local authorities as to the means at their disposal; but the operation was quickened in the second year and quickened still more in the third year which has just past. There is every reason to believe as time went on the operation of the Act in each year would have been increased in force and rapidity. If that is the case, even less than twenty-one years would have been occupied; but I will make the Government a present of two or three years, and will suppose that it took twenty-four years to bring about the reduction that it is said will be effected by this Bill in fourteen years. But that would be no justification for the allegation made by the Government against the Act of 1904 or against Quarter Sessions. So far as the Amendment is concerned, I believe that as a matter of justice and a matter of practice the carrying of it would not interfere in any way with the object the Government allege they have at heart, namely, the promotion of temperance and the reduction of temptation. At the same time, I am bound to say that in the interests of the rural districts themselves I should regret very much to see a distinction of this kind drawn between them in an Act of Parliament. I hope that my hon. friend who moved this Amendment, which has given rise to an extremely interesting debate, will not press it to a division, because if he does I for one could not support it. I think the distinction which he draws is an invidious one, although my hon. friend

  1749
  is perfectly justified in saying that in ninety nine cases out of 100 the operation of the Bill would be in the urban districts. The Government in making allegations against the action of Quarter Sessions, not as to their good faith or their honour, but in regard to the effect given to the Act of 1904, have not armed themselves with the information which they alone possess, and which alone would enable them to refute the statements which we have made, and which we believe to be just and accurate. It is information which ought to be given to the House, when, in the first place, the Government challenge the efficacy of an Act of Parliament, and, in the second place, allege that Quarter Sessions have failed to do the work they ought to have done.
  *MR. TALBOTsaid he wished to say a few words in agreement with what his right hon. friend had expressed. It was to be regretted that when an Act of Parliament was so much criticised as the Act of 1904 had been during this discussion, they had not been able to obtain that information which, as the right hon. Gentleman had observed, the Government alone possessed. He did not wish to enlarge on his own personal experience, but knowing the difficulties which arose, and what was material to the consideration of this question, he desired to point out that his experience had not been small. He could conscientiously say that the Act of 1904 had been administered in the county in which he lived in a manner which had been attended by a very considerable reduction of licences, and that had been effected without any great friction amongst those who were affected. If that were so in Kent, why should it not be so in the rest of England; and if it were so in the rest of England, why should they not know of it? He could not understand the reason of the reticence of the Government in this matter; they all had the same object in view, namely, the encouragement of the real cause of temperance in the country. And he hoped that they all had at heart not to promote the cause of temperance at the risk of injustice to individuals. That had always been the line he had tried to follow in these matters, but he
  1750
  could not see very much of the latter principle in the proposals of the Government. The reduction of licences which had gone on so far had combined those two cardinal principles, and why should they not know what the working of the law had been? The Government must know it, and if they knew it why did they not tell the House? Personally, he could not support the Amendment, because he had himself gone on the principle of acting equally between town and country, and in the division of Kent where he lived they had reduced the number of redundant licences considerably in the rural districts. The crying need for reduction no doubt was in the congested urban districts In his own division, in the town of Chatham, there had been a notorious redundancy of licences Therefore he had exercised his influence to enforce a reduction in that place. But though he agreed that urban districts had the strongest claim, he did not think that they had the sole claim, and therefore he would not willingly limit the operation of this clause to urban districts.
  *MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid he would like to say a word or two [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh."]. Hon. Members opposite were not allowed to speak themselves, but their director had no power to prevent Members of the Opposition from speaking. He thought this Amendment was most useful to get some information from the Government if it possesses it or from any hon. Member opposite, as to the basis on which these calculations were made. It was difficult to get, and his view was that they had not got it, and never had it, and that their calculations as far as rural districts were concerned were made by rule of thumb. The difficulty was that in the census reports all the areas were given in statute acres. He had gone through every county in England to reduce statute acres into square miles, for another purpose, separating rural from urban districts, and the result was astonishing. There were forty-two counties the population in the rural districts of which were less than 200 per square mile, twelve counties with a population of less than

  1751
  100 to the square mile, and three with less than fifty. The last case was comparable to a desert, but even in a desert people could become thirsty and they had to be fairly provided for. Take a large parish like Dartmoor, for instance, which had tens of thousands of acres. Under the Bill it would be entitled to two or three public-houses, and yet there were houses and hamlets scattered all over the area. Even if the public-house should be exactly in the middle, a poor labourer would have to walk above a mile there and a mile back to get his glass of beer, but if it should happen to be at the edge of the moor he would have to walk two miles or more each way. He wanted to point out this anomaly because it could be so easily altered. The figures were so astonishing that he could scarcely believe them, but he had submitted them to an expert who found them to be practically correct. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin spoke; of the Act of 1904, his statements were disputed, but in the three years ending January, 1908, there were 3,778 licences suppressed, or 1,259 per annum, and they were suppressed with judiciousness, the magistrates selecting undesirable public-houses, and as far as Birmingham was concerned it had acted admirably. They had suppressed, and were in the process of suppressing, when the Bill appeared and everything was stopped, all the public-houses which were supposed to be redundant or objectionable, and the compensation which came exclusively from the trade was given fairly. The, suppression under the Act was increasing, for in 1907 there were not 1,257 but 1,716 suppressed. But supposing it went on at the smaller rate, in fourteen years there would be hard upon 18,000 licences suppressed. The Prime Minister said that that was wholly inadequate, and he proposed in fourteen years to suppress 30,000.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is now discussing the total number of licences which are to be suppressed. This Amendment only raises the question whether the rural districts shall be left out of the Bill or not.
  *MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid he had said what he wanted to say on that subject. He only dwelt on it because his right hon. friend had spoken about it and his statements were understood to be disputed, and therefore he wished to quote the official figures to confirm what he had said.
  MR. GRETTONasked leave to withdraw the Amendment. It had served a most useful purpose and had certainly made it clear that the Government had no basis on which they could justify the inclusion of rural districts. They had been requested to produce their reasons, but had not been able to do so.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. JAMES HOPE MR. JAMES HOPE (Sheffield, Central) moved to amend the clause so as to direct the licensing justices to "adjust" instead of "reduce" the number of on-licences in their district. He said that the object of his Amendment was to confirm and give Parliamentary regulations to a very useful and common practice which prevailed amongst licensing authorities at present, namely, that a number of licences should be surrendered in one district as a condition of the grant of new licences. That procedure had conduced to temperance and had also the advantage of equalising the supply of the wants of the public. It the further advantage that a very large reduction of licences was possible without drawing upon the compensation fund. This was a practice that undoubtedly ought to be encouraged and extended. He quite admitted that the acceptance of the Amendment would involve certain further changes, and when they came to the schedule they would have to examine it with some care, because he did not wish that the effect of the Amendment should be in every case to force the justices to increase the licences up to the exact limit; therefore, they would have to have some more flexible limits, something akin to the zones in the Irish Land Act, within which a reduction or extension would be possible. All he wanted to ask in the acceptance of the Amendment was that

  1753
  the licensing authorities should survey the conditions of their districts as a whole, and see whether some new licence was fairly wanted in the interests of the community, and whether, without having recourse to the drastic provisions and limited compensation provided under the Bill as it stood, they could not at Once meet the legitimate wants of the public and at the same time secure a large reduction of houses by private arrangement. Personally, he would like to see conditions applied to new licences which would give them a new character different from the ordinary type of public-house, and assimilate them to cheap popular restaurants they saw on the Continent, into which a man would find no difficulty in taking his family.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 9, to leave out the word 'reduce' and to insert the word 'adjust.'"—(Mr. James Hope.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'reduce' stand part of the clause."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): We cannot accept this Amendment. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman very carefully, and I understand he moves it with the intention in smile other part of the Bill of introducing other Amendments to fulfil some desire which he has in his mind. But looking at the actual words, if the Amendment was accepted the only obligation on the justices, as far as I can see, would be to adjust the number of licences between different parts of the district. As to whether the word "adjust" includes or excludes "reduce" I do not quite know, and the hon. Member has not explained. We are perfectly content, with the Bill as it stands, to reduce the licences to a certain proportion, and we cannot, therefore, accept the Amendment.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid he was not sure that the right hon. Gentleman had completely grasped what his hon. friend's object was, though it was not very difficult to understand. What his hon. friend contemplated was that while the scheme of the Govern-
  1754
  ment might be applied in the case of the wards of a town, for instance, in which the number of licences was in excess of the number which the Government thought was the right number, their scheme possessed no flexbility at all so as to admit of its mitigation in wards in which the number of licences was less than the very limited number which the Government laid down. This was a serious question, which deserved more careful attention than the Government had yet attempted to give it. Let him give one or two illustrations of how this worked at present. In Birmingham, for Instance, the existing number of licensed premises was 1,365. The maximum allowed under the Bill was 745. The excess of licences, taking the wards in which there were excessive licences over the statutory allowance, was 736. This proposal was clearly one of substance. In Liverpool, at the present time, there were 1,844 on-licences, and the maximum allowance was 962. The excess of licences in certain wards amounted to 1,116 but there were in some wards 134 licences below the statutory scale. The result would be that in those districts in which licences fell below the scale the inhabitants would be denied even the number of licences fixed by the Government as the standard adequate for their necessities. The Committee was entitled to some explanation why those particular districts should not be allowed their full number of houses. To his mind, the real explanation was that the Government had not given the slightest attention to any figures upon which their case rested. He would listen with extreme interest to any explanation of the principle upon which this proposal was made.
  MR. ASQUITH: The hon. and learned Member knows very well that the Government have given great consideration to this matter, and have only put forward their proposals after carefully considering the hardships that may be inflicted. Is not this a matter more properly arising on the question of the definition of areas? I am not sure whether the word "adjust" necessarily includes "reduce," and as it is undesirable to make the alteration suggested by the Amendment I suggest that the discussion should

  1755
  be deferred until we come to the question of areas.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The suggestion of the Prime Minister fails for this reason, that I do not know whether the Committee will have any opportunity of discussing areas. There are some big questions to be discussed on this clause before that point can be reached. I will not enter into a contest with the right hon. Gentleman as to what interpretation will be placed upon the word "adjust" by a Court of law, but it is quite clear that the word when ordinarily used by ordinary men means the power to move in either of two directions, up or down.
  MR. ASQUITH: But not to alter the aggregate number.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The great boroughs of England are governed by a licensing authority, which is a committee of magistrates of the whole borough. They have to deal with the whole borough, but are only allowed to deal with it as divided into wards. They are indeed a central licensing authority for the whole borough, but are bound to treat it as divided into wards. In Birmingham, Liverpool, and Leeds the total number of licences may or may not be in excess of the number contemplated by the Government. I believe that in Leeds the number of public-houses is less than the statutory allowance, but the licensing authority of Leeds is not allowed to consider the borough as a whole, but only as divided up into wards. Therefore in those wards where the number is in excess of the allowance, they will be compelled by law to reduce the number of public-houses, but in those wards where there is a deficit they will not he allowed to increase the number.
  SIR THOMAS WHITTAKER: Yes they will because they can grant new licences.
  MR. ASQUITH: In a case where the number of licences falls short of the statutory allowance the licensing justices
  1756
  under Clause 4 have power to grant new licences, subject to the operation of Clause 2, which gives power by resolution to prohibit the granting of new licences. The licensing justices will have all the powers of the present justices in regard to the granting of new licences.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I ask that the licensing authority having control over a large borough area should treat it as a whole, and not in fragmentary fashion. That power cannot be given unless "adjust" is substituted for "reduce." If that is done the licensing authority for Leeds will be able to take the whole borough, and if they think it desirable they can, in conformity with the principles of the Government, reduce the number of licences to the exact proportion of the population. That may involve a slight transfer of licences from one district to another. That transfer is not allowed under the Bill, but it can be effected by means of the Amendment. The proposal ought to commend itself to the common-sense of the Committee, and in my view this is the proper place to deal with it.
  MR. ASQUITH: The argument appears to me to be one for taking the larger instead of smaller areas. If we take Leeds, Birmingham, or Liverpool as a whole, and consider the problem of reduction with regard to the needs and conditions of the whole place, that is purely a question of area, and, therefore, ought to come up for decision when the word "area" is dealt with. We cannot deal with the matter apart from the question of area, nor can we grant more licences in the way of compensation unless the locality want them. It will be an impossible process to attempt to level up a ward by granting licences that are not wanted nor can we grant new licences in a ward where the justices will not grant new licences at all. The word "adjust" will not carry out the object which the hon. Member has in view. All that leads to the conclusion that the proper place for a discussion as to whether the area should be a large area or a small area will be when we deal with the Amendments relating to the proposal in the Bill with respect to area.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman appreciates the point. There are two observations I wish to make. His last argument amounts to this. If in a ward, say of Leeds, there are fewer public-houses in proportion to the population than are contemplated by this scheme, you could not increase the number because they are not wanted. They may not be wanted in that locality, but they may be wanted in 1909 or 1910, and there would be no power for the justices to deal with areas which had been enlarged.
  MR. ASQUITH: In 1910 an application would be made for a new licence for that particular ward in respect of the number of licences being below the statutory limit, and the justices would be entitled to grant it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If there is to be a change it had better be done by the method proposed by the Amendment than by the method suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. There is another point which I think has escaped the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. I may be wrong, but I think I am not. He says that we should defer the discussion on this matter until we get to the question of area. I am afraid that the question of area has already been determined as regards the county by the division we had yesterday. The first line of the Bill says: "Licensing Justices shall…" And the justices were decided to be not Quarter Sessions but the justices of the licensing district. Are we to be at liberty at a later stage of the Bill, having decided that the licensing area is to be the area of the licensing district, to extend the area and say that the county is to be the area, carrying with that the necessary consequence that Quarter Sessions are to be the licensing authority? I confess I thought that was decided, and if it has been decided the only question that remains for us is: Are we in the exceptional cases in which the licensing authority does cover the whole county, as in the great county boroughs, there and there alone, to have it still open to us to decide on what principle the licensing authority is to act, and whether they are to have the whole area to deal with,
  1758
  and the whole of the licences within that area? We contend that the licensing authority should be able to deal with the whole of the licences as one entity—one unit—and to decide what is best for them. Although there is but one authority in Leeds, Liverpool, and Birmingham, they are not to take the districts as a whole in dealing with licences, but they are to take them ward by ward and consider how far the licences correspond with the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether we shall be at liberty, when the question of area comes up, to extend the area in a county district so that the authority for dealing with it shall be the one having authority over the county.
  MR. ASQUITH: On the point of order, while undoubtedly we have decided that the licensing justices shall be the authority to perform the duty of reduction as imposed, anything that comes within the district of those licensing justices—anything which defines not in the sense of extension, but in the sense of limitation of the district of the licensing justices—would be in order, and therefore in all the cases put it would be perfectly competent and consistent with the decision at which the Committee has already arrived to give jurisdiction over the whole of the bounds.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Not in the counties.
  MR. ASQUITH: Well, not in the counties. Nobody has put the counties as a serious case. I mean as regards the county boroughs. I submit it is perfectly clear that the question is still open.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly if any Amendment were proposed to introduce an area which would involve Quarter Sessions settling the point instead of the licensing justices, I do not think we could discuss it. I think that point is settled. As regards what the Prime Minister has said, undoubtedly the question is still open as to whether the area should be the area proposed by the Bill or anything between that and the whole district for which the licensing justices are appointed. Therefore as regards the county boroughs

  1759
  the clause can still be amended to include the whole of the county borough instead of each ward Of the county borough.
  MR. SEDDONsaid the mover of the Amendment had stated his intention very clearly. He had stated that he wished to give the licensing authority power to transfer certain licences to new districts which were growing. He (Mr. Seddon) totally objected to that proposal. What had been the experience under the Act of 1904? In many of the towns new districts were springing up. The working classes had gone to more respectable quarters, and in many parts of the country they had spent a lot of money in resisting the attempts of certain brewers to get licences in those places. The brewers had a number of licences where they were of no value and where they could not get tenants to remain in the houses, the population having left the districts. These brewers had gone like philanthropists to the licensing bench and said: "If you are prepared to give us new licences in certain districts we will give up licences in districts where they are really of no value to us." He would remind the hon. Member for the Walton division of Liverpool that there were two districts there where, he was happy to think, the owner of the land had used a right which ought to be in the hands of the people of the country. He sold a certain portion of land known as Parliament Field and Kensington Field, and it was in the lease that no public-house should be placed upon the estate. Was it the wish of the mover of the Amendment that licenses should be given up in localities where they had practically ceased to be profitable to the holders, and that those holders should be allowed to place public-houses in districts where they were not required and where they were not wanted by the inhabitants? Was the brewer to have the chance of making a bargain with the licensing bench in that manner and of planting public-houses in districts where they would be inimical to the best interests of the working classes? He understood the Prime Minister to say that the justices would operate in regard to wards and not over the whole district. He took it that in those wards
  1760
  if there was a redundancy of licences the justices would be able to use the powers conferred by this Bill to bring them down to the requirements of the wards. He was glad to say that there were working class districts where the number of public-houses was less than the number which might be allowed under the Bill, but they were sufficient for the requirements of the people who resided there. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who had talked about temperance wished to inflict on these people more public-houses than they wanted. He hoped the Government would resist the Amendment.
  *MR. CAVEsaid they were all agreed that there was a very close connection between this question and the question of area. The Committee would have liked to discuss this upon a later Amendment, but having regard to the closure Resolution under which they were carrying on the discussion it was perfectly hopeless that they would ever get to that Amendment which came after the Amendment with regard to the term of years. That being so, would not the Prime Minister take this opportunity of saving what was his view about the question of area? It was clearly open for the Committee to discuss the question. Should the area be the licensing district, or the parish in counties and the ward in boroughs? The answer to that question would go far to solve the matter they were now discussing. If there was any probability that the Government would alter the Bill on that point and allow the justices of the district to apply the statutory scale to the district as a whole, then, of course, they might very well put an end to the discussion on this particular Amendment; but if no change was to be made it was illusory to ask the Committee to postpone the discussion until a time that might never arrive. He supposed it might be said that in every county and in every borough in the Kingdom there were some parishes and some wards where more than the statutory number and some cases where less than the number of licences had been given. He had figures showing that in London there was a large number of areas where the number of public-houses was below

  1761
  the statutory standard, while in many others the number was above the standard. There were many such cases throughout the country, and what was suggested was that the justices ought to have jurisdiction over the whole of their licensing area so that they might be able to say: "Here is a place where there are too many licensed houses, having regard to the statutory scale; and here is another place where there are too few, having regard to the needs and requirements of the population. We will transfer a licence from the place where it is not wanted to the place where it is required." What he and his friends desired was that the justices should have power not to suppress a redundant house to the great cost of the individual who owned it, but to move it to another house in the district. The Prime Minister had said that the people of the second area might not want it. If they did not want it, it would not be done. He did not believe that any bench of magistrates would seek to place a public-house where it was not wanted. Surely everybody knew that in these cases the usual course was that if a district wanted a licensed house the people presented a tremendous petition in its favour, and it was from the Bench that the opposition came in almost every case.
  AN HON. MEMBER: No.
  *MR. CAVEsaid it was from the Bench that the opposition came. [Cries of "No."] In his experience it was certainly true; it was either from the local Bench or from the confirming committee that the opposition came to the licences. There were many cases where the inhabitants wanted the house, but it was refused by the Bench. Suppose that they had a locality wanting a house, and the authorities were unwilling to grant a new licence on the terms of Increasing the total number of licences, why should they not have the power to transfer a house from a place where it was redundant to a place where it would not be so?
  AN HON. MEMBER: How is it to be done?
  *MR. CAVEsaid it was done in some cases by removal—a very useful
  1762
  power for the justices to have; and it was done in other cases by the surrender of a licence in one district and the grant of a new licence in another place. The process was simple and easy. It met the needs of one place without doing gross injustice to the individual. He thought it would be for the public benefit that that particular power should be maintained, and it might be done under this Amendment with certain subsequent Amendments. At all events in one way or the other it should be left open to the licensing authorities, so to adjust the total number of, licences in their area, as to give effect to the scale laid down in the Bill. He did not understand why the Prime Minister should object to adjustment provided that after adjustment the total number conformed to and did not exceed the statutory requirements.
  MR. ASQUITH: It is out of respect to my hon. and learned friend, whose knowledge of these matters is second to none, that I intervene now. The question at issue is that of area and area alone, and I suppose hon. Gentlemen opposite are anxious about this Amendment because they think the question of area will be excluded by the operation of the closure at a later stage. Using such knowledge of language as I possess I construe the word "adjust" as giving power to the justices to shift the distribution of the constituent elements among different areas. If the word "adjust" were substituted for the word "reduce," it would require the justices to retain the total number of licences at their present level. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] Whether that be so or not, I do not want to be drawn into the question of area at this stage. I am quite prepared at the proper time to give my reason why the Government have come to the conclusion, after much consideration, that the smaller area is better for the purposes of the Bill than the larger area. Although I have listened with an open mind, as I always do, I do not think that any argument has been used which has shaken my present strong conviction that the small area is preferable to the large area. Let me take a case. Area (a) and area (b)

  1763
  are sub-areas really because they are part of the licensing area. In area (b) there is admittedly an excess of licences above the statutory scale, and in area (a) there is a diminution of the number of the licences, but they do not reach the statutory limit. According to my hon. and learned friend the justices ought not to be allowed to reduce the number of licences in area (b) unless they correspondingly increase them in area (a). [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] Then what does "adjust" mean? What is adjustment, if it does not mean that there is no reason whatever for this Amendment?
  *MR. CAVEsaid he did not mean that the justices should not be allowed to reduce the licences in area (a), but only that, if they thought there was a redundant licence in area (a) and a licence required in area (b) they should have power, if they thought fit, to transfer a licence from area (b) to area (a).
  MR. ASQUITH: They can do that now. This Bill does not make the faintest difference in that respect.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will you read your Bill? Look at Clause 22.
  MR. ASQUITH: Clause 22 has nothing to do with the point. I am not dealing with the question of removal at all, or with anything connected with removal. I am dealing with this point: If it is shown in area (a), the area in which the number of licences does not come up to the statutory limit, that there is any real reason for a new licence, there is nothing whatever in this Bill to interfere with the existing powers of the justices to refuse or grant a new licence. I am quite sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not deny my proposition. There is not the faintest difficulty in the world in this Bill to provide for the legitimate requirements of that area. I do not want to argue the matter in a heated manner, but surely I am right in saying that the question is what is the area you are going to select? It is the area over which the statutory reduction shall be made; and, therefore, the proper and only appropriate time to
  1764
  consider that is when you are considering what the size of the area shall be.
  SIR E. CARSON: What we contend is that it would be fair if the adjoining neighbourhood does want a new licence, instead of allowing an application for a new licence to be made, and instead of allowing a monopoly value to be acquired, that you should give power to the magistrates if a licensed house is redundant in an adjoining area, if they think proper, instead of suppressing it to transfer it from (b) to (a). We do this because we think it would be, in the first place, an alleviation of the hardship you are inflicting by this Bill. It is not as the hon. Gentleman who spoke from below the gangway seemed to imagine, as if the licence removed was to be inflicted on the district against the will of the people. The will of the people will be considered in this case just as much as it would be in an application for a new licence. The whole difference will be that the magistrates will have the power of saying, in their discretion: "Instead of granting a new licence to a man who never had a licence before, we think it fair, instead of destroying the business of a man in the neighbourhood, to give him the right of carrying it on in a district where it is admittedly wanted." That seems to me to be on the whole a perfectly plain and just proposal; and why on earth it should be resisted I cannot understand, except it be that every effort is made at every stage of the Bill to act as unfairly as possible, both on the question of a tribunal and in every other way. The right hon. Gentleman quarrelled with the word "adjust." I do not think it is worth while to quarrel about a word of that kind. But the right hon. Gentleman goes on to say that the licences are to be "reduced" to a certain scale. "Adjust" is a perfectly proper word, and it would become perfectly plain if the Government wanted to do what is fair and right. There is no question of words in this matter, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.
  *SIR THOMAS WHITTAKERsaid that the point which the hon. and learned Gentleman had raised was the power of removal of a licence that existed

  1765
  at the present time and was proposed to be taken away by Clause 22. The hon. and learned Gentleman wished to retain that power, but the time to discuss it was when they reached that clause. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to districts in which he said there were too few licences; that was fewer than was allowed under the maximum. But why were they too few? The justices bad power to grant new licences now if, in their judgment, there were too few. If they had not granted now licences it was because in their opinion the number of licences was already sufficient. The hon. and learned Member had said that there were less than the maximum allowed under the Bill, but that was because the maximum number was not required. What the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted was to increase them in that area. It was suggested by the Leader of the Opposition that the demands of a district might grow with the increase of population and that the district might require inure licences. But the licensing magistrates had still the power to grant them under the Act, subject to a vote of the people. The whole point came to one of removal. The right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University put the point of removal; but that power existed at the present time, although it was taken away by Clause 22, and it was on that clause that the question raised by the hon. and learned Member for Kingston should be discussed, not now. Another point was the question of area. Hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite wanted the total number of licences to be fixed over the whole of a large borough. That meant that while under the Bill as it now stood the number of houses would be reduced in congested areas, they would get over the necessity for reducing them in the congested areas because the smaller number in other areas would balance them. It was only a device to enable them to have a larger number of public-houses in the small areas.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I thought that my hon. friend the Member for Kingston had explained this proposal beyond the possibility of doubt, but the hon. Member who has just spoken does not appear to
  1766
  know now what the proposal is. I put aside the proposal that this ought to be discussed on Clause 22, because having gone so far it would be obviously absurd to sever the discussion that is now taking place and relegate this part to another stage. It is perfectly clear to my mind that the whole difficulty is between the granting of a new licence and the transferring of a licence.
  SIR THOMAS WHITTAKER: And the removal.
  MR. LYTTELTON: And the removal. The argument adduced against that by hon. Members below the gangway as well as hon. Members opposite is that it is supposed that the licensing justices are to divest themselves of their discretion, and simply to take a licence where it is redundant and remove it into another district whether the people of that district like it or not. I say that that is a travesty of the whole position. Having a good deal of experience I say that no justices in the country would think of transferring a licence into a district where it was opposed by any considerable weight of opinion. That is a travesty of the present arrangement and a reflection on the discretion of the justices. I do not think such an instance could be found. Again, I think one hon. Member below the gangway was not very much in conformity with the true facts when he said that now and in the future where there was a large new district it was common to find a great body of opinion against the granting of new licences. That is not quite the fact. In cases where there is a new district there is almost always a unanimous opinion in favour of sufficient licences to accommodate the district. Where such is the case what could be more reasonable or more fair than that redundant licences should be transferred to places where they are needed? I know hon. Members opposite want opposed to this because they want to get the monopoly value of the new licences in these districts. When the old licences exist, when it is needful and equitable, having regard to all the circumstances of the area, and the magistrates and the district think the licence should be transferred, why should it not be? It seems to me once more in the light of

  1767
  this that what we are furthering is not a Bill for temperance reform, but a Bill for the acquisition of revenue. This question of removal has been discussed to-day as if it were a new point. Why, in Birmingham, year after year, under the guidance of Mr. Arthur Chamberlain, who is a great temperance advocate, this principle has been advocated—I do not know under what law, and I think it may have been illegal—and many licences have been transferred by consent of the brewers and the licensing authority where they were redundant. On the other hand, the total number of licences were reduced for the better administration of justice and the furtherance of temperance. The willingness of the Government to accept Amendments on this Bill, as the Prime Minister declared they would, is fairly measured and tested by their willingness to accept this most reasonable Amendment.
  *MR. LANE-FOXsaid he gathered from the speech of the right hon. Member for the Spen Valley division that it was his view that in places where the number of licences was below the standard the justices did not deem it necessary to add any, believing there was enough. That was not the fact. What happened was that when the justices found a large number of licences in one ward of a district, they were not willing to add to the number of licences in the neighbouring ward. The same thing occurred in rural districts. Surely it was possible that an adjustment could be made in such instances. Hon. Members opposite suggested that justices inflicted licences on places, but such statements should not be made unless proof were forthcoming. If the Government would only listen to the arguments addressed to them from the Opposition side of the House, their position would become very much easier than it was. Considerably less difficulty would arise, and considerably less hardship would be inflicted, if the system of removal, such as had been suggested, were adopted. They were told that this matter more properly arose on Clause 22, and that upon the consideration of that clause was the occasion to discuss it. But what guarantee had they that
  1768
  they would have any opportunity for discussing Clause 22 or for discussing the arrangements on the schedule? Ho would like to commend to the attention of the Prime Minister a few facts which he would mention. In Leeds there were eight wards with 270 licences, which, according to the scale of area and population of the Bill, would be entitled to 483. That was to say, that in these eight wards they would be entitled according to the schedule to over 200 licences more than they had at present. Take another Yorkshire town. In Hull there were ten wards with only seventy-four licences. According to the scale of the schedule those ten wards of Hull would be entitled to 330. He hoped the Government would take note of these figures and in due time tell the Committee what their proposals were.
  *MR. JAMES HOPEwished to know whether it would be in order for him, in order to meet the objection of the Prime Minister on the question of interpretation, to move "or adjust" at the end of his former Amendment.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid that if leave were given to the hon. Member to withdraw his present Amendment he would be in order in moving the Amendment he suggested, but if, after it had been decided not to insert "adjust" for "reduce," he wanted to move it as an addition he could not conceive that the hon. Member could comment on it on any ground not now covered by the present Amendment and it would be out of order.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYasked was it not conceivable that the Committee might require both.
  *THE CHAIRMANdid not think so.
  *MR. BERTRAMsaid he found it quite impossible to agree with the Prime Minister and the Government in not accepting the Amendment. If the Amendment was accepted it would give opportunity for adjustment in such a case as the following. A borough, say, with a population of 10,000 and two wards would under the Bill be entitled to ten public-houses.

  1769
  It might easily be that the whole of the public-houses were in one ward, and the licensing justices would have to abolish five houses in that ward, so that only five would be left for the whole borough, which was 50 per cent. less than would be allowed under the schedule for the borough as a whole. One half of the borough would have no licences at all, and the borough as a whole would have five less than the statutory number. It seemed to him that if the Government scheme was one presented for the acceptance of reasonable men, and if it was part of the scheme that the monopoly value was not to be exacted for fourteen years, it was unreasonable to try and exact it as the Prime Minister suggested long before that time had elapsed.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsuggested that the Amendment would not have been necessary if the area had been larger. The Prime Minister had told them that the Government had reasons for having the smaller area. It seemed to him that they could more properly discuss this Amendment if they knew what was the reason for adopting the smaller area, and unless they knew it they could not discuss the question. In view of the considerable number of Amendments put down, could the Prime Minister give them any guarantee that they would ever reach the question of the area?
  MR. ASQUITH: It does not rest with me at all.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid there were a number of important Amendments down, and it seemed to him that in the natural course they were not likely to reach the question of area, and the Prime Minister ought certainly to state his reason for choosing the smaller area instead, of the larger. He should state it at once, if his reason was satisfactory, because it would sweep away the Amendment of his hon. friend; but they must press that Amendment, no reason having been given sufficient to satisfy them in the difficulty in which they found themselves. He suggested that the Prime Minister might adopt the words "reduce and
  1770
  adjust," not "reduce or adjust," which would be putting the two words in opposition to each other. The adoption of the words "reduce and adjust" would satisfy those who supported the Amendment. He submitted that this was the proper time at which to state the distinct reasons for taking the smaller area instead of the larger.
  MR. MARKHAMsaid he would like to call attention to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square. He could give an illustration bearing on this question, which had reference to a place in North-East Derbyshire, within five miles of where he lived. It was the village of Creswell, inhabited by a mining community. The colliery company had the ground rents of the tenants. The people of the village opposed having a licence; nevertheless, the magistrates had granted a licence for a house in their midst. He would like to hear what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, had to say in regard to the injustice of the magistrates in that district. He would take good care to let them know his views on that subject. With regard to this particular Amendment he thought there would be a great deal of difficulty in arriving at what its actual effect would be. He was connected with industrial companies in some districts, and he had always prevented, if he could, public-houses being established in them. Many landlords made it a condition that they would not have licensed premises where their property was situate. More especially was that the case in certain districts of Lancashire. As far as he was able to understand the position, if in Ward A there was a less number of licences than the Act admitted, and if in Ward B the number was in excess of the number allowed by the Act, then the effect would be that, as far as B. was concerned, the schedule would not operate at all, and there would be a redundancy of licences. Then they would allow the average to be taken over A and 13, and would thus still more increase the number of licences in B, if he correctly understood the Amendments. ["No, no."] As far as he had followed the

  1771
  speeches of hon. Members, he did not think they would take the licences and transfer them to A. They were not dealing with the question of the transfer of the licences at all. Therefore, if in Ward A the number of licences was below the number authorised by the Bill, and if in Ward B there was an excess, the effect, so far as he undertsood, would be that no reduction would take place in B, and it would be subject to local veto to decrease the number. But in many places, in his opinion, the people might increase the number under the scale. If, therefore, this Amendment was carried, they would be giving the people a power to increase the number of licences in particular districts. If the Amendment was adopted the value of the Bill, from his point of view, would disappear in the particular areas to which he referred.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid he was not aware that any hon. Member on that side of the House had suggested the course to which the hon. Member alluded. The appeal made to the Prime Minister, and the case made in support of that appeal, were abundantly clear from what had been said by hon. Members on that side of the House, namely, that in a place where a licence was redundant, it might with great advantage be transferred to another district where it was admittedly required. But the curious thing was that, although the case had been made so clear, not one word had been said in opposition to its merits. The Home Secretary, it was true, had stated some time ago that the Government could not accept the Amendment, but he had not given any reasons; and the Prime Minister had over and over again stated his objections to the proposal on this ground, namely, that the proper place for its discussion would be when they came to the question of the area. He admitted that the right hon. Gentleman had stated that he had good reasons to give when they reached that stage, but the Committee were apparently decided that they should have the question discussed at the present stage. Yet not one word had they had from Gentlemen on, the front bench opposite against the merits of the proposal contained in the Amendment of
  1772
  his hon. friend. The whole discussion would have to be taken over again when they reached another point. He thought the time had come when they had the right to hear the objections, not only to the merits of his hon. friend's proposal, but as to the time at which the Committee was asked to come to a decision. The case for his hon. friend's Amendment was all the stronger, it seemed to him, because of the fact that the same appeal had been made by hon. Members on the other side of the House in its support.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he wished to put before the Committee a concrete case. He would take the city of Manchester. They would come to a main road which divided area A from area B. The facts of those too areas were exactly what the Prime Minister had pointed out, namely, that in area A there was an excess of public-houses over what would be allowed by the schedule. In area B, on the other hand, which was rather a newer neighbourhood, there was a very considerably less number of houses than the proportion which would be allowed by the schedule. If he understood the object of the Amendment, it was practically this, that if the magistrates so desired, they would have the power, if the Amendment was carried, to enable a man who had a licensed house on one side of the road, to put to them this proposition: "You propose to take my licence away on that side of the road, because it is in an area which has an excess number of licences. Very well, transfer that licence to the house exactly opposite, on the other side of the road, where it is in an area with a smaller number of licences than is allowed by the schedule." When that request was made, if they left the Bill as he understood the Prime Minister desired and insisted upon its remaining, the effect would be that the man would have his licence suppressed and taken away from him, and if he applied for a licence on the other side of the road in order to keep the customers who had used the old house for many years, he would be subject, in applying for the new licence in the other area, to all the difficulties of monopoly value, and

  1773
  all that kind of thing, while there was the other difficulty of the asking for the permission of the neighbourhood under the local option law. The case he had stated was a concrete instance, and he could give the Prime Minister the name of the street if necessary. It was an instance which was certain to arise under the working of the Bill when it became an Act, if ever it did, and when it arose there would be no question of the neighbourhood agreeing, because the neighbourhood had the licence there now; and it was exactly the same neighbourhood which would be affected, because the two premises which he had given as an illustration were exactly opposite each other, on the two sides of the road. There was no question of value arising, no question of the neighbourhood consenting; and, supposing the Prime Minister laid down, for the purposes of this extraordinarily worded Act, that they were bound to reduce the number of licences in a certain area, it would be simply a case of removing this business from one side of the road to the other. If they reduced the additional number of licences in Manchester—looking at the city as a whole—in accordance with the scheme of the schedule, they would reduce the total number by 33 per cent., but if they took this other method of doing it, and reduced each ward on that principle, and not in respect of the number of licences in wards at present below the scale, they would then decrease the total number of licences in Manchester by 63 per cent. That was a very important point. The question they were discussing on this Amendment was whether there was to be a reduction of 33 per cent., namely, by taking the average under the scale laid down by the Bill, or whether they were to bring about a reduction in cities like Manchester which would be very much in excess of that suggested in the schedule; was there, in fact, to be wholesale confiscation? That was what it practically came to if they reduced the licences in a city like Manchester by 63 per cent., leaving the number of licences in such a city very much less than the average for which the scale under the Bill provided. He ventured to submit that
  1774
  this was a most important point, and thoroughly deserving the time which was being spent upon it.
  MR. W. E. HARVEYsaid he was acquainted with cases where the magistrates had gone against the will of the people, and in his division they had a case which was a direct negative of what the hon. Member for Kingston had said. A private company were erecting a model village and had laid it out in the interests of the people on the Duke of Portland's estate. The company itself opposed the licence, the people opposed it, and every progressive force in the village opposed it. They fought it before the magistrates, but the licence was granted. The people appealed to Quarter Sessions at their own cost, the company and the clergyman of the village supported them, and yet Quarter Sessions granted the licence. The Conservative agent at the last election was the solicitor on behalf of the opposition to the licence, and he was so disgusted with the transaction that he had come over to his platform. The company which got the licence was not afraid that the Bill was going to ruin the trade or they would not have been prepared to pay the £4,000 monopoly value at once on purpose to have the new house. It was evidence that the trade was not so much in danger as hon. Gentlemen opposite would have them believe. He appealed to the Prime Minister not to give way on this question. He represented the working man, and knew his aspirations, and was glad to realise that there were estates where a condition of the sale of the land was that there should be no public-houses.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting very wide of the question. So far as I have been able to listen to him, he has not said a single word about the Amendment.
  MR. W. E. HARVEYsaid he knew a co-operative estate belonging entirely to working men which had not a single public-house upon it. Were they going to transfer licences there where the people did not want them? They were told there must be a discretion left to the magistrates, but the discretion of some

  1775
  magistrates was in the interest of the brewers, and in the interest of propagating the sale of intoxicating drink. He hoped they would have nothing in the shape of this Amendment, which might have the effect of giving licences where people did not want them. He looked upon that as a real danger.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I want to put this point before the Government. It happens at times that you have a ward which is almost wholly occupied by a residential population, of a class which does not use the public-house at all, but you have at the extremity of the ward a working class population. It may—and I think does—happen that the working-class population are at present served by public-houses over the borderland, and within the next ward. It may be, therefore, that you will have cases where, let us say in one ward, there is an excess of public-houses over the population, but not an excess accommodation for the inhabitants of the adjoining ward who use the public-houses. The Government have made an attempt to deal with the question in so far as the excess arises from the day population of the district being very much greater than the night population, and they have a modification in the schedule for dealing with seaside places which have excursionists in large numbers; but there is no provision for dealing with the case which I have mentioned, where the day and night populations are very much the same, but where the frequenters of the public-houses come, to a large extent, from a neighbouring ward. In that case, if you leave the Bill as it stands, you must reduce the public-houses in the overstocked wards, and if you want to provide accommodation for the men who have hitherto come across the boundary you must grant new licences in the other ward. Would it not be fairer and simpler to give the justices power to transfer or to remove the licence from the ward which is overcrowded to the place where the actual frequenters of these public-houses now live, viz., into the next ward just across the boundary? It seems to me that that is a particularly strong case,
  1776
  because what you are doing is not to make a new licence for a new trade, but to make a new licence for the old trade hitherto done by a particular house. If that is to be the case there is great hardship in closing that particular house under the terms of the Bill, with all the disabilities which are inflicted on the licence holder and the very inadequate compensation which he would receive, when you have to create a new licence to satisfy the needs of the district.
  *MR. JOYNSON-HICKSstated that in north-west Manchester there were 405 on-licences, and under the scale of the Bill this would be 310 too many. The question was very clearly shown in two of the chief wards in Manchester, wards in which there was practically no drunkenness whatever, which had thirty-five licences. Under the scale of the Bill St. Ann's ward would be only entitled to one, because the population was mainly a day population. In St. James's ward, which had forty-five licences, they would be entitled to have only three. It was clear, under the modification clause in the schedule there was a possibility that some authority, not, he gathered, the local justices who knew the facts, might grant a modified scale in respect to these areas. The licensing justices of Manchester, who were not averse to taking away licences when they considered they were not needed, and who had during the last few years taken away a very considerable number, were far better able to decide what licences were needed for these particular wards and therefore were more enabled to adjust the number of licences between the different wards than any Commission under the scheme proposed in the schedule. This was an instance which clearly showed that the words "to reduce and adjust" would be far better than the word "reduce."
  *MR. HERBERTregarded this as a case in which the Opposition were asking rather too much and the Prime Minister was prepared to grant rather too little. It seemed to him that the Amendment as it was moved, with the subsequent Amendment, so that the numbers should conform to the schedule, was asking too much, because, as he understood it, the

  1777
  result of that would be that the justices would be bound to increase the number of licences in an area where they were not wanted, and the inhabitants would not be able to veto the introduction of licences by removal. He thought he was speaking for the great majority of Members on that side, temperance reformers and others who were moderate people, when he said they were not prepared to accept that. He would suggest to the Opposition that they should be prepared to accept the leaving out of that subsequent Amendment in accordance with a number of speeches which had been made from the opposite Benches. Then they would have this, that the justices might adjust the licences by removing them from one area to another, but that there would be no obligation upon them to increase the number, and the result of that would be that Section 22 would be left in the Bill, but in Section 2 they would have to add the power of the population in the area to veto the removal of licences as well as the grant of new licences.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I think we had better leave these details until we get further on in the Bill. The real point is whether we are to reduce or adjust.
  MR. PATRICK WHITEregarded the Amendment an eminently fair and reasonable. The few Members on the benches behind the Government who had broken their silence did not appear to understand it; they were under the impression that someone wanted to give new licences where they were not needed. All that was asked for under the Amendment was that the magistrates should have power to remove licences to districts where under the Bill there would be power to establish new licences. Everyone in the House was
  in favour of temperance reform and proposed that the reduction of licences should be brought about with a minimum loss to the owners. The position taken up by the Government was that they proposed to reduce the number of public-houses with a maximum of loss to those interested in the trade. If it was wrong to establish a new licence in another area it was equally wrong to transfer an old licence into a district where it was not wanted. Why was it proposed to establish new licences unless they were wanted? That seemed unreasonable and absurd unless the position taken up by the Government was that they wanted to carry out their policy without any regard to the pecuniary interests of those in the trade. That was the only inference to be drawn from their proposal. It was not suggested that they should impose a licence on any district which did not want it, because the magistrates had the same power to resist the removal of a licence as they had to grant a new licence. All they wanted to do was to put on an equal footing the removal of an old licence and the granting of a new one. In that way they would prevent that confiscation of existing licences which this Bill would bring about.
  MR. JAMES HOPEsaid that in order to make it clear that he wished to include reduction by using the word "adjust" he would ask the Government if they would allow him to withdraw his Amendment and add after the word "reduce" the words "and adjust" and take the division upon that.
  Leave to withdraw the Amendment was refused.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 326; Noes, 127. (Division List, No. 207.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Agnew, George William

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Bell, Richard

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Alden, Percy

  Barker, John

  Benn,W.(T'w'r Hamlets,S.Geo.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Armitage, R.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Bethell,Sir J.H.(Essex,Romf'rd

  Asquith, Rt. Hn.Herbert Henry

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Beale, W. P.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  1779

  Black, Arthur W.

  Gill, A. H.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Gladstone,Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  M'Callum, John M.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Brace, William

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Branch, James

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Brigg, John

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Bright, J. A.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Brooklehurst, W. B.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Brooke, Stopford

  Gulland, John W.

  Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston)

  Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Gurdon,RtHn.Sir W.Brampton

  Marnham, F. J.

  Brunner,RtHnSirJ.T.(Cheshire

  Hall, Frederick

  Massie, J.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Harcourt,Rt.Hn.L.(Rossendale

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

  Meagher, Michael

  Buxton, Rt.Hn.Sydney Charles

  Hardie,J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

  Menzies, Walter

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Cameron, Robert

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Middlebrook, William

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Causton,Rt. Hn. RichardKnight

  Harvey, W.E. (Derbyshire,N.E.

  Mond, A.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Harwood, George

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Chance, Frederick William

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Morrell, Philip

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morse, L. L.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Clough, William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen,W.)

  Myer, Horatio

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Napier, T. B.

  Collins,SirWm. J.(S.Pancras,W

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor(Mon.S.)

  Nicholls, George

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Nicholson,Charles N.(Doncast'r

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Higham, John Sharp

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Corbett,C H (Sussex, E.Grinst'd

  Hodge, John

  O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Grady, J.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cox, Harold

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Partington, Oswald

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hudson, Walter

  Pearson,W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Crossley, William J.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Davies, David(MontgomeryCo.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Davies,Sir W.Howell(Bristol,S

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Priestley,W.E.B. (Bradford,E.)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Radford, G. H.

  Dickinson,W.H. (St.Pancras,N.

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire.

  Rainy, A. Holland

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Joyce, Michael

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Duckworth, James

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Reddy, M.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rees, J. D.

  Dunne,Major E Martin(Walsall

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rendall, Athelstan.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lamont, Norman

  Richardson, A.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Erskine, David C.

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Essex, R. W.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roberts,Sir John H.(Denbighs.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lundon, W.

  Robinson, S.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Forguson, R. C. Munro

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lynch, H. B.

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Maclean, Donald

  Rowlands, J.

  1780

  1781

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Russell, T. W.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Summerbell, T.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Schwann,Sir C.E. (Manchester)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

  Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Sears, J. E.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.)

  Whittaker,Rt.Hn.Sir Thomas P.

  Seddon, J.

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Wiles, Thomas

  Seely, Colonel

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

  Williamson, A.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

  Tomkinson, James

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

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

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Toulmin, George

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Ure, Alexander

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

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Verney, F. W.

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Snowden, P.

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Vivian, Henry

  Winfrey, R.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Wood, T. McKinnon

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Stanley, Hn. A.Lyulph(Chesh.)

  Walton, Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Ward,W. Dudley(Southampt'n

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Wardle, George J.

  Stowart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Wason,Rt.Hn.E(Clackmannan

  NOES.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Duncan,Robert(Lanark,Govan

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Ashley, W. W.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Faber, Capt. W.V. (Hants, W.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Balfour,Rt.Hn.A.J.(CityLond.

  Fell, Arthur

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Forster, Henry William

  Nield, Herbert

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nolan, Joseph

  Barnard, E. B.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Barry, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Oddy, John James

  Beach, Hn. Michael HughHicks

  Gretton, John

  O'Dowd, John

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Guinness, Walter Edward

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Parker,SirGilbert(Gravesend)

  Bertram, Julius

  Hardy,Laurence (Kent,Ashford

  Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Percy, Earl

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Rawlinson,John Frederick Peel

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Renton, Leslie

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hills, J. W.

  Roberts,S.(Sheffield,Ecclesall

  Carlile, E Hildred

  Hope, James Fitzalan(Sheffield)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Cave, George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon Sir John H.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Sheffield,SirBerkeleyGeorge D.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Smith,F.E. (Liverpool,Walton)

  Clark, George Smith

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Stanier, Beville

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham

  Lockwood Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col. A.R.

  Starkey, John R.

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

  Long, Col. CharlesW.(Evesham

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

  Collings,Rt.Hn. J.(Birmingh'm

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

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Craig,Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxford Un.

  Craig, Captain James (Down.E.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cross, Alexander

  McArthur, Charles

  Walker, Col,lW. H. (Lancashire

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  McKillop, W.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Dixon-Hartland,Sir Fred Dixon

  Doughty, Sir George

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Whitbread, Howard

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  1782

  1783

  Williams, Col. R (Dorset, W.)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Young, Samuel

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Younger, George

  *MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS*MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS (Sheffield, Ecclesall) moved an Amendment to insert "old" before "on-licences," the object of the Amendment being to exclude from the statutory reduction new on-licences granted under the Act of 1904. The question, he believed, had been under the consideration of the Government, for at the end of April he put a Question to the Prime Minister as to whether he did not consider that the new licences granted under the Act of l904 ought to receive special treatment, and the right hon. Gentleman replied that the question was under consideration. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman had considered the matter, and that he would be able to give a satisfactory assurance regarding these licences. An "old licence" was denned in Clause 3 of the Bill to be an existing licence within the meaning of the Act of 1904, and, having regard to that definition, this Amendment, if the Government accepted it, would confine the operation of the Bill to licences existing at the date of the passing of the Act of 1904, and still in existence. Section 4 of the Act of 1904, which dealt with the question of new licences gave power to the licensing justices to grant new licences on special conditions, including the payment of the monopoly value, which was defined to be the difference in value between the promises licensed and unlicensed. He would like to draw the attention of the Committee to what had taken place runde the operation of that section. In looking at the figures for England and Wales in respect of new licences granted during recent years he found that since the Act of 1904 came into operation there had been a great decrease in the number. Perhaps that was what might naturally have been expected. For instance, in 1900 there were 245 new licences granted; in 1904, there were 221; in 1905, which was the first year under the operation of the Act of 1904, there were fifty-three; in 1906, there were fifty-six; and in 1907 there were sixty-eight. Some of these did not come within the operation of subsection (4) of Section 4 of the Act of 1904,
  1784
  but those that did worked out at 164 for the three years 1905, 1906, and 1907, during the time the Act had been in operation. The conditions under which they had been granted included restrictions such as the forbidding of the employment of females except those belonging to the landlord's family, and the limiting of hours during which the houses should be open. He thought he might say that in almost all caess some kind of restriction had been imposed. Large sums of money had been paid down for these licences, some as capital payments, some by annual rent for specified periods. Among the sums paid in 1905 was one amount of £9,000, and in one case £1,500 was to be paid by annual instalments of £100 a year for fifteen years. Evidently in that case it was not contemplated by the Bench that the licence should be terminable before fifteen years had expired. In another case £300 per annum was to be paid from 1908 to 1911, £400 from 1911 to 1916, and afterwards £500. These licences might, under the Bill as it stood, be taken away without compensation, because the compensation did not extend to new licences. In that case a great injustice would be done to people who had made a bargain with the licensing justices and had invested their money in buildings and improvements in accordance with the conditions on which the licenses were granted. The legislature contemplated that these licences would be renewed, because there was no appeal in regard to them, and they were left outside the compensation fund both as regards payment to that fund and with regard to participation in it. The right hon. Member for Spen Valley himself had stated in the debates on the 1904 Act that the question of the abolition of these new licences on the ground of redundancy would not affect them because they would probably be granted in places where there was a considerable population without a licensed house. He thought he had said enough to show that a very strong case hid been made out for those licences.

  1785
  If by the operation of this Bill they were to be taken away, a contract would be broken, and he could not think tint even this Government would do injustice to those people who had paid down money and taken their licences under the conditions laid down in the Act of 1904.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 9, after the word 'of,' to insert the word 'old.'"—(Mr. Samuel Roberts.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'old' be there inserted."
  MR. ASQUITH: The concluding sentence of the hon. Member was not couched in a very conciliatory vein.
  *MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: It was not intended.
  MR. ASQUITH: The hon. Member said that even this Government would not contemplate such a gigantic act of confiscation as that against which his Amendment is directed. I have been asked several Questions on this subject by, I think, the hon. Gentleman himself, and I have indicated from the first that there is a case to be met. I think so still, but I do not think it would be best met by adopting the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. When you are dealing with the excessive facilities on the assumption that they should be reduced, it makes no difference to the adding up of the number of licences whether they are new or old. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will see that. I do not think that under the scheme of the Bill we should exclude new on-licences from the computation purposes of this clause. When it comes to the question of extinction—in other words, the selecting of those which shall be the victims—I think that there a case for consideration does come in. They are very few in number. I think that up to the beginning of this year there are not more than 177. They are for the most part, and indeed they must, from the nature of the case, have been granted in places and under conditions by which they will not be subject to statutory reduction at all. They are granted in new building districts where there is a
  1786
  clear need for the creation of new licences in addition to existing licences. But that only minimises the extent of the possible injustice. Now, these licences issued under Section 4 of the Act of 1904, are of two classes. In some cases licences have been granted for a term of years. In other cases they have been granted for a lump sum on payment down—in my opinion a very objectionable practice and one which we intend to put a stop to in the future by one of the provisions of the Bill. As regards the first class, I doubt very much, even as the Bill is drawn, whether they would come under the scope of the Bill at all, because the Bill contemplates that justices in exercising this power, in performing their duty, will make these reductions. The licences which have been granted for a term of years do not require to come up for renewal until that term of years expires. If there is any doubt about the matter, I will see that words are introduced at a later stage of the Bill that when these licences do come up for renewal, then and then only the operation for reduction shall be exercised. So much for that. As regards the other class in respect of which licences were issued for a lump sum paid down, I confess it would be a great injustice if these were selected for reduction. They have been granted since the passage of the Act of 1904 under conditions which require the justices in the public interest to exact from the licence holders the monopoly value, and therefore they stand on a totally different footing from licences under the old Act where no such conditions are or could be imposed. They are few in number, but the amount in some cases must be considerable, and injustice would be done if no provision were made for them. I ask the hon. Gentleman, with that assurance, to withdraw his Amendment. I will endeavour to make the best provision I can to meet the justice of the case, either in Clause 7, which deals with the duty of the licensing Justices to give effect to the scheme by selecting the licences to be extinguished in permanence—I will introduce words to make it impossible for these licences to be selected—or, if it is found more convenient from a drafting point of view, the change might be made under Clause 24. I do hot think it is

  1787
  necessary at this moment to describe in which of these two places I will insert the necessary words, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that what is necessary shall be done and not press his Amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, my hon. friend would do well to withdraw his Amendment. I must confess I am extremely puzzled to hear what has been going on under the Act of 1904. I have not followed the matter, but I find from a Return which has been shown to me that in such cases licences were given for sums up to £4,500 and even £6,000. I am perfectly unable to understand how that is consistent with the Act of 1904. Although I am responsible for the Act of 1904, I am not responsible for the administration of that Act. It certainly appears to me that the magistrates have allowed an equitable right to grow up, which is exactly the thing that we wanted to avoid. The value of a licence cannot be £6,000 except with the prospect of renewal, and as there is no statement as to when that clearly arises, all the old difficulty will grow up, or will be liable to grow up under the new scheme. If the Bill puts a stop to that, it is a part of the Bill I will look upon with toleration and even with approval. I think that my hon. friend's point will be adequately met by the undertaking given by the Prime Minister, and under these circumstances I do not see why he should not withdraw the Amendment.
  *MR. CAVEsaid it should be pointed out that many of the annual licences granted for a lump sum had been granted in Wales. He agreed that it was not a desirable practice. It appeared by the Licensing Statistics for 1907 that of the four new annual licences granted in that year in consideration of a large money payment three were granted in Glamorganshire.
  SIR S. EVANSsaid that if that was the fact, he was not aware that the return was accurate in that respect. However, in deference to his own county he would ascertain whether the return was accurate.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. TALBOT,in moving to omit the prefix "on" from "on-licences," said the Amendment was one which might be agreed to by hon. Gentlemen opposite without interfering at all with the progress of the Bill. It was only intended to carry out the objects which the promoters of the Bill professed they had in view as the great champions of the cause of temperance. He thought he should have the support of the right hon. Gentleman opposite when he said that if the Bill merely reduced the number of public-houses and did nothing more, they would have done very little in the cause of temperance. Briefly stated, his Amendment was to include in the purview of the Bill what were called grocers' licences. He maintained that no one attempting to deal in a comprehensive manner with this great question by a Bill could do so if it did not embrace within it an adequate treatment of the case of the grocers' licences. He had two or three extracts which he asked the permission of the Committee to read because he thought that they had an important bearing on this matter. In the Majority Report of the Royal Commission on the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors, dated 1899, it was stated—
  "We think that there should be a separation of the trades so complete that there should be no sale within the same promises of intoxicants and groceries or other articles. It must be distinctly understood that this sepa ation does not mean the abolition of off-licences."
  The Minority Report said—
  "The trade in intoxicants should be forbidden to be carried on in the same premises as the trade in groceries or other articles."
  For his Amendment he therefore claimed the authority of both the Majority and minority Reports of that Royal Com-Mission. He asked the House to listen also to the testimony of three witnesses on the subject. He thought it would be seen that they were not the expressions of bigots and fanatics but of reasonable persons who took a reasonable view of the subject. The first authority was the Bishop of Chester, a well-known authority on this subject, who in answer to a

  1789
  question said in his evidence before the Royal Commission—
  "Evidence has always been difficult to get about grocers' licences, but I am bound to say that the bulk of the testimony seems to me against them. I have been slow to come to a conclusion about it myself, but it seems to me that all the evidence seems to tell in favour of the sale of liquor being disassociated from other businesses."
  That was a very moderate judgment, but it was not on that account worthy of less attention. The Rev. Osbert Mordaunt, another witness before the Commission, who had himself conducted a licensed house on what might be called reasonable principles, used these words. They were few, but to the point—
  "I do not like them [i.e., grocers' licences] and would like to see them done away with."
  He would quote one other authority, Dr. Norman Kerr, who was president of a society for the study of inebriety. Asked if he regarded grocers' licences as an additional temptation thrown in the way of persons with alcoholic tendencies, he said—
  "Yes, that is my real objection, all the others are ubsidiary….This is an addition to the tremendous verpowering number of temptations to drink which already exist."
  "Then you think a grocer's licence is not a substitute for a public licence, but an additional public-house?—That is it. If it had been a substitute I would have been delighted to see it, but it has been entirely an addition, in England."
  He would not trouble the Committee with further extracts, but he hoped he had said enough to show that it was not his own opinion only which he was advocating, but that it rested on high authority, and that the question of grocers' off-licences was a subject that no one who attempted to deal with this question could safely neglect. If the Government were really in earnest and wished to diminish the temptations to drunkenness, which existed not only in this country but in others, they must not rest content to take one class of houses only, in which no doubt temptation existed and which belonged to a particular branch of the community, and neglect to deal with those which belonged to another class of the community. They had seen so much of the evil which what was called "the trade" introduced into this country, that they seemed to think that
  1790
  they should deal with that alone and not trouble themselves at the moment with other matters. But that was a very limited and unfair manner of treating this question, because, in other words, it simply meant that because there was a class of people whom the Government thought to be wrong or unwise they were going to punish them and not going to touch other people who they knew brought the same temptation into the way of those who were inclined to follow it. In these discussions it was often said that drunkenness in the country had diminished. That was true. It was at one time the great reproach of all classes of the community, and the middle and upper class s of the country had no doubt reformed their ways. There was now much less drunkenness in these classes than there was a hundred years ago. But drunkenness had also diminished among the labouring classes. Nobody could walk in the streets of London or other large towns without seeing the enormous difference between the times in which we lived and those which preceded our own. But he was told that while intoxication among men had diminished, among women it had increased. He did not ask His Majesty's Government to accept that from him. He did not know it; he was told so. If it was so, it was an enormous argument in favour of the Amendment, because women did not get their intoxicating liquors so much from the public-houses as from the grocers and off-licensed houses with which they dealt. He did not urge it as an argument for taking away all grocers' licences, but said that if the Government regulated and diminished one set of places for the sale of intoxicants they ought to regulate and diminish the other. He assumed that the chief argument which would be adduced by the Government if they did not intend to accept this Amendment would be that they should deal with one thing at a time; that they were now dealing with the great question of licensed houses, and if there was a case for dealing with off-licences they would deal with them afterwards. The answer to that was that they had no right to deal with this question at all unless

  1791
  they dealt with, it as a whole, and dealt with it fairly towards all classes concerned. If there were a danger of the multiplication of these grocers' licences, and at present there was no limit to their multiplication, the Government had no right to say they had not time to deal with them now. They ought to make time. He had now said all he could in support of the Amendment. He would merely add that the influence of what was called "the trade" had no terrors for him; that he was not a nominee of the trade, and he did not think that the trade could influence his political career. He approached this subject as one who had for many years been charged with the administration of justice and whose desire was to see all temptations to drunkenness diminished.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 9, to leave out the word 'on.'"—(Mr. Talbot.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'on' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. GLADSTONE: I note that my J right hon. friend admits that he stands in a particular position of advantage in not being in any sense a nominee of the trade. I quite admit he speaks on this matter without any influence, undue or otherwise, being brought to bear upon him. He has raised an important point, and I quite agree that it deserves the serious consideration of the Committee. The Committee is entitled to know why we have not included off-licences in this reform. We have seriously considered this point, and I quite agree, if the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the conditions surrounding off-licences and on-licences are the same, we can have no reason for not dealing with both in this clause. There is one rather strong argument for dealing with off-licences in this clause, and that is the possible enhancement in value of these licences consequent on a large scheme of reduction. But I must remind the Committee that the Government in 1904 did not include off-licences. I do not say that the conditions were then the same, but they did not include them, and the conditions were sufficiently
  1792
  analogous for us to notice that fact and draw our conclusions as to what had happened since that time. If hereafter it becomes clear that off-licences are materially enhanced in value that may be a consideration, but I do not agree that that will be so. No case has been shown for that. It must also be remembered that the new off-licences are brought under Section IV. of the Act of 1904. But there is no proof that the value of these off-licences will be increased. That is merely a hypothesis. Last year there were 1,800 licences extinguished, and under these circumstances, if the extinction tended to increase the value of off-licences, we should have seen an indication of it during the past years. Not merely has there not been any increase in the value of off-licences, but the tendency has been for the total number of off-licences to decrease; in fact, each year has shown a reduction of two or three hundred off-licences, and that at any rate goes some way to show that the considerable reduction under the Act of 1904 has not tended to increase their value. Therefore, as regards the argument adduced by the right hon. Gentleman, I submit that the case of the on-licences and the case of the off-licences are not ejusdem generis. Consequently the argument for the reduction under our Bill of on-licences is based on different considerations from those which apply to off-licences. It is not only the question of redundancy which has induced us to put forward this scheme. Of course, that is a very important matter, but there are other reasons. The reduction of unnecessary public-houses will tend to improve the supervision by the police; it will tend to improve the character of the on-licensed houses that remain. There are other general and economic reasons for the reduction of on-licences quite distinct from off-licences, which were mentioned during the Second Reading debate, and to which I need not further refer now. But these considerations, the ground of policy, the social and economic grounds, are justifications for the reductions of on-licences, but they are considerations which hardly apply, if at all, to the reduction of off-licences. I am not going into the general question of all the evils that may be alleged to attach

  1793
  to off-licences. Those evils are largely connected with what we call "secret drinking." I agree that that is one of the most dreadful forms of intemperance, and if it can be practically dealt with so much the better. But is the proposal in this Amendment a real remedy? There is a great difference between on and off-licences. When there is a wish to drink secretly it is consumed at home. It is not like the general casual wish to drink which often besets a man when passing a public-house. The great evil of secret drinking is that they get the whisky bottle and consume the contents at home. Would the extinction of a few licences have any appreciable effect upon this? It must be remembered as a matter of fact that there are only 25,000 of these licences altogether, as against nearly 100,000 on-licences. The extinction of one or two off-licences a year would not have the same effect as the extinction of on-licences. The case of off-licences is wholly different from the case of on-licences as regards the monopoly value. There is no capital invested; there is no plant or fittings, and the sale of liquor is quite subordinate to the sale other articles connected with the business. It would undoubtedly be extremely difficult to get at the monopoly value, and in every way, I submit, whether you regard it from the point of view of temperance or from the point of view of monopoly value, the case is different. If this Amendment is seriously pressed what happens? There will have to be a separate compensation scheme, there will have to be a new scale.
  SIB E. CARSON: Why, if there is no monopoly value?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I did not say there is no monopoly value. I said it would be very difficult to ascertain. There will have to be another scale. If the Amendment is passed in its present form there will be established a new scheme of compensation for oil-licences out of a fund to which, only on-licences have contributed.
  AN HON. MEMBER: Why?
  MR. GLADSTONE: That would be the effect of accepting the Amendment in its present form. But I submit that those considerations and those arguments had weight with the Government in 1904 when they did not include off-licences in their scheme of reduction. We have carefully considered the matter. If it could be shown that the inclusion of off-licences is likely to produce any real and substantial effect with regard to the diminution of drunkenness, then I agree that our case for the clause as it stands in this respect would be weakened; but the right hon. Gentleman has given no reasons to show how or why the reduction of these off-licences would bring about improvement in the present condition in regard to temperance. My right hon. friend quoted the Commissioners' Report as to other matters, but I do not think that he quoted anything with regard to this Amendment. I quite agree that he quoted authorities in favour of doing something more, but he did not quote anything in favour of the particular thing which he is now asking us to do. My right hon. friend forgot, I think, when he said that there was no limitation on the number of grocers' licences, that we have Section 10 of the Act of 1904, and he omitted to notice that in Clause 5 of this Bill we propose to bring off-licences under the operation of Section 4 of the Act of 1904. Of course, if a clause is required there will be an opportunity for further consideration later on, but I do not think that any case has been shown for the inclusion of off-licences in this clause; therefore I regret to say that the Government cannot accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. BONAR LAWsaid his right hon. friend had been perfectly right in saying that he anticipated that the Government would reject his Amendment, but he was very far wrong when he guessed at the reasons which would be given for its rejection. Certainly it had not been his intention to rise if it had not seemed to him that a more futile case for the rejection of an Amendment had never been stated than that which had been submitted to the House. He asked the Committee

  1795
  to consider the grounds on which they wire asked to reject the Amendment. First of all the right hon. Gentleman had told them that there was no monopoly value.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I said that it was very difficult to ascertain the monopoly value.
  MR. BONAR LAWsaid the right hon. Gentleman could take it either way he liked. If there was anything in the argument, why should these houses with off-licences be included in other sections of the Bill, if they were not to be included in regard to the diminishing of the temptations to intemperance? The right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the police of the Metropolis, and for the police as a whole, and he said that one of the advantages in favour of the Bill was that if there were fewer houses the police would be better able to deal with them. Had the right hon. Gentleman not sufficient police now; was it not his duty to have sufficient police to deal with the houses existing? Could anyone say that it was a solid reason for opposing this particular Amendment? The right hon. Gentleman said that the evil of drinking in connection with off-licences was that it was secret drinking; but on what ground could it possibly be said that an additional number of public-houses would increase the temptation to ordinary drinking, and that the temptation would not be just as great in the case of off-licences? They all knew that a woman, perhaps the wife of a working man, was able to get drink at the grocer's and nowhere else, and if that opportunity was taken away she had no opportunity of getting it. On what possible ground was the temptation not as great in the one case as in the other? The right hon. Gentleman had not stated quite as clearly the ground of the distinction as another member of the Cabinet the other day. The President of the Board of Trade, when speaking in the country, said that the Tory Party, meaning Members on that side of the House, were unable to deal with this question from the point of view of temperance because they were not independent; that they were tied
  1796
  down by the trade. The party opposite was quite free as regarded the trade. They could be trusted to show it no mercy. It was very different when they came to the grocers' licences. Then they had this futile reason given by the right hon. Gentleman why one class of intemperance was dealt with and the other was left entirely alone.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid that many of them had attempted to criticise the Bill, but it was reserved to the Home Secretary to destroy it. He had stated that his right hon. friend had not cited a single authority in favour of controlling the number of these off-licences. They heard ad nauseam the Minority Report of the Commission referred to on that side of the House. Was the right hon. Gentleman acquainted with the Report? Was he aware of the recommendation there that at the end of five years the number of off-licences to exist was to be fixed by the licensing authority? Was that a recommendation which had no authority at all? It was not necessary to discuss the unimportant point whether his right hon. friend did or did not discuss the authority. What it was necessary to discuss was whether it was or was not an authority to which respect was only to be paid from those benches when it suited them for the purpose of attacking the trade, and from which respect was withheld when it became necessary to defend their political allies. Let him remind the right hon. Gentleman of what their present Leader the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley said in 1904 on the question of off-licences—
  "Everybody admitted the desirability of reducing the number of off-licences. According to the Government the object of the present Bill was to facilitate the reduction of licences. Why, then, should not the same process be applied to both classes of licences?"
  He asked why, if the principle upon which the Bill was based had, been truly stated, were not both to be included in the same scheme of reduction? The position of the Government as stated was that there existed a direct and demonstrable connection between facilities for obtaining alcoholic drink and temperance. If there was any other principle on which the Bill

  1797
  was based it was time they were informed of it. He accepted that principle, and he asked how could it possibly matter from the point of view of the suppression of intemperance whether the drink was obtained for consumption on or off the premises? The Home Secretary in his felicitous explanation of the distinction lighted upon the possibility that there might be secret drinking. If there was a single distinction depending on principle it was that the case for dealing with off-licences was incomparably stronger because of the facilities which it gave for secret drinking. The right hon. Gentleman laid stress on the fact that there were only 25,000 cases of off-licences whereas there were 100,000 cases of ordinary licences, but the number of off-licences had steadily increased in the last twenty years. In January, 1886, there were 22,267; in 1896 there were 24,041; in 1905, 25,405; and in 1907, 25,281.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Road the figures of the last four years.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid he would have thought even amateurs in statistical considerations which the promoters of the present Bill had shown themselves to be would be aware that statistics based on a period of four years were of no great value when dealing with a problem at last twenty years old. The Government were deliberately, with full knowledge of the dilemna in which they were placed, and with no argumentative answer to the analogy which was put to them, going to make it impossible to give a complete test of the only principle on which they themselves said their Bill was based. They had done this by refusing to admit the analogy between off and on-licences and by the cowardly and inadequate treatment which they had given to the problem in the provisions of the Bill, For this reason only the Bill would fail in the country. It would fail because the country was not convinced of the bona fides of the Government in dealing with the question.
  *MR. HERBEET SAMUELsaid that the hon. and learned Member was quite incorrect when he said that for the last twenty years the number of off-
  1798
  licences had steadily increased. The important consideration was what had been the recent tendency and not what had been the tendency in the previous decade. The Blue-book showed that the number in 1905 was 25,405; in 1906, 25,281; and in 1907, 25,143—a small but steady decline in these three years. The point was one of very small importance, but if they had figures quoted let them be quoted accurately.
  MR. F. E. SMITH: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether when he rose to speak the first observation he made was not that I was inaccurate in my statement as to the twenty years?
  *MB. HERBERT SAMUELsaid they may have increased over the whole period of the last twenty years, but during recent years they had been steadily declining. The hon. and learned Gentleman, however, made a statement of far greater importance, and which was ever wider from the facts. He said the Peel Report recommended that at the end of five years the magistrates should reduce the number of off-licensed houses. If that were the case, he agreed that much might be said in criticism of the Government for having omitted off-licences from the reductions proposed in the Bill. But precisely the opposite was the case. The Minority Report recommended that there should be a separation between that part of the premises which dealt with groceries and other goods and that part which dealt with alcoholic liquors at the end of five years, but they made no recommendation that the number should be reduced; and when they made their famous recommendation that the number of licensed houses should by reduced to one for 750 persons in towns and one for 400 persons in the country they said that reduction should apply to on-licences alone. Did hon. Gentlemen who made this proposal wish that licences should be reduced with or with out compensation? They had heard that it was not necessary to establish a separate compensation fund, and it would be difficult to estimate the loss that would ensue to an off-licence holder for the suppression of his licence, that it was not necessary to compensate

  1799
  because there was no investment of capital and so forth.
  AN HON. MEMBER: The Home Secretary said that.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid perhaps he was wrong, and he did not press that point. It was therefore the proposal that there must be a compensation fund for these off-licence holders and they must assess a compensation levy upon them, and they would have to assess, by some means which no one had yet devised, some method by which their loss could be ascertained. That was a task of extreme difficulty, and before the Government were asked to include any such scheme, some indication should be given how these extremely intricate financial arrangements could be managed. The hon. Member for Dulwich had said the two classes of licences ought to be on the same footing, and the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken had said with the utmost emphasis and with his usual indignation that it was hypocrisy to pretend that there was any distinction to be made between the two, and that it temptation existed in the one case it existed equally in the other. His last words would be a quotation from the late Solicitor-General, who would be interested to hear the words he used on 27th June, 1904. He said—
  "His own view was that the question of the off-licences was absolutely different from that of the on-licences—a difference essential in their existence and historically."
  He went on to say—
  "He had always understood that the real reason proposed for the reduction of these on-licences was that a large number of them were in the streets and the villages, and offered, a standing temptation to persons passing by to go in and drink on the premises. A very different consideration applied to the privilege of giving beer to persons standing in the bar, and to supplying beer to persons for consumption off the premises. No very acute question as to the necessity for the reduction of those latter houses had arisen at all, and there had been very little agitation in regard to them."
  These were also the views of the Government in which they heartily agreed, and he trusted hon. Members opposite would not disavow an expression of opinion so emphatically uttered and so clearly phrased, but would reject the Amendment.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid, with reference to the Report of the Peel Commission, if the hon. Gentleman would turn to page 107 he would find that the minority there were dealing with the whole question of off-licences and not merely with one variety, and what they recommended was that the different kinds of-off-licences should be consolidated, and that no new ones should be granted except under the full discretion of the licensing authority. On the following page they said—
  "We will allow a period of five years during which the proposed restriction on the sale of intoxicants to premises exclusively used for that purpose should not apply to premises now holding licences,. During this period no new licences shall be granted and the licensing authority shall come to a decision as to how many new off-licences will be required for the district."
  That was the general recommendation and that was precisely what he said as far as the new off-licence holders were concerned, viz., that there was to be a five years' limit.
  MR. LAMBTONsaid the hon. Member who had just spoken had pointed out the extreme difficulty of accepting this Amendment and had fallen back upon the Peel Commission. He had also made a quotation from the late Solicitor-General. Neither of those arguments were germane to the question before the House. The hon and learned Member for Liverpool asked whether this was a genuine temperance measure or not. The whole principle of the Bill was that the facilities for drinking must be reduced in certain areas according to population. The Under-Secretary to the Home Office had pointed out that the Government had fixed a proportion of one public house to 400 people in the rural districts and the Bill proceeded on those lines. He also stated that there would be no reduction of off-licences. His experience was that very often off-licences were perambulating public-houses. The grocer sent round his cart and offered drink to the women in the cottages unknown to their husbands. This was a great temptation to women who otherwise would never get near the public-house in the country districts, and yet this Bill was claimed as a great temperance measure. They had now been told they could not alter this clause because the Government were

  1801
  unable to find out a satisfactory basis of compensation for the holders of off-licences. He thought an Amendment like that they were discussing ought to have had some more considered answer than had been given, and he invited the right hon. Member for Spen Valley and the hon. Member for Appleby to speak upon the Amendment and inform the House what was the view of the temperance party upon it.
  *MR. MACLEANdid not think that the scheme of the Government dealt with what was an admitted evil in the shape of a trade in intoxicating liquors being carried on with other trades, such as grocers' licences. There was a very large body of opinion throughout the country in favour of dealing with the evil which arose in that trade. He did not, however, think the Amendment before them would suffice to deal with the question, as it went to the root of the whole Bill. Judging from the remarks of the Home Secretary towards the close of his speech he was inclined to think that the Government were hoping to have further suggestions made on this point, and he was hopeful that they would seize an opportunity of dealing with this admitted evil. The quotation which had been made from the Peel Report in regard to the five years' limit dealt exclusively with grocers' licences, and it stated that the question of how to deal with the existigu off-licences held by grocers still remained to be dealt with. The proposition there was that at the end of five years no premises should be allowed to sell intoxicating liquor by off-licence unless the premises were exclusively devoted to the sale of intoxicating liquors. That was an admitted evil owing to the fact that people could go to a grocer's shop and secretly obtain intoxicating liquors, and this led to the most gross and evil habits of drunkenness. In conclusion, he repeated his regret that this particular evil had not been dealt with by the very easy method suggested by the Peel Commission Report. He sincerely trusted that the Government would see their way before the Bill emerged from the Committee stage to deal with this point.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I take an interest in this point because I think it is the touchstone of the sincerity of the Government in dealing with this question in regard to the professions they have made up and down the country in reference to the present Bill. No human being denies that this Bill inflicts a great hardship upon a large class of the community; that has not been denied by its most strenuous supporters. It has been admitted by the right hon. Member for Spen Valley that this Bill will reduce the property of licence holders by a great many millions, and every hon. Member knows from his own personal experience how much bitterness this particular method has aroused and how great the individual hardship is which will be inflicted upon many classes of the community in every part of the country. And what is the particular salve which hon. Gentlemen opposite have applied to their consciences for inflicting this hardship? They have constantly said that the Bill may be a hard one, but they have the morality of the public to consider. I may point out that we have heard nothing about the temperance problem from the last two representatives of the Government who have spoken. The Under-Secretary for the Home Office contented himself by basing his justification for the exclusion of off-licences upon the Act of 1904. I wish he had taken the lessons of that Act in some other respect as well. The Home Secretary himself did not touch upon the question of temperance. He told us that there was a great difference between the off and the on-licence, and that, after all, by diminishing the number of on-licences you enable the trade to be carried on under better conditions and you improve the facilities for police supervision. Are we seriously to be told that this Bill is really a measure for improving the opportunities for police supervision? Is that what the cause of temperance has come to Is that the ground on which you are going to create turmoil from one end of the country to the other, and to inflict all the hardships to which I have referred? Is the only object the Government have in view to prevent men drinking and to enable the police to have improved supervision?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I only mentioned that as a subsidiary reason. My main reason was the redundancy of licences and the existence of an unnecessary number of public-houses which led to unnecessary drinking.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not going to be led into a discussion as to how far redundancy leads to increased drinking. That argument may be right or it may be wrong. What I want to ask is, if redundancy in on-licences produces these evil effects, are no such effects to be anticipated from the redundancy in off-licences? What was the other excuse given by the right hon. Gentleman? He said it would be very difficult to make a scale to deal with the monopoly value. There might be difficulties, but they do not seem to weigh with the Government, because in Clause 5 of this Bill all the provisions of the Act of 1904 with regard to the monopoly value in the case of new licences are transferred to new off-licences. If there was no difficulty in regard to assessing the monopoly value of new off-licences why should there be any difficulty in discovering the monopoly value of old off-licences. Apparently as far as the Government are concerned it is obvious what is the monopoly value of a new off-licence, and they are quite ready to transfer without alteration or modification all the provisions of the Act of 1904, dealing with the monopoly value of on-licences, but with regard to old off-licences, the problem, according to the view of the Government, becomes so obscure and difficult that it is quite impossible to carry out a reliable calculation. It is quite plain, and everybody can see what the reason for the omission of off-licences is. The hon Member who has just sat down regrets that this omission has taken place, and he hopes it will be remedied. He must know, however, that his regrets are vain and his hopes fallacious. He must know that the Government when they framed their Bill must have had this difficulty present to their mind. They profess that the cause of temperance is bound up with the cause of diminishing the number of places where intoxicating liquor can be obtained. In fact, that is the whole basis of their Bill. It is on
  1804
  this account that they call themselves great social reformers, and on that they base a claim for themselves that they are the great upholders of morality, and that the Members of the Opposition are only influenced by electoral Considerations. If they hold that view how can they as honest men bring in a Bill which deals with only one of the three great sources from which intoxicating liquors are obtained? To obtain intoxicating liquors people may go to the public house, to the grocer, or to the club. These advocates of temperance who are going to stake their political future upon the great moral contest in which they are engaged, only dare to deal with one of the three great sources of drinking. I am not now going to argue the question of clubs, but surely we have a right to hear some better argument in regard to the remaining sources from which intoxicating liquors are obtained than those which have been given us. I am utterly unable to understand how hon. Gentlemen opposite can go about the country talking about morality in that superior strain which has become habitual to them, when they know perfectly well that one of the motives which has animated them, or has animated some of them, in this crusade against on-licences, is their aversion to a particular trade and their desire to appropriate the monopoly value—the value of some of the property of that trade. That is one of the reasons why they include on-licences in the Bill. The reason they do not include off-licences and clubs in the Bill is that they are afraid of quarrelling with their political friends, while they like to plunder their political enemies. That may or may not be very good politics, but I earnestly trust that after this debate and after the defence—the only presumable defence—which the Government has for this omission is known to the country we shall hear no more from them about morality.
  *SIR THOMAS WHITTAKERremarked that the Committee had had an excursion into the region of morality on the part of the Leader of the Opposition. They had been taunted on his side of the House with a lack of sincerity. They were told that their motive was an

  1805
  aversion to the trade, and that they were after money. So far as he was personally concerned it was untrue—absolutely untrue and unfounded. He was not actuated by aversion to the trade, but he was actuated by a desire to promote sobriety in this country. It was only essential to secure the monopoly value in order to secure control. He was anxious about temperance. He admitted that he wished that the Bill did deal with grocers' licences, but he looked with a great deal of suspicion on the anxiety evinced by hon. Gentlemen opposite in that matter. With them it was always "not thus and not now, but in some other way." He and his friends wanted the late Government to deal with off-licences in 1902, and it was their own Party that prevented them from bringing off-licences under full control. The late Lord Ritchie—then Mr. Ritchie—brought in a Bill to bring off-licences under full control, and they were defeated by their own Party, and now that was the Party which taunted them and challenged their bona-fides. There were four times as many on-licences as off-licences, and he and his friends wished for a reduction. Surely the value to the community of reducing on-licences would not be lessened because they did not also reduce off-licences by this Bill. He would rather have both off and on-licences dealt with, but if he could not get both he would be glad to get a reduction in the on-licences. Hon. Members opposite objected to dealing piecemeal with these matters, but they did not raise that objection to the Bill of 1902. That Bill did not touch on-licences. It did not contain a reduction scheme with respect to them.
  SIR E. CARSON: We were not robbing the licence holders.
  *SIR THOMAS WHITTAKERsaid they were not robbing, the robbing had been done in other directions. The Bill of 1904 did not deal with off-licences, and the right hon. Gentleman did not object to the absence of any legislation with respect to off-licences then. This was a newly developed zeal. The right hon. Gentleman voted against this Bill as a whole, his object being to kill it.
  1806
  He wished the Bill included grocers' licences, but a reduction was going on in off-licences. The official volume of licensing statistics showed that between 1905 and 1908 off-licences were diminished. The Opposition told them there was no need to do anything to increase the rate of diminution of on-licences, but they complained because the Government did not go in for reducing off-licences more rapidly. The Act of 1902 provided that off-licences should come under full control as soon as the then holders of them ceased to be holders. The result was that, grocers' licences were more and more coming under the power of the justices, and, therefore, the position was a steadily improving one with regard to them. This Bill prohibited the "off" sale of drink by clubs, and therefore was going to considerably diminish the "off" sale of liquor. The object of the Amendment was to enable the justices to take into consideration the total number of on and off-licences in their district, and that meant that the justices would be able in making a reduction to choose among both on and off-licences. Now they saw the inwardness of the proposal. Hon. Members opposite would abolish off-licences. They did not want to abolish any, but when it came to a choice between on and off they would slaughter the off. The principle of the Bill was two-fold—reduction and control, and control was far more important than reduction. The supporters of the Bill wanted to make a reduction in the great redundancy of on-licences. He thought they could get control at the end of the period. The Leader of the Opposition had said that this applied the touchstone to their sincerity. It might apply the touchstone to their practicability. The Opposition wanted them to go for all or nothing. [Cries of "No."] Well, they wanted the Government to put everything in this Bill. He and his friends would like to have everything in a Bill, but because they could not get everything they were taunted for being willing to take less. The question of off-licences could be dealt with in another year in another Bill. The object of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite was to kill the Bill, and, therefore, they would like to overload it. They would tempt the Government to put

  1807
  more cargo on the ship than it would carry. He could imagine a better Bill than this, but he was glad to have this measure because it was a good one. He would like to see grocers' licences included, but he was not going to be a party to the overloading of this Bill in any direction, and in that way risk its success. The Bill was not perfect. There never was a perfect Bill brought into the House. It was, however, an admirable Bill—the best dealing with the liquor traffic that had been brought in in our time. He would not be a party to pressing the Government to make additions to the Bill which they said they could not accept. If they could see their way to put in grocers' licences he would be pleased, but he was not going to he tempted to support proposals to overcrowd it which were made with the deliberate intention of sinking it.
  *MR. G.D. FABEERwas astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down say that on the Ministerial side of the House they did not want to kill the Bill by accepting this Amendment. How would it kill the Bill if grocers' licences were included? The friends of the Government were the only people who would kill the Bill if this Amendment were adopted. He was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman using an argument of that kind. The right hon. Gentleman said that grocers' licences were being reduced, but in 1902 he said that whatever the system might be he contended that all licences should be on the same footing, and that grocers' licences were increasing, while the number of ordinary licences in proportion to the population was decreasing pretty considerably. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that the whole position of matters had changed since then? In those days the right hon. Gentleman was seeking to sweep grocers' licences into his net, but now he adopted exactly the other line of argument. He did not want to sweep grocers' licences into his net under this Bill. He would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman why his whole argument had changed since 1902, when he wished grocers' licences to be brought
  1808
  under the justices, while to-day he said it was not worth while, at any rate in his Bill, because grocers' licences were decreasing. Anything which the right hon. Gentleman said on the question of temperance was important, and he would like to quote what he said when referring to grocers' licences in 1902. What the right hon. Gentleman said then was—
  "That the great increase of drunkenness in women had been caused by grocers' licences, and this statement was borne out by the evidence of clergymen and ministers and medical men who went into the homes of the people. It was most among the middle and the upper classes that this evil existed."
  And then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that—
  "Those terrible facts were borne out by the testimony of medical men and keepers of inebriate homes. The Licensing Commission said there was a gigantic evil existing in their midst, which was a national degradation; and they declared that scarcely any sacrifice would be too great in order to cope with this evil."
  SIR THOMAS WHITTAKER: That does not refer to grocers' licences.
  MR. G. D. FABER: Yes, pardon me; it does. At an earlier period of the same debate the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "Now, one word as to the evils of grocers' licences. They have enormously developed intemperance among women. It is said that there has been no evidence. There has been a great deal. When the Lords' Committee said that they had not had evidence, I say that negative evidence is of little value as against positive. It is twenty-three years since that Committee sat, and we have had a great deal of evidence since then. Before the Peel Commission we had the evidence of solicitors that again and again they had had to deal with cases brought before them by their clients, in which wines and spirits had been supplied to the wives of their clients, and charged in the accounts as other articles. Then there was evidence of the assistants who sold the liquors."
  And then the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "We have practically the universal opinion of clergymen, ministers and doctors upon this point. They get the knowledge in the course of their professional work: and it is not information and evidence that they can give publicly, because their relations with the people from whom they obtain this evidence is confidential. You have, however, the word of honour of medical men, clergymen, and ministers that they know of these cases, and they have declared that Such things constantly occur."

  1809
  The right hon. Gentleman went on page after page on the same lines.
  SIR THOMAS WHITTAKER: I said during the last five minutes that I did wish the Bill had dealt with grocers' licences.
  *MR. G. D. FABER: Then is the right hon. Gentleman going to vote for this Amendment?
  SIR THOMAS WHITTAKER: No.
  *MR. G. D. FABER: Then I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell me what he means when he says that if you carry this Amendment it will sink the Bill.
  SIR THOMAS WHITTAKER: If the hon. Member opposite did not think it would, he would not support the Amendment.
  *MR. G. D. FABERsaid he had the greatest respect and admiration for the right hon. Gentleman's pre-eminent talents. He had had the honour of sitting on important Committees with him, and there was no limit to the lucidity of his intelligence and of his ability; but that was not the specific answer he expected when he put the specific question to him as to how the Amendment would sink the Bill.
  SIR THOMAS WHITTAKER: It is rather difficult to carry this on by question and answer, but it is quite possible to overweight measures. Everybody knows that, especially at this time of the session. The Government have decided that they cannot carry it if they put in everything about grocers' licences, and it is for them to decide what they can carry. I should be glad if they could, but if they cannot I shall support the Bill as it is.
  *MR. G. D. FABERsaid that the right hon. Gentleman would not consider that he was saying anything offensive or objectionable when he told him that it was surely an open secret that he, and not the Government, was the Bill. Therefore, it was with the right hon. Gentleman's full cognisance that the
  1810
  grocers' licences were omitted from the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to shuffle off the responsibility by saying that it was the Government's Bill; that it was their affair. But it was his affair; the right hon. Gentleman had some very good reason for excluding grocers' licences from this measure, and he would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee frankly what that reason was.
  SIR THOMAS WHITTAKER: I had nothing to do with the exclusion of grocers' licences.
  *MR. G. D. FABERsaid that political reasons had kept the grocers' licences out of the Bill. In the trade hon. Gentlemen opposite saw their enemy, and in the grocers their friends. He was not telling the right hon. Gentleman anything he did not know himself. That fact lent crushing weight to the criticism of the Leader of the Opposition that this was the touchstone of the sincerity of the promoters of the Bill. The Party opposite had professed that they were bringing in a broad measure of temperance reform; the public had never heard until now that this was only a partial measure of temperance reform. The Radical Party had been preaching up and down the country that this was a great, comprehensive temperance measure. They had tried to get the Bishops into their net by telling them that. But now, for the first time, the chief protagonist of temperance told the Committee that this was only an instalment, but that sometime and somewhere—they knew what that meant from a politician, he supposed at the end of fourteen years—grocera' licences would be dealt with. That was not good enough for men of common sense. He did not pretend to a knowledge of the wiles and artifices of political life. He was a plain man who tried to see the truth and to do justice. It was a hypocritical pretence that they made for leaving out grocers' licence, from the Bill, which, in the view of the right hon. Gentleman himself, contained within themselves the germs and a fruitful source of intemperance. They were keeping the grocers out of the confiscation to be brought about by the Bill, because the grocers were their political friends and the publicans their political foes.

  1811
  That device would take in nobody. The course which the Government had taken had stripped of their cloak and had exposed in all its nakedness the hypocrisy which had surrounded their proceedings from beginning to end.
  *MR. NIELDsaid he had never ceased to regard the principles of this measure as un-sound because of the refusal to deal with grocers' licences and clubs. There was all the difference in the world between this Bill and the Act of 1904. This Bill purported to be a temperance measure. The Bill of 1904 was brought in order to put an end to the injustices which were taking place by reason of the decision of the House of Lords. It was a Bill to regulate the drink traffic in relation to particular licences, and while it left the justices a discretion to say which licensed houses were in their opinion redundant required them to refer such licences to quarter sessions in order that compensation might be assessed. That and that only was the limitation put upon the discretion of the local or licensing bench. Hoardings in streets were now covered with pictures by the temperance party, which were as bad a misrepresentation of fact as the Chinese labour cartoon, for they indicated or allowed to be inferred from their suggestiveness that which was, not true. For many years before the Act of 1904 was passed, which compelled a grocer to pay a sum which in some degree represented the value of his licence, there was no form of licence more Keenly sought after than a grocers' licence, especially when grocers got opportunities for selling beer on draught as they used to get, for it was not within the power of the benches to impose conditions, a state of things which the much abused Act of 1904 put an end to. The trade done by that grocer out of beer was out of all proportion to his legitimate trade as a grocer. The great objection to leaving the grocers' licence out of the Bill was that it would encourage secret drinking. They had had speeches from the right hon. Member for Spen Yalley, who told them that a grocers' business conducted in conjunction with an off-licence was a terrible thing for increasing secret drinking among women. Those who had sat on the county asylums Committees as he
  1812
  had done, were able to speak with the authority of personal knowledge as to the effects of a long persistence in excessive drinking by women in comfortable circumstances and who were not frequenters of licensed houses, but who purchased exciseable liquors from grocers and had them sent home with the ordinary commodities of a grocer for household use. It was a sad thing to examine these cases (and they were by no means in frequent), and to hear the records of those people who had come before them, respectably dressed women, and to know that their incarceration had been due to secret drinking. He had heard of connivances to which people with grocers' licences had found it necessary to resort in order to dispose of their liquor. He would give one instance where a London firm which desired to further their business, invented a bottle-carrier as being the safest means of carrying bottles of drink home. But from North Wales came a most indignant protest in reply to an invitation to purchase this kind of carrier. He had a letter to the following effect—
  "February, 1908.
  "Gentlemen,—I received your paper bottle carrier, and circular, and I should not have wrote to you at all, only I am so surprised that you should dare to place such a bag upon the market even in London, under the present condition of the trade; here it would ruin the best house in North Wales if you gave a customer a bottle of spirits in a bag so that anyone would know its contents.
  "I keep a supply of small fish baskets, and rub them all over with fresh herrings so that they smell. On Sundays we close all day, and on Saturday I get orders to send beer and spirits, etc., in bags, marked potatoes. Take a sack, put each bottle in straw envelope and drop them in.
  "My man then takes them on his back and delivers them like potatoes, each one does it, and everyone knows it is done, but the people here are so under the dominion of the chapel parson who rules them with a rod of iron that they dare not be seen drinking either at home or in a house.
  "Take my advice, make a carrier that looks as though it carried something else, and you will sell millions"
  *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order. The hon. Member can only deal with the question of principle and not the details of individual cases and methods of doing business.
  *MR. NIELDasked how, if they were not allowed to give details, hon. Members

  1813
  could put their case and what was a more fitting opportunity than the Committee stage of a Bill to deal with these matters of detail? He only desired to show the mischief. There it was, and yet this Bill made no provision to control these means of obtaining drink—so disastrous as they had proved to family life and happiness—may the Government, whose views had been voiced that day by the Home Secretary, had refused to make any provision in this professedly "temperance measure." The language the Committee had heard from the Treasury Bench showed conclusively that this was not honest legislation and that if the Government were going to make good the boast they had made up and down the country they must for shame's sake deal with this branch of the trade which did more harm than any other.
  MR. SEDDONsaid that when he first looked at this Amendment he was inclined to be in favour of it. He had a great suspicion of the grocer's licence, He had spent some years of his time retailing groceries and liquors and he had a very full knowledge of the evil effects of grocers' licences and would like to see them included in the scope of this Bill. But having listened to the speeches of hon. Members above the gangway on the Opposition side of the House he had discovered that those hon. Gentlemen were not so much interested in licensing reform as they were in playing of one section against the other. They, therefore, were the hypocrites.
  AN UNIONIST MEMBER: It is not our Bill.
  MR. SEDDONsaid the Leader of the Opposition had waxed eloquent over the hypocrisy of this Bill as a measure of temperance reform. He would advise the Government therefore to enter into som arrangement with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition who wanted the inclusion of clubs and grocers' licences, and invite the right hon. Gentleman to say that if thin Bill was made to include those matters it should pass the House without opposition. The object in the Amendment was not to further temperance, but to create
  1814
  another vested interest. The Opposition had been if not the parents, the sponsors of every monopoly in this country. They had the monopoly as it existed with regard to the brewers to-day, and they now sought to create another with regard to grocers' licences. He did not think it was quite so easy to deal with this as had been suggested. To deal with the grocery licences under this Amendment would require a compensation scheme. But this Bill was going to deal with these licences in the future in Clause 5. There were only 25,000 of them at the present time, and if the right hon. Member for the Spen Valley was right that the inclusion of these licences would spoil the Bill, he was quite justified in adopting the principle that half a loaf was better than no bread. If he thought that the Opposition was sincerely in favour of temperance reform in moving this Amendment, he would support it, but believing as he did it was pure hypocrisy on their part, he should vote against it.
  LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBYsaid he had never shared nor did he believe the majority of the party to which he belonged ever shared the view that a great temperance reform was to be effected by a reduction of the number of licences. He did not think his right hon. friend ever thought the Bill he passed in 1904 was going to have that effect; but the Government and their supporters had proclaimed throughout the country that this Bill was a great measure of temperance reform, and that by this method they intended to achieve a great deal of good because it was going to reduce a great number of licences. The Amendment offered them an opportunity to take a lot of licences of a description which all who had studied the question admitted led to intemperance and secret drinking. It could not be urged that the adoption of the Amendment would kill the Bill by overloading it, because, although that might be a very proper reason for not accepting a reasonable Amendment if free discussion were allowed to take place on the Bill night after night, it could not be used when the Government had a tame majority behind them who

  1815
  consented to the stoppage of free speech in the House whenever it suited an autocratic Minister. There could be no excuse for the somewhat extraordinary action that the Government had taken. Their last excuse would be found to be on a par with the others they had given, and there could no longer be any doubt in the minds of reasonable men that this Bill was aimed at a particular trade, and made no attempt to check the drinking habits of the people. That, in itself, showed that the hypocrisy was not confined to the Opposition side of the House.
  *MR. LEIF JONESsaid the somewhat sudden recognition on the part of hon. Members on the Opposition side of the evils caused by off-licences was as refreshing as it was new. For nearly two whole days they had listened to the assertion that it was absolutely necessary to secure that a public-house should be in reach of every part of the population. Hon. Members opposite had declared that the Bill was a fierce onslaught on the pleasures of the poorer classes. Now their tone had changed, and instead of asserting that opportunities for drinking were required, they accused the Government of failing in their duty because they did not diminish such opportunities as far as off-licensed premises were concerned. He hoped the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite would not be forgotten when in another part of the Bill off-licences were to be dealt with. He could only say that as an earnest temperance reformer he would be delighted to support hon. Gentlemen opposite in strengthening the Bill in the direction of the reduction of licences. The Majority Report of the Licensing Commission recommended the inclusion of off-licences in a reduction scheme which was part of their proposals for dealing with the licensed trade. The Minority Report recommended that at the end of five years there should be a complete separation of the licensed trade from any other trade carried on, the five years presumably being given so that the adjustment might be made. He fully supported the recommendation of the Minority Report, but the late Government did not carry out either
  1816
  recommendation, but in the Act of 1902 set up a privileged class of off-licensed holders, giving them a life interest in their licences. Except on specified grounds the Bench could not take those licences away from anyone, but over all other off-licences the justices had full discretion, and when renewal was refused no compensation was granted. When the Opposition taunted the supporters of the Government with leaving them out of the present clause, because of the support grocers gave to the Government, he would suggest that that was a double-edged weapon, and that hon. Gentlemen opposite might be said to have left out grocers' licences from the Act of 1904 because they did not care to give them that protection which they were glad to give to the trade. It was very easy to hurl these accusations across the floor of the House, but he thought it would be a great deal better if they were left out of the debates altogether. He made no accusation against the party opposite for not having dealt with off-licences in the Act of 1904. He presumed they thought they had dealt with them fairly and equitably in the Act of 1902. For himself as a temperance reformer he must say that, if he had had the shaping of the Bill, he would not have included grocers' licences in this clause. There was no compensation at present for the non-renewal of grocers' licences. There was then no reason why a new vested interest should be set up by bringing them into a scheme in which they had no place. There was no need to have insurance for grocers' licences, because they had no claim for renewal apart from the life interest in the 1902 licencees. Therefore, if they had dealt with them in this clause, they would have had to have had machinery for the purpose and to have made the holders pay a compensation levy, because he supposed it would not be suggested that the same basis would do for grocers' and on-licences. If they were going to deal with the question, they could not possibly do so in the same clause by which they dealt with the on-licences. They would have to have a separate clause later in the Bill. He could claim to be as eager to do away

  1817
  with grocers' licences as any Member of that House, but, in his opinion, the Government had decided wisely not to include grocers' licences under this clause. They had, however, dealt with grocers' licenses in a much greater degree than the Opposition had given them credit for. The justices had full discretion over all grocers' licences, except the privileged licence-holders under the Act of 1902. Under Clause 2 there was the popular veto over new grocers' licences, and under Clause 5 new grocers' licences would be brought under the operation of the beneficent Clause 4, which, in a moment of inspiration, the Leader of the Opposition placed in his Act of 1904; and at the end of the time-limit when the privileged holders of 1902 would very largely have disappeared practically all the "off"-licences would come under the discretion of the justices. He recognised that the grocers' licences, under the operation of the discretion of the justices, were steadily diminishing at the present time. The figures quoted by the hon. Member for Liverpool did not tell the whole truth in regard to the matter. He was very careful to stop at the date which justified the statement that they had steadily increased. If he had taken the years just before and since 1902, he would have seen the result of bringing grocers' licences under the discretion of the justices. He had some figures, but he would not take them all; he would take wine off-licences. There were in 1896 4,600 wine off-licences; they gradually increased up to 1901 when they numbered 6,750. Then came the Act of 1902, and the effect of that was very quickly felt. In 1905, instead of there being 6,750 wine off-licences, there were 6,373, and by 1907 they had sunk to 6,119. There had, therefore, in the course of five years from the passing of the Act of 1902, been a reduction of no less than 10 per cent. A similar reduction had taken place in other "off"-licences. The right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench was, therefore, absolutely right when he stated that instead of there having been that steady increase to which the hon. Member for Liverpool referred, there had been going on a steady diminution in the number of "off"-licences. When he had said that, however, he must add
  1818
  that he was not satisfied with the proposal of the Bill, and he would be thankful for this debate if, later, he had the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite, in dealing effectually with "off"-licences.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNERsaid that no one would doubt the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, and many of them hid felt sorry for him in the excuses he had hid to make for not supporting the Amendment. He feared, however, that his thoroughness in the advocacy of temperance hid been somewhat affected by his reasons, and he felt disposed to follow the example of the hon. Member who had quoted poetry arid say he thought hon. Members were ready to—
  "Compound for sins they are inclined to.
  By damning those they have no mind to."
  They had attacked public-houses and were actively supporting the holders of "off"-and grocers' licences—a form of industry which contributed largely to their party funds. They were adhering to the principle of favouritism, and he was sorry to see it in a matter of temperance reform. There was no one who had hid experience in the big cities and towns who did not feel that it was quite as necessary that off-licences should be dealt with and diminished as public-houses. There was one street in his own constituency where there was a good deal of disorder. He spoke to the chairman of Quarter Sessions about it. He told him that a short time ago they took away the only off-licence there. From that time the character of the street entirely changed for the better, and it was hardly to be recognised as the same place, although there were still too many public-houses. According to the Blue-book on licensing the grand total of convictions for drunkenness was 197,064, and the convictions on licenced premises were 1,329. They could all judge from their experience how much drunkenness hid arisen from "off"-licences. It was a common experience to see men with carts travelling round the streets hawking liquor. They said it was an order from individuals, but the orders were of an exceedingly doubtful nature. It was a distinct revelation to see the number of bottles delivered on Saturday and other

  1819
  nights, and of the 197,000 convictions the greater part by far must be attributable to "off"-licences. Where, if that was not the case, were the police? Where were the police if these convictions were in licensed premises? Why had they not been able to obtain more than 1,329 convictions?
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member is mistaken. That is the number of convictions of licensed persons.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNERsaid the fact remained that the police were there, and they could easily have carried the matter further by obtaining a greater number of convictions for selling drink to drunken persons. If it was possible that a case could be made out that all the drunkenness arose from the public-house, they should have had some statistics to show it. But that could not be done, and they had to judge by the knowledge they possessed, and he challenged the Government to ask the chairmen of Quarter Sessions what was their opinion as regarded the causes of drunkenness. They would find that it was to off-licences and not on-licences that drunkenness was due. If that was so he failed to understand why those leaders of temperance—the hon. Members for Westmoreland and Spen Valley—did not join the Opposition on this Amendment. The Opposition were as sincere as hon. Gentlemen opposite in attacking drunkenness, and it was because they were unable to induce hon. Gentlemen opposite to join in supporting the Amendment, and because gentlemen opposite were attacking a trade to which they were distinctly hostile, and were displaying a friendliness towards those forms of drink-selling from which they obtained active political support, that he hesitated to think they were really earnest in their advocacy of this Bill.
  MR. YOUNGERsaid he did not propose to enter at all into the general considerations of this question. He, personally, had no interest in off-licences. He had a certain interest, not a very great one, in on-licences, and because he considered this Bill grossly unjust to them, he was unable to support any Amendment which would bring within its scope any other
  1820
  class of licences. He thought that was perfectly consistent, infinitely more consistent than the attitude of the Government. For glaring inconsistency he was bound to say the Government attitude was quite exceptional. He certainly felt sincere pity with the position in which the Home Secretary found himself in endeavouring to justify opposition to an Amendment to which the front bench had previously been pledged. He was not in that position. He regarded this Bill as grossly unjust to those interests with which it dealt, and he congratulated off-licence holders upon the fact that for some occult reason they had not been included in the Bill. He merely rose to say that he was unable to support the Amendment.
  MR. CAMERON CORBETTsaid he approached this question as one who had always been in favour of the abolition of grocers' licences; his name had been on the back of Bills for that purpose for over twenty years, and he asked himself the question whether this Amendment would promote the purpose he had in view. His belief was that the reduction in grocers' licences under the existing law would be progressive. Since 1902 the reduction had been considerable, and the number of privileged licence-holders—that was to say, the grocers who had carried on their busiess in the same premises—would continuously diminish, and therefore the number who were exposed to the judicial discretion of the magistrates would progressively increase. He very strongly objected to introducing grocers' licences into the clause in such a way as would give them a right to a fourteen years run. He had been very gratified to find that the evils of grocers' licences had been so strongly realised on that side of the House, and one was justified in saying that within fourteen years a Bill would be carried giving effect to what the Amendment proposed. He would regret bringing grocers' licences under a compensation system and a system which would give them a longer duration of life than he desired them to have.
  MR. PATRICK WHITEsaid that among the inconsistencies of hon. Gentlemen who

  1821
  sat on the other side, it was gratifying to find that the hon. Members for Appleby and Spen Valley agreed that the grocers' licences should come within the absolute discretion of the magistrates. They regarded that as a happy sign. All they asked was that the off-licences should also be left in the hands of the magistrates. He failed to see why what was good for the grocers' licences was not good enough for the on-licences. There was no reason on that side of the House against any license-holder, but the Bill taxed on-licences-holders for the licences which were abolished and did nothing to diminish the growing position of the off-licence holders. That was very unfair treatment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley said that this was the best temperance Bill ever introduced. But was it a temperance Bill at all?
  *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot go into the question of the nature of the Bill. He must confine himself to the Amendment.
  MR. PATRICK WHITEsaid that instead of going to a retail licensed house people could club together, buy a bottle of whisky and drink it at home. If this was a temperance Bill would it not bring about a corresponding diminution of the revenue of the United Kingdom?
  *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The effect on the revenue of the United Kingdom is outside the Amendment.
  MR. PATRICK WHITEsaid that all the time off-licences were to be in competition with on-licences. While they increased the taxation they did nothing to reduce the competition. That was an unfair principle.
  MR. WALTER LONG: It is a matter of very great surprise to us that the Government have attempted to make no answer to the speech delivered by the Leader of the Opposition, who made it perfectly clear that the Amendment discloses the real policy of the Government. It is a most unfortunate thing tint under our procedure an Amendment of this kind should come on at a time when naturally many Members of the Government was absent, notably
  1822
  the Prime Minister, and it is to be profoundly regretted that ha should be absent when we are discussing and coming to a decision upon an Amendment which, without question, is one of the most important Amendments the House will be called upon to consider. What we want to discover is the object of the Government in passing this Bill. Members of the Government and their supporters state that they are actuated by no spirit of ill-feeling towards any particular trade, but that they are acting upon a high moral principle. They want to deal with an odious evil by diminishing temptation. If that is their view, why do they confine their operations solely to on-licences? What they desire is that their weaker brethren who cannot resist temptation should be made sober, not by Act of Parliament, but by having removed from their path temptations they are not strong enough to resist. Which is the stronger temptation offered to a man or woman—going into a public-house subject to inspection by the police and subject to the discipline which falls alike on the owner of the house and the holder of the licence if the law is transgressed, or the temptation of going into a place where the mans business is not to sell intoxicating liquors, whose business rests on other foundations altogether, but who is able at the same time to sell liquor in small quantities to be consumed in private Without any right of entry by the police, and leading, as we all know, to a much greater amount of drunkenness than that which obtains in public-houses? My hon. and learned friend the Member for Liverpool quoted the figures about the prosecution of licence holders, and he was told that his quotation was not apposite because they were the convictions on licensed premises. Can anyone doubt that in view of the comparatively few cases of drunkenness which are traced directly to public-houses, the greater proportion is due to secret drinking? If the object of this measure is to reduce temptation, this Amendment ought to be accepted exactly as it stands. What is the argument of the Home Secretary? He says these on-licences have decreased. What on earth has that got to do with it?

  1823
  We know that on-licences are decreasing under the Act of 1904. What is the real object of the Government? The whole question of temperance is swept away, and you are brought down to the simple issue that you are preparing to take away a particular class of property which you believe belongs to few people, and those few people you believe are opposed to yourselves politically. My hon. friend behind me says he hopes these licences will be dealt with within the next ten years.
  MR. CAMERON CORBETT: I said before the end of fourteen years.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Well, ten years is within fourteen. The House cheered my hon. friend. Could there be anything more dishonest than that cheer? What does it mean? Doer it mean that hon. Gentlemen believe these licences are an evil that ought to be dealt with? Because if they do they are bound to support this Amendment. Then there was the argument about compensation. They argue that that is a question that might very well be discussed at a later period, but owing to the conditions under which we are forced to discuss this Bill, there may be no opportunity of raising it at a later stage. The whole principle which hon. Members have in view is not the extinction of licences by the payment of compensation, because that is provided for by the Act of 1904, but it is that there shall be a limit to that operation, and an extinction of licences without any compensation.
  AN HON. MEMBER: Nothing of the sort. This is essentially a reduction clause and not compensation.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The hon. Member's point would be reasonable if we were discussing these matters unshackled, but under the circumstances his argument cannot have any weight at all. We are now within an hour and five minutes of the time when the discussion of this clause must come to an end. The question we have to ask the Government now is, is this a bona fide Bill for temperance or is it not? If it is, then you should apply to all licences
  1824
  the same law and the same principles. If you fail to do that you stand convicted of introducing a Bill which is a sham, which is not in reality a temperance measure, which is merely intended to attack a particular trade, because you believe you can do that with greater safety than if your operations were further extended. I hope the country will take note of what has taken place to-night, and also of the fact that the Government, arraigned by the Leader of the Opposition, on the ground that their Bill has been proved to be a sham, have not had the courage to answer this attack or defend themselves. As a matter of fact, they have taken refuge in a defence which is quite untenable and they are really advocating a Bill which is an attack upon a particular trade and a particular class of individuals. By refusing this Amendment the Government will not attain what they desire, namely, to make the people more temperate and remove from their path that greatest of all temptations, namely, that which occurs under the "off" and not under the "on" licences.
  *MR. JOYNSON-HICKSsaid that not long ago he ran the risk of an action for libel from a grocers' licence protection association upon this subject. He thought the right hon. Member for Spen Valley would do him the honour of believing that, in this matter he was strongly sincere in his feeling that off-licences were as harmful as, if not more harmful than on-licences to the sobriety of the nation. He would like to refer to a point which had been raised by the Under-Secretary to the Home Department in regard to the Peel Commission Report. He was afraid they had been somewhat misled by the quotation made from that Report. It was true that the Commission suggested a diminution of on-licences, and they allowed a period of five years, but during that period their opinion was that no new licences should be granted, and that the licensing authority should come to a decision as to how many new licences would be required. He thought they were clearly entitled to say on that Report that the Peel Commission felt there were too many grocers' licences. They felt that combinations of trade in connection with

  1825
  these licences ought to be removed, that there should be no new licences granted for five years, and at the end of that time obviously there was to be a diminution in the number of licences. It had been argued against this proposal that grocers' licences were diminishing under the provisions of the Act of 1904. It was perfectly true that they had diminished since that Act was passed, by about 125 out of 25,000 existing licences, but on-licences had been diminished by some 3,000 or 4,000 out of a total of 100,000. If it was a reason for not including off-licences that they had been reduced by 120 out of 25,000 a fortiori it was a reason for not touching the on-licences, because they had not been reduced to a far greater extent since 1904. He could not help feeling that the Home Secretary had treated the whole question of grocers' licences far too lightly. The right hon. Gentleman told them that grocers' licences were the cause of much secret drinking. He (the Home Secretary) did not think that secret drinking was due to the existence of grocers' licences, but it arose more from the innate depravity of the human mind.
  MR. GLADSTONE: What I said was that the chief evil alleged in connection with grocers' licences was secret drinking.
  MR. JOYNSON-HICKSsaid he quite agreed, but the evil which the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to appreciate in all its seriousness in the same way as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley and the hon. Member for Appleby was the secret drinking by women which could be traced to the existence of grocers' licences. He had heard both of the hon. Members opposite denounce in far more effective language than he could use the evils of grocers' licences, in connection with secret drinking. The hon. Member for Appleby was president of a society for the total prohibition of the liquor traffic. Here was a genuine opportunity for the hon. Gentleman and his friends to take some part in the partial and immediate suppression of a large number of grocers' licences which were part and parcel of the drink system of the country. Yet hon. Gentlemen opposite refused to take advantage of this golden oppor-
  1826
  tunity. He invited the Government to explain how this Amendment could possibly "kill the Bill." There was ample time during the coming vacation for the right hon. Member for Spen Valley to draft clauses to reduce those grocers' licences, and he might without difficulty devise a much honester and more fair method of compensation than that which the Government proposed for the brewers. He wished to call the attention of the Committee a little more closely to the real evils of grocers' licences, and to the consensus of opinion regarding them among all temperance workers. From 1860 onwards, when they were first instituted by the late Mr. Gladstone, there had been a consensus of opinion in the religious and temperance world that grocers' licences had done far more harm than on-licences in encouraging drinking among women, deaths from which during the last thirty years had increased 150 per cent. The whole speech of the Home Secretary was a failure to realise the evils caused by these licences. During these thirty years insanity caused by drinking among women had largely increased. A remarkable document had been published this year as to the cause of drunkenness among women, which was admitted by all temperance and religious workers. Questions were sent out by the Church of England Temperance Society to a large number of doctors and others asking their opinion on the subject in view of the debates which were to take place on this Bill. Of those who had replied, fifteen doctors were of opinion that there was no increase, eighty-eight doctors testified to a large increase of drunkenness among leisured women, ninety-three doctors testified to a large increase among the wives of the working people of England, and a very great number of those doctors attributed this increase directly to grocers' licences. He was sure that his hon. friends on that side of the House would agree with him that there was a consensus of opinion among doctors that grocers' licences were the cause of this evil. Not only had his own church condemned in no measured terms grocers' licences, but less than two years ago the Wesleyan Conference met in London and unanimously passed a

  1827
  Resolution declaring that in their opinion the promised legislation of the Government would not be satisfactory unless it dealt with the cause of the terrible increase of drunkenness among women, with its most serious and deteriorating influence on children, namely, the wine and spirit dealers' retail licences, commonly called grocers' licences, and urging upon the Government the necessity of giving the licensing authority unrestrained control over the issue and control of those licences. The late Mr. Gladstone said it was necessary to decide this question on its moral and social bearings. He was prepared to do that, and if the Government would only take off its Whips, he felt certain that an overwhelming majority of temperance members who habitually supported the Government would vote for this Amendment. They knew that, if they were to do anything really to remedy the evils of drunkenness among women they must attack grocers' licences. He challenged the Government and their supporters to show whether they were really sincere or not. Many hon. Members had more or less recently gone before j their constituents and used, perhaps, what hon. Members on the other side considered rather strong language with regard to the provisions of this Bill. He himself had not hesitated to say on public platforms, and he did not hesitate to say now in the House, that this Bill, so far as its temperance aspect was concerned, was a delusion and a sham, and that it was not introduced with the view to remedying the evils of intemperance. The Government and their supporters now had an opportunity of showing whether they were sincere in the speeches they had made about the great advantages to be derived from this Bill from a temperance point of view. He was a believer in moderate reduction, though reduction was not a remedy, but only a palliative. If it was a palliative with regard to on-licences it was still; more so in regard to off-licences. He appealed to hon. Members opposite who had made speeches on the temperance question to join in an effort to bring these licences into the purview of the Bill, and to prevent the Opposition from being able to say that their enthusiasm for temperance was a sham and a delusion,
  1828
  and that their sole reason for bringing in the Bill was to penalise their political opponents, while they dared not touch that part of the drink trade which was very largely Radical in its opinions.
  MR. BELLOCsaid that the speech of the hon. Member who had just addressed the Committee had convinced him that he was not quite in sympathy with the temperance Members on either side of the House. It appeared to him that the psychology of temperance Members on the Ministerial side of the House was very much the same as that of hon. Members on the other side. There was another point of view to which he wished to refer. The attitude of every Government for many years in the framing of every Bill had been largely decided by the type of man who subscribed to their secret party funds. The brewers—he thought they were mistaken—had liberally subscribed to the funds of the Party opposite, and the trade which was dealt with in this Amendment had principally supported the party funds of the Party to which he belonged. He, in recognition of that profound evil of political corruption which had struck into our Parliamentary system more deeply than any other, would vote for the Amendment, as a protest against what he believed to be the spirit of corruption in their party politics.
  *SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid the Committee had had an example of how the glow of moral enthusiasm could be chilled by party necessity. They had not heard from a single Member on the front bench opposite one consistent reason why off-licences should not have been dealt with in this Bill. What had been the reasons adduced? They had been that a scheme of compensation would be too difficult. Hon. Members opposite who had always been strong temperance reformers—he did not say that disparagingly; he hoped they were all temperance reformers, differing only among themselves as to methods—now said that compensation was difficult, and this was not honest, consistent, just, or straightforward. What had hon. Members been doing for twenty years? They were out of power for the greater

  1829
  part of that time, and they said in 1904 that they would bring in a temperance measure which would deal with the evils of drink in this country thoroughly and impartially. But what had they done? In two aspects they had not touched the evils at all, viz., secret drinking through the facilities of off-licences, and drinking in clubs. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, who was one of the ablest Members on the Treasury bench, said that the reason why the Government could not deal with off-licences was because a scheme of compensation for them was so difficult. That was the only reason adduced that afternoon; and if it was not their only reason might the Committee expect that some of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues would satisfy them in regard to this matter? He could not think that hon. Members on their own side of the House were satisfied with the reason given. The right hon. Member for Spen Valley, the Member for the Appleby Division, and scores of their colleagues had said over and over again in the country and in the House that off-licences ought to be dealt with because they were a crying evil which destroyed the home, debased women, and encouraged the pernicious vice of secret drinking. But when a Bill was brought in to which an hon. Member offered an Amendment providing an opportunity for giving attention to off-licences, the result was silence everywhere. He believed in the individual honesty of those temperance reformers—as apart from their party honesty—and he thought that they must be ashamed at the exhibition that afternoon of the Ministerial exposition of a Bill which was intended to produce a great political effect on the country and also morally. But that which was intended to produce a political effect conflicted with that which was intended to produce a moral effect. One reason given by the Home Secretary for not dealing with off-licences was that they were decreasing; but it had been very ably pointed out by an hon. Member on the Opposition benches, that under the 1904 Act on-licences had also been steadily decreasing. He submitted to the Committee that to offer that as a reason for not dealing with the off-licences in the Bill was to show
  1830
  the Minister in charge either inconsistent or incompetent. He could not think that the right hon. Gentleman was incompetent; and he preferred to say that he was inconsistent. What was the secret? The secret had been lot out by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, who said that they on the Opposition Benches had been influenced by the brewers in passing the Bill in 1904, a Bill which had produced great results, and had reduced licences. If the reduction of licences was in the interest of temperance, then the 1904 Act had produced an effect on temperance throughout the country. But the hon. Member for Salford stated, what they on the Opposition side believed to be the truth, that the Government had not dealt with off-licences because it was not considered politically expedient; that they did not want to set their friends the grocers against them. If that was not the case, he trusted that some hon. Member on the front Treasury bench would state what was the real reason; because they were quite at a loss to know the actual state of the case. The hon. Member for Salford had expressed the strong detestation which they all had for the evils of secret drinking, and hon. Members opposite had applauded. What hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House wanted was that a Bill should be brought in to deal with the evils which flowed from off-licences.
  AN HON. MEMBERON THE MINISTERIAL BENCH: Why did you not deal with them in your Bill?
  *SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid he hoped that from beginning to end of his speech he had been dealing temperately, and certainly with some sort of care, with the arguments brought forward by the supporters of the Bill. What he was saying, when interrupted, was that the deep antipathy which they had to the evils which flowed from off-licences had induced Members on the Opposition side of the House to support the Amendment, which they had confidently hoped would receive considerable support from those who had persistently said that secret drinking and other evils which flowed from off-licences ought to be dealt with radically—he did not mean radically in its political sense. He

  1831
  appealed to the right hon. Member for Spen Valley, to whom his Party was greatly indebted for having brought this question so prominently before the country. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the masterful position which he had assumed; but he regretted, as he believed everybody who admired political consistency regretted, that the right hon. Gentleman had not made an appeal to the Government, even at that late hour, to deal effectively with this question of off-licences to which they had committed themselves over and over again.
  *MR. LUPTONsaid that the hon. Member for Gravesend thought his Party had a monopoly of political sincerity. There was nobody on that side of the House, whatever their view might have been before, who would not vote against the Amendment to show that they had not the slightest doubt that the motives of the Treasury bench were as pure as those of the great religious and temperance organisations throughout the country which urged the Government to push forward with this Bill. The motives of the Government were entirely pure, and inspired by the love of their fellow-creatures. The hon. Member for Liverpool had asked if there was any reason why a difference should be made between on and off-licences, and how they, on that side of the House, could support the reduction of one and not of the other? He would give a reason which was so obvious that it would be accepted by the mover of the Amendment. Supposing a man was walking home and had reached within a mile of his house; he came to the open door of a public-house, went in, stopped there for some time, and when he came out he found it impossible to walk home. But suppose, instead, he went into a grocer's shop and got two bottles of beer, putting one in one pocket and another in another pocket like John Gilpin "to keep the balance true." He would find no difficulty in walking home, and when he got there he would give one bottle to his wife to drink and have the other for himself. They were both at home, and got to bed sober, and
  1832
  did not fall into the hands of a policeman. The hon. Member for North East Man-Chester doubtless was anxious to strengthen the Bill. He thought the licence holders had already had time enough and five years time limit more than ample. No wonder he had little patience with a Bill that dealt so gently with the Trade; and he was anxious to extinguish as many licences as possible, but the more moderate temperance men could not go so far.
  MR. MARKHAM,who was received with Ministerial cries of "Oh, oh" and "Divide," said he would like to state his reasons for supporting the Amendment. He did not take the Party Whip of the Liberal Party. He had never done so; and should never do so. As a temperance advocate and worker all his life he was bound to support the Amendment now before the House. He was at a loss to understand why the right hon. Member for Spen Valley did not support the Amendment, because if they turned to the Report of the Royal Commission,, they found on page 157 that the right hon. Gentleman definitely recommended that all grocers' licences should be abolished after a period of five years. The great blot on this Bill was that off-licences and clubs were not included. The position with regard to clubs was ludicrous, and so far as off-licences were concerned any one who had spent his life among working men as he had must know that those off-licences were a great evil. Therefore, believing as he did that the Bill was a temperance measure, he asked why off-licences were not included in it. The Committee had been told that the Government could not deal with the whole subject at one time, that they were dealing with the on-licences now and would deal with the off-licences at another time. But in his opinion, if the Government introduced a temperance Bill they should be prepared to deal with the whole of these licences. The right hon. Member for the Spen Valley took a great deal of evidence on the matter of these licences, and there was no stronger argument in favour of the acceptance of the Amendment than the Majority Report signed by the right hon. Gentleman himself. Having been a strong temperance reformer he had not

  1833
  the slightest doubt of the way in which he should vote on this question.
  MR. J. F. MASONsaid the reason given by the Home Secretary for refusing this Amendment was quite different from that given by an hon. Member earlier in the day, namely, that it was not necessary to deal with off-licences, because they had been reduced in late years. The on-licences had also been reduced since the Act of 1904. The reason given by the Home Secretary was that it was not necessary to deal with off-licences unless they acquired an enhanced value. But
  it was certain that as the on-licences that were left would derive an enhanced value, there was no guarantee for saying that off-licences would not do so. The fact was that this Bill did not deal with the whole matter, but with only one portion of it, and the moment the off-licences derived enhanced value they would be dealt with, and the House in the near future would be asked to face another Bill to deal with off-licences.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 306; Noes, 126. (Division List No. 208.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Clough, William

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Glover, Thomas

  Agnew, George William

  Collins, Stephen Lambeth)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Collins, Sir Wm.J.(S.Pancras,W

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Allen, Percy

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Greenwood, Hamar(York)

  Armitage, R.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Gulland, John W.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon Herbert Henry

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L.(Rossendale

  Astbury, John Meir

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Crooks, William

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Harvey, W.E. (Derbyshire,N.E.

  Barker, John

  Crossley, William J.

  Harwood, George.

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Beale, W. P.

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hazleton, Richard

  Bell, Richard

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Berridee, T. H. D.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Bethell, Sir J.H.(Essex, Romf'rd

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Dickinson, W.H. (St.Pancras,N.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor(Mon., S.)

  Bowerman, C. W,

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Brace, William

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Duckworth, James

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Branch, James

  Duncan, C. (Barrow in Furness

  Hodge, John

  Brigg, John

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Bright, J. A.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset,N.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Brooke, Stopford

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Hudson, Walter

  Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir J.T(Cheshire

  Erskine, David C.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Essex, R. W.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Burns, Rt. Hn. John

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas (

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Ferens, T. R.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Cameron, Robert

  Findlay, Alexander

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Jones Lief (Appleby)

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Freeman, Thomas, Freeman

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Joyce, Michael

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Gill, A. H.

  Kilbride, Denis

  1835

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Lamont, Norman

  Pollard, Dr.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Lever, W. H.(Cheshire, Wirral)

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh Central)

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Price, Sir Robert J.(Norfolk, E.)

  Sutherland, J. R.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Priestley, W.E. B.(Bradford, E.)

  Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Radford, G. H.

  Tennan, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Rainy, A. Holland

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Thorne, G. R.(Wolverhampton

  Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Reddy, M.

  Toulmin, George

  Maclean, Donald

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rees, J. D.

  Verney, F. W.

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Vivian, Henry

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th

  Wadsworth, J.

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  M'Laren, H. D.(Stafford, W.)

  Richardson, A.

  Walsh, Stephen

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Maddison, Frederick

  Roberts, Sir John H.(Denbighs.

  Walton, Joseph

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Robertson, Sir GScott (Bradf'rd

  Warlde, George J.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Robinson, S.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Menzies, Walter

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Whitbread, Howard

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Rose, Charles Day

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Middlebrook, William

  Rowlands, J.

  White, J. D. Dumbartonshire)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Mond, A.

  Russell, T. W.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Rutherford, W. W.(Liverpool)

  Whittaker, Rt.Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Samuel Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Morrell, Philip

  Samuel, S. M.(Whitechapel)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Morse, L. L.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Williamson, A.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Myer, Horatio

  Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)

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

  Napier, T. B.

  Fears, J. E.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Nicholls, George

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

  Seddon, J.

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

  Nolan, Joseph

  Seely, Colonel

  Wilson, P. W.(St. Pancras, S.)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford))

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.

  Winfrey, R.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wodehouse, Lord

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Partington, Oswald

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Pearson, W. H. M.(Suffolk, Eye)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Perks, Sir Robert William

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Balcarres, Lord

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Crean, Eugene

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Cross, Alexander

  Balfour, Rt.Hn. A.J.(City Lond.)

  Cave, George

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Banner, John S. Harmood

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey

  Doughty, Sir George

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G(Winchester

  Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone, E.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Barnes, G. N.

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

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Barrie, H. T.(Londonderry, N.)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Duffy, William J.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Coates, Major E.F.(Lewisham)

  Faber, Capt. W. V.(Hants, W.)

  Bertram, Julius

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

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Collings, Rt.Hn. J. Birmingh'm

  Fell, Arthur

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  1836

  1837

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Snowden, P.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Stanier, Beville

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Starkey, John R.

  Gooch,Henry Cubitt (Peckham

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Summerbell, T.

  Guinness, Walter Edward

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Haddock, George B.

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

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

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

  Haride, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashf'rd

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Nield, Herbert

  Tillett, Louis John

  Helmsley, Viscount

  O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Oddy, John James

  Walker, Col. W. H.(Lancashire)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Keswick, William

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Rawlinson,John FrederickPeel

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster

  Renton, Leslie

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Roberts, S.(Sheffied,Ecclesall)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Long,Col.Charles W.(Evesham)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Young, Samuel

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

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. George Faber and Mr. Joyn son-Hicks.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  MacCaw, William J.MacGeagh

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Smith,F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)

  Macpherson, J. T.

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

  MR. F. E. SMITH MR. F. E. SMITH moved an Amendment providing that the licensing justices should reduce the number of on-licences "except licences for the sale of beer upon the premises which were in existence before 1869," so that at the end of fourteen years the number of those licences in any rural parish or urban area should not exceed the scale set out in the first schedule. He said that the fall of the guillotine would make it impossible for him to do more than indicate in a few words the general character of the extremely important Amendment which was in his name. It had been repeatedly said in justification of the interference of the Bill with proprietary interests that the holder of a licence possessed no statutory title to anything more than a years' enjoyment of it. He thought he could show that the Government, if they did not accept the Amendment, would be deliberately interfering with proprietary rights which were constituted under statutory sanction, and which had no limitations whatever upon them. Before 1869 licences for the sale of beer "off" the premises were in the hands, not of the licensing justices, but of the Excise authorities. It was then thought convenient to take this jurisdiction away from the Excise authorities and give it to the licensing justices, but it was felt
  1838
  that some concession should be made to the holders of the licences. Therefore, by a deliberate Act of Parliament and of a Liberal Government, the freehold charter was given to these beer houses, and their licences could only be withheld on four grounds, all of which were personal either to the character of the applicant or the house. The holders of the licences were given a Parliamentary freehold. From 1869 until the Bill of 1904, unless they proved bad conduct on the part of the house, or bad character on the part of the licensee no one could take away the licence. There was no question of defeasance which the right hon. Member for the Spen Valley had tried to push home, or that an annual interest was taken in the licence only. The Parliamentary freehold was given by a Liberal Government as long as the character of the holder and the character of the house was good. That was taken away in 1904 by the successors of the Parliament which had given them that Parliamentary freehold, and it was taken away by those who were responsible, if there were any continuity of Parliamentary honour, for the conditions under which it was given in the first place. The condition under which it was taken away was that no such licence should be taken away after 1904 except under compensation provisions and under circumstances pro-

  1839
  vided for under that Act. Hon. Members opposite cheered the statement that under the Act of 1904 that right was taken away. There was no end to their enthusiasm for the Act of 1904—the moment it inflicted some injury. Was there no responsibility in that House? That would be a useful lesson for the Opposition in a very few years. If they were entitled to say they could take advantage of the deprivation of these rights under the Act of 1904 for a clearly expressed and universally understood consideration, what justification could they advance in 1908 for taking away licences without any consideration at all, and at the same time that they accepted that part of the Act of 1904 which helped their contention, reject the part which procured fair dealing? It was for the Government if they could to reconcile their conduct with the arguments they had used with reference to ordinary on-licences. The agreement had been repeated ad nauseam that those who took on-licences knew perfectly well that the grant was an annual grant. Those who took those licences and invested their money in the 1869 beer-houses, were entitled to assume that those licences would not be taken away except for one or other of those four causes. That Parliamentary undertaking to which the honour of Parliament was committed, if there was any continuity of Parliamentary obligation, had been deliberately violated. If no other justification were available for the use of the word "confiscation" the attitude of the Government towards those 1869 holders was ample justification for the language which had been used in the country, and for the result of bye-elections in the country since this Bill was introduced.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 9, after the word 'on-licences,' to insert the words 'except licences for the sale of beer upon the premises which were in existence before the year eighteen hundred and sixty-nine.'"—(Mr. F. E. Smith.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that the hon. and learned Member invited them to discriminate between the ante-
  1840
  1869 beer-houses and other houses. To do so would be to ask them- to reverse the settlement very happily arrived at by right hon. Gentlemen opposite in 1904. Thirty years ago, in 1879, a Committee of the House of Lords, no very revolutionary or confiscatory body, recommended that the ante-1869 beerhouses should be placed in all respects on the same footing as other licensed houses. In 1882, the late Mr. Ritchie, without a six-pennyworth or compensation, placed all the off-licence ante-1869 beerhouses on exactly the same footing as the other off-licences. Again, in 1904, almost the last vestige of distinction was swept away, and these licences were placed on the same footing as the others. [Opposition cries of "No."] Well, there was a small, minute distinction about structure. These licensed houses were about 30,000 in number out of a total of 95,000 and it was obviously impossible to exempt them from the scheme. Not only did they form so large a proportion, but they were often precisely the type of house of which it was most desirable to get rid. So clearly was that so that the present licensing authorities working under the Act of 1904 referred for compensation last year 1,625 houses, of which no fewer than 956 were the very ante-1869 beer houses which this Amendment would altogether exempt. These houses had had a forty years time-limit already, and the Government saw no reason for distinguishing between them and other licensed premises.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is only under closure Resolutions like that under which we are suffering at this moment that misrepresentations so gross can be made. The Under-Secretary actually tells us that in the Act of 1904 no distinction, except a trifling one about structure, was made between the tenure of ante-1869 houses and ordinary licences. He must know that that is inaccurate. He must know that in that Act special terms of compensation were given to those houses, because they had a special tenure, and now all that distinction is to be swept away. Their tenure is to be treated as if it were precisely and exactly identical with the tenure of the ordinary licence-holder. Of course, there was no interference with the rights of these particular

  1841
  licence-holders, because they had special compensation corresponding to their tenure, and everybody admits, whatever their views of property may be, that with proper and adequate compensation you may take it away. Adequate and special compensation was given to these people by the Act of 1904, and that difference is absolutely swept away by
  the provisions of the present Bill. The hon. Gentleman might, at all events, have given us a proper defence of his policy, and not so grossly have misrepresented the Act of 1904.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 140; Noes, 354. (Division List No. 209.)

  AYES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Nield, Herbert

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fell, Arthur

  Nolan, Joseph

  Ashley, W. W.

  Forster, Henry William

  Oddy, John James

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gardner, Ernest

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Balfour,Rt,Hn.A.J.(CityLond.

  Gooch,Henry Cubitt(Peckham)

  Percy, Earl

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Baring,Capt.Hn.G.(Winchester

  Gretton, John

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Guinness, Walter Edward

  Rawlinson,John Frederick Peel

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Haddock, George B.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry,N.)

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Renton, Leslie

  Beach,Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hardy,Laurence (Kent,Ashf'rd

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Harris, Frederick Loverton

  Ronaldsay, Earl of

  Belloe, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Bertram, Julius

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield

  Sheffield,Sir Berkeley George D.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford,East)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Joynson-Hicks, William

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

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Kennaway,Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Stanier, Beville

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Starkey, John R.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Keswick, William

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Cave, George

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

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

  Chamberlain,RtHn J.A.(Worc.

  Lockwood, Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col.A.R.

  Thomson,W.Mitchell. (Lanark)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Long,Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Clive, Percy Archer

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

  Tillett, Louis John

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Walker, Col. W.H.(Lancashire)

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

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Collings,Rt.Hn.J.(Birmingh'm

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

  Cox, Harold

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Whitbread, Howard

  Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim,S)

  M'Arthur, Charles

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Crean, Eugene

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

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

  Cross, Alexander

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Meysey-Thompson, E. G.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Doughty, Sir George

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Young, Samuel

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Younger, George

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Mooney, J. J.

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark,Govan

  Morpeth, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Faber, George Dension(York)

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Armitage, R.

  Barker, John

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Agnew, George William

  Asquith,Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Barnes, G. N.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Astbury, John Meir

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Alden, Percy

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Beale, W. P.

  1843

  Beauchamp, E.

  Erskine, David C.

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Bell, Richard

  Essex, R. W.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Kilbride, Denis

  Benn,W.(T'w'r Hamlets,S.Geo)

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Bethell,Sir J. H. (Essex,Romf'rd

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lamont, Norman

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex,Harwich

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire Wirral)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Brace, William

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Branch, James

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Brigg, John

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Bright, J. A.

  Gill, A. H.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Brodie, H. C.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Glover, Thomas

  Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

  Brunner, J. F. L.(Lancs.,Leigh)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Brunner,RtHn SirJ.T(Cheshire

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Maclean, Donald

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Buxton,Rt.Hn. Sydney Charles

  Gulland, John W.

  M'Laret, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Gurdon,Rt Hn SirW.Brampton

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Cameron, Robert

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hall, Frederick

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Harcourt,Rt.Hn.L.(Rossendale

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

  Massie, J.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Clough, William

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Menzies, Walter

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Harvey, W.E.(Derbyshire,N.E.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Harwood, George

  Middlebrook, William

  Collins,Sir Wm. J.(S.Pancras W

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Mond, A.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Corbett,C H (Sussex,E.Grinst'd

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Morrell, Philip

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morse, L. L.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Myer, Horatio

  Crooks, William

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon.,S.)

  Napier, T. B.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Crossley, William J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nicholls, George

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Nicholson,Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hodge, John

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Davies,David(MontgomeryCo.)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Davies,M.Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hope,W.Bateman (Somerset,N

  O'Brien,Kendal (TipperaryMid

  Davies,SirW.Howell(Bristol,S.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Grady, J.

  Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras,N.

  Hudson, Walter

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Partington, Oswald

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Duckworth, James

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Duffy, William J.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk,Eye)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Perks, Sir Robert William

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Dunne,Major E.Martin(Walsall

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Joyce, Michael

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  1844

  1845

  Price, Sir Robert J.(Norfolk,E.)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Seddon, J.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford,E.

  Seely, Colonel

  Walsh, Stephen

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Radford, G. H.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

  Walton, Joseph

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Ward,W.Dudley (Southampt'n

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wardle, George J.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

  Reddy, M.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Rees, J. D.

  Snowden, P.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wedgwood, Josiah A.

  Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

  Spicer, Sir Albeit

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Richardson, A.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Roberts,Sir John H.(Denbighs.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Whittaker,RtHn.SirThomas P.

  Robertson,Sir G.Scott (Bradf'd

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wiles, Thomas

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Robinson, S.

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Summerbell, T.

  Williamson, A.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

  Roc, Sir Thomas

  Tennant,Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Rowlands, J.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Winfrey, R.

  Russell, T. W.

  Thorne, G.R.(Wolverhampton)

  Wodehouse, Lord

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Tomkinson, James

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Toulmin, George

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Ure, Alexander

  Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)

  Verney, F. W.

  Scott,A.H.(Ashton-under-Lyne

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Sears, J. E.

  Vivian, Henry

  And, it being after half-past Ten of the clock, the Chairman proceeded pursuant to the Order of the House of 17th July, to put forthwith the Question on an Amendment moved by the Government of which notice had been given, and on any Questions necessary to disposes of the Business to be concluded this day.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 21, at end, to insert the words 'and for the purposes of the definition of an "urban area" a metropolitan borough shall be deemed to be a borough, and, where
  part of a ward of a borough or urban district is situated in one licensing district and part in another, each such part of the ward shall be treated as part of the ward with which it has the longest common boundary in the same licensing district.' "—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 348; Noes, 140. (Division List No. 210.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Armitage, R.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Asquith,Rt Hn.Herbert Henry

  Beale, W. P.

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Beauchamp, E.

  Agnew, George William

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Bell, Richard

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Alden, Percy

  Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Benn,W.(T'w'r Hamlets,S.Geo.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Barker, John

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Bethell, Sir J.H.(Essex,Romf'd

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Lever, A.Levy (Essex,Harwich

  Black, Arthur W.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lever, W. H.(Cheshire, Wirral)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Brace, William

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Branch, James

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Brigg, John

  Gill, A. H.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Bright, J. A.

  Gladstone, RtHn.Herbert John

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Glover, Thomas

  Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

  Brooke, Stopford

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Maclean, Donald

  Brunner,RtHnSir J.T(Cheshire

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  M'Laren, Sir C.B.(Leicester)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Gulland, John W.

  M'Laren, H.D.(Stafford, W.)

  Buxton,Rt.Hn. SydneyCharles

  Gurdon, RtHn.SirW. Brampton

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Cameron, Robert

  Hall, Frederick

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Harcourt,Rt.Hn.L.(Rossendale

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Chance, Frederick William

  Hardie,J.Keir (MerthyrTydvil)

  Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Massie, J.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Harmsworth,R.L. (Caithn'ss-sh

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Menzies, Walter

  Clough, William

  Harvey, W.E.(Derbyshire,N.E

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Harwood, George

  Middlebrook, William

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Collins,Sir Wm.J.(S.Pancras,W

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Mond, A.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Morean, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Corbett,C H (Sussex,E.Grinst'd

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morrell, Philip

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Morse, L. L.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen,W.)

  Myer, Horatio

  Cowan, W. H.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Napier, T. B.

  Cox, Harold

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon.,S.)

  Newnes, F. (Notts,Bassetlaw)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Nicholls, George

  Crooks, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nicholson,Charles N(Doncast'r

  Crossley, William J.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Curran, Francis Peter

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Hodge, John

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nuttall, Harry

  Davies,David (MontgomeryCo.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Donnell, C.J. (Walworth)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Grady, J.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-C(ardigan)

  Hope,W.Bateman (Somerset,N

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Partington, Oswald

  Davies,SirW.Howell(Bristol,S.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hudson, Walter

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs,Leek)

  Dickinson, W.H. (St.Pancras,N

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hyde, Clardendon

  Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Perks, Sir Robert William

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Duckworth, James

  Jackson, R. S.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Pollard, Dr.

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Dunne, Major E.Martin(Walsall

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Price,Sir Robert J.(Norfolk,E.)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Joyce, Michael

  Priestley,W.E.B.(Bradford,E.)

  Erskine, David C.

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Essex, R. W.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Radford, G. H.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lamont, Norman

  Reddy, M.

  1848

  1849

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Walters, John Tudor

  Rees, J. D.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Walton, Joseph

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Ward, W. Dudley (S'thampton

  Richards, Thomas(W.Monm'th

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Wardle, George J.

  Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

  Snowden, P.

  Wason, RtHn.E(Clackmannan

  Richardson, A.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Watt, Henry A.

  Roberts,Sir John H.(Denbighs.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs,N.W.)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Robertson,Sir GScott(Bradf'rd

  Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph(Chesh.)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Steadman, W. C.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Robinson, S.

  Stewart, Halley (Greeock)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Stewart-Smith, D.(Kendal)

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Whittaker,RtHn.Sir ThomasP.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Summerbell, T.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Rose, Charles Day

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Rowlands, J.

  Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

  Williams, Osmond(Merioneth)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

  Williamson, A.

  Russell, T. W.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Rutherford, V.H.(Brentford)

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

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

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Thomas,David Alfred(Merthyr

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel),

  Thomasson, Franklin

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

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Thorne,G. R. (Wolverhampton

  Wilson, P. W. (St.Pancras,S.)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Tomkinson, James

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Schwann,Sir C.E. (Manchester)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Winfrey, R.

  Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

  Toulmin, George

  Wodehouse, Lord

  Sears, J. E.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Ure, Alexander

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Seddon, J.

  Verney, F. W.

  Seely, Colonel

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Vivian, Henry

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Walker, H. De R.(Leicester)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Walsh, Stephen

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Collings, Rt.Hn.J.(Birmingh'm

  Hunt, Rowland

  Ashley, W. W.

  Craig,Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Craig, Captain James(Down,E.)

  Kennaway,RtHn.Sir John H.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Kerry, Earl of

  Balfour,Rt.Hn.A.J.(City Lond.)

  Crean, Eugene

  Keswick, William

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cross, Alexander

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Baring,Capt. Hn.G(Winchester

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry,N.)

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Lockwood, RtHn.Lt.-Col.A.R.

  Beach,Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

  Duncan, Robt.(Lanark, Govan)

  Long,Col.Charles W.(Evesham)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Faber, George Denison (York)

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

  Belloc,Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Faber, Capt. W. V.(Hants,W.)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Bertram, Julius

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Fell, Arthur

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Forster, Henry William

  MacCaw, William J.MacGeagh

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis

  Bull, Sir William James

  Gooch,Henry Cubitt(Peckham)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Gretton, John

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Guinness, Walter Edward

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Carson, Rt.Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Haddock, George B.

  Middlemore,JohnThrogmorton

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Cave, George

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashf'rd

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

  Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone, E.)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Nield, Herbert

  Chamberlain, RtHn.J.A.(Worc.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Nolan, Joseph

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Helmsley, Viscount

  O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Hill, Sir Clement

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Coates,Major E. F.(Lewisham)

  Hope,James Fitzalan(Sheffield)

  Oddy, John James

  1850

  1851

  Parker,Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Sheffield,Sir BerkeleyGeorgeD.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Smith,Abel H.(Hertford,East)

  Warde, Col. C. E.(Kent, Mid)

  Percy, Earl

  Smith,F.E.(Liverpool, Walton

  Whitbread, Howard

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Stanier, Beville

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset,W.)

  Rawlinson,John FrederickPeel

  Starkey, John R.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Staveley-Hill, Henry(Staff'sh.

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

  Renton, Leslie

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

  Roberts, S.(Sheffield,Ecclesall)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Talbot, Lord E.(Chichester)

  Young, Samuel

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Talbot,RtHn.J.G.(Oxf'd Univ.

  Younger, George

  Rutherford, W.W.((Liverpool)

  Thomson, W.Mitchell(-Lanark)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Thornton, Percy M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Tillett, Louis John

  Scott, Sir S.(Marylebone,W.)

  Walker, Col.W.H.(Lancashire)

  Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time,"—(Mr. McKenna.)—put, and agreed to.

  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Asquith.)
  Put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PRO VISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL [LORDS] [BY ORDER].
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. MOONEYsaid that this Bill which was promoted by the Irish Local Government Board, was to set up a sewage scheme for the City of Dublin, but there was no statement in the Bill as to what system of sewage was to be carried out. He objected to a procedure of this kind, because the Irish Local Government Board was in no way representative and did not hold inquiries by which the people who lived on the road through which the main sewer would be carried would have an opportunity of being heard. Since he had put his notice on the Paper, he had been in communication with the Chairman of the Dublin County Council, which was an elected body, who stated that the scheme proposed by the Bill was a proper scheme to be carried out. This, he thought, was practically giving them a blank cheque, but at the same time he did not intend to persist in his objection to the Bill.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL [LORDS] [BY ORDER.]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  *MR. TIMOTHY DAVIESsaid that in moving the rejection of this Bill he might at once state that he objected only to Clause 13. It was perhaps rather an unusual course to take to move the rejection because of one clause of a Bill, but the London County Council had also taken an unusual course in this matter. In 1900 the United Tramways Company brought in a Bill asking powers to construct an electric tramway from Fulham to Putney, but stated; that they were only able to do so by means of the overhead trolley system. The Fulham borough objected to that, and the Bill that was brought in for that purpose was not proceeded with. In the following year the London County Council entered into negotiations with the Fulham Borough and promised, under certain conditions, to bring in a Bill asking powers to construct a line on the same route as that proposed by the London United Tramways the year before. They pointed out that if they constructed it on the conduit system a great deal of street-widening and improvement would be necessary, and that they were prepared to construct a conduit system if the Fulham Borough contributed one-third of the cost of the street improvements to the extent of not more than £30,000. The Fulham Borough agreed to pay their contribution, and in

  1853
  1902 a Bill was introduced embodying those conditions. The improvements were to be carried out within four years and the tramway constructed in seven. The improvements were completed, and the £30,000 paid, and now the London County Council, in order to get away from the agreement they had made with the Fulham Borough, had put this clause in the Tramway and Improvements Bill of this year in order to avoid their responsibility and the expense of laying down a conduit system. Various public meetings in Fulham had without exception condemned the action of the London County Council in bringing this matter before Parliament in the shape they had, and under these circumstances he asked that the Third Reading should be rejected.
  *MR. B. S. STRAUSseconded the Motion. He considered the action of the new County Council in breaking the agreement which their predecessors had entered into with the old Fulham Borough Council, was most undesirable. The arrangement as he understood it was that the Fulham Borough were to pay £30,000 towards the street improvements, and the London County Council were to construct a conduit system of tramways. The £30,000 was subscribed by the Fulham ratepayers on that understanding, but the new borough council had agreed with the new London County Council that there should be an overhead system on this route, in return for which they were to get a certain amount of wood pavement—a bargain of no real value, because the wood pavement would have to be put down by the London County Council in any event. This was not the only case in which the London County Council had shown their incapacity for managing tramways, and he was very glad to see that they had already received a snub from the Board of Trade, who had only given them a provisional certificate for the stud system in Mile End, where it had proved a most miserable failure. It was an experiment that never ought to have been made in such an important thoroughfare, and proved the incapacity of the present majority of the Council to safeguard the interests of the ratepayers.
  In reply to a point of order raised by Mr. GUINNESS,
  MR. SPEAKERruled that to raise the question of the stud system was not in order.
  MR. B. S. STRAUSSsaid he bowed, of course, to the ruling, but had only used this as an argument to prove the want of forethought of the present London County Council. He congratulated the Board of Trade on being so cautious. He was not desirous of interfering with the development of tramways in London. They were of the utmost importance for people getting cheaply to and from their work, but the House ought to consider with some care a proposal to make an alteration in the system which it agreed a few years ago the County Council should lay down. It was quite true there had not been the necessary formal opposition in another place, but that did not prevent hon. Members emphatically protesting against the absolute incapacity of the new majority to carry out the work in a fit and proper way. They did not desire to interfere in any way with the general principle of the Bill; their objection only referred to the possibility of establishing the overhead system. One of the first principles of commercial morality was that an agreement properly made should be kept. The London County Council some years back made this agreement, and they had not adhered to it. He feared they might put down a system which would be not only a failure, but a detriment to the rateable value of the district through which it ran, and he thought the House should only pass the Bill on the clear understanding that this section would not be enforced. He appealed to county councillors who happened to be Members to remember that they owed a very serious responsibility to the ratepayers of London with regard to the system of tramways, and he hoped and trusted that the House would emphatically lay down that the conduit system, which was the most efficient and economical, should be the system in London. He firmly believed the day was not far distant when the ratepayers would rise against these continual experiments in tramway running. They

  1855
  were satisfied with the present system which was laid down in the majority of the streets, and he hoped the painful experience in his own constituency would be taken to heart, and that they would not run the risk of repeating it.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Mr. Timothy Davies.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  *MR. GUINNESSsaid the hon. Member for Mile End had treated the House to a disquisition on the surface-contact system of electric traction, apparently being afraid that it was to be brought into Fulham. The system was tried, as an experiment, from Aldgate to Bow Bridge, because the Stepney Borough Council would not consent to the overhead system and owing to the Bow and Whitechapel Railway running just under the roadway the conduit system was impossible except at very great expense. The clause to which the hon. Member objected only enabled the County Council for the purpose of tramway No. 5 to adopt such a system of overhead electric traction as the Board of Trade might sanction. He did not think it could possibly be extended to cover the surface-contact system, and he hoped the House would not agree to the postponement of the Third Reading of the Bill. It was important to remember that this tramway was only part of a large system, and would supply a link between Hammersmith Broadway in the north and Putney in the south. It would enable the inhabitants of Fulham to go northwards to Harlesden, and thus connect them with three lines running east and west along the Harrow, Goldhawk, and Uxbridge Roads. These four lines were on the overhead system, and it would obviously cause a great inconvenience if in this case they were to have the conduit system joining them up. The County Council was accused of a breach of contract. The tramway was authorised on the conduit system in 1902, but since then the County Council had come
  1856
  to an agreement with the three borough councils involved who had waived their objection to the overhead system in return for certain concessions, the chief of which was the laying down of wood paving instead of granite setts between the tramways. The hon. Member for Mile End had complained that the borough council of Fulham was to be compelled to contribute an unusual amount. He believed one-third was the usual amount contributed, and, considering the benefit which would be derived, he thought it was the least they could pay in return for the improvement, which their deputy town clerk had stated was very necessary. If it was not allowed it would inflict a great hardship on the county in general, and on Fulham in particular. The hon. Member for Fulham, in his evidence before the Committee in 1902, said the population had grown from 40,000 to 140,000 in twenty years and therefore the tramway was necessary, and he also showed that there was no danger of property being deteriorated, because the greater part of the property in Fulham Palace Road was only of a rateable value of from £35 to £60. The borough would be benefited no less by having the overhead system, because after all they were not going to have posts in the middle of the road but only at the side, and there would be no obstruction to traffic. The hon. Member also said there had been a great many meetings held and in every case it had been resolved to oppose the Bill. He had apparently forgotten the meetings of the borough council, and if they were satisfied that was all the House of Commons need ask. The previous borough council certainly came to a different decision, but since then the electors had had their voice in the matter. It was quite unreasonable to expect the House to listen to the complaint of a few ratepayers. If the ratepayers were dissatisfied they could easily induce those who had the frontage to oppose the Bill in Committee. It was very unsuitable to raise this matter on the Third Reading. If the Motion was agreed to it would put off this and other very necessary improvements for an indefinite period. He hoped the House would not assent to the Motion and postpone the building of tramways

  1857
  urgently needed in the interests of the traffic of London.
  MR. WATERLOWas one of the members of the Highways Committee of the County Council responsible for the Bill, was sorry to say he must support the last speaker in opposition to the Member for Fulham. He asked the House to pass the Bill, because it included a large number of other tramway improvements in London which would be wrecked for twelve months if the hon. Member's proposition was complied with. There were two issues in the matter. There was the question of the bargain which was agreed to with Fulham, and the question of the overhead and the conduit systems on its merits. With reference to the bargain, it was made with the borough council. The original Bill of 1902 was an agreed Bill with the borough council, and the bargain was one as to certain widenings at a total cost of £90,000, of which Fulham agreed to contribute £30,000, and the County Council the balance. These widenings had practically been effected, and, therefore, so far as Fulham was concerned, what they paid the £30,000 for they had now got in the form of widenings. The bargain was embodied in the Bill of 1904, but the two bodies had now agreed to vary the bargain, and the result was that this Bill had been introduced. If the borough council had objected to this Bill they could have objected to it on the Standing Orders, and this particular clause would never have come before the House. But they did not object. On its merits it was advisable to have the overhead system instead of the conduit system in this particular case. They had two miles of overhead system running from Hammersmith to Willesden already completed and in operation. The continuation of that line was from Hammersmith to Fulham and over Putney Bridge. If they forced the County Council to put down the conduit system there it would link up with two overhead systems, and the position would be perfectly ridiculous. They would not be able to have the necessary through traffic without a change of system at Hammersmith, which would be most
  1858
  awkward and inconvenient to everybody concerned.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  REGISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1:
  MR. FORSTER MR. FORSTER (Kent, Sevenoaks) moved an Amendment which he understood was accepted by the Government. It carried out what he believed was the agreement arrived at when the Bill was last under discussion.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 21, to leave out the words 'the said.'"—(Mr. Forster.)
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 21, after the word 'section,' to insert the words '42 of the said Act.'"—(Mr. Forster.)
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the hon. and learned Gentleman if he could give an answer to the conundrum put to him as to what was to happen if a person did not approve of the statement prepared by the registrar.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,)said that these words occurred in the section of the Act, and the reason why they had been introduced in this Bill was because they had formed part of the law for the last twenty years.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2, and schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  GRAND JURY (IRELAND) ACT (1836) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Order for the Second Reading read.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,)said that this Bill sought to amend the Grand Jury (Ireland) Act of 1856. Under that Act Grand Juries were entitled to spend £300 upon piers and harbours, and that was the limit. Of course, at that time the value of money was quite different from what it was now, and this Bill sought to extend that limit and make the maximum allowed to be spent £1,500 instead of £300. This demand had been made by almost every county council on the seaboard of Ireland, and in the past it had often been a very great hardship that many small works could not be undertaken because the county councils had no power to provide more than £300. The Bill would enable the county councils, if they desired, to spend up to £1,500, and besides this the Agricultural Department could co-operate with a, great many county councils to carry out public works which would be of great benefit to the inhabitants living on the sea-coast. He begged to move the Second Reading.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
  CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid that, on the face of it, it was a misnomer to call this measure the Grand July (Ireland) Act (1836) Amendment Bill. To look at the title no one would think it had anything to do with piers and harbours. The Grand Jury Act of 1836 had 186 clauses and referred to a great many other matters besides piers and harbours. It had nineteen schedules attached to it, and under those circumstances he thought they might find a more appropriate name for the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the only people who would be benefited by the Bill were those in North Antrim and the South and West of Ireland. [Cries of "No, no."] Well, he would like to know what other parts of Ireland were going to benefit by the Bill. What about County Down and other
  1860
  parts of Ireland which had not been mentioned? The sum of £500 looked very well in Clause 1, but what about Clause 2 which appeared to be a contradiction of Clause 1? Clause 2 provided that where the Department proposed to contribute to the expenses of any work undertaken by a county council under the Bill the Department might for the purposes of this Act enter into an agreement with the county council to contribute the sums mentioned in the agreement. He would like to know if under that provision it would be possible for the Department to grant the whole of the money. Clause 67 of the original Act limited the amount of money to be contributed to one-third, and Clause 1 of this Bill provided that the one-third limit which used to be £300 was to be extended to £1,500. This was a legal point, and he regretted that no Law Officer of the Crown was present to answer it. Perhaps the Chief Secretary for Ireland would be able to tell them whether or not Clause 2 was a contradiction of Clause 1. He would like to know what the real meaning of this provision was. There was something behind the Bill, and he would like to ask the Chief Secretary whether the proposals it contained had his consent and whether it was not a fact that Clause 2 was a contradiction of Clause 1.
  MR. CARLILEasked whether the £1,500, which was a large increase on the amount in the principal Act, was a charge which would recur, and, if so, how often. Had it reference to one set of work in one county?
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLwas understood to indicate that that was not so.
  MR. CARLILEsaid the right hon. Gentleman indicated that that was the case, and, therefore, the amount involved in one county would only extend to £1,500 at one time.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: For one piece of work.
  MR. CARLILEsaid he understood that the Department could involve the county council in the expense of separate pieces of work by making a contribution of one-third of the amount required. The county council would in that way be involved in two-thirds of the cost.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that was not so. The Department did not involve the county council in any sum of money until it was asked by the county council to contribute.
  MR. CARLILEsaid that that was a satisfactory explanation. A county council might be involved in considerable expenditure, but only on its own motion, and not at the instance of the Department. That was a point about which he wished to be quite clear. He thought the local authority should be trusted with the responsibility of carrying out the work. They would have every inducement to see that it was properly done seeing that they had to meet the major portion of the outlay.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow.—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)

  NAVAL LANDS (VOLUNTEERS) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for the Second Reading read.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,)in moving the Second Reading, said that the Bill was absolutely un-controversial. It was to extend to the Naval Volunteer Reserves the conditions which applied under the Military Lands Act to the Volunteer Force. The Bill empowered Naval Volunteers to borrow money, to acquire land, and to erect works for the purpose of their service. It would also enable local authorities to borrow money for the same purposes.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—(Mr. McKenna.)

  MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 10th July, adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at thirteen minutes before Twelve o'clock.

The Lord Dunmore (E. Dunmore)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—Dover Graving Docks.
Also the Certificates that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:—Usk Fisheries Provisional Order Confirmation; Wye Fisheries Provisional Order; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Pontypridd Water Bill [H.L.]; Bognor Gas Light and Coke Company Bill [H.L.]; South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Bill [H.L.].—Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Magee Presbyterian College (Londonderry) Bill [H.L.].—The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES informed the House that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill. Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
Blackburn Corporation Bill.—Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Manchester Corporation Bill.—Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Burnley Corporation Bill.—Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Gosport Gas Bill.—Reported, with Amendments.
Macclesfield and District Tramways (Abandonment) Bill.—Reported, without Amendment.
London County Council (Money Bill).—Reported, without Amendment.
Sligo and Arigna Railway Bill.—Reported, with Amendments.
Padiham Urban District Council Bill; Criccieth Water and Improvement Bill; South West Suburban Water Bill; Tyne Improvement Bill.—Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Tollemache Estate Bill [H.L.].—Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Aire and Calder Navigation Bill [H.L.].—Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Glyncorrwg Urban District Council Bill; Wishaw Burgh Electricity, etc., Bill; Wolverhampton Corporation Bill.—Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Finchley Urban District Council Bill.—Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to, with an Amendment. The said Amendment considered, and agreed to.
Board of Trade (Provisional Orders) Bill [H.L.]; now Provisional Orders Procedure Bill [H.L.].—House in Committee (according to order). Amendments made. Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee, and to be printed as amended. [No. 167.]
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Cornwall, etc.) Bill [H.L.].—Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

USK FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.

  WYE FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Moved, "That the order made on the 25th day of March last, 'That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be

  1635
  read a second time after the 18th day of June next,' be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a—(Earl Carrington.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I notice that three Members of the Government have precisely similar Motions on the Paper, and while I have no desire to be unfair, I think the House should be given some explanation why it is proposed to dispense with the Sessional Order. The understanding hitherto has always been that when this indulgence is asked of the House, some explanation should be given of the particular circumstances which render it necessary. I do not know anything of the circumstances in this case and do not desire to oppose the Motion, but I should be sorry if the suspension of Sessional Orders became a mere matter of form.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, perhaps I may say a word generally on the Motions standing on the Paper. In each case I have had the advantage of seeing the reasons why it was desirable that this Sessional Order should be dispensed with, and I am bound to say that the reasons put forward have commended themselves to me. In several cases the reason is that in another place these Bills I have not been considered at that period of the session when I think they ought to have been considered. The Government Departments concerned are, therefore, face to face with the alternative of losing their Bills altogether, or of asking your Lordships to dispense with the Sessional Order, so that the difficulties which have arisen in another place may be overcome.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): I presume the noble Lord is satisfied with that explanation?
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Yes. But I think the explanation ought to have been made by the Member of the Government moving the motion and not left to be extracted from the Lord Chairman.
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bills read 2a accordingly and committed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
    *LORD ALLENDALE: My Lords, I have a similar Motion to that which has just been agreed to on the Motion of my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture. I do not know that I need make any statement in moving it, except to say that the matter has been thoroughly gone into by the Lord Chairman, who is satisfied as to the reasonableness of the Motion in this case.
    Moved, "That the order made on the 25th day of March last, 'That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 18th day of June next,' be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a."—(Lord Allendale.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to and Bills read 2a accordingly and committed.

    MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    THE LORD STEWARD (Earl BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, I ask leave to move the suspension of the Sessional Order in this case. Your Lordships will readily understand that in connection with provisional orders dealing with marriages considerable archœological inquiries have to be undertaken and examinations made of various registries, all of which take time. I have the details with regard to these various churches with me if your Lordships care to hear them. I understand that the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees agrees to the Sessional Order being suspended in this case.
    Moved, "That the Order made on the 25th day of March last, 'That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the

    1637
    18th day of June next,' be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill read 2a accordingly and committed.

PETITIONS.
  MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (MERCANTILE CORPORATIONS AND COMPANIES) BILL [H.L.]
  Petition in favour of; of the mayor, aldermen, and councillors of the Metropolitan borough of Lewisham; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  HOUSE OF LORDS (MANUSCRIPTS).
  Message from the Commons for copy of the manuscripts of the House of Lords, Volume IV. (New Series).—Ordered to be communicated accordingly.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Report on the research work of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in relation to the plaice fisheries of the North Sea; Vol. I. Special Statistics. Size and Weight, 1905–1906.

  TRADE REPORTS ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 4066. France (Consular District of Lyons).
  No. 4067. China (Yeng Yueh).
  No. 4068. France (Trade, Commerce, and Agriculture of Consular District of Calais).
  No. 4069. Portugal (Madeira).
  No. 4070. Germany (Trade and Industry of the Grand Duchy of Baden).

  VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM, BETHNAL GREEN BRANCH MUSEUM, AND MUSEUM OF PRACTICAL GEO LOGY, JERMYN STREET.
  Regulations relating thereto.
  EXPLOSIVES ACT, 1875.
  Thirty-second Annual Report of His Majesty's Inspectors of Explosives, for the year 1907.

  ALIENS ACT, 1905.
  Return of the alien passenger traffic between the United Kingdom and ports in Europe, or within the Mediterranean Sea, during the three months ended 30th June, 1908; together with the number of expulsion orders made during that period, requiring aliens to leave the United Kingdom.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS, 1877 AND 1907.
  Order, dated 17th July, 1908, entitled The American Gooseberry Mildew (Kent) Order of 1908.
  Seventeenth General Annual Report by the Board of Trade under Section 29 of the Companies (Winding-Up) Act, 1890.

  POST OFFICE (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL POST).
  The Foreign and Colonial Post (Cash on Delivery) Amendment (No. 1) Warrant 1908, dated 2nd July. 1908.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

NEW BILL.
  PUBLIC-HOUSES (EXTENSION OF FACILITIES) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to facilitate the provision of accommodation for supplying food, and of other improvements in connection with premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors by retail. Was presented by the Lord Lamington; read 1a and to be printed. [No. 163.]

  NURSES REGISTRATION BILL.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I understand that several noble Lords wish to speak on this Motion. I think, therefore, it would be more convenient if I reserve what I have to say until I have heard the criticisms which I believe are to be made.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(Lord Ampthill.)
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, it will be remembered that the Second Reading of this Bill was taken in a very thin House, and that Lord Stanley of Alderley's Motion to adjourn the Second Reading debate was withdrawn on the understanding that those who desired to speak on the Bill should have an opportunity of doing so on the Motion to go into Committee. I observe that His Majesty's Government have drafted a series of very important Amendments, which I understand from the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill are for the benefit of the Bill. But I regret that by one of the Amendments Ireland is cut out. I do not know why the nurses of Ireland should be deprived of the advantages of this measure. They would benefit very largely under the Bill, especially nurses employed in out-of-the-way parts of Ireland who deal with the poorest class. We shall, I suppose, when we get into Committee, hear the reasons for the actions of the Government on this particular point.
  I quite realise that the question of registration is a contentious one. I have in my hand the memorial that was handed into the Committee of the House of Commons by the Chairman of the Central Hospital Council, in which it is stated that there are many nurses, matrons, medical men, and others engaged in hospital work who are opposed to registration. The Amendments now put down will, I think, protect the public from unskilled persons being able to act as nurses, and the benefit to the trained nurse, who is alleged to be placed at a disadvantage through the employment of imperfectly trained persons, will be incalculable. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill stated on the Second Reading that he had in his hand the records of a number of very serious cases of women who had posed as nurses, but had been convicted before the magistrate of malpractices. I have here on | the seat beside me many newspaper cuttings dealing with these cases, but I think it is needless to go into them. They are disagreeable cases to mention, and I do not think the present is the
  1640
  time or place to deal with them. But the requirements in this Bill for registration will, I am convinced, prevent these unqualified people from acting as nurses again.
  I have on the Paper a rather drastic Amendment, which I shall move when we go into Committee. It is to insert the following new clause—
  "(1) Any Court before whom a registered nurse is convicted of any offence and ordered to be imprisoned without the option of a fine or to suffer any greater punishment, shall cause particulars of the conviction to be endorsed upon the certificate under this Act held by such registered nurse, and shall also cause a copy of those particulars to be sent to the council. (2) Any registered nurse so convicted shall produce his or her certificate under this Act within a reasonable time for the purposes of endorsement, and if he or she fails to do so shall be guilty of a misdemeanour."
  If this Amendment is agreed to magistrates will be able to endorse certificates in cases of improper conduct, and this will be the means of driving black sheep out of the flock. I think it is a very great safeguard, though, perhaps, your Lordships may consider it too drastic a remedy. The fact that His Majesty's Government have acknowledged the importance of this measure by so carefully preparing Amendments leads me to suppose that the time will come when the measure will become law; but I do not suppose there is any chance of its passing this session.
  LORD AMPTHILL: Oh !
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: The noble Lord disagrees with me, but I think it is obviously impossible that the Bill should become law this session, owing to the congested state of public business in the other House. Great good, however, will be done by a full discussion of the matter. I must press for an explanation as to why Ireland is cut out of the Bill. The district nurses in the poorer parts of Ireland are real angels of mercy in those districts. I do not think your Lordships have any idea of the enormous amount of valuable work they do. I think it can be said, in the case of many out-of-the-way parts of Ireland, that they have been the means of civilizing those districts. I have myself been through the district

  1641
  in and around Belmullet, and can personally testify that the nurses there are in favour of this measure. I hope, therefore, that Ireland will not be excluded, or, if it is excluded, that some sufficient reasons will be given.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, I think it will be convenient if, before we go into Committee, I make some general statement with regard to the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards this measure. Those of your Lordships who are interested in the measure will have observed that a bulky sheaf of Amendments has been placed on the Paper in my name, but, of course, on behalf of the Privy Council. I think that to attempt to deal with those Amendments seriatim in the form in which they are would be an exceedingly lengthy and a rather confusing process. The course which I suggest, therefore, is that, when the House goes into Committee, these Amendments, and, perhaps, some others—there are, I think, two in the name of Lord Mayo—should be accepted en bloc with a view to the Bill being reprinted so that their effect can be made clear. The Bill could then be recommitted and considered in that form at some future time. As the matter stands now, it would be a very tedious and difficult process to go through the Amendments and explain the purport of each. I might, however, state at this stage what the general effect of the proposed Amendments is.
  In the first place five clauses are struck out of the Bill, thereby getting rid of the arrangement for a provisional council, which seems to us unwieldly and unnecessary. The next important set of Amendments reduces the council to the number of fifteen, the number mentioned in the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, so arranged as to hold the balance between medical practitioners on the one hand and nurses on the other. The two professions will have six representatives each, the remaining three being appointed by the Privy Council. The third set of Amendments provides for the representation of the Local Government Board on the
  1642
  council, and secures that their responsibility for the training of nurses in Poor Law institutions should not be interfered with. The fourth gives power to the Privy Council to amend rules submitted by the nursing council, and the fifth provides for the payment of a small annual fee as a condition of the name being kept on the register. Then there is an Amendment which is not on the Paper, but which I propose should be included for the purpose of discussion, dealing with the means by which nurses can get on the register. The next Amendment exempts Ireland from the application of the Bill. On that perhaps I may say a word. The exemption of Ireland is, of course, only provisional, because Ireland might be included at any time by Order in Council. The Irish Local Government Board are indisposed to apply the Bill to Ireland at present for administrative reasons, into which I confess I have not closely looked. Therefore, it is clear that the exclusion of Ireland can only be regarded as provisional, and those noble Lords and others who object to the exclusion of Ireland will, I think, do well, before the Bill conies up again, to state their views to the Irish Local Government Board with a view to the reconsideration of the question. It is, of course, purely an Irish question, and it is one upon which those who represent the Government here would not desire without very strong reason to override the Irish Department. Therefore, noble Lords like Lord Mayo and others should make their representations on the subject to the Irish Local Government Board. The last set of Amendments provides for the creation at the end of four years of a separate register of associate nurses having a lower standard of training—a point also recommended by the Committee. I hope the course I have suggested may commend itself to the House.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, as the noble Earl opposite has stated, I withdrew my Motion for the adjournment of the Second Reading debate on the understanding that an opportunity for discussion would be afforded at this stage. I did not interpose as an opponent of the Bill, but rather as a friendly critic. I think that the

  1643
  Amendments which the noble Earl the Leader of the House has placed on the Paper will make the Bill a much more satisfactory measure. At the same time there are one or two points to which I should like to call the attention of the House.
  In the first place, I do not think the noble Earl is justified in claiming that this Bill will prevent possible scandals in the future through persons not properly qualified acting as a nurse. There is no provision in the Bill to prevent anyone practising as a nurse; all that the Bill does in that direction is to prevent a person using the title of certificated and registered nurse. I have received a document from the Society for the Promotion of the State Registration of Nurses, in which it is set out how a woman who, though not trained, got employment and went mad. But hospital training and even registration are no protection against madness.
  While I have not the slightest objection to classification, I am very glad that the noble Earl proposes to take out the stigma of "qualified" and "unqualified" from the Bill. If you are to secure a good class of nurses, registration of their initial qualifications will not do much for you. I think that was very strongly pressed on the Select Committee of the House of Commons by Mr Holland and other prominent people connected with the London Hospital. The really essential thing to know is what a nurse has done since her training rather than during her period of training. The Queen Victoria Institute of Jubilee Nurses, which has done more than any other institution to promote good nursing, are strong advocates of this Bill, but they recognise that even the high training which will be the basis of the certificate is inadequate in some cases. This Institute spent, according to their last account, £3,817 on what they describe as district training super induced upon the hospital training of the certificated nurse. None of that would appear in this certificate: yet they find that this further training is necessary for the cottage practice of the district nurse.
  There are different classes of nurses. There are those who attend the well-to-do and people who hare important operations performed by eminent surgeons.
  1644
  Then there is the organisation, through county associations, of nurses for the poor—district nurses. Those nurses, though they come in with little or no medical or nursing training beforehand, are generally sent for a year to Plaistow and places like that to study midwifery and other matters qualifying them to visit the poor in their homes. At this moment, under country associations, there are 540 of these nurses working up and down the country, independent of fully-trained nurses; and these nurses get, what is most important, a continuous system of inspection. Every county appoints a Jubilee nurse as a sort of superintendent of these nurses. They are carefully watched, the Queen Victoria Institute recognising the importance of continuous inspection after the nurses have obtained the certificate. I find that last year in England and Wales they spent over £2,000 on inspection.
  Do not let us deceive ourselves by thinking that this Bill is going to be the panacea which some people think. It will only be a guarantee of a certain amount of initial training. Both the highly trained and humbler class of nurses are needed; and I was very glad to see by the last Amendment on the Paper that the noble Earl contemplates another certificate for that type of nurse especially required for the ordinary ailments of the poor. The very highly-trained nurse gets impatient at the routine and commonplace of nursing among the poor, and the humbler women who do this work are often better qualified for it than the highly trained, if under proper supervision. I am glad there is to be a recognition of this class of nurse also, but I regret that by one of the noble Earl's Amendments the creation of this subsidiary register depends on the goodwill and recommendation of the council. The council to be created by the Amendment is better than the council in the Bill as it stands, but I think too much importance is given to the nursing element and not sufficient importance to those who have to judge of the qualities of the nurse.
  The Select Committee recommended that the place of examination for nurses at the beginning should be the nursing school. I think any one who has taken the trouble to read carefully the evidence of the Select Committee will see that the

  1645
  great nursing schools, especially in London, play an important part, and ought to be duly considered in any question of examination and registration. I, therefore, regret that there is no recognition of nursing schools as such. I was looking the other day at the constitution of the Board for the certification of midwives, and I find that it is not made up mainly from midwives themselves, but from persons more competent to judge of what is adequate training. I should like to see the independent side of the council in this Bill somewhat strengthened, though 1 admit the change as proposed is immensely for the better. I have not made these observations because I am in any way hostile to the Bill. It is impossible that the Bill can become law this session, and, therefore, I hope that, after it has been reprinted with these Amendments and fully discussed in Committee later, the Government will bring in an agreed Bill next year on these lines which could be passed as a non-contentious measure. When we consider that so great a name as that of Miss Florence Nightingale is to be found among the critics of the Bill as it stands, it is clear that the question is not quite so plain and simple a one as some people imagine.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, may I supply one omission which I made by inadvertence? I omitted to state that among the Amendments there is one to Clause 20, making a small fee payable by every registered nurse in respect of registration.
  LORD AMPTHILL: How much will the fee be?
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: Half a crown. That is a novelty to which I ought to have drawn attention.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, the I Amendments that have been placed on the Paper by the Government indicate that they have given careful attention to the matter with every desire to put the Bill in a shape that will commend it to general approval and meet some of the objections taken in different directions to its clauses. I think the course indicated by the noble Earl a prudent one. After the Bill has been reprinted with the Amendments incorporated, the
  1646
  House will be in a better position to judge of the effect of the Amendments. I have read them with close attention; and am disposed to think that the Bill I will be largely improved by the Amendments, with many of which I find myself in entire accord.
  I do not propose now to say anything with regard to the details, but it would be unbecoming that I should pass by without any reference to the proposal to exclude Ireland from the operation of the Bill. I cannot for the life of me understand why that step was proposed. The noble Earl stated that the Local Government Board in Ireland felt that there was some administrative difficulty. Why should there be any administrative difficulty? What is it? The Local Government Board are not troubled with hospitals and do not control nurses, except in the case of infirmaries; and, with the exception of a few letters that would have to be written by somebody in the office a few times a year, no labour would be thrown on the Department. I cannot conceive why the nurses in Ireland, persons of high character who have gone to great trouble and expense in becoming thoroughly trained, should be excluded from the advantages to be found in this Bill.
  Ireland has suffered a great deal in the past by these exemptions. When the Midwives Act was passed some years ago Ireland was omitted, to the great detriment of a highly-respectable class in Ireland who are now compelled, in order to get their qualification, to come over to England. It is true that power is taken to enable an Order in Council to extend the Bill to Ireland and to make the slight changes necessary in order that that may be done; but why should not Ireland be included in the Bill straight away? I am sure I shall not lack support if, when this measure comes forward again, I move an Amendment replacing Ireland in it.
  LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, the noble Earl who leads the House has rather taken the wind out of my sails, if I may say so. I think the understanding was that I was to wait for criticisms and then say what I had to say; and I had arranged privately with the noble Earl that I would make the proposal to him

  1647
  that the Bill should be dealt with in the particular way he indicated.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I am afraid I must have misunderstood the noble Lord.
  LORD AMPTHILL: I hope it is permissible to explain that the suggestion was my own. I was going to make it to the noble Earl, and he was going to accept it. However, it comes with much more force from the noble Earl, and I am encouraged to hope that your Lordships will accept it. There are one or two matters of detail to which I should like briefly to refer. I am in the pleasant position of being able to accept all the Amendments of the Government, with a few reservations. I recognise in them an earnest of the goodwill of the Government, and an evidence that they are prepared to treat the Bill seriously and to do their best to help the promoters make it a thoroughly workable measure.
  It has been a great satisfaction to me that those who have spoken have recognised that these Amendments do effect considerable improvements in the Bill. I ask therefore to be allowed to agree to those Amendments provisionally—that is to say, without prejudice—so that when the Bill is recommitted according to the arrangement suggested it will be open to me to make a few objections. I can promise your Lordships that those objections will be very few, and they relate principally to the exclusion of Ireland. I cannot help thinking that this exclusion is due to some misapprehension. In the first place, there is no body of nurses who are keener on this subject of State registration than the nurses of Ireland. They have been at immense pains to promote their efficiency, and they had practically the whole of the organised medical profession in Ireland at their back. I cannot help thinking that the noble Earl himself will get into very serious trouble with the Irish Party in the other House if he persists in the exclusion of Ireland. I have very certain information that the Irish Members in the other House have regarded this matter with strong resentment, and the worst of it is that they are putting the blame for what the noble Earl has done upon your Lordships' House. What is being said is that this is simply the doing of the House of
  1648
  Lords, and another instance of the traditional hostility of this House to I Ireland. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will reconsider this proposed Amendment. We have already had his assurance that it was merely provisional. I assume that it is rather more than that, and I hope the noble Earl will give his very careful attention before the Bill comes up again to the question of restoring Ireland. The other Amendment to which I should have to take exception is the Amendment to Clause 17; but, if we are not going to discuss these Amendments, clause by clause, I need not go into that point.
  I now come to the Amendments which have been suggested by other noble Lords. First of all there is the proposal of my noble friend, Lord Mayo. I am afraid that his is an Amendment which I should be obliged to object to. It is framed on the analogy of the law relating to motor cars. That is a very misleading analogy. There is no similarity whatever between the duties of chauffeurs and trained nurses. If you were to do as the Amendment proposes and endorse a nurse's certificate, that would be the end of her career. Supposing a nurse does commit an offence which would render her deserving of being struck off the register, that would be done by the council to be established by this Bill. The effect of the Amendment, therefore, would be to take cut of the hands of the council this duty of maintaining discipline, and to put it into the hands of the Civil Courts. I hold, therefore, that the Amendment is out of harmony with the scheme of the Bill as amended by the Government, and one which ought not to be accepted.
  The argument used by Lord Stanley of Alderley that no registration would prevent a nurse becoming unfit is old and exploded. Nobody claims that it would. Registration would imply only that at a stated time a nurse had received a certain amount of training and had passed an examination. In no profession is registration claimed to be a guarantee of continuing efficiency. Barristers, for instance, may be unable to keep up their knowledge of the new laws introduced by Parliament, yet they retain their qualification. Similarly, doctors may not be able to keep up with the advance in medical science, but their registration holds good. In the case of

  1649
  nurses there is another consideration, and it is that the training of the nurse is really a matter of technical skill, and technical skill once acquired by long and laborious training is a thing that you cannot lose altogether. To use a popular illustration, it is very much like skating, or swimming, or riding. Once learned you never forget it, although there may be twenty years of want of practice and disuse.
  My noble friend suggested that one of the arguments in favour of the Bill was that it would be a panacea for every kind of evil. I do not think that has been claimed by any of the advocates of State registration. The noble Lord made some further suggestions on the subject of inspection, but I think it must have escaped his attention that the Bill provides that the council shall have power to appoint inspectors if and when that course should be necessary. I do not think I need say anything further except to express once more my gratitude to the noble Earl for the very generous way in which he has treated me with regard to this Bill. I fully appreciate the fact that he has given it most careful attention, and has sought to make it a workable measure at a time when he is overwhelmed with a great deal of other important business. I am certain I can speak for all those who are so earnestly advocating State registration when I say that this action on his part will be fully recognised and duly appreciated, and I think it is a good augury for the future and a reason for confidence that this Bill, in spite of what has been said by one or two noble Lords this evening, may even pass into law before the present Session comes to an end.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think perhaps the most important circumstance in reference to this Bill which has taken place to-night has been the speech of the noble Earl the Leader of the House. There were not very many of your Lordships present when the Bill was read a second time, but those of us who had the advantage of being here listened to the speech on behalf of the Government on that occasion with a considerable amount of interest, for we did not quite know what line His Majesty s Government were prepared to take with regard to this Bill. The noble Earl,
  1650
  however, has made a much more definite statement this evening, and has indicated a much more definite attitude than he did on the Second Reading, because he has, on behalf of the Government, given notice of a large series of Amendments which very much vary the machinery and some of the principal provisions of the Bill. I do not know whether that indicates on behalf of the Government a more favourable attitude towards the Bill than they were disposed to take when it was last under consideration. If it were so, that would have considerable weight with me, because I think a Bill of this sort ought properly to be passed with the assent of the Government rather than by a private Member of your Lordships' House, although my noble friend has every right to be heard on a subject of this kind.
  As regards the debate this evening, I do not like to say anything which might disturb the harmony of your Lordships' proceedings, but I must express agreement with many of the criticisms of Lord Stanley of Alderley. I am afraid that many of your Lordships expect too much from this Bill. I listened to the speech of Lord Ampthill, in moving the Second Reading, with very great attention, and I expected that he would reveal to your Lordships a state of things showing that reform was urgently called for, and that he would be able to quote instances and adduce arguments which would show that without the registration of nurses great evils existed and would continue to exist. My noble friend, as he always does, made a very good speech, but he spoke under rather adverse circumstances. Many of your Lordships had left the House, intent, no doubt, upon business. It was about 8 o'clock, and there were comparatively few Members prepared to take part in the debate. Consequently it was quite evident that my noble friend cut his remarks much shorter than would have been the case had the circumstances been otherwise; but I am afraid the effect of it on my mind was that my noble friend did not make out his case—that is to say, he did not reveal any great evils under the present state of things which registration would do away with. He did undoubtedly quote certain scandals that had arisen, but it was pointed out by the noble Earl the Leader of the House on the Second Reading and it has

  1651
  been pointed out again to-day by Lord Stanley of Alderley that none of those scandals would be touched by the Bill.
  LORD AMPTHILL: I regret to interrupt the noble Marquess, but my object was to show, not so much that there were evils to be remedied, as that there were improvements to be affected.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am very glad to have elicited that interruption from my noble friend. I understand, then, that he admits there are no great evils at the present moment which his Bill will remedy, but that there are improvements which the Bill will effect. That is an important statement.
  LORD AMPTHILL: If my noble friend is going to treat this as an important statement, I should like to say that I did not state that there were no evils. I said my object was more to dwell upon the advantages which would result from the Bill than on the evils which it would remedy. But there are evils, of course.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then the evils remain a mystery. The noble Lord thinks that great improvements may result from the Bill. I am not disposed to deny that there may be improvements resulting from the Bill. The noble Lord cited a great weight of authority which he said was in favour of the measure; but I think my noble friend will have recognised by this time that the universal character which he attributed to that support was overstated, for many eminent doctors and others engaged in the training of nurses are opposed to the Bill. I do not deny that there may be improvements resulting from this Bill, but I agree with Lord Stanley of Alderley that the improvements can be very much exaggerated. The truth is that it is impossible to test by means of an examination whether a woman is a good nurse or not. That I have on high authority, and I believe it to be true. No doubt technical qualifications are necessary, but they are not all that is necessary for a good nurse. Indeed they are not the chief part of what is necessary for a good nurse. I heard my noble friend say just now that nursing was like skating, or any other technical accomplishment, which could
  1652
  never be forgotten. I do not think a more misleading statement could be made. The essence of nursing is a matter of continual practice That is what makes a first-rate nurse and nothing else. It is not like the case of a doctor. You send for a doctor; he gives his opinion, and that is the end of the matter.
  LORD AMPTHILL: What about the prescription?
  *THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No doubt he writes a prescription, if the noble Lord thinks that an important correction. But the qualifications of the nurse are much more important than the technical skill winch an examination is designed to ascertain. Her attention is continuing by day and by night. It is in her practice, her conduct, and her temperament, that her most important qualifications are to be sought. While, therefore, I agree that technical skill is essential and that an examination is useful for the purpose of testing technical skill, I submit that you have not then ascertained whether the nurse is a good nurse or not. Therefore, I think the benefits to be derived from this Bill may easily be exaggerated. But if His Majesty's Government and your Lordships think that it is well that the technical qualifications of a nurse should be the subject of registration, I certainly should not desire to oppose that view. The Amendments which the Government have placed on the Paper seem to me to be valuable Amendments, and the few months which will be available before the Bill comes before us again will be useful in securing that a successful and advantageous measure should be the result of the deliberations in your Lordships' House.
  *LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, I think we shall all agree that some improvement has been made by the Amendments which His Majesty's Government proposes to insert, but I do not think they remove the very great blots which are in the Bill. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill adopted the argument, Once a nurse always a nurse. He said they could not forget their qualifications. I venture to think that would not be endorsed by those in charge of many of our large nursing establishments; and before the

  1653
  Bill is again taken in the autumn your Lordships will probably receive information which will lead you to change your mind and not allow the Bill to go through in its present form. The Bill, even with these Amendments inserted, does not prevent unqualified women from calling themselves nurses and continuing to practice. We shall still have those who are not competent practising as nurses. The only thing is that they will not be able to call themselves registered nurses. Other Amendments will be required in order that hardship may not be done to district nurses. I understand that the period of training in Ireland is only two years. If, therefore, all the nurses in Ireland are to be declared unqualified and uncertificated, that will be a very undesirable state of things. Then I do not think the case of district nurses is entirely protected; and I believe a large number of the best nurses in our largest hospitals are strongly opposed to registration. Even as amended, the Bill is, in many respects, very unsatisfactory, but I hope that, by the provision of further Amendments, it will be made of benefit to all nurses and not merely to a few.
  On Question, Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly; Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; Amendments made; Bill recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House, and to be printed as amended. (No. 164.)

  POISONS AND PHARMACY BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  *THE EARL OF CREWE; My Lords, I beg to move the insertion of the new subsection standing in my name on the Paper. It deals with the Amendment of the schedule and increases the power possessed at present of modifying the schedule, which, as pharmacology progresses, is often found a valuable power to possess. The Pharmaceutical Society agree to this Amendment, and I think it is desirable in the interests of the public. It is important to mention that it does only refer to the schedule, and does not affect the substances mentioned in Clause 2 and Clause 5.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 8, after the word 'therefore' to insert the following new subsection:—'(2) The schedule to this Act may be amended by adding thereto or removing therefrom any article or by transferring any article from on part of the schedule to the other in the manner provided by Section 2 of the Pharmacy Act 1868, for adding to the list of articles deemed to be poisons within the meaning of that Act."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I think the Amendment a prudent and wise one as it leaves power for elasticity. With regard to the question of extending the schedule to Ireland, I am in correspondence on that subject. I feel there is force in what the noble Earl said or the last occasion, that if I left the matter as it is full power would rest with the authorities in Ireland to adapt the schedule as far as they thought right and graft it on to their own. If I find that that commends itself to those who are most concerned, I will leave the matter as it is.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: The next Amendment is in Clause 3, page 3, line 5, after subsection (2) to insert the following new subsection:—
  "(3) A registered chemist or druggist may notwithstanding anything in Section 15 of the Pharmacy Act, 1868, take, use, or exhibit the name or title of pharmacist."
  This is a matter which really only concerns the registered chemists themselves. By Section 15 of the Act of 1868 this title of pharmacist is reserved to pharmaceutical chemists—that is to say, those who have passed the higher examination of the Pharmaceutical Society. Now, as we know, the title of chemist and druggist is treated no longer as a professional title, but as a trade term, and, therefore, it is desired by the Pharmaceutical Society for the lower class of registered chemist to be able to use the title of pharmacist. The higher class will call themselves pharmaceutical chemists or pharmaceutists. This is desired by the Pharmaceutical Society as differentiating those who have passed even the lower examination from those who are not chemists and druggists, and I think it may very fairly be accepted.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 5, after subsection (2) to insert the following new subsection. (3) A registered chemist or druggist may, notwithstanding anything in Section 15 of the Pharmacy Act, 1868, take, use, or exhibit the name or title of pharmacist."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I have no objection to the insertion of these words, but perhaps the noble Earl will consider whether the extension of this to Ireland is not a matter upon which he would like to have some opinions.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3a to-morrow, and to be printed as amended. (No. 165.)

  WILD BIRDS BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, this is a very short and simple Bill, and one which I think will command the support of all Members of your Lordship's House. The only operative clause is the first clause, which provides that any person who takes or attempts to take any wild bird by means of a hook or other similar instrument shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding 40s. and for a second or subsequent offence to a penalty not exceeding £5.
  The case for the Bill is this, that in severe winters a great many of our smaller birds—thrushes, blackbirds, starlings, and birds of that type—congregate near the sea in some of the milder districts of the West of England and Wales. It has been brought to the notice of those who are interested in the preservation of wild birds that a system of catching these birds by means of hooks has grown up in certain places on the coast. A well-known naturalist, who was an eye-witness of what was taking place, records that in the hard winter of 1906 birds were driven down to the coast; and not only did large numbers of them perish of cold and hunger in the fields—which, of course, it is impossible to prevent—but many were driven close to the haunts of population, and some of
  1656
  those who desired to catch them scraped small portions of land free from snow, and by means of baited hooks took a considerable number of birds. The account given is one which cannot possibly fail to awaken sympathy. The description supplied by eye witnesses is to the effect that so blind to danger were the birds made by hunger that they were not deterred by the frantic struggles of those already hooked.
  It seems to me that there is nothing but undiluted cruelty in this method of taking small wild birds. I do not think it is widely taken advantage of, and I am certain it is contrary to the wishes and the feeling of the great majority of the population; but, under the present state of the law, they are powerless to prevent it. I um advised that this Bill will prohibit the practice altogether, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I have to say that His Majesty's Government are not only willing but anxious to do all they can to assist the noble Lord in passing this Bill; and I am quite sure the Scottish Office will also assist in expediting its progress.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (MERCAN TILE CORPORATIONS AND COM PANIES) BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair].
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3:
  Verbal Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  LORD AVEBURY LORD AVEBURY moved the insertion of a new Clause, the object of which was, he explained, to meet the suggestion made on behalf of His Majesty's

  1657
  Government during the Second Reading. The clause which he proposed to insert was taken from the Local Government Act of 1888.
  Amendment moved—
  "After Clause 3, to insert the following new clause—'It shall be lawful for His Majesty the King, by Order in Council, from time to time to alter the instructions, precepts, notices, and forma under the Registration of Electors Act, 1888, and any other Act for the time being in force amending or affecting the Acts mentioned in this subsection, and the instructions, precepts, notices, and forms specified in any such Order in Council shall be observed and be valid by law, and clerks of the peace and town clerks and other officers shall act accordingly.'"—(Lord Avebury.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Schedule:
  LORD AVEBURY LORD AVEBURY moved to omit the schedule. This was, he said, a consequential Amendment.
  Amendment moved, to leave out the schedule.—(Lord Avebury.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Bill recommitted to the Standing Committee, and to be printed as amended. (No. 166.)

  BOARD OF TRADE (PROVISIONAL ORDERS) BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order.)
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:
  LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL,who had a series of Amendments on the Paper, explained that they had been drafted to meet a point raised by the Local Government Board. The Public Health Act of 1874, gave to the Local Government Board power to grant Provisional Orders to urban authorities in respect of gas undertakings under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Acts of 1870 and 1873. The procedure of those Provisional Orders was laid down by those Acts. The clauses containing the
  1658
  Regulations would be repealed by this Bill. It was, therefore, proposed in this series of Amendments to extend to the Local Government Board the same powers of making Rules for Procedure in respect of Provisional Orders as were being given to the Board of Trade by the Bill. He begged now to move the first Amendment, but in order to meet any possible opposition from noble Lords opposite to the extension of this principle to other Government Departments, he would like to call attention to the next Amendment which stood in his name, which, he thought, would be found to preserve absolutely the control of Parliament over the rules to be made under the Bill.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 7, after the word 'in,' to insert the words 'Part I. of.'"—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLthen moved the second Amendment to-which he had alluded. It was, he said, designed to meet the point raised by Lord Salisbury in the Amendment which the noble Marquess had on the Paper. The noble Marquess was not in his place, but he (Lord Hamilton) had been authorised by him to say that he was willing to accept this Amendment in lieu of the one standing in his name on the Paper. He thought it would be found that by this Amendment the control of Parliament over the rules of procedure was absolutely secured.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 16, to leave out subsection (2) and to insert '(2) Any rules made in pursuance of this section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as practicable after they are made, and if either House of Parliament within the next forty days after any rules have been so laid before that House resolves that the rules or any of them ought to be annulled, the rules or those to which the Resolution applies, shall after the date of such Resolution be of no effect, without prejudice to the validity of anything done in the meantime under the rules or to the making of any new rules."—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL moved the insertion of a new clause after Clause 1.
  Amendment moved—
  "After Clause 1 to insert the following new clause 'This Act shall extend to the Local Government Board as respects Provisional Orders made by them under the enactments mentioned in Part II. of the First Schedule to this Act, with the substitution of a reference to the Local Government Board for the reference to the Board of Trade and with this modification, that sections two hundred and ninety-three to two hundred and ninety-six of the Public Health Act, 1875 (relating to inquiries by the Local Government Board) shall apply to inquiries held by that Board in pursuance of any rules made by that Board under this Act."—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2:
  Consequential Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 2, as amended agreed to.
  Schedule:
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  Title:
  LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL moved to amend the title. This, he explained, was necessitated by the alterations which their Lordships had agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  "In the Title, page 1, after the word 'Trade' to insert the words 'and the Local Government Board.'"—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell).
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Bill recommitted to the Standing Committee, and to be printed as amended. (No. 167).

  COMMONS BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  [THE EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:
  *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN moved to omit from this clause, which gave power of making regulations as to the turning out of entire animals on commons, the
  1660
  words "for the purpose of maintaining or improving the breed of animals on a common." He said that as the clause at present stood it was perfectly clear that the commoners would not have the power of altogether forbidding the turning out of entire animals on a common. He was himself acquainted with small commons where the turning out of entire animals would be a public nuisance. Lord Carrington had placed an Amendment on the Paper to insert the words "if any"; but the whole thing would still be governed by the words "for the purpose of maintaining or improving the breed of animals on a common," He therefore hoped their Lordships would agree to omission of those words.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, lines 5 and 6, to leave out the words 'for the purpose of maintaining or improving the breed or animals on the common.'"—Viscount St. Aldwyn.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON)said that, in the opinion of the Board of Agriculture, there was no doubt as to the power of altogether prohibiting entire animals from being turned out; but, if the noble Viscount thought there was, he was prepared to accept the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved to leave out the words "and when made" from the provision that the commoners might "make and when made alter or revoke" the regulations. Obviously the regulations could not be altered or revoked until they were made, and therefore the words were unnecessary.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 11, to leave out the words 'and when made.'"—Lord Clinton.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid the noble Lord's Amendment was an improvement, and he was quite ready to accept it.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved to leave out the words "the times at which and." It was obvious that the conditions must

  1661
  cover the times at which the animals were to be allowed to be turned out. That would be one of the most important conditions, but there would be many other matters to be covered, such as the type, breed, quality, and perhaps size of the animals; and if one particular condition was specifically mentioned it might be argued that other important conditions were excluded. He wished the noble Earl to understand that he had no desire to do anything to weaken the conditions, but rather to strengthen them, so that the commoners might be able to pass all the regulations really necessary for the welfare and safety of the stock on the common.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 12, to leave out the words the times at which and.'"—(Lord Clinton.)
  EARL CARRINGTONthought the object of the noble Lord would be met by the next Amendment, which stood in his (Earl Carrington's) name. Perhaps, therefore, the noble Lord would withdraw the Amendment.
  LORD CLINTONdid not think the noble Earl's words would be any improvement on the Bill as it stood. They wished to do away altogether with the mentioning of any particular condition. The condition in question was necessarily included, and they were afraid that to mention it specifically might lead to the supposition that others were excluded.
  EARL CARRINGTONasked whether the noble Lord was perfectly certain that his point was not met by the next Amendment.
  LORD CLINTONsaid he was advised that it was not.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid that, in the opinion of the Board of Agriculture, there was no doubt on the point.
  LORD CLINTONaccepted this assurance, and withdrew the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  EARL CARRINGTON EARL CARRINGTON moved to insert, after the words "make and when made alter or revoke regulations for determining the times," the words "if any."
  1662
  This, he believed, met the objections of the noble Lord opposite.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 12, after the word 'times' to insert the words 'if any.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN,who had given notice of an Amendment expressly giving power of "forbidding any such animals to be upon the common," said he would not move this Amendment if the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture was quite satisfied that there was ample power in the clause as amended to forbid altogether entire animals being placed upon the common.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid he believed the noble Viscount's point was absolutely met.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid that, in those circumstances, he would not move the Amendment.
  LORD CLINTONsaid that as the clause stood power was given for raising only such sums as might be necessary for enforcing the regulations. He moved to insert words to enable the expenses incurred in making and publishing the regulations to be defrayed. He thought this cost should be provided for.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 20, after the word 'for' to insert the words 'defraying expenses incurred in making, publishing, or.'"—(Lord Clinton.)
  EARL CARRINGTONaccepted the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved to insert the words "and for prescribing the person to receive or sue for such payments." The clause provided that commoners might, among other things, raise the sums required for the purpose of making the regulations; but the Bill gave no indication as to who was to receive those sums, or, in cases of non-payment, who was to sue for the recovery of such payments. Hence his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 24, after the word 'common' to insert the words 'and for prescribing the person to receive or sue for such payments.'"—(Lord Clinton.)
  EARL CARRINGTONaccepted the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved to insert the words "being a person entitled to turn out animals on the common." The Bill so far dealt only with persons who possessed common rights, but at this point it went very much beyond that, and endeavoured to deal to some extent with the general public. He did not believe there would be any advantage in bringing the public in in this way, because they were already subject to the provisions of the ordinary law if they turned out animals upon a common, or allowed animals to stray upon a common. The cattle or other stock of a stranger might stray on to the common without the knowledge of the owner; he might be quite ignorant of the regulations made by the commoners; and it seemed somewhat hard that the owner should be exposed to the severe penalty of fourteen days imprisonment for an offence entirely unintentional on his part. This was contrary to the common interpretation of the law, and he hoped the President of the Board of Agriculture would accept his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 12, after the word 'animal' to insert the words 'being a person entitled to turn out animals on the common,' and to leave out the word 'any' and to insert the word 'such.'"—(Lord Clinton.)
  EARL CARRINGTONexpressed the hope that the noble Lord would not press the Amendment. It was quite true that outside persons were under the common law, but he did not think the words in the clause would be likely to press hardly on anybody. The mischief done would be the same whether it was done by an outsider or by a person who had common rights. Almost the only persons who would come under the clause would be travelling gipsies and tinkers with their jackasses, and as so much damage had
  1664
  been done in the past he hoped the Amendment would not be insisted upon.
  LORD CLINTONsaid that many other animals strayed on commons besides gipsies' jackasses; and, if the noble Earl did not wish the words in his Amendment inserted, better provision should be made for making the regulations known to outsiders.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNhoped the Amendment would not be pressed, as it would weaken the hands of the commoners in dealing with this matter.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved to amend subsection (3)—
  "A meeting for the purposes of this Act may be convened in respect of any common by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries upon the application of any three persons claiming to be entitled to turn out animals upon the common or of the council of the county in which any part of the common is situate,"
  by omitting the words "or of the council of the county in which any part of the common is situate." His object in moving the Amendment was to ascertain why county councils were brought in at all. The matters dealt with under the Bill were entirely domestic concerns. They were matters of interest only to the commoners themselves, and had no connection whatever with the outside public or with the ratepayers or the county generally. The commons which, for obvious reasons, were regulated by the county council or other local authority, were not dealt with under the Bill at all. The Bill dealt solely with commons upon which there were grazing rights divided among a certain number of commoners; yet the subsection gave the county council power to represent to the Board of Agriculture that a meeting of the commoners should be held. The power of calling the meeting rested with the Board of Agriculture, at the instance of three commoners, and he did not think any good could possibly be obtained by placing the county council in the Bill for the one purpose proposed. Even if the county council were successful in getting the meeting called, they had no locus standi whatever at the meeting. They could take no part in it; it was a matter of no public concern whatever of theirs; and he

  1665
  thought it a pity that the county council should be placed in a position of petitioners to the Board of Agriculture upon a dispute of which they could have no knowledge at all.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 26, to leave out the word 'common' to the end of subsection (3,)"—(Lord Clinton).
  EARL CARRINGTONadmitted that it was quite true that the matter was one of domestic concern. But when the subject was first brought forward by a deputation introduced to him by Lord Kenyon, the original proposal was that the county councils themselves should make the regulations without the assent of the commoners. It was thought, however, that that would not be the best way to go to work, and that the commoners should move in the matter themselves. At the same time, although county council might not, as the noble Lord had truly said, have any locus standi, it would be a pity to cut them out altogether and not give them a chance of backing up the lord of the manor and the commoners in their desire to rid the common of these animals. That was all the power they would have, and he hoped the noble Lord would not press the Amendment.
  LORD KENYONopposed the Amendment on the ground that if the matter was left to the commoners themselves, in many cases nothing would be done. He thought it of advantage that there should be a second authority, and hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.
  LORD BELPERsaid the County Councils Association had nothing whatever to do with the introduction of the county councils into this provision. He did not think the county councils were at all anxious to have powers given them with regard to matters with which they had nothing whatever to do. The county councils had no power to regulate the turning out of entire animals and had no entire animals to turn out; but if there was any reason for the insertion of this provision he had no objection.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWinquired whether the county council would have
  1666
  any locus standi at the meeting when it had been summoned by the Board of Agriculture at the instance of the county council. He did not see anything in the Bill providing for that.
  EARL CARRINGTONthought the words might with advantage be left in. The provision was simply that a meeting for the purposes of the Act might be convened in respect of any common upon the application of any three persons entitled to turn out animals upon the common, or of the council of the county in which any part of the common was situated.
  LORD KENYONagain expressed the hope that the Amendment would be withdrawn. He thought that if county councils would occasionally take charge of such things as the improvement of the breed of animals it would be for the mutual benefit of the people concerned.
  LORD CLINTONagreed. But no power of this kind was given to county councils by the Bill. All that the county councils were enabled to do was to ask the Board of Agriculture to call a meeting.
  *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZ-MAURICE)understood that the object of the provision was to provide for cases where, for private or other reasons, the commoners themselves were unwilling to do their duty. The Government thought it would be desirable to give an alternative power of setting the machinery in motion, and the county councils were inserted with that object. He would remind the House that since the passing of the Local Government Act, 1888, such a provision was quite an ordinary thing in cases where minor local authorities or other statutory bodies declined to exercise the powers which Parliament had conferred upon them as a trust for the public advantage.
  LORD BELPERdid not wish to be misunderstood. He had no objection to county councils being left in; he merely wished to make it clear that it was not at the suggestion of the county councils themselves that they were put in.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEcould not help thinking that, in the circumstances, their Lordships would do well to retain the words as they stood. Lord Belper, who spoke with great authority on behalf of the county councils, did not raise any objection to conferring this power upon them. On the other hand, it was quite conceivable j that there might be cases where the commoners ought to avail themselves of the powers conferred by the Bill, but did not do so, and in such cases it might be very desirable to fall back on the county council, and allow the county council to move the Board of Agriculture to put the Act in operation.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.

  Session and Chapter.

  Short Title.

  Extent of Repeal

  3 & 4 Vict. c. 108

  The Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act, 1840.

  Section 156.

  9 & 10 Vict. c. 37

  The Coroners (Ireland) Act, 1846.

  Section 39, from "except" to "District" where the latter word secondly occurs.

  23 & 24 Vict. c. 74

  The Borough Coroners (Ireland) Act, 1860.

  Section 2, from "provided always" to the end of the section.

  (Lord Denman.)
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that no doubt the details of the schedule had been considered, but perhaps the noble Lord would say more definitely what the repeals were.
  LORD DENMANreplied that the Bill affected certain existing Acts, and the Amendment standing in his name repealed those portions of existing Acts which were unnecessary.
  LORD ASHBOURNEthought that in the Bill before the Committee referential legislation was carried to the maddest point that ever was known, But
  1668
  Bill recommitted to the Standing Committee, and to be printed as amended. (No. 168.)

  CORONERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clause 1, agreed to.
  LORD DENMAN LORD DENMAN moved to insert after Clause 1 a new clause and a new schedule.
  Amendment moved—
  "After Clause 1, to insert the following new clause 'The enactments mentioned in the schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of the schedule, and to insert the following new schedule to the Bill—
  for the accident of its having a title they would not realise what it was about.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREdid not think the Amendments in any way jeopardised the usefulness of the Bill; on the other hand he thought they added to its usefulness.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill recommitted' to the Standing Committee, and to be printed as amended. (No. 169.)

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (IRELAND) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7:
  LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON moved that Clause 7 be omitted from the Bill. He had, he said, the keenest sympathy with the promoters of the Bill in their efforts to attack the evils in question, but he believed that in this case their zeal had carried them too far. The Bill provided that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Employers and Workmen Act, 1875, where the contract for which damages were awarded under that Act consisted of, or included drunkenness, imprisonment might be ordered in default of payment of damages. The Act of 1875 to which allusion was made enabled the magistrates, as in Petty Sessions, to settle disputes between employers and workmen and to receive contributions or award damages to an extent of £10 with the same powers as were conferred on other Courts by the Debtors Act. It would be contrary to all the spirit of modern legislation to enforce a merely civil demand by imprisonment in default. It would do the employer no good, would not secure in the slightest degree his getting damages, and might mean a serious loss to the workman.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out Clause 7."—(Lord Atkinson.)
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid that when he moved the Second Reading of the Bill he ventured to say some small Amendments would be required. Of these that proposed was one, and he had much pleasure in accepting it.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 8:
  LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON moved to amend this clause which ran—
  "Any person who being drunk while in charge of any person or animal, or thing, endangers the
  1670
  life or limb of any person, shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding forty shillings, or to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a period not exceeding one month,"
  by deleting the word "thing" and inserting the words "or vehicle, whether the same be drawn by animal power or be propelled by other than animal power." In his opinion the word "thing" was much too wide; it might cover anything—a box of matches for instance. It should be confined as suggested by the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 8, to leave out the word 'thing, and insert the words 'or vehicle, whether the same be drawn by animal power or be propelled by other than animal power.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
  LORD DENMANthought the noble Lord restricted the clause more than was contemplated by the promoters of the Bill. The clause as amended would, as he understood it, restrict that portion entirely to vehicles.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): I sympathise with the noble and learned Lord in not wishing to see words which may lead to an undue application of this clause, but I cannot help thinking that his words are a little too narrow and restricted. The point is that no person is obnoxious except one who, being drunk, endangers the life or limb of any person. That is a condition which applies to every case, and if you get the conditions of a man being drunk and endangering the life or limb of somebody else you need not be too particular as to whether he has a wheelbarrow, or a vehicle or anything else. I cannot help thinking it might be well if the noble Lord would be good enough to withdraw this and consider whether some words a little less narrow than his own might be suggested.
  LORD ATKINSONagreed to the suggestion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Standing Committee negatived. The report of Amendment to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 170.)

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (IRELAND) BILL [SECOND READING].
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  *LORD DENMAN: This is a Bill, as its name implies, to improve the housing of the working classes in Ireland. Parliament in recent years has so often confirmed this principle in legislation that I think it is hardly necessary for me at this late hour to deal with that point. But there are special reasons why legislation is urgently needed at this time in Ireland to deal with this matter. First of all, whilst in England in recent years Acts of Parliament have been passed, and whilst, as your Lordships are aware, there is a Bill in another place which will affect housing in England, yet the last important Act that was passed for Ireland was so long ago as 1890; it is true there was a minor Act in 1896 but that of 1890 was the last of importance. Therefore it seems to me that Ireland has some cause for complaint of being excluded in this particular direction. Another reason is that many Irish towns are poor and are highly rated, and unless they are able to receive such financial assistance as is contemplated in this Bill they will be unable to adopt any efficient housing scheme. Thirdly, some Irish towns are—it is regrettable but it is, I am afraid, too true—in a decaying condition. Houses which were formerly occupied by well-to-do people are now occupied by people much less well off and are used as tenements, and are inhabited, I am informed, in some cases by as many as twelve and thirteen families. This brings me to the question of overcrowding, which is a serious evil in the towns of this country, but is, I venture to say, a far more serious evil in towns in Ireland. I would like to quote one or two figures which deal with this point. In Manchester, for example, the per-percentage of one-room tenements occupied by five or more persons is ·04 per cent., in London ·57 per cent., and in Dublin, 8·69 per cent. You will
  1672
  gather from those figures that in this respect Dublin is about fifteen times worse off than London; and as we all know the condition of some of the slums in London leaves very much to be desired, these figures give some idea of what the slum areas in Dublin must be. Again, according to the 1901 census there were in Ireland 79,149 tenements of one-room, and in 5,587 of these one-room tenements seven or more persons resided. In Dublin 40·6 per cent, of the population occupied overcrowded dwellings. These, my Lords, are, I think, rather terrible figures and themselves make out an urgent case for legislation to deal with the question. Another point is the alarming increase in Ireland of the disease of tuberculosis, and although, no doubt, a great deal maybe clone, and is being done, by the erection of sanatoria and hospitals, by open-air treatment and other methods of combating the disease, yet prevention is always better than a cure, and it is far better to prevent this disease, which must be spread by the slum areas such as I have just described, at its source than to rely on the remedial measures of which I have spoken. Those are only a few reasons why this Bill is needed in Ireland. Now I come to the objects of the Bill. The objects are two-fold. The first is to give financial assistance to local bodies to enable them to provide better housing for the working classes. The second is to amend the procedure to be followed by those local authorities under the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890. The first of these objects is attained by getting the sum of £80,000 in cash and £100,000 in Consols from the dormant, portion of the Irish Suitors Fund. This is to form an Irish Housing Fund which is to be invested, and the interest will be given to local authorities to help them to meet the cost of carrying out schemes. The second object is attained by extending the provisions of two English Housing Acts, the Acts of 1900 and 1903, to Ireland. I should like to remind the House that this Bill received the unanimous assent of all parties in another place; that Ulster Members and Nationalists vied with each other in giving it a warm welcome and, I understand, in claiming credit for it. There were, it is true, some criticisms passed upon the

  1673
  financial clauses of the Bill, but those clauses have since been remodelled in Committee. They are now of a much more modest character than as originally introduced, and I hope that they may meet with the approval of the House. If, as we continue the discussion of the Bill, difficulties arise I hope they will be such as are capable of being easily adjusted. There has been an example of what can be done in Ireland, and that example has been furnished by a Member of your Lordship's House, Lord Iveagh, in erecting dwellings for workmen. Not only has Lord Iveagh erected, I believe, excellent dwellings for the workmen employed by his firm, but he has gone further, than that and in Dublin he has erected many dwellings for the working classes generally. What we hope to be able to do by this Bill is to give local authorities and possibly private persons facilities which will enable them to follow the, example which has been set by the noble Viscount to whom I have just alluded. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Denman.)
  *LORD CLONBROCK: I am sure that everyone who knows Ireland will sympathise with the object of this Bill, for although something may have been done within the last few years, everyone who has travelled much in Ireland must have been struck, in the smaller towns especially, with the condition of the dwellings of the working classes. That condition cannot be characterised as anything less than deplorable, and everyone who is acquainted with such dwellings must wish that steps could be taken to remedy this great evil. But in this, as in all Other matters connected with the relief of distress among the lower classes, care must be taken that necessary economy is practised and that no undue burden shall be thrown on the rates, a great deal of which is paid by people in very narrow circumstances. It hardly seems to me that His Majesty's Government have taken this consideration duly into account in accepting the Bill now before the House. There are several provisions in it of rather a striking character. In Clause 2 the limitation imposed on the
  1674
  borrowing powers of local authorities for the purposes of the Housing of the Poor Acts, by the Public Health Act of 1878 has been removed, and, therefore, it would appear that the local authorities, for the purpose of this Bill, are able to borrow to an unlimited amount. To borrow on easy terms is, no doubt, a great temptation to local authorities in Ireland as well as in other countries. It is, therefore, very much to be feared that local authorities would be induced, partially by the most praiseworthy motives, and partially by pressure put upon them, to put an undue burden on the rates. I think we ought to be furnished with a statement in the case of these local authorities as to what amount has been already borrowed, what the limit imposed was, and what balance now remains on which they could borrow. There is another matter which requires attention. In Clause 9 there is a provision exempting all premises, for the purposes of this Bill, from the payment of rates. A proviso to that clause was, I think, inserted on the motion of the Attorney-General for Ireland that this could only be done with the consent of the Local Government Board, and that is, to a certain extent a safeguard. But I would point out that the Local Government Board cannot have the accurate local knowledge needed, and exempting any people or any premises from the rates appears to me to be a very novel and a very strange proceeding. It also appears to me that it would not be to the ultimate benefit of the members of the working classes who happened to occupy a house so exempted. If such a house had been built by some speculative builder on land held from the local authority, the fact of the tenant being exempted from paying rates would probably seem to him a reason why that tenant should pay a higher rent. Therefore, he would gain, and the rates would suffer. With the principle of the Bill I am in the warmest sympathy, but I think it requires amendment on the points to which I have called attention.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: I have nothing to say to the manner in which the noble Lord introduced this Bill, but I have something to say as to the manner in which it was introduced in another place. The Bill was introduced by Mr. Clancy,

  1675
  and was taken up by the Government, and is what is called a starred Bill. Some of the arguments which the noble Lord used with regard to slums in Dublin, I notice by reference to Hansard, were used by Mr. Clancy. But I must remind the noble Lord of what he said with regard to everybody consenting about a Bill. I put forward that argument the other day when talking of the 1903 Land Act, and I was met by the noble Earl who leads the House by the statement that when everybody consented we have to be somewhat sceptical as to the working of a measure, and we on this side of the House from Ireland begin to be a little sceptical upon that point in regard to this Bill. The noble Lord talked about the financial assistance that was to be given under the Bill. With regard to the Fund of Suitors in the Supreme Court and other funds, the real truth is that it amounts to between £5,000 and £6,000 a year. I do not think that will help the local authorities very much to build houses. I should like to draw attention to another point in the Bill. I do not think in this matter valuation ought to enter into the question at all. I may point out that under Clause 7, where a local authority has adopted Part III of the Act of 1890, they may for supplying the needs of their district, either establish or acquire lodging-houses for the working-classes outside their district. Now what would that enable the local authorities to do? It would enable them to build labourers' cottages in Rathmines and Pembroke, which are townships outside Dublin. I do not wish to say anything that may be in the back of the minds of Nationalist Members of Parliament, but the real truth of the matter is that if that were allowed to take place it would alter the Parliamentary representation of the South Dublin constituency. That is rather an important point. There are some other points that require consideration. I should like to draw your attention to Clause 9, which proposes to enable the very person who created the rates to get themselves excused from paying them. I think, my Lords, that would require amending. For instance, I should say that the rate should not be imposed on the owner interested in the premises if he could prove
  1676
  that he was not to blame for their becoming occupied by persons not belonging to the working-classes. Again, it seems quite unfair that the local authority should be enabled to impose such a liability without there being a right of appeal from their decision. I think that that argument is understood by the noble Lord opposite. I quite recognise that the Local Government Board will have a say in this matter. We all respect the Local Government Board very much in Ireland, but when they have the power to build labourers' cottages under this Bill outside Dublin, and that fact alters the status of the voters in the Parliamentary division, I begin myself to think there is rather more in the Bill than that which the noble Lord impressed so much upon us in his opening speech. For that reason I should like, now that I have the opportunity, to move for a Return for the loans contracted by the local authorities in Ireland. I have given notice to the noble Earl, the Leader of this House that I should make this Motion. Such a Return, dealing with England and Wales, was moved for by Mr. Forster on 14th April this year, in the House of Commons, and the Return was presented and ordered to be printed yesterday; therefore, I think I have a precedent for this Motion. I trust, if I am in order, I may move for it to-day, and, if not, I give notice that I shall, at some future date, move for the Return.
  *LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, anyone who knows anything about Ireland and about the progress of this Bill and debates that have taken place in reference to it, and has listened to the speech of the noble Lord who presented if for your Lordships' acceptance, will realise that this is not only a subject of interest and importance, but one that must command the sympathy of every person who approaches the question with the desire to remedy what is a grave evil. It is impossible not to desire to benefit the working-classes who are subjected to the necessity of living in unhealthy and overcrowded residences, and one would naturally welcome any Bill that proposed to give relief and to remedy

  1677
  such a state of things. Therefore, everyone will recognise that it is not likely that there will be any opposition offered to the proposal to read this Bill a second time. Of course, when we come to another stage it will be necessary to examine some of the clauses to see whether they have been framed with adequate caution, and whether some safeguards and prudential considerations should not be borne in mind before the measure finally leaves your Lordships' House. There is no Treasury aid given to this Bill, which causes, of course, a difficulty about its finance. Usually one expects to get some little assistance from the richer partner, and that some monies will be forthcoming to eke out our more scanty resources; but in this Bill all that is done is to give a power to pass without check the borrowing powers that exist in towns in Ireland—without check and with very little security. Of course, this is a matter requiring examination in Committee. The method of finance is not wide, yet I do not know that it is wide enough. I have no doubt that the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland has seen that the clauses as to the Suitors' Fee Fund were framed in such a way as to safeguard the monies to be taken. I assume that he has been consulted in reference to this matter, and that he has made such suggestions as he thinks right to see that the advances made are duly guaranteed by the Consolidated Fund. On that assumption I say no more about it except this: I am not aware—I do not say it is an objection of serious importance, but it is a matter to be noted—that the Suitors' Fee Fund has ever been called upon to make advances of this kind for such purposes. The other matters referred to by my noble friends who have spoken are matters which I have no doubt we shall hear of in the Committee stage, but having regard to the hour and the further opportunities, I pass them by. I see that Clause 9 has naturally attracted attention. It gives a novel power which everyone would like exercised in his own case of dispensing with the obligation to pay rates for nine or ten years. No doubt that will require attention. If you allow buildings, and give the people who build the power themselves of
  1678
  deciding that the buildings that they own, and have the control of, shall be free from rates—I admit subject to the control of the Local Government Board—it is obvious that that is a matter which needs caution and requires examination, and, therefore, the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will understand that although a Second Reading may be accorded the Bill, that does not imply that some of the clauses will not be fairly and reasonably examined when we come to a further stage.
  *LORD DENMAN: If I may say one word in reply to some of the criticisms made, I should like to say that Clause 2, to which Lord Clonbrock took exception is similar to a clause in the English Act of 1903, and that Clause 7 is, I understand, identical with one in the English Act of 1900. With regard to Clause 9, which has come in for some criticism, I should have thought that its provisions were safeguarded by making it necessary to obtain the consent of the Local Government Board, and I was glad to hear form the noble Earl, Lord Mayo, the high tribute which he paid to the administration of the Department. With regard to the return for which he asked I think I can promise that we shall be able to give it to him.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think it is quite clear that this Bill is one which deserves the very close attention of your Lordships' House before we allow it to become law. It is not a Bill which owes its origin to any action on the part of his Majesty's Government. It is a private Member's Bill which they have taken up, and I venture to think that at many points it shows signs of insufficient consideration. The Bill was, as so many Bills are now, dealt with in the Standing Committee, and our opportunities of making ourselves acquainted with the arguments used for and against it are consequently limited. That the objects of the Bill are commendable objects I do not for a moment attempt to deny, and I am sure the House will do all it can to facilitate the efforts of His Majesty's Government to deal with the question of overcrowding in Ireland. But, when

  1679
  you come to the financial machinery, I think there is much that justifies uneasiness. The Bill, as I understand, enables these local bodies to borrow money outside the limits imposed on them by the Public Health Act. That is a considerable innovation. Unless I am mistaken, in the case of the Labourers (Ireland) Act there are strict financial limits, which borrowers are not allowed to exceed. In this case the councils to which this power of borrowing is given are in most cases dominated by members of the working classes. These bodies are given an unrestricted power of raising money, and, as has been pointed out, in Clause 9 of the Bill we find the extraordinary provision that these councils are allowed to relieve some of the very people who are instrumental in raising these loans. I do not desire to oppose the Second Reading, because I think that would be to create a mistaken view of our action in regard to this question; but I hope your Lordships will come to an understanding that further progress with the Bill shall not be made until after the holidays. The matter cannot really be one of extreme urgency. There is no prospect of very much business coming before us when we reassemble in October, and I think His Majesty's Government would do very well to consider in the meantime some of the criticisms which have been offered. I hope they will not only do that, but that they will supply the information for which my noble friend has asked—I mean information bearing upon the financial position of the local bodies concerned in this Act. If, therefore, we agree to the Second Reading, I hope it will be upon the understanding that the further stages of the Bill are not to be taken before the adjournment of the House.
  On Question, Bill read the second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order) and passed.
  IMPORTATION OF PLUMAGE PRO HIBITION BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  REPAIRS OF H.M. SHIPS.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGH: I beg to ask the Government if the Returns connected with repairs and alterations of His Majesty's ships which the Secretary of State for the Colonies agreed to produce on the 1st April will be completed and published before Parliament reassembles in October.
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: In reply to my noble friend I think the Return he asks for was promised by the First Lord of the Admiralty. I have inquired when it will be ready, and I am informed that it will be ready for printing by next week. I hope to be able to lay it on the Table of your Lordships' House in the course of the next three weeks or a month.

  DAIRIES, COWSHEDS, AND MILK SHOPS (IRELAND).
  *THE EARL OF ONSLOWrose to call attention to the Dairies, Cowsheds, and Milk Shops (Ireland) Order of 3rd February, 1908, made with respect to each local authority in Ireland under Section 34 of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878, and to ask whether powers similar to those exercised by the Lord-Lieutenant can be exercised by the Local Government Board in England; and to inquire what powers the Board of Agriculture have to make tuberculosis a disease under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act; and to ask when the Government intends to introduce the promised legislation with respect to milk; and to move for a copy of the Irish Order of 1908, together with any correspondence addressed to local authorities in Ireland with respect to the said Order, either before or after the Order was made. The noble Earl said: My Lords, many months ago the President of the Local Government Board announced that he intended to bring in a Bill dealing with the question of milk supply, but the present session is drawing to a close, and nothing has been done or heard of the Bill. Now I venture to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that in Ireland a general Order has been made (not model regulations), but a general Order applicable to and to be carried out by every local authority in Ireland is not very different from a general Act

  1681
  of Parliament applicable to the whole country. I am anxious to know whether the Local Government Board's attention has been called to what has been done in Ireland, and, if so, whether they can inform us whether it is necessary to bring in a Bill, and, if so, when they intend to bring in the Bill and what the nature of that Bill is going to be. I think that in all probability the answer will be that it cannot pass into law during the present session, but even if that be so I think we are entitled to know what are the terms of the measure. It might be very well introduced, if not in the other House, in your Lordships' House. We might be given the opportunity of considering the measure we have been promised and on the faith of which a number of clauses were withdrawn from certain private Bills which dealt with this question in their special areas. I presume that the main object of the Bill will be to diminish the disease of tuberculosis, and I am anxious to know whether the Board of Agriculture cannot do something towards scheduling that disease and treating it in the same manner that they have treated pleuro-pneumonia, cattle-plague, and other diseases that have been stamped out in this country. I am quite aware that in 1889 an Order in Council was made making tuberculosis of the udder a disease under the Prevention of Diseases Act, but that only deals with animals absolutely dangerous to health and does not deal with the question of stamping-out tuberculosis from the herds of this country. I also ask the noble Lord whether the Government will lay upon the Table of the House the Order that has been made by the Local Government Board in Ireland together with a number of very interesting and valuable communications which have been addressed by the Irish Local Government Board to the different local authorities in Ireland, because I think they will form some useful guidance to those of us who are interested in this question, and who are anticipating the introduction of the measure, which I venture to say is long overdue.
  Moved, "That there be laid before the House a copy of the Dairies, Cowsheds, and Milkshops (Ireland) Order of the 3rd February, 1908, together with any corre-
  1682
  spondence addressed to local authorities in Ireland with respect to the said Order, either before or after the Order was made."—(The Earl of Onslow).
  *LORD ALLENDALE: My Lords, the question which the noble Lord has raised is, at all events in the form in which it is put down, a sort of omnibus question affecting several Government Departments of both England and Wales, but I will endeavour to answer his Question briefly and to the best of my ability. The noble Lord is well aware of the various Acts that have been passed and the Orders that have been made—more so, I think, than I am. Various Acts of Parliament giving powers to the Privy Council and afterwards transferring them to the Local Government Board have brought about the present position. The original Order of 1885, which was made by the Privy Council, is still in force in England and Wales, and this has been supplemented by certain further Orders issued by the Local Government Board in 1886 and 1899, to which I think the noble Lord referred. I have no doubt many of your Lordships are, and I am quite sure Lord Onslow is, familiar with these Orders. The noble Lord asks three questions. First he asks whether powers similar to those exercised by the Lord-Lieutenant can be exercised by the Local Government Board in England. I may perhaps first of all say that there is a difference between the new Irish Order to which the noble Lord has referred and the Orders in force in this country, and the main difference is that the Irish Order incorporates and applies generally requirements which in England and Wales are dealt with by regulations made by the local authorities. The result is that in Ireland these requirements are made uniform and of universal application. In some respects also they are more exacting than those of the model regulations of the English Local Government Board. Then the noble Lord asks whether powers similar to those recently exercised in Ireland can be exercised by the Local Government Board in England, and that I rather take it is the main point of his question. The answer to this is in the affirmative. As the noble Lord knows, there is the General Act of 1878, giving certain powers to the

  1683
  Privy Council. These powers under a more recent Act have been transferred to the Local Government Board, and I may say that the Board have had before them the question of amending the existing Orders somewhat in the direction proposed, but have deferred doing so for the present in prospect of some general legislation to which the noble Lord has referred and has very justly said has been promised. I cannot say when the legislation on the subject of milk will be introduced, but the Government have it under consideration. I believe the Bill is in a forward state, and it is hoped it will be introduced in the autumn, but as regards that I cannot give the noble Lord a direct and distinct pledge. One part of the noble Lord's Motion deals with the question of the powers of the Board of Agriculture, which is really a matter for that Department, and I venture to think that the noble Lord having been President of the Board probably knows the powers of the Board. But I am advised that under Section 22 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, the Board of Agriculture have power to schedule tuberculosis as a disease for all or any of the purposes of the Act. As regards Lord Onslow's question as to the Irish Order, I perceive that my noble friend Lord Denman is here, and, I believe, is prepared to answer that question. He tells me, however, that the Return will be given and also the correspondence for which the noble Lord has asked.
  *THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I cannot say that the reply of the noble Lord has enlightened us very much as to the milk supply legislation. As Lord Onslow pointed out, it is now more than three months since the President of the Local Government Board told us that legislation was going to be brought in, and the Minister for Agriculture so long ago as February last, in answer to a question I put to him in this House, informed us that it was the intention of the Government to deal with this matter during the present session. I cannot say that we know any more now on the matter than we did six months ago, and I think it is only reasonable for us to ask when we are likely to see this Bill and have the opportunity of considering the proposals. I hope the Local Government Board may
  1684
  be able to fall in with the suggestion of my noble friend and print this Bill and let us see what the proposals are. I think it would have been more satisfactory to many of us who take an interest in this question if we had been told what the Local Government Board have been doing in the matter during the last three or four months. We should like to have heard whether this matter has been seriously under the consideration of the Board and whether the Bill is yet drafted. I should also like to ask the noble Lord who represents the Local Government Board whether any communication has yet been made to the Board of Agriculture on the matter, and whether a draft Bill has been submitted to the Board of Agriculture. I should also like to express a hope that if that has not been done, before this matter is dealt with and the Bill is introduced, the draft Bill, or at any rate, that part of the Bill which deals with the production of milk on the farm, and the housing and, treatment of cattle, will be submitted for the consideration of the Board of Agriculture. The President of the Local Government Board, when he received a deputation from us not very long ago, told us that it was his intention, as I have no doubt it is, to deal equitably and fairly with the dairy farmers in the country, and, therefore, I think that it is not only desirable, but absolutely necessary that he should consult the Department who are best acquainted with the conditions of agriculture, and to whom the agriculturists in the country naturally look to guard them in this matter. I am only sorry that the noble Lord has not been able to give us further information than that which we have received this afternoon.
  *LORD FITZMAURICE: My noble friend who represents the Local Government Board in this House has already addressed your Lordships, and it is only for that reason that I rise to answer the further question, or rather the request for further information, which has just fallen from the noble Lord. What I would venture to point out to him is this: that in reality the main question which the noble Lord, Lord Onslow, has brought before your Lordships by the question which he has placed on the

  1685
  Paper relates rather to the difference in the working of the existing Dairy and Milkshops Order in Ireland and in England, than to the general question of milk supply, though I quite acknowledge he has mentioned it in the latter part of his question. The first question is esentially one which has always been dealt with by the Local Government Board and not by the Board of Agriculture, and to a certain extent the second also, because the private Bills which have hitherto dealt with certain aspects of this question go beyond the statutory provisions of the Orders made under the Contagious Diseases Animals) Act, 1878, to which you have to go back in these matters. These also are matters which have been hitherto dealt with by the Local Government Board in Bills which have nearly always gone before the Police and Sanitary Clauses Committee over which I had the honour to preside for some years, and that is also why I venture to say a few words on the subject. Now it appears from what has fallen from the noble Lord, Lord Onslow, who, no doubt, was correctly informed, and in that he has been confirmed by my noble friend, that the best legal opinion now is that a great number of things which have hitherto been divided between an Order arranged by the Local Government Board and regulations made under that Order by the local authorities in England and in Ireland, could undoubtedly be done, certainly in Ireland, because it has been done there, by Order alone. It will be seen by anybody who looks at the Order which is going to be laid before your Lordships' House that all the minute things which are done by the regulations of the local authorities in England are incorporated in the Order for Ireland, while if you look at the existing Order as it now runs in England, the main outlines are laid down and are left to be worked out for better or for worse—very often, unfortunately, for worse—by local authorities. The result has been that in some districts of England there has been efficient work, while in seine other districts there has been no practical working of the Act at all. No doubt that exists in Ireland even worse than in England, and the result
  1686
  has been that the Irish Privy Council, after taking counsel's opinion, came to the conclusion which I confess is new to me, and I have no doubt to most of your Lordships, that these matters which have hitherto been done by statutory regulation under the Diseases of Animals Act, could all be done by one fell swoop and one large comprehensive Order, which has been issued no doubt with excellent effect by the Irish Privy Council. The matter which the noble Lord brought before your Lordships was whether that could be done in England, if desirable. The answer I understand that has been given by my noble friend on behalf of the Local Government Board is that it could be done. Whether it is desirable is another thing, because nobody would deny that it is a very great act of centralisation, and I could quite imagine that local authorities which have rather sniffed at the notion of county councils being brought into the matter—they are at present entirely outside it—would be rather astonished to wake up one morning and find that the Local Government Board had issued one vast and comprehensive Order laying down rules and regulations for the whole of England, even with regard to details such as the amount of ventilation of cowsheds and the pits into which dung and manure are to be put. Another question which was put at the end of his inquiry by my noble friend was a far larger question as to what the intentions of the Government are with regard to milk legislation. That is an entirely different matter, because the questions relating to milk legislation have not been so much the exercise of the powers of local authorities as the claims of certain local authorities to exercise jurisdiction outside their own limits. That has been a great and burning question, because most of the great outbreaks of typhoid and other fell diseases, which have been traced to milk, have undoubtedly come out of the large towns and been transferred to other large towns and sometimes to country districts. That has been the question thrashed out for years before the Police and Sanitary Committee of the House of Commons. I was fortunate during my chairmanship

  1687
  with the help of the Chairman of Committees of your Lordships' House, the late Earl of Morley, to get certain model clauses agreed upon which worked for a considerable number of years, but several things have happened since then, and undoubtedly the question does require further legislation and the Government have undertaken to legislate. But it is, as I am sure the noble Lord will agree, an exceedingly difficult question, and it goes entirely outside the important, but far less important and less difficult question, whether or not one regulation should be made for the whole of England as it has been in Ireland under the old Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, because in the one case you can act by executive Order while in the other case you undoubtedly require strong and new general legislation.
  On Question, Motion agreed to and ordered accordingly.

  ARMY OFFICERS AT OLYMPIA.
  LORD HENEAGErose to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War by whose authority officers of the Army were ordered to go to the Olympia and take part in the jumping competitions, and what notice was given to them; whether they were supplied with thoroughly trained horses or ordered to ride any horses supplied to them by the directorate of the show; and whether the expenses of these officers were paid by the War Office or by the directorate of the show.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord LUCAS): The facts of this case so far as I know are that in June the directorate of the Horse Show at Olympia, when they found that there were not a large number of British officers competing, invited on their own initiative a certain number of British officers to enter. They mounted them on horses which had already been entered for the show, and the directorate paid their expenses. That was a thing which they very generously did, not only for British officers, but also, I believe, for a certain number of foreign officers.
  1688
  I think that supplies the information for which the noble Lord asks.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (IRELAND).
  THE EARL OF MAYO: I beg to move for the following Return, of which I have given notice.
  Moved, "That there be laid before the House a return of loans contracted by local authorities in Ireland, with: (1) The amount which they are entitled to borrow under the limitation in Section 238 of the Act of 1878; (2) The amount they have so borrowed up to the present; (3) The amount of the last-mentioned total which would be placed outside the limitation of the Act of 1878 by the present Bill."—(The Earl of Mayo).
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I certainly know no reason why we cannot give the Return for which the noble Lord asks, but I should like to assent to it rather on this understanding, that if this Return takes a long time for us to produce, the noble Lord and his friends will not regard it as a necessary preliminary to the passing of the Bill they have read a second time to-night.
  Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.