Sitting of 3 November 1908

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PETITIONS.
  ENFRANCHISEMENT OF WOMEN.
  Petition from Welling borough, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against: From Poole and other places; and Southend-on-Sea; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  UNIVERSITY OF LONDON ACT, 1898.
  Paper [presented 2nd November] to be printed. [No. 313.]
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS, 1894 TO 1906 (VESSELS DETAINED).
  Copy presented, of Return of all Ships ordered by the Board of Trade or its Officers, during the period from 1st July, 1907, to 30th June, 1908, to be provisionally detained as unsafe, together with Summaries, etc., [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON TRAFFIC REPORT.
  Copy presented, of Report of the London Traffic Branch of the Board of Trade [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIVERPOOL AND HONG KONG MAIL SERVICE.
  Copy ordered, "of Contract, dated the 12th day of October, 1908, between His Majesty's Postmaster-General and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for the conveyance of Mails between Liverpool and Hong Kong, together with a copy of the Treasury Minute thereon dated the 23rd day of October, 1908."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.
MR. WILKIE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a communication from the editor of the Scottish Prohibitionist, drawing his attention to the constantly recurring cases in Dundee of merchants defrauding the public by the use of false and unjust weights and measures, and to the fact that the Press does not give publicity to the convictions obtained by the authorities against such merchants; and whether steps will be

941
taken, for the protection of the public, to ensure that the reports of such convictions would be duly published.
(Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The communication referred to in this Question has been sent to me by the Secretary of State. I have no control as to the action of the Press and do not see my way to interfere.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Employment of Telegraph Messengers on Postmen's Work during Christmas Pressure.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a very large number of telegraph messengers are employed on sorters' and postmen's work during the Christmas period; and whether he will issue instructions that only lads over sixteen years of age, who can be guaranteed nomination for full-time appointments within a reasonable period, shall be so employed this year, and that the places which cannot be filled under the above conditions shall be given to unemployed men.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) A certain number of telegraph messengers are employed at Christmas-time on postmen's work and a few on sorters' work, the respective work being that of which they have some knowledge. These boys are, as a general rule, over sixteen years of age and, as far as possible, established appointments will be found for them. In many cases their employment is only for a few hours on Christmas Day. General attention has been drawn to the desirability of giving work genuinely to unemployed men to the greatest extent practicable.

  Speed of Light Motors in London Streets.
  MR. MACKARNESS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the police in London have any instructions to interfere with the speed of light motors in the main thoroughfares of London when those vehicles are travelling at less than twenty miles an hour; and, if so, what those instructions are.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The police cannot, interfere with the
  942
  speed of light motors which do not exceed the legal speed limit, unless there is an offence under Section 1 of the Motor Car Act, that, is, unless the car is being driven recklessly or negligently, or at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case. The police are instructed to take proceedings when they can obtain sufficient evidence to support a charge for any of these offences, but this is often a matter of much difficulty.

  Telegraphic Facilities at Icklesham, Sussex.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will grant telegraphic, facilities to the village of Icklesham, Sussex.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am prepared to afford the desired facilities if the necessary guarantee is forthcoming, and I have so informed some of the residents who have written to me on the subject.

  Political Pensions.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Prime Minister what minimum length of Ministerial service entitles a Minister to a political pension.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The period varies from four to ten years according to the office or offices held. For full details of the method of calculation I may refer the hon. Member to the Act, 32 and 33 Vict., c. 60, which governs the grant of these pensions.

  Closing of Licensed Premises during the Reduction Period—Compensation to Employees.
  MR. HUDSON: To ask the Prime Minister if he will consider the claims of employees who are to be displaced during the reduction period of licensed houses; and whether he can, under the compensation clauses of the Licensing Bill, secure to these workpeople, who have lost their employment through the closing of unnecessary houses, a sum of not less than six months wages.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I am afraid that it is not practicable to make any satisfactory provision for these cases.

  Exclusion of Motor Cars from portions of Hyde Park.
  MR. WATT: To ask the First Commissioner of Works if he will say why motor cars are excluded from some of the parks in London, in some cases from certain roadways, in others at certain hours, while horse carriages are granted permission to use these roadways and enter the parks at these hours.
  (Answered by Mr. L. Harcourt.) Motor cars are excluded from Hyde Park between the hours of 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. during the months of May, June, and July. They are also excluded from the road between the Achilles statue and the Magazine. This is done in the interests of that portion of the public which does not use and does not like motor-cars.

  Coats' Coal Contract—Opportunity for Discussion.
  MR. WATT: To ask the Lord Advocate if he can say when the House will have an opportunity of discussing his salary, so that the question of the Coats' contract for coal may be brought before the House.
  (Answered by Mr. Thomas Shaw.) I have made inquiries, and regret to find that the opportunity will not arise during the autumn session.

  Valuation for Death Duties of Licensed Houses.
  MR. MOND: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in valuing the estate of a person who holds a licence for the sale of intoxicating liquors, for the purpose of death duties, any, and, if so, what, valuation of the annual licence is adopted.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) If a licence is valued separately from the licensed premises for the purpose of estate duty, the valuation depends on the nature and amount of the interest of the deceased in the licensed premises and on the particular circumstances of the case, as was indicated in the reply given by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer upon 20th June, 1905, to the hon. Member for the Appleby Division of Westmoreland.
  MR. MOND: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in valuing licensed property for death duties under Section 7 of the Finance Act of 1894, the Inland Revenue Commissioners proceed on the method laid down by Mr. Justice Kennedy, in the case of Ashby's Cobham Brewery, on 24th July, 1906, or adhere to the principles laid down in the Memorandum of the Inland Revenue Commissioners of 1905.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Commissioners adhere to the procedure indicated in the paper of 3rd May, 1904.

  Deaths from Cancer in Ireland.
  MR. LUPTON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if there has been a large and continually increasing number of deaths from cancer in Ireland since calf-lymph was used for vaccination.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Nothing, as far as the Local Government Board are aware, has been advanced to show that there is any connection between calf-lymph vaccination and cancer. Calf-lymph has only been in general use in Ireland since 1900, and the cancer death rate had been increasing for many years previously.

  Police and the United Irish League.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it forms part of the duties of the police to keep under observation, and to report to the Inspector-General, the operations of local branches of the United Irish League which the police have good reason to believe are engaged in the promotion of intimidation and boycotting; and, if so, whether reports made by the police in such matters are brought under his personal notice and that of the Law Officers.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) It is the duty of the local police to report to the Inspector-General all matters affecting the public peace which come under their notice, including, when necessary, the operations of local branches of the United Irish League I have no

  945
  reason to doubt that all reports of importance are brought to my notice and that of the Law Officers.

  Cattle-Driving in Ireland.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland in how many counties, outside the eight which have been declared by proclamation to be in a state of disturbance, has cattle-driving been resorted to during the past eighteen months.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Outside the eight counties referred to, cattle-drives have taken place within the last eighteen months in fourteen counties, namely, Cavan, Cork, Donegal, Dublin, Kerry, Kildare, Limerick, Louth, Mayo, Meath, Queen's County, Tipperary, Tyrone, and Waterford.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many persons are at the present time under a rule of bail for cattle-driving, how many of these persons are owners and occupiers of agricultural land, and in how many cases have the recognisances been estreated.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) In the two years ended 30th September last 1,029 persons were bound to the peace in connection with cattle-driving, and the recognisances of four persons who were detected driving cattle on a second occasion were estreated. It would be impossible, without imposing undue labour on the police authorities who are already fully occupied, to ascertain how many of these persons are still under a rule of bail or how many are owners and occupiers of agricultural land.

  Outrage at Mr. F. E. Mullane's House at Templemore.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will give full particulars of the outrage committed at the residence of Mr. Francis E. Mullane, at Templemore, County Tipperary, on the night of Sunday, 25th October, and state the result of the police inquiries into the occurrence.
  946
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) On the evening in question an explosion took place on a window-sill of Mr. O'Mullane's house, breaking the window and driving several pieces of metal, apparently portions of an axle-box, into the room. An arrest has been made and proceedings are pending. It is, therefore, undesirable in the interests of justice to give any further particulars.

  Delay in Gazetting Officers to the Hampshire Regiment (Territorial Army).
  SIR ROBERT HOBART: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the reason for the delay in gazetting the officers of the late Volunteer battalions of the Hampshire regiment to the new Territorial battalions of that regiment; and when such Gazette will be issued.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The officers of all the battalions of the Hampshire regiment have now been gazetted to the Territorial Force. I have already explained to the House the difficulties which have led to delay in gazetting officers to the Territorial Force.

  Delay in Issue of Grants to the Ayrshire County Association.
  MR. COCHRANE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Ayrshire County Association are entitled to certain grants specified in the regulations which they are authorised to administer on behalf of the Territorial Force in the county; whether the Ayrshire County Association have made repeated requests for payment of these grants to enable them to meet their liabilities; whether, in the belief that these grants would be promptly paid, the Association have made contracts which they are unable to carry out unless the money is promptly paid to them; and whether they have made respectful representations that these grants should not be longer withheld nor should they be doled out in payments to account which may suit the convenience of the Financial Department or the War Office without regard to the obligations which they, the County Association, have entered into in terms

  947
  of the regulations for the Territorial Force and County Associations, 1908.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The Association is entitled under the regulations to such advances as may be approved on account of the grants admissible, a settlement taking place after 1st November. To obtain approval of an advance they must satisfy the chief accountant of the command that the amount claimed on account is not excessive in relation to the grants likely to be earned, and in pursuance of these conditions an advance of £4,000 was made on 11th September. Such delay as has occurred in making any further advance has arisen through failure on the part of the Association to justify it.

  Entrance of Sons of Militia Officers to Woolwich and Sandhurst.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the fact that the Militia have been transferred to the Special Reserve and consequently form part of the Regular Army, he can see his way to grant a similar privilege to the officers of that force, in respect of the entrance of their sons to Woolwich and Sandhurst, as is enjoyed by past and present officers of the Regular Army.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) This privilege is granted to officers of the Regular Army or Navy or to persons who have been employed in the position of officer on active service in the field. An officer of the Special Reserve has not in peace time the same duties or liabilities, as for instance foreign service, as an officer of the Regular Army, and is, therefore, not entitled to the privilege unless he has been employed on active service in the field.

  Visit of the Postmaster-General to Bradford—Feared Disturbance.
  MR. JOWETT: To ask the Secretary of State for War what was the nature and terms of the communication which led the authorities, on the occasion of the recent visit of the Postmaster-General to Bradford, to hold in readiness to start for Bradford fifty men of the 5th (Royal Irish) Lancers, with horses, and 100 men of the York
  948
  and Lancaster Regiment, stationed at York, each served with twenty rounds of bail ammunition, and also the men of the Royal Field Artillery stationed at Bradford Moor Barracks.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The Mayor of Bradford expressed himself as apprehensive of a disturbance in the city and, though he trusted that no disturbance would take place other than what the police would be able to cope with, he thought that, as a precautionary measure, it would be desirable that as many men as could conveniently be spared should be held in readiness to assist the civil power in the maintenance of order.

  Hounslow Heath.
  MR. LUTTRELL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that Hounslow Heath is now closed to the public; if so, would he state the reasons which led to this interference with public enjoyment; and whether, in consideration of the health and enjoyment of those who reside in and resort to that district, he would allow of the public being admitted on some portion of the heath.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) This heath is War Department training ground, and it has always been closed to the public. The only access had been through holes in the fence which the tenant for the time being failed to repair. General access to the ground would not be consistent with the purposes for which it is used by the troops stationed at Hounslow. This principle has always been acted on by the military authorities.

  Territorial Army—Separate Instructors for Detachments.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether means can be found to retain the original number of instructors in those battalions of the Territorial Army which have separate companies and separate headquarters in different country towns, and have hitherto had separate instructors at each headquarters.

  949
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The whole question of instructors is now being carefully considered by the Army Council. I do not think it is probable that as the result all companies which have separate headquarters possibly close together will necessarily have separate instructors. General Officers Commanding-in-Chief are empowered in special cases to employ temporary instructors.

  Control of Instructors of the Territorial Army.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the non-commissioned officer instructors employed to train the Territorial Army are under the control of the Territorial Army officers or of the Regular Army; and what means the officer commanding the Territorial unit has of geting rid of unsatisfactory instructors or of enforcing discipline directly as in the regular service.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The instructors are under the control of officers commanding Territorial Force units. Serious cases of breach of discipline must be referred to the officer commanding the district. The removal of unsatisfactory instructors is carried out by the Army Council on the application of the colonel commanding.

  Discharge of Coal from Steamers at Woolwich Arsenal.
  MR. HUDSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether any decision has been arrived at by his department respecting the erection of new machinery of an improved type for the purpose of discharging coal from steamers at the Woolwich Arsenal pier; and, if so, can he say when the work will be commenced.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) It is not intended, at present, to erect new machinery for the purpose of discharging coal from steamers at the Woolwich Arsenal pier.

  Punishment of Mr. Ghandi in the Transvaal.
  SIR J. COMPTON RICKETT: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, in removing Mr. Ghandi from Volksrust to Johannesburg,
  950
  on 25th October, he was marched in daylight through the streets in convict dress; whether part of his prison duties is to do scavenging; and whether, if these statements prove to be correct, the Secretary of State for the Colonics will feel it his duty to advise the Transvaal Government to avoid this aggravation of punishment for the political offence of resisting the Government demand for digit impressions, particularly in view of the resentment felt in India against the regulations of the Transvaal for the registration of our Indian fellow subjects.
  (Answered by Colonel Seely.) Mr. Ghandi was convicted of failing to produce the certificate required under Act No. 36 of 1908, and was fined £25, or in default of payment two months imprisonment with hard labour, subject, however, to review. He was brought from Volksrust as witness in a case at Johannesburg 27th October. Escort was provided from Johannesburg gaol, and he travelled from Volksrust under ordinary conditions in his prison kit. He arrived at dusk, and was conducted from station to fort without handcuffs. When in Court as a witness he did not appear in prison clothes. He has never done scavenging, but worked on agricultural show ground digging holes for trees, and weeding in municipal plantation, and gaol garden. He never performed hard labour on public streets.

  Value of Land for Small Holdings.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will state the average price per acre and also the average number of years purchase of the valuation or annual value paid for land purchased under the Small Holdings Act in each county in England and Wales in which land has been purchased under that Act; whether the prices are higher than those prevailing in the respective counties before the Act; whether he is aware that some county councils consider the prices asked exorbitant; and what remedy the Government contemplate for this difficulty.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Act has not been long enough in

  951
  operation to afford any useful data for the comparison suggested. Where a county council considers that the price of rent asked for land is exorbitant it is open to the council to apply for compulsory powers, in which case the price or rent to be paid is fixed by arbitration.

  Sheep and Cattle on Welsh Crown Lands.
  MR. ELLIS DAVIES: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will state what is the estimated number of sheep and cattle, including horses, respectively, grazing on Crown lands in Wales.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The Commissioners of Woods, who are the authority concerned, inform me that they have no information on this subject.

  Patents Act—New Industries in Ireland.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he will state what measures he has taken with a view to attracting to Ireland some of the foreign manufacturers of articles in general use who may now be willing to establish factories in the British Islands; and if, further to promote the same object, he will give a list of such industries and of the places in Ireland at which he suggests that they might be profitably located.
  (Answered by Mr. T. W. Russell.) The Department have made inquiries from various sources with a view to ascertaining particulars with regard to industries in foreign countries which are likely to be affected by the Patents and Designs Act. The particulars thus obtained and other information bearing on the question have been communicated to the Irish Industrial Development Association, Incorporated, and were forwarded by the latter, at the Department's suggestion, to the various urban councils, corporations, and local bodies through Ireland, with a view to each district communicating direct with firms, whose addresses were given, and pointing out to them the particular industrial facilities which such district affords for the establishment of manufactures. Several districts have already taken this action. In addition
  952
  the Department have assisted the development associations by arranging for a small deputation of three persons, representing the development associations, Irish manufacturers and the Department, to visit the Continent with a view to getting into touch with firms affected by the Patents Act, and bringing under their notice the opportunities afforded by Ireland. They have furnished this deputation with necessary information for this purpose bearing on Irish industrial resources and opportunities. Under the circumstances the Department do not consider it necessary at this stage to publish a list of the nature referred to in the Question.

  Number of Municipal Officials.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the total number of municipal officials and employees of all grades in permanent employment, including those employed in the Poor Law services for England and Wales, not including London, and for London alone, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The Answer is in the negative. The hon. Member may, however, be interested to see a Return on the subject of the number of employees of certain local authorities which was issued last year (No. 136, of Session 1907).

  Congestion in the Island of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the Deer Forest Commissioners at page 44 of their Report state in a note to the schedule of lands in the Island of Lewis, which they considered suitable for the creation of new holdings or for the extension of existing holdings, that in considering the case of Lewis it cannot be left out of view that the congestion is very great, and the demand by crofters for access to the lands scheduled is of a very urgent nature; and, in view of the fact that this Report was written as far back as 1895, and that the demand for land has been much accentuated since that date, will he endeavour to settle people on the land in the Lews and other congested areas under the powers contained in the Congested

  953
  Districts (Scotland) Act, seeing that there is no prospect of the Small Landowners (Scotland) Bill becoming law in the near future.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I am aware of the opinion expressed by the Royal Commission on the Highlands and Islands of 1892, and of the existing congestion of population in the Lews. No proposition has been submitted to me or to the Congested Districts Board by the proprietor inviting their co-operation in the settlement of small holders on existing farms.

  Opening of Public-houses during Prohibited Hours for sale of Non-intoxicants.
  MR. RAWLINSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, under the provisions of the Licensing Bill, a licensed public-house will be entitled to be kept open during the hours during which it is enacted that licensed promises must be closed, provided such public-house is not open for the sale of intoxicating liquor.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Without pledging myself to the exact expressions used by the hon. Member I may say that it is proposed to insert a provision in the Licensing Bill declaratory of the existing law in the sense suggested by him.

  Development of Forestry in Ireland.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Sectetary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is intended to take immediate measures to carry into effect the recommendation of the Departmental Committee on Forestry in Ireland; and whether he can explain why the Treasury never put any obstacle to enormous expenditure on warships whilst raising every opposition to the development of Irish resources and the employment of its people.
  (Answered by Mr. T. W. Russell.) I answered a similar Question put by the hon. Member for East Clare on the 20th ultimo, and I have nothing at present to add to that reply.

  Irish Trade Commissioner.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will take into consideration the advisability of appointing a Produce Commissioner for Ireland with similar functions to those entrusted to the Produce Commissioner representing New Zealand in Great Britain, with a view to look after the transit-market and other facilities necessary to carry on international trade.
  (Answered by Mr. T. W. Russell.) It is not proposed to appoint such a Commissioner. The circumstances of Ireland, which is so near to, and has such rapid means of daily communication with, Great Britain, are entirely different from those of a distant Colony like New Zealand. The transit and marketing of Irish produce are matters to which the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction devote constant attention. The Department take action in various ways with a view to assist Irish producers to develop their trade in Great Britain. For instance, they give instructions in the packing and grading of different kinds of produce, they arrange for exhibits of Irish products at grocers' etc., exhibitions held in various important towns, and thus bring under the notice of British buyers the high quality of Irish agricultural produce and afford the Irish producer an opportunity of new markets for his goods; they give advice as to suitable markets, and help to bring buyers and sellers into communication with each other. Their transit inspectors watch the manner in which the produce is carried both in Ireland and in Great Britain, and a special staff is wholly employed in Great Britain for the detection of frauds affecting the sale of Irish produce. The hon. Member is referred to the Department's Seventh Annual Report for further details as to what is being done in these important matters.

  Labourers performing Painters' Work at Royal College of Science, Dublin.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, as representing the Board of Works, whether he is aware that labouring men are engaged doing painters' work by the contractor

  955
  on girders and other metal work at the Royal College of Science, Merrion Street, Dublin; whether this is in accordance with the Fair Wages Resolution of this House; and, if not, what action he proposes to take.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) I am informed that a labourer has been engaged by the contractors in coating the structural girders at the Royal College of Science, Dublin, with preservative paint. This is in accordance with the invariable practice, both here and in England, for work of the kind and is not a violation of the terms of the Fair Wages Resolution. It is not finished painting, requiring the employment of a skilled workman, but is coating of a rough description carried out for preservative purposes only. These girders will ultimately be covered by concrete or plaster. All painting work on metal and elsewhere, properly assignable to skilled workmen, has been and will be executed by such workmen and paid for at the usual current rate of wages.

  Purchase of the Estate of A. E. Humphreys.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state at what stage the negotiations between the Estates Commissioners and the Land Judge have arrived in the purchase of the estate of A. E. Humphreys, county Cavan; and when may the tenants expect to be allowed an opportunity of purchasing.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that the papers in this case are now with their inspector, who will report in due course. The estate is being dealt with in its order of priority, and, until the Commissioners are in a position to purchase the estate, they can make no arrangements for its resale to the tenants.

  Application for Allotment by Michael M'Cabe.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether one Michael M'Cabe, of Corfree Gowna, county Cavan, applied for an additional
  956
  half-acre allotment in the Mullahoran rural district at the recent inquiry; was the same sanctioned by the council and confirmed by the inspector's order; and will he state now, if this plot is not to be supplied, what are the reasons for refusing.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The owner of the farm from which the additional half-acre allotment was proposed to be taken appealed to the Local Government Board who, on consideration, allowed the appeal. The labourer is stated to be nearly eighty years of age, and the Local Government Board are of opinion that the half-acre already in his possession is sufficient for his needs.

  Reckless Driving of Motor Cars.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intend to introduce legislation with a view to safeguard the people of the three Kingdoms from the danger arising from the recklessness and speed frequently practised by the drivers of motor cars upon public roads.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) For the reasons given by me and by my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board, in reply to numerous Questions of the same kind, the Government do not intend to introduce legislation on the subject during the present session.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Greenwich Old-Age Pensions.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the number of pensioners at present in receipt of the Greenwich old-age pension of 5d. a day, the number of men who are entitled and qualified to receive it but who do not receive it, and the average length of time a man has to wait after qualifying for it before he is paid it; what is the procedure followed in promoting men on to the list, are they promoted strictly in the order in which they qualify, or is it necessary that interest should be brought to bear in each individual instance; and will he state whether men on discharge who

  957
  are entitled and qualified to receive it eventually are fully informed of the necessary steps to take.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,): The reply to the first Question is 8,640. With regard to the second Question, the hon. Member is mistaken in assuming that any persons are entitled to Greenwich Hospital Age Pensions. The number who are qualified but have not received an award is 4,700 approximately. At present few pensioners receive age pensions before they are sixty-five, though a person may be qualified at fifty-five. The names of eligible men are registered as they apply. The only considerations which influence the Admiralty in making selections to fill vacancies are the age, circumstances, and necessities of the men. Applicants for Greenwich Hospital Age Pensions are already naval pensioners who are in regular communication with the Admiralty, to which Department they must be fully aware that they should make their applications.

  Channel Fleet Command.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the statement made by his predecessor in his Memorandum issued 23rd February, 1907, and confirmed by him in his speech of 1st May of the same year, in which it was laid down that, as the Fleets at Home will be combined for war under the order of the Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Fleet, the Channel, Atlantic, and Home Fleets will carry out periodic peace exercises together under the command of the Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Fleet, still holds good; whether the command of the combined Fleets has at any time been entrusted to the Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Fleet in accordance with the terms of the Memorandum, and, if not, why not; and whether the practice of withholding from the officer who will command in war the opportunity of commanding in peace the force with which he will be entrusted in time of war is followed in any country except our own.
  MR. MCKENNA: The present Board have not renewed, and do not regard
  958
  themselves as bound by, the statement referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. The command of the combined fleets was entrusted to the Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Fleet in October, 1907.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERasked the right hon. Gentleman whether it was not the fact that on the occasion when the Commander-in-Chief took over his command a large proportion of the vessels was under the command of somebody else. He also asked the right hon. Gentleman to reply to the last part of his Question.
  MR. MCKENNA: In the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question it is assumed as a fact that in other countries in every case all the ships which would be placed under the command of the Commander-in-Chief in time of war are, in fact, placed under his command in time of peace. I do not agree with that assumption. I can only refer to the most recent case of a serious war when, as a matter of fact, the Japanese Admiral was superseded by Admiral Togo when war was considered imminent.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The right hon. Gentleman has not yet answered either of my questions. May I ask him whether it is the fact that, when the Commander-in-Chief nominally received command of the whole force, half the force was under the command of somebody else, and whether, as he has quoted an illustration, the Commander-in-Chief of the German North Sea Fleet in time of peace is not the Commander-in-Chief in the event of war?
  MR. MCKENNA: I have no knowledge of who will command in the event of war in the case of the German Fleet. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's other question, the statement I have made that the combined Fleets were placed under the command of the Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Fleet in October, 1907, is strictly accurate.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: May I ask for an answer to my question whether, when the vessels were nominally placed

  959
  under the command of the Commander-in-Chief, he was deprived of the command of half of them?
  MR. MCKENNA: He may have been deprived of command of them for a time, but the whole of the ships were placed under his command on mobilisation.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: For how long?
  MR. MCKENNA: I cannot say without notice.
  MR. BELLAIRSasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he had informed the Commander-in-Chief that the present Board were not bound by the specific declaration made by a previous Board, and, furthermore, whether he would state to the House why the official request of the Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Fleet to be allowed to exercise this Fleet last August was refused by the Admiralty.
  MR. MCKENNA: The hon. Gentleman's second Question does not arise out of the Question on the Paper, and, as it would involve matters of considerable discussion I would ask the hon. Gentleman to give me notice. With regard to his first Question, the Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Fleet has been informed that the statement referred to was not adhered to.

  Examinations for Naval Cadets.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, in view of the misgivings which were expressed in the past as to whether subjects of general education were neglected in the syllabus of the cadets at Osborne and Dartmouth, whether he can see his way to publishing a Report on the last midsummer examinations in English and naval history.
  MR. MCKENNA: I am unaware that any person of consequence has expressed misgivings in the past. The answer to the hon. Member's Question is in the negative.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Are we to understand from this Answer that the Admiralty, when it suits it, will read the favour-
  960
  able Reports, but will refuse unfavourable ones when asked for by a Member of this House.
  MR. MCKENNA: No such inference can be drawn from the reply I have given to the Question.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, in view of the experience of the hon. Member for Woodstock as a University and Civil Service examiner, whether he will allow the hon. Member to see the Director of Naval Education's instructions to examiners under which recent examinations have been held at the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth; and, if so, will he leave it to the discretion of the hon. Member to answer a Question addressed to him in the House as to whether the instructions do or do not deprive exaaminers of a necessary safeguard against anybody responsible for teaching the cadets being cognisant of the Questions that are going to be asked.
  MR. MCKENNA: As I have already declined to give my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn such permission, I must decline to give it to my hon. friend the Member for Woodstock. It would be invidious to draw distinctions between my two hon. friends.
  *MR. BENNETT: Is it a fact that the Questions set for the examinations are actually revealed beforehand to any member of the staff charged with the tuition of the cadets?
  MR. MCKENNA: I must ask for notice of that.

  Battleship Repairs.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the rule laid down in the Board's Memorandum in December, 1904, that not more than two battleships were to be absent at any one time from the Channel Fleet for the purpose of refit has been abrogated; and, if so, for what reason has the change been made, and has any rule new been framed, in substitution for that which has been abrogated, laying down the number of battleships which may be absent from the

  961
  Channel Fleet at any one time for purposes of refit.
  MR. MCKENNA: The Answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. In reply to the second portion, the reason was given in my reply to the hon. Member for Lanark on 27th October. With regard to the last portion of the Question, no rule has been made, but the Commander-in-Chief is relied upon to assist in avoiding an accumulation of repairs.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Is it open to the Commander-in-Chief to revert to the ancient practice of sending the whole of the Fleet into repairs at the same time, which was the ordinary practice until this Order was made?
  MR. MCKENNA: That would not be regarded as a reasonable exercise of his discretion.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked whether the original rule which had been superseded in the case of the Channel Fleet was still applied in the case of the other Fleets.
  MR. MCKENNA: It would depend in each case on the number of vessels available in the event of war. Where the number of ships in any fleet is only just sufficient, or barely sufficient, to meet war requirements, then, undoubtedly, the rule would apply. But where there is a superabundance of vessels, it is not necessary strictly to apply the rule.

  Alleged German Spies in the Isle of Wight.
  MR. HICKS BEACH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a party of officers from the Naval War College went for a reconnaissance to the Isle of Wight a few weeks ago and found there some German officers engaged upon selecting suitable places for landing troops; whether the German Government grants similar facilities for reconnaissance to British officers; and, if not, whether the Government propose to prohibit foreign officers from exercising this freedom of investigation until their own Governments grant similar privileges to British officers.
  MR. MCKENNA: The circumstances related in the first part of the hon. Member's Question are entirely devoid of foundation.
  MR. HICKS BEACH: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of my Question?
  MR. MCKENNA: The latter part of the Question falls to the ground if there is no foundation for the first part.
  MR. HICKS BEACHasked whether it was the accepted policy of His Majesty's Government to allow foreign officers of any country to reconnoitre over any portion of this country at their will and not to make any representations to other countries to get similar facilities.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The sea is the dominion of the right hon. Gentleman and not the land.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: May I ask whether it is not the fact that all the naval fortresses of Germany are under the direct control of the naval department, and whether it is open to British officers to reconnoitre in their vicinity?
  MR. MCKENNA: We have no evidence that any German officers have reconnoitred in the neighbourhood of British fortresses. Whether or not German fortresses are under the supervision of the German Admiralty has nothing whatever to do with the Question on the Paper.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: That is not the Question I asked. The Question I asked was whether it is open to British naval officers to reconnoitre in the vicinity of German naval ports.
  MR. MCKENNA: If they are believed to be reconnoitring for purposes of espionage they would not be allowed.
  MR. HICKS BEACHasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he had addressed inquiries to the Naval War College as to whether the facts were as stated in the Question.
  MR. MCKENNA: I have, and I am told that the whole story is a mare's nest.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the statement in the paper to-day that the German Emperor is going for a trip on Count Zeppelin's airship, and will he take precautions?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  The Jeddah Pilgrims.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Mahomedan British-Indian subjects returning from the Haj complain that they do not receive adequate protection and assistance from the British Vice-Consul at Jeddah; and, if the Answer be in the affirmative, whether he will make inquiries in view to the comfort and convenience of British-Indian subjects in the Hedjaz.
  THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,): No authenticated report of complaints on the subject has reached the Secretary of State. Inquiry is being made by the Foreign Office.

  "Bande Mataram."
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the plant of Bande Mataram has been confiscated; and, if so, whether he will inform the House for what reason.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Only a conditional order of forfeiture, which does not affect the use of the press, has as yet been passed; the case for making the order absolute is now being heard.
  *MR. REES: Has not this paper been distinguished for its active disloyalty to the Crown, the British Government in India, and the British nation?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Communication between India and Lhassa.
  CAPTAIN ARTHUR MURRAY: I beg to ask the Under-
  964
  Secretary of State for India whether it is intended to establish a regular postal and telegraph service between India and Lhassa; and, if so, what steps, if any, have been taken in the matter.
  MR. BUCHANAN: His Majesty's Government have no intention of taking any steps, in existing circumstances, with a view to the establishment of a postal and telegraph service between India and Lhassa.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: May I ask if under the Convention which exists between England and Russia a telegraph service can be established between India and Lhassa without the assent of the Russian Government?
  MR. BUCHANAN: Under that Convention both England and Russia stipulate that they will not take advantage of any concessions for telegraphs without the assent of the other.

  Rangoon River Training Works.
  MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, in connection with the Rangoon River training works, on which an expenditure of nearly £1,000,000 sterling has been sanctioned, the Government of India has had its attention called by a local expert to the probable existence of an unforeseen danger which would jeopardise the whole work; whether the Government of India, notwithstanding this warning, declined to take any action in the matter; and whether the Secretary of State proposes to take any steps to have the existence or otherwise, of this danger definitely ascertained before the work is proceeded with.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State has received no information regarding the Rangoon River training works since the scheme was submitted for his sanction in August, 1907. He will ask the Government of India to report on the point raised by the hon. Member.

  Bridging the Lower Ganges.
  MR. MACCAW: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can give any reason

  965
  for the delay in sanctioning the construction of the proposed bridge over the Lower Ganges at Sara Ghât, and when this sanction may be expected to be given.
  MR. BUCHANAN: There has been much doubt as to the best site for the Lower Ganges bridge, which required careful investigation. It has recently been decided to adopt a site at, or near, Sara Ghât, and the Secretary of State does not anticipate that there will be any delay in commencing operations.

  British Indians in the Colonies.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the efforts now being made in various self-governing British Colonies to exclude from such Colonies His Majesty's Indian subjects on the ground of differences in race and colour; and whether he will consider the desirability of providing by legislation that no white person born or domiciled in any such self-governing Colony shall be eligible for any post of profit under the Indian Government.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State does not consider it desirable to take action as suggested in the Question.
  *MR. REES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in many native States in India Europeans are prevented from settling or holding any office under the State?
  MR. BUCHANAN: That hardly arises out of the Question on the Paper.
  MR. BYLES: May I ask whether this treatment by the Colonies of His Majesty's subjects on the ground of colour is not aggravating the unrest in India itself?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion.

  Ceylon Duties on Indian Tea.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Ceylon Government has recently informed the Secretary of State
  966
  for India that it declines to repeal the import duty on Indian tea; and, if so, whether the reasons for this decision have been given and can be communicated to the House.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,): The views of the Ceylon Government have been communicated to the Secretary of State for India. The Ceylon producers are strongly opposed to the repeal which, in the opinion of the local government, would not be in the interests of the Colony. It is held that the removal of the import duty would result in Indian tea being exported in circumstances which would lead the purchaser to suppose that it was the produce of Ceylon. The further objection is taken that, if this concession were made to India, it could hardly be refused in other directions. The late Secretary of State was of opinion that this is a matter in which the local view must prevail, as no Imperial interest is involved, and my noble friend sees no sufficient reason to adopt a different attitude.

  Tea Sales in Colombo Harbour.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information regarding the action taken by the Ceylon Government upon the representations of the local Chamber of Commerce and Planters' Association to the effect that the sale in Colombo harbour of low-class teas leads to the undue and undesirable lowering of the standards of quality of tea in the market.
  COLONEL SEELY: I have no official information on the subject to which my hon. friend refers. It is one which is being constantly discussed in the local newspapers, but so far as I am aware no action has been taken by the Ceylon Government.

  Diet of British Indians in Transvaal Prisons.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any complaint as to the character and

  967
  quantity of the diet being served out to British-Indians imprisoned in the Transvaal gaols for non-compliance with the registration law; whether the Director of Prisons has refused to substitute a diet of rice for that of mealie meal at present being served and cooked with animal fat abhorrent to the religious and caste scruples of British-Indians; whether the prisoners in question are hard labour prisoners who, in consequence of this action of the authorities, complain of being half starved; and whether he will use his influence with the Transvaal Government to see that these prisoners are treated humanely.
  COLONEL SEELY: Yes, Sir. The Secretary of State has received complaints as to the diet of the Indians and has made telegraphic inquiry. The Governor states that the Indians arrested at Komati Poort on 29th September were provided with ample food, including rice, but that they preferred to obtain their own food outside, which they were allowed to do. Ministers further state that the ration of mealie meal which is used in the Transvaal prisons obtains in Natal and Cape Colony as far as Indian prisoners are concerned. It has figured in the Transvaal dietary scale since 1901, and is issued not only to Indians but to other Asiatics. Ministers do not state specifically whether the point regarding caste was considered, but as the scale has been in force for so long without, as far as I know, any protest, it must presumably have hitherto been accepted as free from objection on this score.

  Morne Bruce Military Cemetery.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, since the surrender some years ago of all ordnance property in Dominica to the local Government, the old military burial-ground on Morne Bruce has been allowed to fall into ruin; and whether he will make representations with a view to securing its proper preservation.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Secretary of State has no official information on the subject, but the Administrator will be asked for a Report.

  The Charges against Dinizulu.
  *MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in July Dinizulu was committed for trial on charges of high treason, public violence, sedition, rebellion, murder, conspiracy to murder, incitement to murder, and breaches of the Firearms Act of 1905; whether all the charges upon which he was committed for trial by the magistrate have now been dropped except that for high treason; and whether he can state upon what grounds those charges were not proceeded with by the Natal Government.
  COLONEL SEELY: The charges on which Dinizulu was committed are correctly stated in the Question, but I cannot say until the indictment is received what charges may have been dropped. The Government is sending a copy of the indictment home, and it shall be laid in due course.
  *MR. MACKARNESSasked whether, in the event of the charges in the indictment failing to be proved, any further charges could be made against Dinizulu.
  COLONEL SEELY: That is a hypothetical Question which I cannot answer.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in August Dinizulu was so seriously ill that he was removed to a hospital; whether on his recovery he made a personal application to the Natal Government to be allowed out on bail; whether any response was made to this application; and, if so, what it was.
  COLONEL SEELY: Dinizulu was removed to hospital in August and was subsequently returned to gaol. It would appear from the telegrams printed in Cd. 4328 that the regular life which he has been compelled to lead has considerably benefited his health. He applied to the Governor to be released on bail on 29th August, and the reply returned was that power to bail rests with the Supreme Court, with whose discretion the Governor could not interfere.

  Dinizulu's Defence.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state what amount has been paid to Dinizulu either by the Imperial or Natal Governments for arrears of salary or for the expenses of his defence.
  COLONEL SEELY: £500 has been paid by the Natal Government.
  *MR. MACKARNESS: Is it not well known to the Secretary of State that the expenses of Dinizulu's defence will amount to between £2,000 and £3,000, and can the hon. Gentleman say how they are to be met?
  COLONEL SEELY: The Secretary of State is not aware what those expenses will be. He will be very glad to know.

  Cyprus Police Force.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the police force of Cyprus has been largely below strength for the past two years; and, if so, whether steps will be taken by an increase of pay or otherwise to complete the establishment.
  COLONEL SEELY: Provision has been made in the Cyprus Estimates for 1908–1909 not only for an increase in the rates of pay of the police force, but also for an addition of thirty-one constables to the authorised establishment. The additional expenditure involved this year is £6,108.
  *CAPTAIN FABER: Will preference be given in filling these vacancies to those who have served His Majesty in similar forces in different parts of the world?
  COLONEL SEELYreplied that the claims of such men would be borne in mind.

  Alleged Flogging of Natives in Natal.
  MR. G. GREENWOOD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of Natal has yet investigated the charges made by Miss Colenso with
  970
  regard to the flogging and other ill-treatment of natives in Natal or Zululand, as set forth in her letter to the Prime Minister of Natal, dated 10th August last; whether that Government have supplied the information asked for by the Secretary of State in his telegram of the 17th September last to the Governor of Natal; whether the Natal Indemnity Act of this year would, in its present form, provide an indemnity even for such acts as are charged by Miss Colenso; and whether he can give an assurance that before the Royal Assent is finally given to that Act the same shall be modified by, at least, the excision of Section 4 thereof.
  COLONEL SEELY: I fear I am not at present in a position to add anything to the correspondence published in the last Blue-Book [Cd. 4328].
  MR. G. GREENWOOD: Is it the fact that the Act of Indemnity has not yet received the final sanction of His Majesty's Government?
  COLONEL SEELY: Yes, that is so.

  Coloured Labour in the Transvaal Mines.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the numbers of Chinese and Kaffirs, respectively, now confined in the compounds in the Transvaal, and the death-rate among the Chinese and Kaffirs according to the latest Returns.
  COLONEL SEELY: The latest official Return shows that at the end of August 151,762 coloured persons were employed and 17,270 Chinese; according to the Transvaal Chamber of Mines the number of Chinese employed at the end of September was 14,655. The death-rates per 1,000, for the quarter ended 30th June, were 32·035 for natives, and 16·002 for Chinese.
  AN HON. MEMBER: Do these figures relate to deaths from disease only?
  COLONEL SEELY: No, Sir. The figures included deaths from all causes. The Chinese have a much better rate in regard to disease than natives, but their

  971
  deaths from murder, homicide, and suicide were about six times greater.
  MR. FELL: Is not the net result that the death-rate among natives is more than double that among the Chinese, and therefore the effect of substituting native for Chinese labour has been—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.

  Reform of the Constitution of Malta.
  MR. HICKS BEACH: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of. State for the Colonies when the reform of the Constitution of Malta, as foreshadowed in the speech of the President of the Board of Trade to the elected members of the island last year, is to be carried into effect; and whether there are any Papers relating to the proposed reform that could be laid upon the Table of the House.
  COLONEL SEELY: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the Member for Jarrow yesterday. There are no Papers relating to this matter which could be usefully laid at the present juncture upon the Table of the House.

  Disabilities of British Indians in the Transvaal.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether British-Indians in the Transvaal may, by becoming naturalised as Portuguese subjects, escape the disabilities laid upon them in the Transvaal by the legislation against Asiatics.
  COLONEL SEELY: No, Sir; not as far as I am aware.

  Uganda Railway.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the balance-sheet of the accounts of the Uganda Railway, issued as Cd. 4354; and whether these accounts can be presented in future in sufficient detail to show separately the receipts from passengers, goods, Government stores, etc., to show the cost of maintenance and what expenditure on permanent way, etc., has been met out of
  972
  revenue, and generally on lines more consonant with sound accounting and with the practice of the best railway companies.
  COLONEL SEELY: My hon. friend will find detailed accounts of the working of the Uganda Railway both in the annual Blue-book Report of the East Africa Protectorate presented to Parliament and in the Railway Report of the Protectorate for the year 1907–8, of which copies may be seen in the Library of the House of Commons.

  Essen Railway.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information as to whether the main line from Essen to the North and West Coast of Germany has been, and is still being, reserved exclusively for the carriage of Government goods, chiefly armaments, so that ordinary trade is sent by a longer route; and, if no reports have been sent in, will he cause inquiries to be made by our Consular agents.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): I am under the impression, that there is a German law of 1876 respecting railways, according to which no such reservation is made except in time of war, but I will make inquiry as to the facts.

  The Persian Parliament.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Shah of Persia promised England and Russia to summon Parliament when order was restored in Azerbaijan; whether order has been restored in that province by the Parliamentarians; and whether the Shah has failed to fulfil his pledge on the advice and support of his Russian officers.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. With regard to the situation in Azerbaijan, His Majesty's Acting Consul-General reported on 28th October that the town of Tabriz was perfectly quiet and the bazaar open, but that the Julfa road was still exposed to disorders. With reference to the last inquiry in the

  973
  Question, I am not aware that the Russian officers in the service of the Shah have acted as alleged; but the Russian Government have throughout acted in cordial co-operation with us in advising the Shah to summon a Parliament.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: Have any further steps been taken to press this matter on the Shah?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: That is dealt with in the Answer to another Question.
  MR. G. GOOCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British and Russian Governments have renewed their advice to the Shah of Persia to summon a freely-elected Parliament; and, if not, when they intend to do so.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The British and Russian representatives at Teheran renewed identic representations on 14th October in the sense mentioned.
  *MR. REES: Is it not the fact that the Russian officers in the service of Persia have been highly instrumental in preserving order and so have assisted materially both Powers which are parties to the Convention?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: That is dealt with in a separate Question also.
  MR. LYNCH: May I ask if the advice given to the Persian Government by the Russian and British Governments has been to summon a freely-elected Parliament?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The general object has been to secure the carrying out of promises made in that direction.

  Cuban Fishing Dispute.
  MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Bahamian turtling schooner "Georgie" was seized in the month of May, 1908, by the Cuban authorities and conveyed to the port of Santiago, where, the owners were fined for alleged illegal fishing in Cuban waters;
  974
  whether the "Georgie" was at once released and the fine remitted in consequence of the energetic action of the British Consul at Santiago; whether the schooners "General" and "Emma Smith" were seized by the Cuban authorities under identical circumstances and taken to Cienfuegos, where there is no British Consul; whether His Majesty's Minister at Havana failed to take the necessary steps for their release, and whether, as a consequence, the catch in these cases was confiscated, the vessels and crews detained for three months, and the owners heavily fined; whether the Government propose to take steps, and, if so, what steps, to obtain suitable compensation; and whether he is aware that captains of vessels hitherto engaged in this industry now refuse to continue in it because they fear they will be killed by the Cubans.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The information received by His Majesty's Government with regard to the incidents referred to by the hon. Member is to the following effect: The Bahamian schooner "Georgie" was seized by the Cuban revenue cutter "Baire" on 23rd May, and taken to Santiago de Cuba. The commander of the "Baire" stated that the vessel was, at the time of her capture, one mile from the shore. The master of the "Georgie" stated that she was five miles from the shore. The "Georgie" was not accused of illegal fishing. A fine was imposed on the vessel, because one live turtle and thirty-three shells of turtles below the legal size were found on board her, and these and the remaining turtle shells on board were confiscated on the ground that the animals from which they were secured had been taken in Cuban waters. His Majesty's Minister at Havana was immediately informed of the incident by His Majesty's Consul at Santiago, and made representations to the Cuban Government. In consequence of these representations, the fine was entirely remitted, and the vessel finally released by a Government decree of 14th August. The schooners "General" and "Emma Smith" were seized on 11th May, but not under similar circumstances to the "Georgie." On 12th May, the day after the capture of the schooners, the British

  975
  Vice-Consul telegraphed particulars to His Majesty's Minister at Havana. The latter lost no time in approaching the Cuban Government, and did, I am convinced, all that it was possible to do to expedite the release of the vessels. Owing to his representations, the fines were reduced from $940 in the case of the "General" to $440, and from $830 in the case of the "Emma Smith" to $330, and the vessels were released on 30th July. His Majesty's Government, as at present advised, are not aware of any sufficient ground for claiming compensation in the cases of the "General" and the "Emma Smith," which there is reason to suppose were both seized in territorial waters within the three-mile limit. In the case of the "Georgie," any further evidence in support of a claim for compensation will receive their careful consideration. They have no information to show that captains of Bahamian turtling vessels have ceased to continue their industry.
  EARL OF RONALDSHAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if an order was recently given by the captain of the Cuban revenue cutter "Aileen" that the British flag flying on the British turtling schooner "Emma Smith" should be taken down; and if he can say on what grounds such an order was given.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: There is nothing in the Reports received from His Majesty's Minister at Havana, nor in the depositions of the master and mate of the "Emma Smith," to corroborate the statement that the schooner was called upon by the Cuban revenue cutter "Aileen" to haul down the British flag.
  EARL OF RONALDSHAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the nature of the investigation recently carried out by the Cuban authorities, with a view to determining the guilt, or otherwise, of the masters of certain British turtling schooners alleged to have been illegally turtling in Cuban waters; and can he say whether the accused masters were given an opportunity of denying upon
  976
  oath the truth of the charges brought against them.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The investigation in question was instituted by the Cuban Department of Finance. At this investigation the masters of the vessels were afforded the opportunity of making their depositions as to the facts, but whether such depositions were taken on oath there is no evidence at present before His Majesty's Government to show. At the instance of His Majesty's Minister at Havana, a further inquiry was undertaken by the Cuban State Department. His Majesty's Minister was satisfied that the schooners were within territorial waters, but a part of the fines was remitted as a result of his representations.
  EARL OF RONALDSHAY: Was not that portion of the fine which was remitted that which the schooner was not liable to pay as she was taken into harbour under force majeure?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: That may have been so, but the evidence went to show that the vessels were actually fishing in territorial waters, and, of course, under those circumstances we could not put forward any claim.
  EARL OF RONALDSHAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if a sailor on board the British schooner "Empress," engaged in the Bahama turtling business, was recently shot by an officer on board a Cuban revenue cutter; and, if so, what was the reason for such action on the part of the said officer, and what steps are His Majesty's Government taking to safeguard the lives of British subjects in these waters.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: It is true that Charles Bethel, the cook of the schooner "Empress," was wounded by a shot from a Cuban official of the revenue cutter "Baire." According to the Cuban official account, this was the result of an accident, but the crew of the "Empress" maintain that the shot fired was intentional. The discrepancy between these statements has been brought to the notice of the Cuban

  977
  Government by His Majesty's Minister, who has pressed for compensation for the sufferer. His Majesty's Government are always ready, as I have before stated, to take the necessary steps for the protection of British interests, but no special measures beyond the demand for compensation seem called for at present, till we know what reply we receive.

  Old-Age Pensions.
  MR. TIMOTHY DAVIES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a Return of the number of applications for old-age pensions received in the administrative County of London to date, giving the number claiming 1s., 2s., 3s., 4s., and 5s. respectively; and will he give the ratio per 10,000 of the estimated population on 30th June last.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): Up to 24th October 34,047 applications for old-age pensions

  —

  No. of applications received.

  Ratio per 10,000 of population.

  England (excluding Monmouthshire)

  -

  320,042

  97

  Wales (including Monmouthshire)

  -

  20,227

  91

  Scotland

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  59,244

  123

  Ireland

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  162,658

  273

  Total

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  562,171

  126

  In my reply to my hon. friend's previous Question I have explained that I am unable to give the remaining information for which he asks.
  MR. HAROLD COX: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he attributes the greater ratio in Ireland to the greater longevity of the Irish people or their greater power of imagination?
  MR. JOYCE: Is it not due to the extensive emigration of the younger people?
  [No Answer was returned.]
  have been received in the Administrative County of London, giving a ratio of 71 per 10,000 of the estimated population on 30th June last. As the applications do not specify the mount of pension claimed in each case, I am unable to state the number of persons claiming 1s., 2s., 3s., etc., respectively.
  MR. TIMOTHY DAVIES: I beg to ask Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a complete Return of the number of applications received up to date for old-age pensions, giving the number claiming 1s., 2s., 3s., 4s., and 5s., respectively; and will he also give the ratio per 10,000 of the estimated population on 30th June last of claims from England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, separately.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The number of applications received up to 24th October and the ratio per 10,000 of estimated population on 30th June last are as follows:—

  Licensed Houses and Death Duties.
  MR. HIGHAM: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total number of licensed houses valued for death duties by the Inland Revenue Commissioners during the last completed year; and what was the total number of licensed houses in the United Kingdom on 31st March, 1907.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: No separate record is kept in the Estate Duty Office of licensed houses valued for death duties. The total number of Excise licences issued in the year ended 31st March, 1907,

  979
  in the United Kingdom, for consumption "on" the premises was 124,348, and for consumption "off" the premises was 39,512, but there is no information as to the number of licensed houses in the United Kingdom.

  Pensions and Furniture.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis the £30 worth of furniture, referred to in the instructions to the pension officers, was calculated; and was it adopted as the British equivalent of the £50 real and personal property allowed to be deducted under the New Zealand Pension Act, 1898.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The test applied in the selection of a limit of allowance for furniture was what might reasonably be required to make a home habitable, and it was felt that a sum not exceeding £30 would meet the case. This conclusion was reached quite independently of the limit adopted under the New Zealand Pension Act, 1898.

  Scotland and Old-Age Pensions.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will see that the officers appointed to carry out the Old-Age Pensions Act in the Highland counties of Scotland are acquainted with the Gaelic language.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am not aware that any difficulty has arisen in the Highland counties of Scotland in connection with the Gaelic language and the working of the Old-Age Pensions Act, nor have I received any complaints on the subject. But, if my hon. friend will inform me of any cases of hardship which may come to his notice, I will see that the necessary steps are taken to deal with the matter.
  MR. MORTON: Provision was made for that in the Crofters Act of 1896, and other Acts.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: And similar provision will be made in this case.

  Unemployed Grant.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the
  980
  Exchequer, in reference to the proposed contribution of £300,000 in aid of expenses under the Unemployed Workmen. Act, 1905, during the coming winter, whether it is intended to present to this House a Supplementary Estimate for this expenditure before the expenditure is undertaken; if so, when will this Supplementary Estimate be presented; and, if not, can he inform the House by what procedure and out of what moneys this contribution will be obtained.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The House has already voted £200,000 out of the £300,000 on a Supplementary Estimate presented in July last. It is proposed to submit a further Supplementary Estimate of £100,000 early in next session.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether the Supplementary Estimate cannot be so framed that the money may be used for other purposes than subsidising distress committees?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I must ask for notice; I am not quite sure as to the applications.

  National Debt.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if the reduction in the national indebtedness referred to in the Budget statement will be affected, if the receipts into the Exchequer estimated in the Budget are not realised.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: No, Sir. The sums applicable to the reduction of debt, referred to in the Budget statement, consisted mainly of the realised surplus of 1907–8 and the capital included in the fixed debt charge for the current year. The amounts available from these sources are not dependent on the realisation of the Budget Estimate of revenue. So far as I can see at present, the Budget arrangements with regard to the reduction of debt are not likely to be interfered with.

  Administration of the Licensing Act in Birmingham.
  MR. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to a resolution of the

  981
  magistrates of Birmingham to the effect that, owing to the inadequacy of the compensation clauses of the Licensing Act, 1904, as interpreted by Mr. Justice Kennedy, they are unable to reduce the number of redundant licences in Birmingham at a satisfactory rate, and urging the Government to increase the rate of reduction; and will he say how many licences will be extinguished in the city of Birmingham if the Licensing Bill becomes law.
  *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL, Yorkshire, Cleveland): My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. His attention has not been called to any such resolution. It is impossible to give, in actual figures, the number of licences that will be reduced under the Government scheme, since that must depend in part upon the modifications of the statutory scale that may be proposed by the licensing justices, and sanctioned by the Commission.
  MR. YOUNGERwas understood to ask if figures could be given showing the extent of the reduction without the modifications?
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is easy for anyone to obtain them.

  The Imprisoned Suffragists.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the three lady suffragettes, Mrs. Drummond, Mrs. Pankhurst, and Miss Pankhurst, were, previous to their imprisonment, compelled to undergo the indignity of being stripped and searched by prison wardresses; and, if so, can he state if he is prepared to take steps with a view to the prevention of such indignities in the future.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: All prisoners, of whatever class, have, under the rules sanctioned by Parliament, to be searched on admission to prison. These rules it is necessary to maintain. Female prisoners are not stripped, but have to change to prison clothes in the presence of two female warders, by whom they are
  982
  searched. The Prison Commissioners will see that as much privacy is allowed as is consistent with the necessity for efficient search. In regard to the three ladies mentioned, as my right hon. friend said last Wednesday, the usual practice was modified by the Governor, who allowed them to change their clothes in a locked cell.

  Truck Committee's Report.
  MR. SEDDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state when the Report of the Truck Committee will be presented to the House.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Lord Advocate, who, as my hon. friend is aware, is Chairman of the Committee, informs the Secretary of State that he hopes that it may be possible to present the Report towards the end of the present month. As my hon. friend knows, the work of the Committee has been very laborious.

  Motor Fatalities.
  MR. BENNETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the police authorities have any record of the number of accidents and of deaths arising out of motor traffic in England and Wales, or either, during the first six months of the present year and, if so, will he state what that record is.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The only figures available are those for London. I must refer my hon. friend to the Answers the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for the Newbury division on 26th October, and to the hon. Member for the Mansfield division on 21st October.
  MR. BENNETT: Is any record kept of accidents outside London?
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The figures are being collected.

  The French Tariff.
  EARL OF RONALDSHAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now say what is the nature of the revision of the French tariff proposed by the Customs Commission to the Chamber of Deputies; will the proposed revision, if carried out,

  983
  involve the levying of a higher rate of duties upon British imports into France; and, if so, can he say the extent of the increased duties upon elastic fabrics.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. I understand that the Customs Commission of the Chamber of Deputies has for some time been considering proposals for the revision (mainly in the direction of increased duties) of the French tariff. As regards elastic tissues the Commission have recommended that the "minimum" tariff rates of duty shall range from 200 to 600 francs per 100 kilograms according to the nature of the weft. The existing rate is 200 francs per 100 kilograms for all descriptions.
  EARL OF RONALDSHAY: Are His Majesty's Government prepared to take any steps to prevent injustice to British manufacturers?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Has any Report been received as to what will be the effect of this new arrangement on the Bradford trade?
  MR. CHURCHILL: As to the last Question I should like to have notice. Of course, the Government will take all reasonable and judicious steps to secure the interests of British traders.
  *MR. MYER: Is it not the fact that no matter what duty any country may put on goods, it does not affect our exports in the least, but merely raises the prices of the manufacturers in foreign countries to our prices plus duty?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is rather leading to a debate.

  Assurance Policies.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to a clause in the policies of assurance companies which stipulates that such companies are not bound by the acts of their agents or representatives unless the same be countersigned by the general manager; and, if so, whether he is prepared to take
  984
  steps by legislation or otherwise to make such companies responsible for the acts of their agents or representatives when acting as such on behalf of the company.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I do not know whether any insurance company issues policies containing a clause stipulating that the company is not bound by the acts of its agents or representatives unless countersigned by the general manager. My attention has, however, been called by the hon. Member to a clause in a policy issued by an insurance company in which it is stated that no agent or other representative has any authority to dispense with the express performance of any of the conditions referred to in the policy and that no alterations of the policy or any endorsement thereof will be valid as against the company unless the same be countersigned by the general manager of the company. The clause as worded does not appear upon its face to be illegal. I must however add that the whole question of the responsibility of this class of company for statements made by their agents is receiving attention.

  Statistical Abstract of the British Empire.
  MR. HICKS BEACH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade why the Statistical Abstract of the British Empire for 1907 was only issued on the 29th October, 1908; and whether he will consider the possibility of securing the publication of an official volume of such interest at a shorter interval than ten months after the end of the year to which it refers.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I think the hon. Member must refer to the Statistical Abstract for the United Kingdom which has just been issued, and not to the Abstract for the British Empire. The reason for the late issue of this volume this year has been already explained in reply to a Question, addressed to me on 14th October by the hon. Member for Norwood, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

  French Duty on Elastic Tissues.
  EARL OF RONALDSHAY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the amount of elastic tissues

  985
  sent from Great Britain to France in 1907 and from France to Great Britain in the same year; and what was the rate of duty levied on the British-made fabrics by France and on the French fabrics by Great Britain.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Particulars of the exports of elastic tissues from this country are not separately recorded in British Official Trade Accounts, but, according to the French official Returns, 47,466 kilograms (8,718 cwts) of elastic tissues, valued at 711,990 francs. (£28,450 were imported into France from the United Kingdom during the year 1907. The exports of elastic tissues of French manufacture from France to the United Kingdom in 1907 amounted, according to the same. Returns, to 51,510 kilograms (1,014 cwts.), valued at 875,670 francs. (£35,027). The import duty levied in France on elastic tissues of British manufacture is at the rate of 200 francs per 100 kilograms (£4 1s. 4d. per cwt.). No import duty on elastic tissues is levied in this country.
  EARL OF RONALDSHAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say the nature of the steps taken to secure the proper treatment of British manufacturers?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Relief Works Register of Employees.
  *CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will cause a register of names to be kept during the next three and six months at all relief works opened for unemployment throughout the Kingdom showing for how many consecutive days each individual man has worked, with a view to discovering how many genuinely unemployed are in real want of work.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): I think that this information is already in the possession of the distress committees, although they are not required to keep a register in a prescribed form.
  CAPTAIN FABER: How is the information collected if no register is kept?
  *MR. JOHN BURNS: The distress committee have, I think, clerks who have to fill in forms, a copy of which I shall be pleased to send the hon. Gentleman.
  CAPTAIN FABER: Would the forms show how many consecutive days the men work?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I should think so.

  Circencester Vaccination Case.
  MR. LUPTONI beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, with reference to the three cases of injury resulting from vaccination performed by Dr. Cossham, at Cirencester, if the premises where these children, or any of them, lived were in such an insanitary condition that the child could not be safely vaccinated; and, if so, if he will, in accordance with the rules as to payments to public vaccinators, prohibit the payment of fees in this case, or take other proceedings against the vaccinator.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Two of the cases referred to were of a trifling kind, and need not, I think, be further considered. A public vaccinator is precluded from vaccinating a child if, in his opinion, the condition of the home is such that the child cannot safely be vaccinated; but I understand that in the third of the cases in question, the public vaccinator, at the time the operation was performed, had not formed the opinion that the home was too insanitary to allow of vaccination being safely performed. The insanitary conditions were discovered subsequently. I am, of course, desirous that everything practicable should be done to minimise the risk of accidents of the kind which occurred in this case, and I am considering whether some further instructions might be issued with a view of securing this result.
  MR. LUPTON: Is it not the fact that in all cases recently investigated in which vaccination has gone wrong the excuse has been that the premises were insanitary, and does not that show a universal neglect of the law?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I think the hon. Member's imputation is not justified.

  National and Local Indebtedness.
  EARL OF RONALDSHAY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what is the total amount of the local debt of the country, as compared with the National Debt, at the present time, or at the latest date for which figures are available.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The aggregate amount of the outstanding loans for all purposes of the local authorities in the United Kingdom was £564,645,200 at the end of the year 1905–6, the latest year for which the complete figures are available. The amount of the National Debt at the end of the same year was £788,990,187.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the figures showing the assets?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Yes, they have been stated in a previous Return.
  MR. BELLOC: Is it not the fact that a very much larger proportion of the local indebtedness represents profit-bearing expenditure than is the case with the National Debt?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Yes, a very much larger proportion.

  Hackney Marshes.
  MR. BROOKE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, seeing that the distress in the East End of London is likely to be severe this winter, he is considering some scheme of work, e.g., the reclamation of Hackney Marshes, on which numbers of the genuine unemployed of the East End may be permanently employed during the worst months of this winter.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: It is for the Central (Unemployed) Body to consider what scheme of work they will propose for the purpose of providing useful work for the unemployed during the winter. I understand that, although
  988
  there is no formal application before the Central Body with regard to the particular scheme mentioned in the Question, some inquiry has been made with respect to it.

  Employment for ex-Service Men in the Post Office.
  *CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can see his way to employing more old soldiers and sailors as postmen and carriers to the Post Office in place of, as in some cases now, employing women whose husbands are in full civilian work and men who are in constant civil employment to do postal work.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): As regards the established postmen, all the appointments are given to ex-messengers or to ex-soldiers and sailors. As a rule, the duties on which women and men with other work are employed are small delivery duties for a few hours a week, which do not, therefore, carry sufficient pay to attract ex-soldiers and sailors. It is the practice not to employ women on such work if suitable men can be found to undertake it.
  CAPTAIN FABER: But is it not the fact that people who are in full employment do this work?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: It is only in cases where the duty amounts to a few hours per week. The matter is a small one, but if the hon. Gentleman can quote me any cases I will consider them.

  Carnarvon Post Office.
  MR. ELLIS DAVIES: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the unemployment in the town of Carnarvon, he will take steps to have the proposed alterations in the Post Office buildings commenced immediately.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Plans have been settled, and I hope shortly to be able to ask the owner of the property to have the alterations put in hand.

  National Telephone Service.
  MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if, in view of the

  989
  fact that the Government will take over the telephone service on 1st January, 1912, and that 6,000 employees of the Telephone Company are to be discharged on that account, he will guarantee to the Telephone Company a return of their future capital expenditure, with interest, so that the discharge of good workmen may be stopped and the telephone service taken over in 1912 in first-class condition.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have not anything as yet to add to the various replies I have lately given to similar Questions.

  Newcastle-on-Tyne Telephone Service.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether in Newcastle-upon-Tyne an estimate for telephone construction work to the amount of between £7,000 and £8,000 has been prepared and has been approved by the engineer-in-chief; whether the work has been put aside for lack of capital; and whether he can make an arrangement to ensure its speedy prosecution.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: No work of telephone construction at Newcastle-on-Tyne has been deferred by the Post Office for lack of capital. I am not aware whether anything of the kind has happened as regards the system of the National Telephone Company, but, if so, the arrangement which I am now endeavouring to make with the Company for the uninterrupted prosecution of construction works would probably be applicable.

  Franco-British Exhibition—Education Collection.
  MR. RENDALL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he has seen the collection illustrative of British education in all its phases at the Franco-British Exhibition; and whether he will take any steps to preserve it in some form as a nucleus of a permanent educational exhibit.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. TREVELYAN,): The President of the
  990
  Board of Education has visited the exhibition several times, and is glad to think that the exhibition must have afforded much stimulus to local education authorities and others. The suggestion that the collection should be taken over by the Government as a permanent exhibit has been under careful consideration. It raises, however, several serious difficulties, and in particular that the Government have no space at their disposal or in prospect which would suffice for any substantial portion of the exhibits. I may add that the possibility of making a few selections from particular sections of the exhibition for permanent preservation is still being considered by the Board.
  MR. RENDALL: If space is provided by a private donor will the Government undertake the annual cost of maintenance?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Such an offer would, of course, be considered.

  Education Grants.
  EARL OF RONALDSHAY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he can see his way to reverting to the system of payment of annual grants to local education authorities, which was in vogue up to 31st March, 1906.
  MR. TREVELYAN: No, Sir; my right hon. friend regrets that he is unable at present to adopt the suggestion contained in the Question.
  EARL OF RONALDSHAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a deputation on the subject?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am not sure.

  Carnarvon Castle.
  MR. ELLIS DAVIES: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the number of men who are out of employment in the town of Carnarvon, he can see his way to employ an increased number in the repair of Carnarvon Castle.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. L. HARCOURT,): Carnarvon Castle is not a building suitable for this kind of work.

  991
  Pointing the walls is the only repair possible; the work has to be done with great care, and the winter is not a suitable time to carry it out. I therefore regret that I am unable to adopt my hon. friend's suggestion; but I will take care that as many men are kept employed as is consistent with the circumstances.

  Sheep in Scottish Crofting Counties.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: I beg to ask the hon. Member

  Year.

  Argyll.

  Caithness.

  Inverness.

  Orkney.

  Ross and Cromarty.

  Shetland.

  Sutherland.

  Total.

  No.

  No.

  No.

  No.

  No.

  No.

  No.

  No.

  1901

  926,143

  131,196

  596,263

  35,327

  310,745

  115,311

  205,746

  2,320,731

  1902

  903,973

  128,936

  575,021

  37,223

  282,755

  116,096

  198,825

  2,242,829

  1903

  891,369

  132,829

  569,181

  36,708

  268,948

  133,552

  201,375

  2,233,962

  1904

  839,123

  123,126

  544,809

  34,119

  262,313

  137,206

  200,569

  2,141,265

  1905

  842,704

  126,151

  537,632

  32,735

  264,897

  139,563

  196,516

  2,140,198

  1906

  834,229

  124,197

  532,880

  34,157

  262,002

  130,700

  195,453

  2,113,618

  1907

  838,732

  131,682

  554,358

  35,713

  279,047

  131,606

  206,024

  2,177,162

  1908

  865,410

  133,663

  559,316

  37,504

  289,785

  133,955

  209,365

  2,228,998

  Dwelling Houses on Small Holdings.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he can state how many of the applicants for small holdings have asked for the erection of new dwelling-houses, and how many new dwelling-houses the local authorities have undertaken to provide under the Act of 1907.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The demand for houses is small, under 5 per cent. The schemes already received provide for the erection of sixteen dwelling-houses.

  Expenditure under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1907.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as
  for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what has been the total number of sheep on the sheep farms in the crofting counties of Scotland for 1901 and each subsequent year.
  THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY,): The number of sheep in the crofting counties of Scotland on holdings exceeding one acre on 4th June in each rear from 1901 to 1908 is as follows—
  representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he can state how much of the £100,000 voted for the purpose of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1907, to be spent before 31st March, 1908, was spent before that date, how much of it has been spent since, and upon what objects it has been spent.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The amount voted was not intended to be spent before 31st March, 1908, and no payment out of it has so far been made. Considerable liabilities in relation to the acquisition of land have, however, been incurred by county councils and these will be repaid by the Board in pursuance of Section 17 of the Act.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: Is it all likely to be spent before 31st March?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: There is no obligation to spend it before that time.

  Refreshments in the Strangers' Smoking Room.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Mid Derby, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, whether visitors to the House of Commons Strangers' Smoking Room, who are not Members of the House, are allowed to pay for refreshments served to them; and whether this is done with his cognisance and authority.
  SIR JAMES JACOBY: The Kitchen Committee have had this matter under consideration. Visitors are not allowed to pay for refreshments served in the Strangers' Smoking Room, and the waiters have stict orders to take payments from Members only. Notices to this effect are on the walls of the room. The Committee have decided to enforce this regulation, and if the hon. Member is able to inform me of any breach of the rule, immediate steps will be taken to prevent its recurrence.

  Crown Estates and Unemployment.
  *SIR ROBERT HOBART: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that His Majesty's Commissioners of Woods and Forests are very great landowners, he will forthwith give extensive additional employment on the Crown estates upon works of public utility, such as road-making or repairing, which have been hitherto withheld under normal conditions for financial reasons, with a view to giving relief to the unemployed in the present emergency.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,): The question of how far it may be practicable to push on during the coming winter with works which have been held over for any reason, or which would be economically advantageous to the Crown Estates, is receiving the Commissioners' earnest consideration.
  *SIR ROBERT HOBARTsuggested the repair of certain roads in the New Forest
  994
  such as the old Roman Road between Hurdley Common and Dibden Manor, which had been much neglected for many years.

  Sales of Crown Lands in Carnarvon.
  MR. ELLIS DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state when, and to whom, the Crown parted with the land it formerly owned in the parishes of Llanllechid and Llandegai, in the county of Carnarvon, and what consideration it received therefore in each case.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I am informed by the Commissioners of Woods that there have been only two sales by them in the parishes named, viz.: (1) To Hon. Edward Gordon Douglas Pennant, dated 10th August, 1858, of 6,129 acres 0 roads 3 poles of unenclosed waste land, subject to rights of common, and 6 acres 0 roods 27 poles of enclosed waste land, all in the parish of Llanllechid, together with collection rents amounting to £6 9s. 10d. per annum. Minerals reserved. Consideration £1,739 10s. (2) To James Tomkinson and Henry Platt, dated 5th March, 1891, of land containing 5 acres 0 roods 6 poles, with messuage known as Bryn Hall and minerals under 242 acres 0 roods 19 poles, part of the above-mentioned open-waste, all in the parish of Llanllechid. Consideration, £12,000.

  Customs Preventive Men's Grievances.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state when an answer may be expected to the petition presented of the preventive men in His Majesty's Customs in the early part of the present year.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I presume the hon. Member refers to the deputation from the Preventive Men's Association which I received last May. I am not aware of any other petition now outstanding. As regards the points raised at the deputation I endeavoured to make my views clear to them. There was, however, one question, that of overtime, which was left undecided, and I regret that I am not yet in a position to announce a decision on this subject.

  Estate Duty Office Clerks.
  EARL OF RONALDSHAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if, in consequence of the introduction of a new scheme for the staffing of the Estate Duty Office, certain clerks of the second division in receipt of salaries calculated in accordance with an Order in Council of 21st December, 1907, will, on promotion, be in receipt of salaries considerably lower than those of their present colleagues who are not selected for promotion.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: The Answer is in the affirmative.

  Clyde Foreshores.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether any representations have been made to him as to the possibility of providing remunerative employment by reclaiming any part of the foreshores of the Clyde above Greenock, on either side of the fairway, between the training walls and high-water mark; whether these foreshores belong to the Crown or to private persons; whether they are entered in the valuation roll; and, if so, what is taken as the rateable value of them or any part of them.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): No representations have been received on the subject referred to by my hon. friend. I understand the foreshores in the positions described are mainly the property of the Crown.

  Scottish Fishery Cruiser.
  MR. MITCHELL - THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland what is the tonnage and speed of the proposed fishery cruiser for Scotland.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The approximate gross registered tonnage of the new cruiser will be 300 to 320 tons, although the actual figure cannot be stated until the vessel is built and measured by the official surveyors. It is not, I think, expedient to state the speed of the vessels constituting the protective fishery fleet.

  Trawling in Prohibited Areas Bill.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland when he proposes to take the Second Reading of the Trawling in Prohibited Areas Bill; and whether he is aware of the feeling in Scotland that something should be done at once to protect the Scottish fishermen.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I have nothing at present to add to the assurance given by me on this subject to the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Aberdeen on 21st October. The Bill will be taken as soon as other business permits.

  Burning of a Crofter's House at Creich.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he has yet made inquiry into the burning of a crofter's house and some of his effects in July last in the parish of Creich, Sutherland.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW,): I have made the inquiry. The person occupying the house was not a crofter and had for a considerable time neither tilled the land nor paid rent. The responsibility for the burning rests entirely with the proprietrix. Whatever might be my own opinion as to what has occurred, the circumstances do not appear to disclose any ground on which I would have a title to interpose or take action.
  MR. MORTONasked for a copy of the Report of the inspector who made the inquiry.
  MR. THOMAS SHAWreplied that it would be contrary to practice to produce it.
  MR. MORTON: Then alter the practice.

  Irish Expenditure.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the fact that in local government and civil administration Ireland is, as compared with Scotland, over-officered and her officers over-paid, and the burden placed upon the people least able to bear it, whether he will avoid aggravating

  997
  this burden by creating any new office, and take advantage of the measures now before Parliament to confer upon local bodies in Ireland power of reducing expense and increasing efficiency by combining kindred and overlapping duties, such as those of rate collector, sanitary officer, relieving officer, and any other duties of a like nature to be performed in the same area.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): Without discussing the assumption contained in the first part of the Question, I may say that the Government are fully alive to the desirability of economy in the administration of local government. It is in the power of local bodies to take action, with the consent of the Local Government Board, for the reduction of local expenditure, and the Board are always prepared to give the fullest consideration to any such proposals. I have no information showing that legislation is necessary as suggested, but the Local Government Board are prepared to consider any definite proposal which the hon. Member may make.

  Vaccination in Ireland.
  MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the amount paid out of rates and taxes in Ireland for vaccination in the years 1905, 1906, and 1907.
  MR. BIRRELL: The expenditure of local authorities in Ireland under the Vaccination Acts in 1905 was £18,091; in 1906, £12,027; and in 1907, £10,404.
  MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what proportion of the children born in Ireland are vaccinated; and if he has any official Reports showing whether one of the effects of infant vaccination is to produce such a weakening of the system as facilitates the inroads of tuberculosis.
  MR. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the annual Report of the Registrar-General for Ireland for the year 1907 (Cd. 4233), which gives the latest information regarding vaccination, of children in Ireland. There are no official
  998
  Reports of the nature referred to in the last part of the Question.
  MR. LUPTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire if the process has not a weakening effect on children, thereby producing tuberculosis?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.

  Sweated Industries.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if His Majesty's Government have decided not to introduce a Bill dealing with sweated industries during next session.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): No, Sir, the Government have arrived at no such decision. I cannot make any statement as to the course of next session's legislation, but the hon. Member may be assured that the matter is one that the Government will not lose sight of.

  Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention Bill.
  MR. WILLIAMSON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister on what date he expects to take the Second Reading of the Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention Bill.
  The following Questions on the same subject also appeared on the Paper:—
  MR. ANNAN BRYCE: To ask the Prime Minister when he proposes to take the Second Reading of the Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention. Bill.
  CAPTAIN WARING: To ask the Prime Minister whether he will make arrangements so that the Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention Bill will be proceeded with this session.
  MR. SUTHERLAND: To ask the Prime Minister whether the Government is to press forward the Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention Bill through the House this session.
  MR. ASQUITH: I am not able as yet to give a date for the Second Reading

  999
  of this Bill. It will be taken at the earliest convenient opportunity after the Scottish Education Bill. The Government are fully alive to its importance, but I cannot, of course, at this stage give any definite assurance as to its further progress.

  Government Amendments to the Licensing Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked the Prime Minister whether his attention had been called to a series of Amendments to Clause 24 of the Licensing Bill in the name of the Solicitor-General that were to be discussed that night; whether these Amendments were nearly three times as long as the clause, and whether they did not entirely recast the substance of that clause and raise questions of very great difficulty and complexity. He further asked whether these Amendments did not appear on the Paper for the first time that morning, and no man in the House had the smallest notion they were going to be put down; whether under the closure Resolution it would not be necessary to deal with this absolutely new matter before half-past ten that night; and whether the right hon. Gentleman would put them down as a new clause on the Report stage in order to give the Opposition an opportunity of considering the new proposals of the Government and of making up their minds whether in their opinion they should be opposed or not. He asked to be allowed to make an observation in the nature of an appeal and to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he did not consider that it was making the closure system absolutely unworkable when the Government could not settle on their Amendments until the day they were to be discussed; and whether, if the House thought it necessary that they should discuss the Bill under these particular conditions, the Government would take the trouble to see that the conditions were not made unnecessarily harsh.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had taken the opportunity to make a speech of a very contentious kind under the guise of asking a question. To anyone who had studied the course of the
  1000
  Bill his complaint, if complaint it was, was entirely unfounded. More than half the Amendments down in the name of the Solicitor-General were the fulfilment of a pledge given by himself to an hon. Gentleman sitting immediately behind the right hon. Gentleman, and although they had been modified by the substitution elsewhere of "may" for "shall" they had been on the Paper for a considerable time.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTScalled the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that the Amendment in the name of the Solicitor-General had been very materially altered since yesterday.
  MR. ASQUITHreplied that it had been altered to give better and fuller effect to the demand of the hon. Gentleman, and for no other purpose. In regard to the other Amendments, the only new one was that dealing with the definition of monopoly value. That was also a matter that he had undertaken in speech on the Second Reading and more than once since to deal with. There was nothing new in the proposals, which had been indicated over and over again in his own speeches and those of his colleagues.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: We have asked for it, but the right hon. Gentleman has not given it.
  MR. ASQUITHquite agreed that it now appeared in its formal shape for the first time, though its nature had been indicated over and over again. He quite agreed that it was a matter of great importance, and if in the ordinary course of their proceedings that night, there was no opportunity for discussion he would put it down for a very early moment on the Report stage. He did not think it desirable to make a new clause, as the right hon. Gentleman had suggested, but he had the fullest wish that it should be discussed on the Report stage.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following

1001
Member from Standing Committee B (in respect of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Bill): Mr. Solicitor-General; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill: the Lord Advocate.
Report to lie upon the Table.

LICENSING BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair]
Clause 21:
MR. JAMES HOPE, in moving the insertion of the words "save as hereinafter provided," said it must be read in conjunction to the Amendment in his name lower down, which ran as follows: "Nothing in this section shall prevent the grant of an excise licence to a spirit dealer or wine dealer where the trade to be carried on is of a wholesale character and where any retail sales in connection therewith are merely auxiliary and incidental to the carrying on of a wholesale business." The clause was really of a very grave and far-reaching character, and he was glad to see, by one of the Amendments put down by the learned Solicitor-General, that the Government recognised that fact. He did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendments were satisfactory, but he was glad at any rate that the Government realised the seriousness of the position which the clause created. The clause, in order to be understood, must be read with no less than three other clauses, two in existing Acts of Parliament, and one in this Bill. It must be read first of all with the third clause of the Bill, as amended on the Motion of the First Commissioner of Works. It must be read, secondly, in connection with Section 4 of the Licensing Act, 1904, and, thirdly, in connection with Section 10 of the Licensing Act, 1904. The whole of that made a somewhat complicated study. Reading these four clauses together, so far as he could come to a conclusion, they meant this. First of all, a man in business as a wine or spirit dealer who entered into that business
1002
before 25th June, 1902, would be safe under this clause till 1930, i.e., till after the expiration, of the reduction period, plus the additional seven years. A man going into the business between the years 1902 and 1909 would be safe till 1930 against being charged monopoly value for his licence, but he would not be safe against a refusal to renew. A man going into the business after 1st June, 1909, would be subject to monopoly value charges and the risk of refusal to renew; and after the expiration of twenty-one years all dealers in wines and spirits, under the clause as it stood, would be subject to the extra charge for monopoly value for off-licences, and also to the risk of refusal to renew, and the effect of the clause would be that by 1930 the State would have the monopoly of the wine and spirit trade, wholesale and retail, throughout England. He now came to the Solicitor-General's Amendment, the second on the Paper, the effect of which would be to exempt the wholesale wine dealer from the effect of the clause. As long as he dealt wholesale he would be able to go on with his business, and would be protected by Section 10 of the Act of 1902, and would not be liable to have a renewal of his licence refused. So far, so good. But he wanted to ask why should wine alone be exempt and not spirits. What essential difference was there between the two? The spirit dealer, wholesale or retail, would have to submit to the justices, even though his business was not a local business at all. The justices would have an absolute right of refusing to renew the licence of any spirit dealer, even though he was a wholesale dealer and practically did no business whatever in the locality. A wholesale spirit dealer in London would be liable to have all his business in any part of the country absolutely cut away. He submitted that there was no possible justification for this provision—unless indeed it were held that dealing in spirits was something per se worse than dealing in wine, then the question might arise; or there was the possible explanation that these provisions were destined to be the first steps towards the State ultimately establishing either a Gothenburg or a Norwegian Bolag system; but if that was the intention of the Government, he submitted that that ought to have been

1003
declared from the first. It might be said that under the last words of the section the existing holders would be protected. It was quite true that they would be protected so long as they themselves carried on the business, but what if they wanted to sell? The purchaser would not be protected. He would have to go, cap in hand, to the justices just the same as any ordinary retail dealer, and the justices might very likely—there was no telling what their action would be—refuse a renewal of the licence, and therefore the existing property, the goodwill of the business, would be hopelessly depreciated, and if the spirit dealer wished to make his business over to his son, he would do so with the property enormously reduced. The whole question of a man's substantial property, of the security on which he could borrow money, would be enormously affected by the clause, even as amended, in the case of a spirit dealer, although there would seem at first sight to be protection for the man himself so long as he carried on the business and did not part with it to anyone else. Apart from that there were one or two objections more of detail. In the first place, even as regarded the wholesale wine merchant, he was put in a very unfortunate position, as it was very often a necessary condition of business to send out sample bottles, and that would not be possible under the Solicitor-General's Amendment. Also, he was informed, even the wholesale wine merchants in very expensive qualities—such articles as liqueur brandies and Chartreuse—very often; got orders from large customers for six bottles at a time, and great inconvenience would be caused if they had to go cap in hand to the magistrate. Now another question arose. He was told that on the face of them the words of the Solicitor-General would want some further confirmation. He was informed that there was no such thing at present as a wine dealers' wholesale licence. There was a wine dealers' retail licence under the Act of 1867, and there was a wine dealers' general licence under a much older Act—the sixth of George IV., c. 81—a wholesale licence which embraced a retail licence too. It was a licence for a dealer in foreign wines to
1004
sell wholesale and retail alike. But in this case the object was to give a licence to sell wholesale only, and he was informed that no such licence now existed, and if that was so they could not create it by merely giving a discretion to the Commissioners under this clause. It would require fresh legislation, and being financial legislation imposing a new tax, they would have to go into Committee of Ways and Means and get a Resolution before it could be carried out. If that was so, the intention of the hon. and learned Gentleman would not be carried out by those words. How far did the Amendment meet the case of those whom it was ostensibly meant to protect? There were very few firms, he imagined, probably only some specialised firms like importers of port wine and the like, who did not do a spirit business as well, and the spirit business was not protected. Therefore, this would apply to the ordinary merchants in this way, even though the other difficulties about samples and the new form of licence were got over, that he would be safe only as to one part of his business. The other part would be immediately jeopardised. He would be put, so soon as the actual holder had ceased to be in business, under the discretion of the justices, so that in case, of the sale of his property the whole value would be enormously reduced, because although the wine value might to some extent be maintained the spirit value would be enormously cut away. Some other words were necessary, and he submitted that his words were better than those of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The object was to protect the bona fide wholesale business in wine or spirits, and with regard to samples it would be quite possible for the vigilance of an Excise officer to put a stop to retail sales by fraud in the way of samples, and at the same time the ordinary retail business would no doubt come within the purview of the justices. If the clause was maintained, even with the Solicitor-General's Amendment, no wholesale wine and spirit dealer's business, taken as a whole, would be safe from immediate depreciation and ultimate great loss, and, although in perhaps a rather smaller sphere, the Government

1005
would have struck another of those blows at confidence in trade of which they had already given so many examples.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 14, line 13, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'save as hereinafter provided.'"—(Mr. James Hope.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir S. EVANS,)said he hoped to persuade the hon. Member that they had dealt fairly with these licences. The origin of the proposals here put forward was to be found in Section 10 of the Act of 1902, and, speaking generally, the policy of that section was to make it necessary to have a justices' licence as well as an excise licence for all premises where liquor was to be sold by retail to be consumed off the premises. There came as a proviso to the subsection this—
"Provided that this subsection shall not apply to any excise licence taken out by a spirit dealer or wine dealer for premises which are exclusively used for the sale of intoxicating liquors or intoxicating liquors and mineral waters or other non-intoxicating drinks and which have no internal communication with the premises of any person who is carrying on any other trade or business."
That was in order to protect people who bona fide carried on in separate premises not communicating with any others a business which a spirit merchant under a spirit licence, or a wine merchant under a wine licence, could carry on. They thought that wherever intoxicating liquor was to be supplied for consumption off the premises, and by retail, a justices' licence ought to be obtained. They did not touch the wholesale supply of intoxicating liquor either in the provisions of this clause or in the provisions with regard to monopoly value. Monopoly value only attached to such licences as required to be granted by the justices themselves, and as wholesale licences did not require to be granted by the justices they did not come within the purview of these provisions. It was found in practice that where justices had refused to give a retail licence because the premises communicated with other premises where other businesses were carried on, the merchant took a
1006
small place for himself which did not in fact communicate, and, therefore, he said he came within the proviso. They wanted to put a stop to that, and that was a reason why they had introduced this Clause 21. A wine dealer's licence authorised him to sell not only wholesale but retail also, while a spirit dealer must have a wholesale licence and a retail licence. He had given notice of his Amendment to protect wine dealers from being affected by this clause, and it was entirely in their interest that it was put in. The wine merchant only had to take out a wholesale licence. It had been decided by a case in the Courts that his wholesale licence enabled him to sell not only wholesale but retail also.
MR. YOUNGER: Why not give the spirit dealer the same facility?
SIR S. EVANSsaid because he had to take out two licences. In so far as the spirit dealer sold under a retail licence, he was within the mischief against which they thought they were providing by this clause. With regard to those who already held their licence, their position was safeguarded as much as possible, and all who applied for licences before 1st January, 1909, would be put in the same position as if the Act were not passed. That meant that they would not require the justices' licence to be confirmed by any authority, and that they would be entitled to appeal from the refusal of the justices to grant a licence. Assuming it to be right to have a retail licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor to be consumed off the premises, there ought to be a justices' licence as well as an excise licence, with regard to both spirits and wine. Carrying out that policy they had put those who had a licence now in this protected position, and they would not be affected by the provision in regard to monopoly value and other provisions in the Bill. They had put in this entirely for the protection of the wine dealer. The question of the spirit dealer was different, because he took out a spirit licence not only for retail but for wholesale.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not think

1007
the point was any less complicated after the explanation of the Solicitor-General. He did not profess himself to be an expert on the subject, but there were two points upon which he should like to be satisfied. The hon. and learned Gentleman had told them that the clause distinguished the case of the spirit merchant from that of the wine merchant, but he gathered that it was a purely technical distinction. He understood that wholesale wine merchants and wholesale spirit merchants, in the ordinary exercise of their trade, sold specimen bottles to persons whom they hoped would be their customers. Did that bring them within the definition of retail trader? Was a man subject to all the disabilities attaching to the retail trade if, in the exercise of a wholesale business, he sold specimen bottles to those who were already his customers or whom he hoped would be his customers? His second point was the offering of samples of the liquor on the premises to would-be customers whom the wholesale merchant desired to secure. Would that be retail consumption on the premises? If the Solicitor-General could assure him that in neither of the cases he had mentioned the wholesale trader would be hampered by the clause they were discussing, he would feel that he had not much to complain of. He hoped that point would be made quite clear, because at present they were a little uncertain as to the precise position on the points he had raised.
MR. CAVEpointed out that there was no such thing as a wholesale wine licence known to the law. There was a licence to sell wine, which covered both wholesale and retail trade. He hoped the Amendment would receive further consideration.
*MR. GRETTONsaid that according to the information he had received there was only one kind of wine dealers' licence and that covered sale, wholesale and retail, and also the sale of spirits. There was no provision defining what a wholesale licence was. He could not understand the action of the Government in this matter in exempting wholesale spirit merchants, and harassing retail
1008
wine merchants, and he did not think any case had been made out for refusing to continue the present system of excise, licences to retail dealers in wines and spirits. To have to go before the justices every year was very obnoxious, and it was a very unnecessary restriction unless a real case could be made out that the present administration of the law was unsatisfactory and that the public interest had suffered. His information was that no such state of things had arisen and some explanation should be offered to the Committee as to why all these difficulties should be created by an unnecessary provision of this kind.
SIR S. EVANSsaid he had already indicated that a justices' licence would not be required for the grant of an excise licence to a wine dealer to enable him to sell wine wholesale only. He was advised that the giving of samples on the premises or sending samples would not constitute a sale retail, and would come within the powers of the person carrying on business under a wholesale licence. The Amendment on the Paper, he believed, carried out what the Government intended; if it did not then they would have to reconsider the point. If a person only wanted so sell wine wholesale he did not need to go before the justices, but if he wanted to sell retail as well he would require not only the excise licence but the justices' licence as well.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the Solicitor-General had stated that the giving of a sample would not bring the wholesale merchant within the purview of this section. There was nothing in the Bill to prevent anyone giving beer, spirits, or wine as they pleased. His experience of wine merchants was that they were not in the habit of giving but selling the samples. A wine merchant might send three bottles of different wines as a sample with the idea of obtaining a wholesale order. A sale might or might not follow, just as the recipient was pleased or displeased with the samples and the price. His experience was that wholesale merchants were in the habit of charging for such samples. He wished to know if the sale of samples

1009
of wine in that way would bring the wine merchant within the scope of the section applying to the retail trader.
SIR S. EVANSsaid that if the quantity sold was below the quantity sold by retail a justices' licence would be required, but if it came within the wholesale category as a part of a larger parcel sold it would be a wholesale order. It was, in his opinion, a question of fact in each case.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid it was obvious that it was impossible for a wine merchant in perfectly bona fide cases to guarantee that a wholesale order would follow the submitting of samples. He would be quite satisfied if the Solicitor-General assured him that the fact of the transaction being intended to lead to and was necessary for the purpose of obtaining a wholesale order would be accepted as a test of the bona fides of the transaction whether an order followed or not.
SIR S. EVANSsaid that that was the general law at present, and they did not propose to alter it in the Bill before the House.
*MR. YOUNGERsaid this was rather an exceptional case. It was one upon which both the Majority Report and the Minority Report of the Royal Commission were in agreement. That Commission considered the question and recommended that wholesale licences required by brewers, distillers, and wine and spirit merchants should not require the consent of the justices and should not come under the control of the licensing authority. The Commission came unanimously to the conclusion that these licences should be exempted. The Solicitor-General had not shown any ground for making the change except the desire to get some monopoly value out of these houses. The hon. and learned Gentleman was perfectly aware that they had no monopoly value at present. They were in that respect in a different position from on-licences, which had, of course, a monopoly value. Therefore, by this particular provision the Government were going to create a monopoly value for the purpose of afterwards securing it. He thought that was the object of the clause.
1010
The hon. and learned Gentleman had not produced any evidence to show that there was any ground for supposing that the retail use of these licences either for wine or spirits had been in any way abused. The desire was to get as much as possible out of the unfortunate people who held these licences. In that connection it would be interesting to know what definition of monopoly value the Solicitor-General proposed to apply to these licences. He thought it would be exceedingly difficult to apply any. The hon. and learned Gentleman would be well advised if he discarded his own Amendment and accepted that proposed by his hon. friend which would meet the case.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman had told the Committee that he wished to meet the case which had been represented from the Opposition side. He had based his refusal to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for the Central Division of Sheffield on the ground that he did not wish to alter the general law. But what he was doing by the clause now under discussion was to repeal a section of the Act of 1902.
SIR S. EVANS: Only affecting the proviso.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid it was proposed to repeal a provision in the Act of 1902, and to substitute a proviso which contained a phrase unknown to the general law. How would these words be construed—
"A justices' licence shall not be required for the grant of an Excise licence to a wine dealer to enable him to sell wine by wholesale only?"
His hon. friend had pointed out that this was a novelty which must be interpreted before it could be understood. It had already been pointed out that a wine dealer had a licence which embraced both wholesale and retail trade. If the hon. and learned Gentleman put into a new Act of Parliament words specifying the wholesale trade as distinct from anything else he was doing the very thing which he said he was not doing. He was altering the general law, and the effect would not

1011
be known until it was interpreted in particular cases.
SIR S. EVANSsaid his reason for saying that they were not altering the general law was that the law now provided for licences which were applicable to wholesale and retail trade. They were not in any sense altering the law as to wholesale supply. His answer to the right hon. Gentleman was the same as he had given to the hon. and learned Member for Kingston, namely, that the intention was to avoid altogether the necessity for a justices' licence in the case of the wholesale dealer. Therefore, if a wine merchant wanted only to sell wine wholesale, he need not go to the justices at all. He had put down his Amendment lest it might be argued that the licence would entitle him, whether it did or not, to sell by retail. The Amendment did not touch the wholesale licence at all. The Government were anxious that the justices' licence should be necessary for the purpose of selling by retail. In answer to the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs he would point out that what the Commission reported was that in their opinion it might be desirable with certain exceptions even to require a justices' licence for the wholesale trade.
*MR. YOUNGERsaid the explanation of that recommendation was that there were Excise licences which were taken out by shebeening people, and they desired to stop that. The Commission did not wish to get at the ordinary respectable wine and spirit merchant, and therefore they said that he should be exempted.
SIR S. EVANS: We are not doing anything against the recommendation. We are not affecting the wholesale licence, or proposing to bring it within the jurisdiction of the licensing justices.
MR. YOUNGER: Oh, yes, you are.
MR. SAMUEL YOUNGsuggested that in the Solicitor-General's Amendment the words "or spirit" should be inserted after the word "wine."
SIR S. EVANS: It is not necessary.
MR. LYTTELTONsaid they were very nearly agreed on this matter. It seemed to him that the single point which remained outstanding had reference to the widespread practice of wine dealers sending out sample bottles in prosecution of wholesale trade. To interfere with that practice in any way would be to encumber business seriously, and judging from what the Solicitor-General had said it was not his desire to do so. He himself, if he were acting as a Judge, would certainly direct a jury in the sense of his hon. friend's Amendment. He would say to the jury that a wine dealer who sent out a sample bottle was bona fide carrying on trade of a wholesale character, the sale of the sample bottle being ancillary or incidental to the carrying on of the wholesale business. The Solicitor-General said that that would not be the direction which a Judge would give, but that he would direct that when sample bottles were sold to customers and paid for the sales were retail sales. He thought that would be a manifest injustice, but he must defer to what the Solicitor-General had said. It came to this that if a wine dealer sent out sample bottles he would require a justices' licence, and would therefore fall within the extremely onerous conditions attaching to monopoly value. He thought the Government, if they did not want, to act unjustly towards wholesale wine dealers, ought to accept the Amendment moved by his hon. friend.
MR. G. D. FABERsaid the supply of sample bottles was often important to a wine merchant's business nowadays. He understood that in the present conduct of the trade sales frequently consisted in supplying consignments of half-a-dozen, a dozen, or up to two dozen bottles to meet small wants all over the country. Two dozen bottles came within the definition of a wholesale sale. In future the whole of these sales would be stopped unless wine merchants got a justices' licence as well as an Excise licence. This change might hereafter involve the wine merchant in the net of monopoly value, and that would be a most serious matter. They were going to cut at the root of a great deal of the trade carried on by wine merchants. Another point which was not clear to his mind was

1013
in regard to the spirit dealer's licence. The Solicitor-General had said there was no necessity to exempt the spirit dealer. The Act of 1902 which the hon. and learned Gentleman had quoted mentioned the spirit dealer as well as the wine dealer. He asked him to tell the Committee why it was not necessary to insert words exempting the spirit dealer.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid it seemed to him that some alteration in the clause was necessary to meet the point stated by the hon. Member for Kingston. The Solicitor-General had stated that a justices' licence would not be necessary to enable a wine merchant to sell wine by wholesale only. There was no such thing as an Excise licence to enable a man to sell wine by wholesale only. But that was not their Amendment at all. At any rate, the Amendment as it stood did not mean what their intention was. He suggested the desirability of the Government's reconsidering the wording of the clause.
MR. JAMES HOPEsaid that the answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman in regard to the spirit dealer's licence was satisfactory. He understood that the case of the wholesale spirit dealer was covered already. As for this form of licence which enabled the wine dealer to carry on wholesale dealing, he maintained that it was not possible for the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to issue a fresh form of licence. Legislation would be necessary, and as that legislation involved taxation it would have to be
initiated in Committee of Ways and Means. In order to get over that difficulty the Government said that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue might issue a licence, which enabled a man to deal both wholesale and retail under the licence, to deal wholesale only. The dealer would go to the Excise and get a licence which said distinctly that he could deal both wholesale and retail, but when he got it he presumed that the dealer would have to enter into some sort of obligation that he would not use his legal rights, that he would only use the power of dealing wholesale under that form of licence. Surely that would be rather a strange situation. He thought it would be better frankly to say: "Let him deal both wholesale and retail so long as the retail sales are merely auxiliary and incidental to the carrying on of a wholesale business." And let the Excise put it that it was a condition of such a licence being granted that the licensee gave such an undertaking. Then in regard to sample bottles, that case had evidently not been met. He thought it would be met by the words of his Amendment. He did not profess that his Amendment covered all the difficulties that had arisen, but neither did the Amendment of the hon. and learned Solicitor-General. He said that, subject to an undertaking on the part of the licensee such as he had described, the hon. and learned Gentleman should consent to adopt his words.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 93; Noes, 238. (Division List No. 318.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Gardner, Ernest

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

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

Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

Clark, George Smith

Gretton, John

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Clive, Percy Archer

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd)

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

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

Harris, Frederick Leverton

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

Courthope, G. Loyd

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Craik, Jir Henry

Heaton, John Henniker

Bowles, G. Stewart

Cross, Alexander

Hill, Sir Clement

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hills, J. W.

Bull, Sir William James

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Hunt, Rowland

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Kerry, Earl of

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Kimber, Sir Henry

Carlile, E. Hildred

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

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Cave, George

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Fletcher, J. S.

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

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

Percy, Earl

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Valentia, Viscount

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

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Remnant, James Farquharson

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

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

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Morpeth, Vescount

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Young, Samuel

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Younger, George

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Stanier, Beville

Nolan, Joseph

Starkey, John R.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

James Hope and Viscount

Oddy, John James

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Helmsley.

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

Thornton, Percy M.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Agnew, George William

Duckworth, James

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Jardine, Sir J.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Erskine, David C.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Barker, John

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Jowett, F. W.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Everett, R. Lacey

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Barnard, E. B.

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Barnes, G. N.

Fenwick, Charles

Laidlaw, Robert

Beale, W. P.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Beauchamp, E.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lambert, George

Bell, Richard

Findlay, Alexander

Lamont, Norman

Bellairs, Carlyon

Fuller, John Michael F.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

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

Fullerton, Hugh

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Bennett, E. N.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Levy, Sir Maurice

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

Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Glendinning, R. G.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hn. David

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Glover, Thomas

Lupton, Arnold

Black, Arthur W.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Boulton, A. C. F.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Brace, William

Grant, Corrie

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

Brigg, John

Gulland, John W.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Bright, J. A.

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Maclean, Donald

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Brooke, Stopford

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

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

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tvdvil

M'Callum, John M.

Bryce, J. Annan

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

M'Crae, Sir George

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

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

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh

Mallet, Charles E.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Hart, Davies, T.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Byles, William Pollard

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Marnham, F. J.

Cameron, Robert

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

Massie, J.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Menzies, Walter

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hedges, A. Paget

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Clough, William

Helme, Norval Watson

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Henderson, Arthur (Durham

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

Morrell, Philip

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Henry, Charles S.

Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard

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

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

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Cowan, W. H. S.

Higham, John Sharp

Nuttall, Harry

Cox, Harold

Hobart, Sir Robert

O'Grady, J.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hodge, John

Parker, James (Halifax)

Crossley, William J.

Holt, Richard Durning

Partington, Oswald

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Hooper, A. G.

Paulton, James Mellor

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Horniman, Emslie John

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hudson, Walter

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

1016

1017

Perks, Sir Robert William

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

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

Walsh, Stephen

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Sears, J. E.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

Pollard, Dr.

Seddon, J.

Wardle, George J.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

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

Sherwell, Arthur James

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Whitbread, Howard

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

Smeaton, Donald Macknzie

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Pullar, Sir Robert

Soares, Ernest J.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Radford, G. H.

Spicer, Sir Albert

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Steadman, W. C.

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Wiles, Thomas

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

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Wilkie, Alexander

Richardson, A.

Summerbell, T.

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

Ridsdale, E. A.

Sutherland, J. E.

Williamson, A.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

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

Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Robinson, S.

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

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

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Thomasson, Franklin

Winfrey, R.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Toulmin, George

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Verney, F. W.

Joseph Pease and Master of

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Vivian, Henry

Elibank.

Amendment proposed—
"In page 14, line 14, after the word 'but,' to insert the words 'a justices' licence shall not be required for the grant of an excise licence to a wine dealer to enable him to sell wine by wholesale only, and.'"—(The, Solicitor-General.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. JAMES HOPEasked whether the hon. and learned Solicitor-General was not rather dissatisfied with the ambiguity of the words "to enable." If they meant that the licensee was to give an undertaking not to sell by retail, had that not better be put in on the face of it before they got to the Report stage? As the Amendment stood there would be many different constructions of the words.
SIR S. EVANSdid not think there was ambiguity, but he would certainly consider the matter, because when they were at one as to the object to be attained the question of words must be considered. Since the last discussion took place he had had an opportunity of consulting the authorities, and he would read the instructions issued by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in 1905. First of all, the Instruction 621 dealt with the similar case of the sale of sweets either by wholesale or retail. It ran—
"A person who has obtained a licence to deal in sweets may also retail sweets without taking
1018
out any further excise licence. In Great Britain he must obtain a justices' licence or certificate before he commences to retail, but in Ireland a certificate is not required."
Instruction 645, dealing with the wine licence, said—
"A licensed dealer in foreign wine may sell such wine or sweets, made wines, mead or metheglin, in any quantity, but only for consumption off the premises." "With the following exceptions a justices' licence or certificate is required in the case of every excise licence under which intoxicating liquor may be sold by retail, including the sale of wine under a wine dealer's licence." "Exceptions. It is not required: (1) In England for a licence taken out by a spirit dealer or a wine dealer for premises which are exclusively used for the sale of intoxicating liquors or intoxicating liquors and mineral waters or other non-intoxicating drinks, and which have no internal communication with the premises of any person carrying on any other trade or business."
He was advised that it was within the competence of the authorities at Somerset House to grant, on the principle of the greater including the less, a wholesale excise licence, and under that licence a wholesale dealer could carry on his trade without any justices' licence; but if he intended to or did sell by retail on the premises he would require a separate justices' licence also.
*MR. YOUNGERsaid the difficulty was that there was no form of licence to meet the case. Exactly the

1019
same difficulty arose in Scotland. The Paisley justices had granted, illegally, as it proved, six-day licences, because they could only grant a seven-days licence, and in consequence, the people were prosecuted for refusing to serve travellers on Sunday and convicted. A licence was issued to the wine dealer which at present included the right to retail, but if he refused to sell by retail he might get into the same difficulty that the unfortunate people of Paisley did.
SIR S. EVANSsaid he was told there was no difficulty here.
MR. JAMES HOPEasked whether, when a man had got a wholesale wine licence, he could go on selling by retail. There did not seem to be anything to prevent him, whatever undertaking he might give, except his own conscience. The only consequence was that it would not be renewed at the end of the year, but he could go on for the year, in spite of all the justices could do to him.
MR. WYNDHAMthought the Solicitor-General must realise that he had not made this point clear to laymen. It was important that those who had not the benefit of legal experience should be informed of the nature of the laws they were making. Already the words of the Solicitor-General had been understood in different ways. He understood that at present a wholesale wine merchant got a licence from the justices which enabled him to sell by retail, and so far as he understood the Solicitor-General he intended that if a man had a licence which entitled him to sell both wholesale and retail, he would not require a justices' licence. But these words did not provide for any practical potentialities of what might occur if this Amendment was adopted. It might be held that a man having a wholesale licence who sold two or three bottles of wine was selling by retail. If that were the case, a great number of wholesale wine dealers would have off-licences, and in view of what had been vaguely foreshadowed as to what the Government meant to do on the Report stage, it was impossible for the Committee to imagine what the effect of this Amendment would be.
SIR S. EVANSthought it was quite possible for the authorities of the Inland Revenue to grant a licence without the sanction of the justices, for the purpose of carrying on a wholesale business, and it was possible for them to append a footnote to that licence that it did not cover the retail sale of wine, unless there was also a justices' licence. In the book on the Excise Laws of Sir Nathaniel Highmore, the greatest authority, in Vol. II., page 6, it was stated—
"By reason of Secton 5 of 25 & 26 Vict. c. 35., Part IV., a licence to a dealer in wine in Scotland does not confer any authority to sell wine by retail unless the holder thereof is in possession of a certificate from the justices under that Act authorising him to sell wine by retail."
He was informed by Sir Nathaniel Highmore himself that he had a distinct recollection that the note in his book followed the footnote which appeared at that time—1899—on the licence granted to a wine dealer in Scotland. His object was to protect the wine dealer, and if better words could be found he would consider them; but he was informed that a wine dealer's licence could be granted by the Inland Revenue authorities to a person desiring to sell wine by wholesale only with such a note, and would by that means be limited to sale by wholesale, and that any sale by retail under that licence would not only be a breach of the Act of 1902, if the person selling was a person required to obtain a justices' licence, but would also be a breach of Section 24 of the Revenue Act of 1889 as being a sale in contravention of the terms of the Excise licence.
MR. YOUNGERsaid he could give the case in point to which he had already referred. Under the old Scottish Act there was no such thing as a six-day licence for hotels. There were only seven-day licences, and when the justices granted a six-day licence they were told they had no right to do so, though they put a footnote on the licence to cover that objection. These licences only permitted sale on six days of the week—not on Sundays, except to people arriving at hotels. A man, a bona fide traveller, believing this to be illegal, demanded drink on a Sunday in Paisley, and was refused. The case came before a Scottish Court, and it was held that a six-day licence was invalid,

1021
and that the hotel-keeper had no business to refuse, and he was fined.
SIR S. EVANSdid not think that was quite per incuriam, but if it should turn out that the Inland Revenue authorities had not the authority he would see that provisions were brought forward giving them that authority.
*MR. CAVEpointed out that the Prime Minister; in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Liverpool, had stated that there was no wine dealer's licence for sale by wholesale only. A justices' licence would, therefore, under the provisions of this clause be required, before an Excise licence to deal with wines could be obtained in view of the permission to engage in retail trade given by that licence. The spirit dealer's licence on the other hand covered wholesale trade only, and, therefore, did not come within the provisions of the clause. The hon. Member for Hampshire asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would consider the possibility of issuing a special ten guinea form of Excise licence applicable to the cases of wholesale wine dealers and shippers only for which it would not be necessary to apply for a justices' licence in addition. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that a new form of licence such as that which was suggested could not be issued without fresh legislation. Was it not clear, therefore, that no such licence as was referred to in the Amendment could be legally issued? If that were so, now or on the Report stage was the time to supply this hiatus in the Act, and he hoped they would have a promise that the Government would reconsider the matter.
SIR S. EVANS: Certainly.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. W. R. REAmoved to leave out the words "at the commencement of this Act," and to insert the words "on the fifth day of April, nineteen hundred and eight." He explained that the Amendment was designed to stop a loop hole which had been overlooked by Government. The clause,
1022
while abolishing exemption, made a privileged class of present holders of these special licences. The words "commencement of this Act," however, enabled anyone desiring to evade the clause to apply now, and the Amendment to substitute 5th April ensured that only those holding licences for the present year should be placed in a position of special privilege.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 14, lines 15 and 16, to leave out the words 'at the commencement of this Act,' and to insert the words 'on the fifth day of April, nineteen hundred and eight.'"—(Mr. W. R. Rea.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the clause."
SIR S. EVANSsaid he had an open mind on this Amendment. He did not think there was any such danger as that mentioned by his hon. friend. He thought they had taken the ordinary course in saying that the provision should date from the commencement of the Act. He did not know that there was any objection to the Amendment being put, but if there was it could be withdrawn.
MR. MITCHELL - THOMSONreminded the hon. and learned Gentleman that it was conceivable that there might be a case in which this privilege, which it was desired should be a continuing privilege, would not be easy to secure as the Bill stood. It was only to be given to one who held an Excise licence at the commencement of the Act and "holds it" at the time of the application. The application for the justices' licence was not to be treated then as an application for a new licence. The first Brewster Sessions after the passing of the Act would be in the February, and it might happen that the successors of a man who held one of these licences, and who died in January, wished to continue the business. It was inconceivable that it was the intention of the Government to exact from these people the monopoly value, because their predecessor had happened to die in the six weeks that intervened between the passing of the Act and the holding of the Brewster

1023
Sessions. He was certain that that was not the intention of the Government, and therefore it was obviously necessary to fill up that gap in order to fulfil the intentions the Government had in bringing up this clause.
MR. SHERWELLthought the hon. Member who had just sat down had not quite seen the point. The licence in question was an Excise licence, and might be called for at any time.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid his point was that the two conditions necessary for an excepted licence were that the licence was held at the date of the commencement of the Act, and at the date of the application. He put the case of a licence, held by a man at the date of the commencement of the Act, but who had died, and which was held by his successor at the date of the application.
MR. SHERWELLexpressed his regret at having misunderstod the hon. Gentleman. Obviously there was a loophole in the clause there as it now stood. He thought the Government should fix a date with regard to that. It was a matter of indifference what the date was.
MR. CAVEthought by this Amendment an injustice would be thrust upon the people who had taken out these licences since last April.
MR. LEIF JONESsuggested that it should be a past and not a future date, say, 1st November. His point was that the Government should not give notice of the advantage conferred upon these holders, otherwise a number of people would take up these licences in order to obtain the advantages which the clause would confer upon them.
MR. YOUNGERsaid that the people who held these licences had really had notice since last February, and if they wished to take advantage as suggested they would have done so long ago. It did not matter whether the date was a past or future date.
*MR. GRETTONsaid the real difficulty was that there was a hiatus in the
1024
Bill owing to the fact that it would come into force in its present form on 1st January and the Brewster Sessions would not be held until a day in February. A dealer in wines and spirits might have an Excise licence, but he could not obtain a justices' licence unless he had an Excise licence now, because the Bill said he must hold such a licence at the commencement of the Act. A wine merchant would, therefore, have to carry on his business illegally for some weeks after the 1st January until he could obtain a justices' licence as required by the Bill. Also, the holder of the licence might die in the interval between the 1st January and the date of Brewster Sessions. In that case his successor or partner could not obtain a justices' licence, because the Bill said he must have held a licence at the commencement of this Act. There were many of these wine merchants' businesses being carried on, and some of them were old-established concerns under the control of elderly men. If such a holder died his successors would have to apply for a new licence and to pay the monopoly value because of the death of the former proprietor. He thought it was the intention of the Government that the wine merchant should not pay the monopoly value even at the end of the term laid down for the other licences; therefore he urged upon them that this was a very important omission, which, if not dealt with, would add greatly to the complexity of the subject.
MR. LYTTELTONsaid he had listened to the speeches made by his hon. friend upon this point, and it seemed to him that an answer was required. It was the business of those responsible for Acts of Parliament at all events to see that those Acts were coherent. If he understood the law rightly the owner of a licence such as this, which on the face of it gave him the power, had a right to trade either by wholesale or retail. He was now to be prevented from trading by retail unless he had a justices' licence. That was one incoherence, and it was to be succeeded by another, viz., that between 1st January and the holding of the Brewster Sessions he could not trade at all.
SIR S. EVANSsaid the first two conditions referred to the Excise licence and not to the justices' licence. The holder of an Excise licence must have held it at the commencement of the Act and must hold it at the time of his application for the justices' licence. He saw no difficulty at all in the matter. If he wanted while he had the licence, to have the rights attaching to it, the holder must apply for the justices' licence. But it was only if he held the licence on those two dates that he would have the right to go to the justices and apply for a licence.
MR. JAMES HOPEthought the Solicitor-General might accept some such words as "who or whose predecessor is entitled." The right hon. Gentleman had not covered the case of that of an old gentleman who might, as not infrequently happened after the festivities of the season, die early in the year. It would be rather hard lines if because of the death of the holder of the licence before the date of application to Brewster Sessions—which was the first possible date for the application to be made—his successors should be mulcted.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid this point could be raised on another Amendment. An Amendment had been handed to him on which this particular point could be more naturally raised.
Amendment negatived.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONthought the point which the Committee had just been discussing might be met if the hon. and learned Gentleman would consent to the insertion of the words "whether by himself or his successors." It was a form of words, he believed, known to the law, certainly of Scotland if not of England. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 14, line 16, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'whether by himself or his successors.'"—(Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR S. EVANSdid not think the words were very apt. He did not know whether
1026
the hon. Gentleman meant to confine those words to predecessors in title.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Yes.
SIR S. EVANSsaid it was just possible that a man might die between 1st January and the date of the Brewster Sessions, and that his successors might desire to have some rights under this section. If the hon. Gentleman stopped there he might put in some words to meet that case. If it was the case of the representative of a person who died between those two dates, then in that particular case, in order to allay the apprehensions of the hon. Member opposite who apparently thought so badly of the Christmas season and the possible effect of the coming of this Act into operation, he would promise to consider the matter before the Report stage.
MR. CAVEsuggested that his hon. friend, after the assurance given by the Solicitor-General, should withdraw the Amendment.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid he had no objection, after what had been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman, to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid they ought to have some explanation from the Government why they considered the clause necessary. He disagreed with the Solicitor-General when he said that they were all at one. He thought there was a larger difference of opinion than the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think. No one knew whether it was the intention of the Government to make an ordinary wine dealer, whether in town or country, take out a justices' licence if he sold by retail. If that was the intention, there was a wide divergence of opinion between the Government and some of them on that side of the House. He could not understand why the clause should be held necessary. It was not held necessary when the Act of 1902

1027
was passed; and he thought the Committee was entitled to know why the Government considered it necessary now to make a wine dealer take out a justices' licence. It was not as if it were alleged that disorder and drunkenness arose from the conduct of a wine merchant's business. It seemed to him that the clause would inflict a great grievance on a very respectable body of men. In view of the Amendment made to Clause 3, to include "off" licences, the matter became one of considerable importance. He was aware that Amendments were to be moved on Report, but they did not know what they were or whether "off" licences were to be included or not. If they were included, then Clause 21 became of very great importance indeed, and he certainly thought they ought to have an explanation from the Government as to the grounds of their policy.
*MR. G. D. FABERsaid after the many days that he had sat through the licensing debates listening to the Government's expositions of the clauses, he could not help becoming suspicious of each one in the Bill. He could not help feeling that somewhere at the bottom of this clause there was a desire to drive the wine merchant to take out a retail licence, which necessitated a justices' licence, with the inevitable result that at the end of the reduction period he would come within monopoly value. The wine merchant would find himself on the horns of a dilemma. They were going to dislocate his present mode of carrying on his business. He would no longer be able to sell wines or spirits in small quantities without taking out a justices' licence. If he did not take out a justices' licence, his business would materially suffer. If he did, then at the end of the reduction period his justices' licence would be a new licence and come within all the provisions respecting monopoly value. That was an unfair predicament in which to put him. He should have thought that the Government would have been slow to interfere with the conduct of the ordinary wine merchant's business. There could be no moral reason for doing so. The greatest advocate of temperance could not say that drunkenness or intemperance proceeded from the wine merchant's business.
1028
They must, therefore, search for some other reason, and the reason could be no other than the pecuniary benefit which the Government anticipated they would receive when at the end of the reduction period the wine merchant was mulcted in monopoly value. The clause was a needless and wanton interference with trade. It was not based on any desire to promote sobriety. It was simply in their greedy desire to snatch the monopoly value, that the Government included the wine merchant in the meshes of their net. He hoped the Opposition would divide against the clause.
MR. LANE-FOXwished to press upon the Government the point made by the hon. Member for York, as regarded this interference with the trade of wine merchants. To his mind one of the chief causes of intemperance in this country was the extraordinary nastiness of temperance drinks. If hon. Gentlemen opposite, instead of bringing forward bad Bills, would suggest some really good appetising temperance drink, they would do more for the cause of temperance than anything else they could possibly do. Obviously people could not go on perpetually drinking warm water and other nasty temperance concoctions when, if they could afford it, they could obtain small bottles of light wine. These were the people whom temperance advocates should encourage, yet it was this very class who were being discouraged by this legislation. The clause would do a great deal of harm to the cause of temperance, and as far as he could see, with no possible object, unless it was the desire to take somebody else's money.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid he should certainly vote against the clause which combined in a particularly flagrant degree the main phases of the whole of this legislation, which mixed temperance principle with eccentric finance. The whole object of taxation was to get money with as little discomfort and inconvenience as possible to that portion of the community which provided the money. But the financial provisions of this Bill were drawn up so as to impose the maximum amount of discomfort

1029
and inconvenience on the persons who provided the money. The cause of temperance was not served by such a clause as this. The result, when the clause matured at the end of the period, would be to make wine merchants sell heady and bad wines instead of light and pure wines; in the view of the Opposition at any rate, it would tend to put the wine trade of the country under such conditions as he had described. He thought the operation of the clause would be to force those who enjoyed such privileges as were afforded, to make as much money as they could in the shortest possible period. The Government seemed to have forgotten that it was once the policy of the great Liberal Party to encourage temperance by a wise mixture of temperance legislation with financial legislation. They deliberately moved the heavy duties off light wines. The "Gladstone claret" was one of the emblems embroidered on their flag, and he believed that they had exercised some influence on the taste of the wine drinking public by legislation of that character. Legislation of the character now proposed would also exercise an influence on the taste of the wine-drinking public, but it would be a bad instead of a good influence.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYthought the Government should give some reason in support of the clause. He would point out, in addition to what he had already said, that if at the end of the period the wine merchants were forced to pay monopoly value, then the sum they might have to pay would be very large indeed, because there might be a difference between the value of the premises with a licence under Schedule A., and their value without a licence, owing to the fact that the premises, consisting so largely of cellar accommodation, would be absolutely without a licence; therefore, a very big financial consideration might be involved. He hoped the Solicitor-General would give them some answer.
SIR S. EVANSsaid he was sorry that he was unable to add anything to what he had already said, except, perhaps, that the noble Lord was wrong in saying that the object of this clause
1030
was that the Government might attach the monopoly value, whatever it might be, of the licence twenty-one years hence. That that was not the object of the clause was obvious from the fact that the clause was as it was originally presented, before they made the Amendment to Clause 3, which included the off-licence. The object of the clause was to bring within the jurisdiction of the justices all premises where intoxicating liquors were sold by retail. It had been found that where the justices refused a licence to sell intoxicating liquor by retail on the ground of the premises communicating with other parts of the premises where other business was carried on, grocers and merchants took small premises which did not communicate with other premises where a business was carried on and thereby brought themselves within the mischief against which they were providing.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid he quite accepted the hon. and learned Gentleman's assurance, but he ought to put it in the Bill. When the Government started this idea they had no intention of taking this very large monopoly value from wine merchants. The effect of the Bill as it now was was to take this tremendous sum from wine merchants at the end of fourteen years.
SIR S. EVANS: Not on a wholesale business.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid that if a wine merchant had a retail business he would have to pay monopoly value, and he might assume that the bulk of them had retail businesses. Although he agreed thoroughly with the Solicitor-General in bringing these licences under the control of the local magistrates, he equally agreed with the original intention of the Government, namely, that they did not mean to bring them within the purview of payment of monopoly value. It was obvious justice that if the clause was to be carried in this way there should be some assurance from the Government that they would exempt wine merchants from the liability to pay monopoly value at the end of fourteen years. They had the assurance of the Solicitor-General that the Government never had the slightest

1031
intention when they brought the clause in of exacting monopoly value. It was not too much to say they never had any idea that by amending Clause 3 they would let in this very large amount of monopoly value from retail wine merchants. He urged them to put in words to exempt retail licences from the effect of the monopoly value provisions. If they did not he should certainly vote against the clause. If it was done he should vote in favour of the clause.
MR. YOUNGERsaid that perhaps they could get an answer from the Prime Minister to the question—what was the monopoly value of the retail portion of a wholesale wine merchant's business? They had, of course, on the Amendment Paper, the Government definition of the monopoly value of any ordinary on-licence, but it would be interesting to know whether that definition was supposed or intended by the Prime Minister to apply to the monopoly value in cases where small
quantities of champagne or liqueur might be sold under a retail licence by the largest wine merchants in Pall Mall.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is asking a question. If he makes out that his vote on the clause depends on the answer he is in order, but it is not the time to ask questions now of the general kind that he is doing unless he can tell me that his vote depends on the answer.
MR. YOUNGERsaid it had every bearing on his vote. He entirely objected to the monopoly value being charged at all in this case and therefore he should vote against the clause. But when this monopoly value was for the first time brought in in this connection they ought to know what the Government regarded as the monopoly value and how they arrived at it.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 255; Noes, 110. (Division List No. 319.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Fenwick, Charles

Agnew, George William

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Ferens, T. R.

Alden, Percy

Byles, William Pollard

Findlay, Alexander

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Cameron, Robert

Fuller, John Michael F.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Fullerton, Hugh

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Clough, William

Glendinning, R. G.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Clynes, J. R.

Glover, Thomas

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Barker, John

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

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

Grant, Corrie

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Barnard, E. B.

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Barnes, G. N.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Beauchamp, E.

Cowan, W. H.

Gulland, John W.

Bell, Richard

Cox, Harold

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Bellairs, Carlyon

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

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

Crossley, William J.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

Black, Arthur W.

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

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

Boulton, A. C. F.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hart-Davies, T.

Brace, William

Duckworth, James

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

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

Brigg, John

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Bright, J. A.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Helme, Norval Watson

Brooke, Stopford

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Henry, Charles S.

Bryce, J. Annan

Erskine, David C.

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

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Everett, R. Lacey

Higham, John Sharp

Hobart, Sir Robert

Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Hodge, John

Napier, T. B.

Soares, Ernest J.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster

Spicer, Sir Albert

Holt, Richard Durning

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Hooper, A. G.

Nuttall, Harry

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Grady, J.

Steadman, W. C.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Parker, James (Halifax)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Partington, Oswald

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Hudson, Walter

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

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

Summerbell, T.

Jardine, Sir J.

Perks, Sir Robert William

Sutherland, J. E.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Pollard, Dr.

Thomas, Able (Carmarthen, E.)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

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

Thomasson, Franklin

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

Laidlaw, Robert

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

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Pullar, Sir Robert

Toulmin, George

Lambert, George

Radford, G. H.

Verney, F. W.

Leese, Sir Joseph T. (Accrington

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Vivian, Henry

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Redmond, William (Clare)

Walsh, Stephen

Lewis, John Herbert

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Walton, Joseph

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

Lupton, Arnold

Richardson, A.

Wardle, George J.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Lyell, Charles Henry

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Lynch, H. B.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Watt, Henry A.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Robinson, S.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Maclean, Donald

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

M'Callum, John M.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Whitehead, Rowland

M'Crae, Sir George

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Mallet, Charles E.

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Wiles, Thomas

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Wilkie, Alexander

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

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

Marnham, F. J.

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Massie, J.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Winfrey, R.

Menzies, Walter

Scott, A. H. Ashton-under-Lyne

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Micklem, Nathaniel

Sears, J. E.

Yoxall, James Henry

Middlebrook, William

Seaverns, J. H.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Seddon, J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Joseph Pease and Master of

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

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

Elibank.

Morrell, Philip

Sherwell, Arthur James

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

NOES.

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Cave, George

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

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Fardell, Sir T. George

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

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Fell, Arthur

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Fletcher, J. S.

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

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

Gardner, Ernest

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

Clark, George Smith

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Clive, Percy Archer

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

Gretton, John

Bertram, Julius

Courthope, G. Loyd

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Cross, Alexander

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Bull, Sir William James

Doughty, Sir George

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Heaton, John Henniker

Carlile, E. Hildred

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Helmsley, Viscount

Castlereagh, Viscount

Faber, George Denison (York)

Hill, Sir Clement

1034

1035

Hills, J. W.

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Houston, Robert Paterson

Oddy, John James

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Hunt, Rowland

Parkes, Ebenezer

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Joynson-Hicks, William

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Thornton, Percy M.

Kimber, Sir Henry

Percy, Earl

Tuke, Sir John Batty

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

Remnant, James Farquharson

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

Renton, Leslie

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

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

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Winterton, Earl

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

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

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Young, Samuel

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

M'Arthur, Charles

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

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

Alexander-Acland-Hood and

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Stanier, Beville

Viscount Valentia.

Morpeth, Viscount

Starkey, John R.

Clause 22:
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
*MR. CAVEdesired to protest against the abolition of the power to remove a licence from one house to another, which had been extremely useful in distributing licences more evenly. When a licence was no longer required in a particular district the section it was now proposed to repeal (Section 50 of the Licensing Act of 1872) enabled the justices to sanction the removal of that licence to a part where the population had grown, and so to meet the general convenience without increasing the drinking facilities of the district. The removals were not very numerous, and amounted to only about fifty or sixty last year. He was at a loss to understand why it was proposed that this section should be repealed. If it interfered with the operation of the scale under Clause 1 he could understand it, but that difficulty could be easily overcome by the acceptance of the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, which provided that the justices should not sanction the removal of a licence to a new district if the effect would be to bring the number above the statutory number in that area. The object of the Government seemed to be that nobody should be allowed to set up a house in a fresh position without paying monopoly value for the privilege. The plan adopted seemed to be to get as
1036
much as they could out of the owner even at the expense of inconveniencing the administration of the licensing laws. The only result of this would be that new licences would be granted in districts where they were required and the old licences, which might have been removed, would remain where they were not required. It was a mistake to repeal a provision which had been so useful, and some cause ought to be shown for the decision of the Government to put an end to a provision against which no complaint had been made so far as he knew.
*MR. BARNARDtotally disagreed with the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken. It appeared to him that there was no necessity for this clause in the Bill at all. A great many removals had taken place which had been enormously to the advantage of the new licensees. As to the future if the scheme of the Bill stood with monopoly value and the rest of it, it could not matter in the slightest degree, for if one licence went monopoly value would be taken into account and the exchange would in no way in practice touch the question which the hon. Member had raised. The scheme of the Bill provided that there should be a certain number of licences in a certain area. Did the hon. and learned Member mean that they were to exchange licences from one district into another or was the operation to be confined to the same district? Section 50 of the Act of 1872 was of no

1037
consequence whatever, and no principle was involved by its repeal. There was no necessity to waste time in discussing the clause at all.
SIR S. EVANSsaid it would be convenient at this point to give the reasons why the Government adhered to the clause as it stood. The history of the removal of licences from one set of premises to another was rather peculiar. There was, under the Act of 1828, a limited right of removal; it was introduced merely as a temporary expedient in the Act of 1871, which was called the Licences Suspension Act, when it was intended to deal with the licensing question in the following session. The Act of 1871 recited that it was expedient to restrict the issue of new licences and certificates until the legislature had further dealt with the question. Provision for the removal of licences was introduced for the first time in the Act of 1871 for a temporary purpose. The justices might refuse the removal, and there was no appeal against it. That removal provision was continued in Lord Aberdare's Act, and the question now was whether that power of removal should be continued. They were now only dealing with Section 50 of the Act of 1872. The power of removal of a restricted character under the Act of 1828 referred amongst others to cases where premises were swept away by a storm or where the premises were taken for a public purpose. In such cases removal was obviously right, because if a man lost his house under such circumstances it was obviously right that he should be allowed to have another house somewhere else. This also applied to cases where a house was destroyed by fire or in some other way rendered unfit for the reception of travellers. Whatever powers of removal were given under that Act they did not touch by the repeal of this provision, because they were now only putting an end to the power of removal under Section 50 of the Act of 1872. He submitted that it was right to prevent such removals. Under Section 50 a removal could be ordered by the justices from one part of a county to another. The removal might take place from the eastern corner to the western corner of a county without any relation
1038
whatever between the two areas affected. The hon. and learned Member for Kingston had referred to the advisability of allowing justices to retain this power of removal. He contended that licences which became unnecessary in one district ought to be done away with, and if another licence became necessary in another district the demand should be met by granting a new licence. He would mention a case of possible hardship to licensed victuallers. Suppose a man held a licence some miles away from a rapidly increasing population in an industrial centre, and a licence had been granted to holder A. who had paid the monopoly value. If another licence became necessary in that district would it be right to allow the justices to say to holder B. in an area miles away: "If you will shut up your small public-house we will give you the right to remove your licence into the same district as licence-holder A."
MR. YOUNGERsaid two or three licences would be wanted in that case.
SIR S. EVANSsaid that in the illustration he had given they would be making the house in the industrial centre subject to monopoly value and adding another which would not be subject to monopoly value at all. Even if such premises were very near each other it was obvious that the character of the premises might be totally changed, and it was perfectly right under the circumstances to require that the new premises should be subject to monopoly value. The hon. and learned Member for Kingston said he was at a loss to understand why they had put in this clause unless it was to get as much as possible at the expense of inconvenience to the administration of the licensing laws; but that was not so. When a licence was removed to another area it became in fact a new licence, and therefore they were entitled to seize the monopoly value. He did not often cite the opinion of bishops, but he would do so in this case. He did not know whether the hon. and learned Member was aware that it was proposed in the House of Lords when the Act of 1904 was under discussion to incorporate something of this kind. That Act was quite silent as to this power of removal,

1039
but there was an Amendment moved by Lord Salisbury which sought to give express power to remove a licence from one set of premises to another. That Amendment was withdrawn, and at a subsequent stage of the Bill an Amendment in a contrary direction was moved and was also withdrawn. Both Amendments being withdrawn, the matter was left sub silentio, so far as Parliamentary provision was concerned. In the discussion of one of the Amendments on 5th August, 1904, the Archbishop of Canterbury said—
"The noble Marquess treated it as a small matter, but it appeared to him one of the gravest changes they could introduce in the Bill. If the interpretation he (the most rev. Primate) put upon this Amendment were true, it would practically mean that no one who could help it would apply for a new licence, but everybody would apply for a 'removal,' for the reason that he could thus escape the new obligations imposed by Clause 4 on new licences. Their Lordships would remember that there were two quite different Acts relating to such 'transfers' or 'removals.' There was, first, the Act of 1828, under which the cases on which a removal could be justified were such things as the burning down of a house, and under that Act the 'removal' could only take place within the same licensing district. But there was absolutely no restriction under the Act of 1872 as to the grounds on which the renewal might be sanctioned, and it might be a removal to any other part of the country—that was to say, those who held a great many licences, instead of asking for a new licence, which would be placed under the severer conditions now imposed, would ask for the transfer by removal, which would give them all the opportunities of escaping the obligations they had heard so much of under Clause 4. If that were so, the change might be good or bad (he, himself, thought it was exceedingly bad), but at all events it was a very great thing to do, and it seemed to him to take away the merits they had heard so much belauded under Clause 4."
MR. CAVE: That was said on an Amendment to extend the power.
SIR S. EVANS: No, no. I will read the Amendment. It was as follows—
"In Clause 4, page 3, line 40, after the word 'licence,' to insert the words 'or of an order sanctioning the transfer or removal of a licence under Section 50 of the Licensing Act, 1872."
The speech of the Archbishop of Canterbury was directed entirely against the omission of the clause which the hon. and learned Gentleman wished to omit in a subsequent stage. Speaking on 8th
1040
August, 1904, the Archbishop of Canterbury said—
"… after this Bill passed there would be the greatest possible inducement to the owners of public-houses to try by any scheme they possibly could to escape the conditions which, under Clause 4, attached to new licences granted after the passing of the Act. Under that clause new licences were to be subject to a charge for monopoly value, but that condition would not apply to a transfer. He earnestly hoped that the House would obtain from the Government some promise that they would not be deprived in this way of what they had hoped had been gained in Clause 4."
On the same day the Bishop of London also took part in the debate. In giving an illustrative case he said—
"If a licence which was being given up in, say, Bethnal Green, because the house was unprofitable, was allowed to be transferred, say, to the large and rising district of Clayton, that licence would be subject to none of the conditions which would attach to a new licence; and if at a subsequent period the house in Clayton was shut up, it would be compensated for at a value very considerably higher than if the compensation money had been granted in respect of the house in Bethnal Green. It was monstrously unfair that a man should be able to take a valueless licence and put it down in prosperous district, and then not be subject to the conditions attaching to a new licence."
The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had said that the effect of doing away with this provision would be that they would get undesirable houses existing in some places, whereas they would be shut up if the licences could be removed elsewhere. He agreed, if he might respectfully say so, with the Bishop of London, who said that it would be monstrously unfair to allow removals of that kind from one district to another, thereby relieving the persons who got licences in new districts from the obligations imposed by the Act of 1904.
*MR. BARNARD: Would not the licences come under Clause 2 of the present Bill?
SIR EDWARD SASSOONsaid the Solicitor-General had read quotations from speeches of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London, evidently with great satisfaction to himself, in order to justify the repeal of this recent provision. The quotations were from people whom the hon. and learned Gentleman was seriously thinking of disestablishing next year.

1041
He thought the hon. Member for Kidderminster entirely misconceived the scope of the intention of those who desired to omit Clause 22. Under Section 50 of the Licensing Act of 1872 arrangements might be come to between the licensing justices and the brewers in cases where new and populous districts had come into being to transfer or remove an old licence from an over-licensed area to a new district where the requirement for a licence was very much felt. He would point out that when they spoke of an over-licensed area they did not mean that the licences were in excess of the statutory requirements under the Bill; they referred to the comparative requirements of the new district to which the licences might be removed with great advantage. These removals, if effected, would give a far better distribution without any draft on the compensation fund. In the earlier portion of the arguments which the Solicitor-General used yesterday he clearly pointed to the fact that the motive which animated the Government in repealing Section 50 of the Act of 1872 was more to extort the monopoly value from a new district than to consult the general convenience of the district. He thought there was a spirit of vindictiveness throughout the Bill. Evidently the whole measure was honeycombed with the desire to make the position of the licence-holder as hard and difficult in carrying on his business as it was possible to make it. He feared very much that the sincere and genuine desire which the Government had to bring about a great temperance reform would be to a great extent defeated by those harassing and objectionable restrictions they wished to place on licence-holders. The result would be that instead of having a respectable body of licence-holders to carry on the liquor trade of the country the business would fall into bad hands and the general community would, consequently, suffer. He appealed to the Government to accept the Amendment.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid there was one distinction between the Government of the present day and those right reverend minds who saw many dangers in the path in 1904. The Archbishops and bishops were seeking temperance in that
1042
year; the Government were now seeking money, and so far as he could see they were not seeking temperance at all. After all, actions were judged by their probable effects. Humble persons were so judged and the Government were going to be judged by that ordinary test. The foundation for cutting out this part of the law was that the licensing justices in whom such confidence was placed were going to be so green as not to see through a general conspiracy on the part of licensees to obtain by removal that for which they would otherwise have to pay the monopoly value as if it was a new licence. He did not suppose the Government imagined anything of the kind was likely to take place. Although magistrates were not likely to be taken in in this way, there might be a case where removal was the only thing to be done. The only result of the passing of this would be that the removal would not be applied for; the old bad house would be left in the old bad place and they would not get the public convenience which the legislature saw in 1872 would undoubtedly be gained to the public by the exercise of this power.
*MR. CLAVELL SALTERsaid the question before the Committee was whether the licensing justices were to be deprived of the discretion which they had exercised for thirty-six years in permitting the removal of licences in cases where it seemed to them proper to do so in the public interest. It appeared to him that it was not a very profitable use of the time of the Committee for the Solicitor-General to give a history of the clause in the Act of 1872 in the hope of showing that it was originally temporary in its nature. It was enacted as a permanent provision of the law, and it had worked well for thirty-six years. The justices had no power to remove a licence if any objection was raised in the quarter from which it was to be removed and if they refused removal there was no appeal. He ventured to submit to the Committee that this was not a question of the number of licensed houses at all. Apart from the number altogether he believed that it was a good and desirable thing in the interests

1043
of temperance and order that there should be power to remove a licence from a district where it was not required to a district where it was required, from premises which were unsuited for the purposes of the trade to premises which were well suited, well found and convenient. Was it not quite obvious that that useful process would be stopped if this power were taken away from the justices? It stood to reason that if a person desired to transfer from premises (a) to premises (b) he would not apply under the law as it would stand if this clause remained. And for this reason, if he applied for removal to a district where the existing licences exceeded the statutory ratio it would be idle, because no new licences were to be granted. But even if that were not the case, he would know that the monopoly value he would have to pay for the new licence would vastly exceed any compensation he would get for the old one. The result would be that a great number of ill-found houses would remain. References had been made to ecclesiastical dignitaries and their sayings in another place. They knew that there were authorities who could quote Scripture when it suited their purpose. But if the argument which the hon. and learned Gentleman had quoted—he thought from the Bishop of London—was a sample of the argument he would use in another place hereafter when the Solicitor-General reached it, he would find himself in very poor argumentative company. The Bishop said that a man might get the transfer of a valueless licence in one place to a valuable licence in another. The answer to that was that the licensing justices had a discretion and they were not fools; they would safeguard the public interest. In a recent case the Lord Chief Justice observed that not merely had the licensing justices a discretion to refuse renewal on the ground of the loss of the monopoly value, but it was their business to take into account when considering whether the removal was desirable or not, whether or not they would be giving a valuable property without exacting compensation which ought to be given for it. The only question for the Committee was whether the licensing justices were or were
1044
not to be deprived of their discretion to permit a removal on proper cause shown.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid it was very difficult to trace any connection between the attitude of the Government towards one clause and another. But their memories did go back more than twenty-four hours. Yesterday the Committee were asked to believe that the licensing justices and they only were competent to decide rather minute questions of the internal economy and arrangements of a public-house; but it was well-known that the discretion of the justices in such matters had not met with universal approval throughout the country. To-day they were asked to decide that the only competent men to settle these small points were totally incompetent to come to a right decision as to the places where public-houses should be opened. That was the only practical result which would follow from the Government insisting on repealing Clause 50 of the Act of 1872. They might hold out to those who sat behind them the glittering bait that the monopoly money was going to be poured into an exhausted exchequer, but did anybody suppose that a licence-holder could enjoy such a concession as the Government had made to the licence-holders unless he were compensated for the old licence? It had been amply demonstrated in the course of these debates that such a man would stay where he was rather than remove, although the removal might be for the convenience of the public and the justices might desire such removal. The result would be to keep a public-house where it was not wanted and might do harm, and prevent it being removed to a place where it was wanted and where it would do no harm.
SIR GEORGE WHITEsaid he was about to make precisely the same remark as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover had made as to the ability of the licensing justices, but from an entirely different point of view. However, he felt that this was a question in which they might be guided by experience. Licensing justices very often had the bait put before

1045
them of the surrender of two or three licences in order that a licence might be granted in another neighbourhood. From his own experience he was bound to say that this bait sometimes succeeded. He would not say that the licensing justices were fools, to use the impolite expression of the hon. Gentleman opposite, but he was afraid that they did not always bring their average commonsense to bear when this question of the removal of licences was before them. There was only one principle which applied in such cases, viz.: Was the licence required, or was it not? If it was not, then it should not be removed. Again, did the place suggested for the transfer require the licence or not? If it did the licence should be granted. In his opinion it was rather an immoral transaction for justices to accept the pledge of the surrender of two or three licences in order that a licence might be granted in another neighbourhood. The hon. Member opposite said that the transfer would occur without any increase in drinking, but the hon. Member should remember that this was purely a trade business. The removal was not done for philanthropic purposes but because the man imagined that he would do a great deal more trade in the new premises. Certainly he would not ask for a transfer of the licence if he did not believe that it would lead to an increase of drinking. He had been somewhat surprised at the cheers with which hon. Gentlemen received the quotations from the speeches of the Bishops in another place, because though the sentiments were admirable they did not lead to any practical result. At the same time those quotations were apt to go to the root of the subject, because they presented to hon. Members in a concrete form the actual facts. The Amendment was supported by hon. Gentlemen opposite because the clause would secure the monopoly value for the State. Why should monopoly value be attacked as vindictive and destructive in this Bill when the principle was passed in the Act of 1904? He hoped the Government would remain firm in their determination to go forward with the clause.
LORD R. CECILsaid he wished to begin by entering his protest against the grave sacerdotalism developed
1046
on the opposite benches. He observed that the quotations read by the hon. and learned Solicitor-General had been received with approval by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Archbishops, Bishops and Nonconformist divines might be safe guides in their proper sphere but he did not think they were always safe guides in secular legislation. [An HON. MEMBER on the MINISTERIAL benches: What a confession!] The whole question of removal dealt with two quite different operations. They might have a removal of a kind which he quite agreed was in substance a request for a new licence. The licence-holder might come to the justices with a bid—a proposal to give up his present licence which was valueless and ask them to give him a new licence in a different district which would be a valuable thing to him. But in such a case the justices would know their business and refuse the bid. On the other hand there were applications for removal which were really meant to keep alive a licence under substantially the same conditions as existed before; and partly in the interest of the public, and partly in the interest of the licence-holder, it would be competent to transfer that licence to another house either in the same district, or in a closely adjoining district. That would really be the removal, the transfer of a technical licence granting the privilege of selling liquor for the public convenience. There were such applications, though he admitted they were not numerous. It seemed to him that that power ought to be kept alive. It was not in any sense a new licence but was really the removal of a licence, and it was evident that there were many cases in which such applications might be granted in the public interest. It might be that the new house which was proposed was far better fitted for the purpose, or better situated, or more convenient for the requirements of the public, or more easily supervised, and these things might very well come into the consideration of the magistrates. In such cases as that, he thought they would do well to grant removals, if they had the power to do so. They were asked to take the authority of the Bishops and Archbishops, but as a matter of fact, the danger which they feared and to which they gave expression in the House of

1047
Lords had turned out to the non-existent. In 1904 the Archbishop, the Bishop of London, and he thought the Bishop of St. Albans, expressed a great fear that this power, if it were kept alive, would be misused by the justices and that they would be persuaded to grant removals which would be in substance the grant of new licences, and an evasion of the Act. But the then Government pointed out that that would be very unlikely to occur, and that the justices might be perfectly safely trusted not to allow any evasion of the Act. And that had been the result. The noble Lords who said that the justices in Quarter and Petty Sessions might be trusted turned out to be right. The Solicitor-General shook his head, but there were very few of these cases in which removals were granted.
SIR S. EVANSsaid that so far from the number being small it was large. In 1906 there were thirty-nine removals and only fifty-six new licences, a good deal more than half, and in 1907 there were thirty-nine removals and sixty-eight new licences, again more than half.
LORD R. CECILsaid that these figures appeared large to the Solicitor-General because the hon. and learned Gentleman insisted upon regarding the removals as new licences; but thirty-nine all over the country was really a very small number, and unless the Solicitor-General had information to the contrary he thought it might be assumed that these were genuine removals in the public interest and in no sense the grant of new licences. He was much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the figures, and the fact that there were only thirty-nine cases seemed to him absolutely to prove the point. There must have been thirty-nine cases in which genuine removals for genuine reasons were desirable and in which they had been granted. And let him point this out to the Committee and to hon. Members opposite. They were constantly told that the great vice of the Act of 1904 was that it was a great interference with magisterial discretion and removed the conditions established by Sharp v. Wakefield. As to removals, however, they had precisely the conditions of Sharp v. Wakefield; they had the absolute and
1048
complete discretion of the magistrates whether they should grant or refuse an application for such removal. There was no limit to it. If they thought it was an undesirable application they were entitled to refuse it absolutely, without any limitation of their discretion. There they had absolutely the pre-1904 condition of absolute discretion of the justices whether to grant or refuse, and the moment they had that hon. Members were not satisfied but desired to remove their power altogether. He trusted they would hear no more of the desire of hon. Members to return to the pre-1904 conditions and of their distrust of the discretion of the magistrates.
MR. MACLEANwas understood to claim that the figure of thirty-nine removals in a year proved the case they put forward, because it showed that thirty-nine licensees obtained the monopoly value, whereas if they were substantially new licences they ought to have paid the monopoly value. Where it was in substance a new licence monopoly value ought to be paid according to the principles of the right hon. Gentleman's own Act of 1904, and the number of removals—thirty-nine out of fifty-six—proved, he thought, the necessity for this clause. What really happened? He would take the noble Lord's instance of a removal from one district to another. It might be a small district, and they would have a useless public-house in a back street replaced by a public-house in a front street, with the result that an entirely new licence would be created, and one which would obtain the full monopoly value. He would give the noble Lord an instance of what happened before the Act of 1904, and he would take the Solicitor-General's case. A small useless public-house in a Welsh colliery district was removed to another district just over an intervening hill, the plea being put forward before the magistrates that they were not, by granting the removal, increasing the number of licences in their district. They, by their action in that case, handed over to the applicant a free grant of £8,000 or £9,000, which they on that side wished to exact for the monopoly value. They wanted to take

1049
away this power from justices who, like Cabinet Ministers, might err, and they wanted some restraint on their powers. They said that the justices should safeguard the interests of the public and that the monopoly value should be exacted for what was in fact a new licence. That was a principle which now underlay the whole of the licensing law and the actual practice, and the proposal of the Government was fair and just.
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid he did not think the Solicitor-General had given the Committee any really good reason for inserting this provision in the Bill. In fact the only reason the hon. and learned Gentleman had given was that the Government wished to seize the monopoly value. That was just the reason why they objected to it. It was at the bottom of their objection to the whole Bill that the Government wished to seize, or, in other words, to rob, the monopoly value. The Solicitor-General said that this was a provision which had been in operation under the Act of 1872, and he called it a temporary provision. It had, however, been in operation for thirty-six years.
SIR S. EVANSwas understood to say that he stated that it was a temporary provision under the Act of 1871.
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid that at all events it had been in operation for thirty-six years withuot being repealed, so that it had served a useful purpose. It was quite true that perhaps it had not been used very much. Thirty-nine licences were exchanged last year, but was not that just the number after the passing of this Bill—if it became law, which they hoped it would not—where this provision could be usefully employed? The plan of the Government was to reduce licences to a dead level according to population, and they all knew that some of our large cities had far too many, while in some districts there were very few. What was more reasonable than to give the bench of justices power in places where there were too many to remove one to a district where it was required, without having to exact the monopoly value?
1050
But that was not the object of the Government, which was money, and that was what they objected to. If the Solicitor-General could not give them any better reason he hoped he would consent to withdraw this provision. The hon. and learned Gentleman had quoted the words of a prelate in another place—he thought it was the Archbishop of Canterbury—to the effect that if this provision was allowed to continue it might act most unfairly. But it was necessary to go further and say that the justices acted unfairly, and if they did so there was nothing more to say, but he thought it was generally conceded that the justices of this country acted fairly in all these licensing matters. For these reasons he hoped it was not too late to appeal to the Solicitor-General and the Prime Minister to reconsider then decision in this matter, especially when they remembered that their scheme was to try and reduce licences according to the density of the population.
MR. LANE-FOXwished to point out that the Solicitor-General would have had a stronger case if he had been able to quote real cases of actual experience, instead of giving to the Committee hypothetical cases, even though they were backed up by a Bishop in another place. The hon. and learned Gentleman had told them that these removals were thirty-nine in 1906, but he did not tell them how many surrenders were made in consideration of those removals or how many licences were extinguished in order to procure those removals. It was all very well to quote the Bishops in another place. It was most refreshing to hear hon. Members opposite quoting Bishops and he hoped they would continue to do so, but they on that side did not look up to their Bishops for their politics. [MINISTERIAL laughter.] Other hon. Members did, and he thought a few cases of actual fact or experience, such as the case which the hon. Member for Bath had quoted, would have been of far more assistance in this debate than mere hypothetical cases which might have no foundation in fact.
*MR. TOULMINsaid they had been told by the hon. Member for Sheffield that they wanted

1051
to "seize the monopoly value, that was to rob." They were told that if there was a district which had not a licence, but into which a licence was to be put, if it were given as a new licence it was "robbery." That licence could be put there in one of two ways. It could either be put there under the Act of 1904, when they would get a monopoly value and thereby "rob" somebody or other—he could not see that they would do anything of the sort—or they could do what this clause sought to prevent, namely, give this new licence in a new district in return for the surrender of several other licences. It was not a removal of a licence from one district to another. The new licence was more often than not granted because two, three, four or sometimes half a dozen licences, which were presumably not needed, were given up for the one new licence in the new area. It was that policy that had so greatly diminished the utility of the Act of 1904, in respect of the clauses as to new licences, which were a most valuable part of that Act. Hon. Members opposite had accused the Government of being vindictive to the licence-holders. The Bill was not vindictive, it was the Amendment that was vindictive, because there were generally three or four licence-holders affected by this transaction. If the matter were left to the Bill itself, the man who had the licence and kept the house, the actual tenant, would have the compensation. But what happened now was that these three or four licence-holders were thrown into the street and their licences surrendered to the justices in order that another person might get a good house in a new and good neighbourhood. So far as he could see there was no injustice in this clause to the real licence-holder.
MR. C. DUNCANcontended, with regard to the removal of a licence to a new district, that the people of the district into which it was to be removed had at any rate a right to veto the licence. He quite agreed that when any removals that were practically new licences were made the monopoly value should be taken by the State. That policy was a good one and there was no robbery or plunder about it. It seemed to be assumed
1052
that it was a fair and reasonable proposal to make to the justices that they should remove a licence from one place and dump it down in another, whether the people desired it or not. That was the whole tone of the argument of the debate, and as he objected strongly to that, he said that wherever a licence was to be moved the whole thing should be regarded as a new licence. The whole question of removal was a dodge to get over the local veto. He, therefore, hoped the Government would adhere to this clause. The matter resolved itself into a question of personal gain. Neither brewers nor publicans desired to move a licence from a good to a bad district. They always wanted to remove it from a poor district to one in which they hoped to make a profit. His contention was that before any licence was dumped down in a new district the people had a right to say whether that licence should come into the district or not. The Government were absolutely justified in putting this clause into the Bill, and he hoped it would be carried by a large majority.
MR. LYTTELTONsaid it was fair to say if there was any substantial improvement resulting from the removal of a licence that improvement should be paid for by the person benefited. But if the licence was really a new licence, and it was to pass under the yoke of this Bill, they ought to agree that the provisions should apply to the monopoly value. That was a point which had been wholly misunderstood by former speakers. The Opposition objected to all monopoly value, but no one denied that if monopoly value was to apply it ought to apply to a new licence. If a perfectly valueless licence was to be removed from one district to another where it became valuable no one would say that it ought not to pass under this Act, but it was assumed by hon. Gentlemen opposite that the licensing justices, when a simple problem like this was put before them, were absolutely incompetent to deal with it and look after their own districts. The allegation of hon. Members was that the justices were likely to remove licences in order to avoid monopoly

1053
value and put valueless licences into places were they would become very valuable. The experience of the working of the Act of 1904 showed that the number of removals granted last year by the justices was fifty-eight, and in every single case the removal had not been from one end of a county to another, but in the same district. In fact the Bill would stereotype licences in places where they ought not to exist and prevent them from being removed to places were they were wanted.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,)said that this clause had nothing whatever to do with the new provisions of the Bill. It was necessitated by the provisions of the Act of 1904, and although it was perfectly true that at the end of the time-limit a number of licences which were now old licences would fall under this provision as to monopoly value, yet for the time being and for many years to come this would only be an excuse for avoiding new licences.
MR. LYTTELTONsaid his right hon. friend was not in the House at the time, otherwise he would have seen that the whole argument was that by this removal provision they were seeking to avoid monopoly value.
MR. ASQUITHsaid that Section 4 of the Act of 1904 was the provision which required the justices to attach, as a condition to the granting of new licences, the monopoly value to the State. The objection taken by anticipation in 1904, was that so long as the power of removal remained it would be possible and probable that licences which, under Section 4 of that Act, would pay monopoly value to the State would be treated as mere removals and so escape payment of monopoly value and also put themselves into a position to be compensated. Figures had been quoted by the Solicitor-General which certainly indicated, having regard to the very large proportion of removals as compared with new licences, that the process of removals had been resorted to instead of the granting of new licences. What was the object of retaining the power of removal in this
1054
Bill? If a licence was not wanted in one place and a licence was wanted in another, the proper course to be taken by the justices was in the one case to suppress the redundant licence, and in the other to grant a new licence. There was no doubt about that, and the fact that a new licence secured this monopoly value was an additional reason for not providing any possible loophole for removals. That was what they meant in bringing this Bill forward, and no one, he ventured to say, had yet succeeded in the course of the debate in showing any reason for the retention of this removal provision.
MR. BONAR LAWpointed out that if a licence was not wanted in one district and was wanted in another the licensing justices could suppress in one case and could give a new licence in the other. Was it not conceivable that there were licences in particular places in some districts where it would be a distinct gain to the public to have them removed and replaced by an off-licence? In regard to that matter, the other side had entirely misrepresented the position of those on that side of the House. They said that it was perfectly fair and right—and they had put it in the Bill of 1904—that the monopoly value of any new licence should not go to the lucky man who got it, but to the State to which it belonged. But that was not the point here. While they admitted this was true, they said it was also equally true that they should not prevent a change which was in the public interest from being made when they were taking away the goodwill of a man's business and calling it monopoly value. That was the difference between the Government and the Opposition. He had no objection to the State getting the full monopoly value. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken as if the facts since 1904 had nothing to do with this question. That was the whole point. The objection raised in the other House to this provision remaining was that the justices would evade the Act of 1904 and, in fact, create new licences. The contention of the Opposition was that that had not happened. The evil which was feared, and the only evil which they

1055
were fighting against now, was one which experience had shown did not exist. The Solicitor-General and the right hon. Gentleman seemed to speak as if it were a case of transferring licences from one district to another.
SIR S. EVANSsaid he had stated that a licence might be removed from one part of the county to another, or from one street to another, or from one side of the street to the other, but it would be a new licence.
MR. BONAR LAWsaid the real point at issue, and the reason why they were pressing this Amendment was simply this. They believed that it was in the public interest that a number of licences which were in a bad situation, or not in the best situation, should be given up, and instead of them another licence should be granted in any situation which was found to be in the public interest as a whole. The case of the Opposition was that they had a perfect right to say that where a removal meant that the publican or anybody else was going to get a great deal of money by the change, then the State, or whatever body was intended, should have the monopoly value. But they also said that to pass a clause which made it absolutely impossible for the licensing justices to make removals from one situation to another in the public interest was, on the part of the Government, simply to condemn the justices as unfit to undertake the duty.
MR. SHERWELLsaid his reason for opposing the Amendment proposed on the other side would be equally strong if there were no provision concerning the taking of monopoly value in the Act of 1902 and the Act of 1904. He opposed the Amendment simply because he believed that it added confusion to the bare intent of the original licensing laws, which had been so constantly obscured by administration in the past. The whole theory of granting the licence was that it was required in the public interest. His contention was that the suppression of a licence in one quarter, and granting a licence in another district, were cases which ought to be kept entirely distinct. The changes in a
1056
certain locality made a particular licence redundant, and therefore it should be suppressed. The change in the condition of a district might seem to require the granting of a new licence, and that application should be dealt with solely on its merits. He objected most strongly to this confusion between a licence which should be properly suppressed, and another application which might or might not have strong arguments in support of it. The right hon. Gentleman would see on reflection that the effect of carrying out his recommendation would be that if in a particular district a licence was clearly redundant there would be an application for a new licence in another district, and the tendency would at least be to incline the magistrates to grant a new licence not strictly on its merits but merely in consideration of finding that way of suppressing the redundant licence.
*MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid that hon. Members opposite persisted so steadily in treating this question as one of removal from one district to another, and in treating the suppression of a licence as if there must be a redundancy, that he felt he ought to rise, if only to state the case which he had in his mind, one which very often occurred. Take the case of a public-house just outside the gates of large works, a case very often met with. That public-house did not require to be suppressed because of redundancy; what was wanted was removal, because it was in the wrong place. He submitted that the power to remove that house was a useful power, and that its removal was only in a technical sense the granting of a new licence. Substantially it was the removal of the same thing to another and a better place, to a place where the licensee would probably not make so much money. The Solicitor-General had quoted figures to show that there was a certain number—a small number, he thought—of removals in 1907, but the hon. and learned Gentleman had not quoted figures, or he would have done so if he could, to show that there was a marked increase of removal after the passing of the Act of 1904.
MR. CHARLES ROBERTSsaid the point of the right hon. Member for

1057
Sheffield could be met by transferring the licence under the Act of 1828, which was not touched by the Government's proposal to abolish the power of removal under the Act of 1872. Certainly he should imagine that a change in the position of a house generally meant an addition to its value—a change in value which might be very considerable; and in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, it would be very wrong so to arrange that any monopoly value arising from the granting of a new licence should not be secured to the State. One other matter. The whole of the surrender system had had a very bad effect. It had kept alive hundreds and thousands of licences merely for the purpose of their being used as counters in bargaining. He remembered a case in a division of Sussex where it was said that a particular licence was merely a surrender licence, and it was obviously treated as one of the counters in a bargain in which, he thought, in this instance as in others of a similar sharacter, the justices did not get the better of it. Where they were clearing away two or three small licences of no value they were granting a really valuable licence. The result which had been produced as a matter of fact was foreseen and objected to by the bishops in the House of Lords, and it was seen from the cases which occurred in 1905 that this power of removal really meant the driving of a coach and horses through the clauses.
MR. RICHARDSONsaid he was certain he was voicing the views of many members of all parties when he said that this proposal would do something to release them from the tied house system. Close observation in his own neighbourhood had taught him that whenever offers were made for a new licence in a new neighbourhood in exchange for old licences, or for a single old licence in an old neighbourhood, those offers were not made by the owners of free houses but always by the brewers. If that class were not dealt with by the Bill, or if the Amendment were carried,
he was afraid that they would fasten the tied house system still more closely round the necks of the people. What was wanted more than anything was the growth of free licences. In the city which he represented he met a deputation of owners of free houses whose united holdings in their houses amounted to over £70,000. He would like to hear of a similar number of brewers' tied houses where there was the same financial interest on the part of the licensees. He urged that they should encourage in new neighbourhoods free men managing their own houses, and do everything possible to kill the brewers' tied-house system.
*MR. CAVEsaid he only rose for the purpose of pointing out that the case put by the right hon. Member for Sheffield could not, as suggested by the hon. Member for Leicester, be dealt with by an order of renewal under the Act of 1828. That Act provided that if a licensed house should be "by fire, tempest, or other unforeseen and unavoidable calamity" rendered unfit for the purposes of an inn, an order of renewal might be made. But he did not think even his hon. friend opposite would say that the erection, say, of a large factory or a school next door to a public-house, was an unforeseen and unavoidable calamity within the meaning of the statute.
*MR. R. PEARCEasked the Solicitor-General to consider this case. There was a public improvement under which an inferior public-house was pulled down and an arrangement made with the owner of an adjoining house that that house should be substituted for the old one. It was better placed and adapted for the convenience of the locality. The name of the house pulled down was the "King Charles' Head," and the name of the builder who rebuilt it Oliver Cromwell.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 257; Noes, 103. (Division List No. 320.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Agnew, George William

Armitage, R.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Alden, Percy

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Mond, A.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Barker, John

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Morrell, Philip

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard.

Barnard, E. B.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Myer, Horatio

Barnes, G. N.

Hart-Davies, T.

Napier, T. B.

Bell, Richard

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

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

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

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Berridge, T. H. D.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Nuttall, Harry

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Partington, Oswald

Black, Arthur W.

Hemmerde, Edward George

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Brace, William

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

Perks, Sir Robert William

Bramsdon, T. A.

Henry, Charles S.

Pollard, Dr.

Branch, James

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

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Brigg, John

Higham, John Sharp

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

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Hobart, Sir Robert

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

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

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Bryce, J. Annan

Hodge, John

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

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Holland, Sir William Henry

Radford, G. H.

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Holt, Richard Durning

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hooper, A. G.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

Rees, J. D.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Horniman, Emslie John

Rendall, Athelstan

Byles, William Pollard

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Cameron, Robert

Hudson, Walter

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

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Richardson, A.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hyde, Clarendon

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Clough, William

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Clynes, J. R.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Robinson, S.

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

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Roe, Sir Thomas

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Jowett, F. W.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Rose, Charles Day

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Kekewich, Sir George

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Crooks, William

Laidlaw, Robert

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Crossley, William J.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Curran, Peter Francis

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Lambert, George

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Lamont, Norman

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh. S.)

Levy, Sir Maurice

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

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

Lewis, John Herbert

Sears, J. E.

Duckworth, James

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Seddon, J.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lupton, Arnold

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Sherwell, Arthur James

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Simon, John Allsebrook

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Lynch, H. B.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Snowden, P.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Soares, Ernest J.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Maclean, Donald

Stanger, H. Y.

Everett, R. Lacey

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Steadman, W. C.

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Macpherson, J. T.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Fenwick, Charles

M'Callum, John M.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Ferens, T. R.

M'Crae, Sir George

Strachey, Sir Edward

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Findlay, Alexander

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

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Micking, Major G.

Summerbell, T.

Fullerton, Hugh

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Sutherland, J. E.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Glendinning, R. G.

Marnham, F. J.

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Glover, Thomas

Massie, J.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Masterman, C. F. G.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Menzies, Walter

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Middlebrook, William

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Molteno, Percy Alport

Toulmin, George

1060

1061

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

Verney, F. W.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Vivian, Henry

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

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

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Walsh, Stephen

Whitehead, Rowland

Winfrey, R.

Walton, Joseph

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Wardle, George J.

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Yoxall, James Henry

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Wiles, Thomas

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Wilkie, Alexander

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Waterlow, D. S.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Joseph Pease and Master of

Watt, Henry A.

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Elibank.

NOES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Haddock, George B.

Renton, Leslie

Baldwin, Stanley

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Heaton, John Henniker

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Helmsley, Viscount

Salter, Arthur Claveli

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hill, Sir Clement

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

Bull, Sir William James

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Houston, Ropert Paterson

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

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Joynson-Hicks, William

Stanier, Beville

Carlile, E. Hildred

Kerry, Earl of

Starkey, John R.

Castlereagh, Viscount

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Cave, George

Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

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

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

Clive, Percy Archer

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

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

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

Thornton, Percy M.

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

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Courthope, G. Loyd

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cross, Alexander

M'Arthur, Charles

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

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Winterton, Earl

Faber, George Denison (York)

Morpeth, Viscount

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

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

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Fell, Arthur

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Young, Samuel

Fletcher, J. S.

Oddy, John James

Younger, George

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Percy, Earl

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Gretton, John

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Viscount Valentia.

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Ratcliffe, Major R. F.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 23:
*MR. YOUNGERsaid he wished to move an Amendment in order to raise what appeared to be an important question. If an exception was to be made in favour of cider which contained very often 8 per cent. of proof spirit 2 per cent. more than Bass's beer, he wanted to know on what principle any liquor containing not more than 5 per cent. should not be specially exempted, as it was now proposed to exempt cider. That enabled one to raise the whole question as to whether it was not a desirable thing that something or other
1062
in the shape of the legislation recently passed in Denmark should not be put in this Bill, to encourage the sale of light wines, beers, stouts or ciders in houses specially set apart for the purpose, specially regulated and under special provisions, providing as they did in many cases all that was wanted in the way of intoxicating liquors by many people. It appeared essential to raise the question when this exemption was being proposed in favour of cider, and to point out that many ciders were considerably stronger than beer. As one knew from the analyses made every year in Somerset House, many temperance

1063
drinks which were sold as non-alcoholic were found to contain 10 per cent. and 12 per cent. of alcohol. He noticed that most teetotallers drank stone ginger. They did not know perhaps why, but the real truth was that there was spirit in that, and there was none in the other sort.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 14, line 25, to leave out the word 'alone,' and to insert the words 'or of any liquor containing less than 5 per cent. of proof spirit.'"—(Mr. Younger.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'alone' stand part of the clause."
SIR S. EVANSsaid he was not competent to enter into a discussion with regard to the quantity of alcohol in stone ginger beer, cider, or anything else. He knew cider was to a certain extent intoxicating and, unless one was used to it, perhaps more intoxicating than things one was in the habit of drinking containing more alcohol. The clause was not very important as it stood. The number of houses was small—only twenty-five he thought in 1906–7—and the holders were in this position, that they did not want compensation if their licence was taken away, and they did not want the compensation levy. He did not know whether it was intended to include them in the definition of on-licence, but they came within it and if they were to be dealt with it must be in this way.
MR. COURTHOPEsaid that if the intention was not to give a preference he did not see why the Government had taken any action. Why not treat them as other licences? He did not think they really could be satisfied with the Solicitor-General's explanation that cider and pe ry licences had been exempted merely because the licensees were not asking for compensation. If that was the sole reason he did not think there was any justification for this clause.
*THE CHAIRMAN: As a matter of order, if the hon. Member desires to discuss the clause, I think he had better wait until we have got rid of this Amendment, and I will then put the question "that the clause stand part of the Bill."
MR. YOUNGERsaid there did not seem any particular reason in the explanation given why, if these people selling this particular class of liquor did not wish to pay any levy or have any compensation they should not be encouraged.
*MR. LUPTONsaid he should support, the Amendment. He was aware that, as the Bill stood, the Amendment could only have a moral effect, but it might lead on the Report stage to further Amendments giving effect to the principle of the encouragement of the sale of drink containing a low percentage of proof spirit. That would be a very great improvement. Everybody who had studied the question knew that people who lived in Belfast and other towns where spirits were drunk to a great extent regarded beer-drinking as comparable to teetotalism. If they could only get the people in this country to prefer the less harmful beverages like light beer and cider they would be taking steps in the direction of temperance. The question was how could they best get a real measure of temperance reform. In his opinion it could be best achieved on the lines of an Amendment to encourage the sale of light beverages. He did not say that cider was not an intoxicant, because people had been made drunk wth it, but he thought they might encourage the sale of a cider containing not more than 5 per cent. of proof spirit. When there was any difficulty in obtaining non-intoxicating beverages people often bought the concentrated drink. They could not very well carry home enough of 5 per cent. beer in their pocket to get drunk upon. He hoped the Government would see their way to incorporate this Amendment in the Bill.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINdesired to ask a question as to the scope of the clause which they were now discussing. Was its effect to take the cider licences out of the whole of the provisions of this Bill, or merely out of the compensation levy? Would the cider licences be subject to the local veto provisions and also to the provisions dealing with renewals?
SIR S. EVANSreplied that it only modified existing on-licences and did not affect any provisions as to new licences.
MR. LAMBTONdid not see why cider should be exempted. He had seen people get very drunk on cider. He did not think any special encouragement should be given to people to sell cider upon which a man could get drunk. The Solicitor-General's explanation was not satisfactory. He ought to have proceeded to tell the Committee what the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London, thought on the subject. By Clause 23 the Government deliberately proposed to increase drinking. Under Clauses 21 and 22 a large monopoly value would be obtained by the Government at the end of the time-limit, and under Clause 23 he thought the monopoly value they would get out of cider was not worth having. All sorts of endeavours were being made to obtain monopoly value out of the trade, but there was no endeavour made by the Government to provide for real temperance.
MR. ASQUITHinvited the Committee not to prolong the discussion on this Amendment. If there was any serious opposition to the clause the Government would at once withdraw it. There was no sinister motive about the clause. The Government did not attach any importance to this provision, and it was not intended to encourage a preferential taste for cider. It was inserted simply on the representation of a small body of traders whose case seemed to present a little hardship and who stated that they had been included in the Act of 1904 per incuriam, because, technically, they came under the description "existing on-licences."
SIR E. CARSONsaid he did not object to the Government proposal, perhaps because he was a cider-drinker. It really was very doubtful whether cider was a temperance drink.
MR. YOUNGERstated that he would withdraw his Amendment, although he thought that it would, be better not to have that clause in the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
MR. JAMES HOPEsaid he was not at all clear that the twenty-five licensees of cider really understood the position they were in. It was true they would not pay compensation levy, nor get compensation, but would they be included in the scheme of reduction? If so, they might be reduced in number without compensation being paid. As he understood it they would be in the position of the ordinary off-licence holder who was not protected in any way. If they managed to survive to the end of the twenty-one years, then they would get the monopoly value. He wished to know if they would be put under the unfettered discretion of the justices to refuse or renew their licences.
MR. ASQUITHsaid he supposed the licensees in questions knew their own mind when they made representations on the subject. If however, there was to be any discussion on the clause he would withdraw it altogether.
Clause 24:
SIR S. EVANSmoved to leave out the words "except in the case of a licence granted for a term," and stated that if this and other Amendments of which he had given notice were adopted the clause would read as follows:—"(1) The payments required under Section 4 of the Licensing Act, 1904, in respect of monopoly value shall in every case of a new licence granted after the passing of this Act be determined by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and in the case of a licence not granted for a term shall not exceed the monopoly value for a year as ascertained in accordance with this section, and, in the case of a licence granted for a term, shall be based on the monopoly value as so ascertained. The monopoly value shall be taken to be the sum by which, in the opinion of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, the value of the premises, as adopted or estimated for the purpose of Income-Tax under Schedule A., when licensed, and without taking into consideration any provisions for securing to the public the monopoly value, exceeds the value of the premises

1067
for that purpose when not licensed. Provided that in ascertaining the monopoly value of hotels or other premises where the value of the premises does not mainly arise from the sale of intoxicating liquor, any value of the premises other than that arising from the sale of intoxicating liquor shall be excluded from consideration. (2) If a licence, granted before the passing of this Act as a new licence under Section 4 of the Licensing Act, 1904, but not as a licence for a term, is extinguished at any time during the reduction period, and the holder of the licence proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that the amount required to be paid in any year on account of monopoly value has exceeded the monopoly value for a year, and that the licence has not been extinguished on the ground of misconduct, the Commissioners shall allow the repayment of such portion, if any, of the sum paid on account of monopoly value as they think just, having regard to the time which has elapsed since the original grant of the licence. Any sum allowed shall be paid by the Commissioners to the holder of the licence, and shall be deducted from the next payment made out of the local taxation account to the council of the county or county borough who have had the benefit of the original payment. The conditions attached to the grant of a new licence for the purpose of securing to the public the monopoly value may provide for the revision of the payment fixed for the purpose on the renewal of the licence either annually or periodically, or for fixing in some future year the amount of the payment to be made in the event of the licence being renewed in that year." He said the clause raised the whole question of what the monopoly value provisions were to be, and he would leave the Prime Minister to explain them to the Committee.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 14, line 28, to leave out the words 'Except in the case of a licence granted for a term."—(Sir S. Evans.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. ASQUITHsaid he thought it might be for the convenience of the Committee if he made a statement showing the effect of the changes now proposed in the general scope of the clause. The first subsection with which they were now dealing, as originally drawn, was put in with the intention of preventing a practice which had grown up under the Act of 1904 of the justices taking a lump sum down, often considerable in amount, as monopoly value, and granting a licence not for a term, but only for a year. It was a case which had occurred in sixty-five instances between 1905 and 1908 where the monopoly value was paid for either wholly or in part in money, and in twenty-five cases there had been paid some capital consideration other than money. The total amount so paid in money was £81,370. The Leader of the Opposition the other day expressed his surprise that this practice, totally foreign to the intentions of the framers of the Act of 1904, should have grown up, and he gathered that the right hon. Gentleman would be at one with them in putting an end to it. It was a practice which had already given rise to difficulty, for the hon. Member for Sheffield had repeatedly pointed out that in the case of some of these licences granted only for a year there had been paid down sums amounting to thousands of pounds which had gone into the local exchequer. He thought it would be admitted from the very first that it would be unjust to treat the licensees who had made the payments as though the licences were to come to an end at the end of the year without some attempt to refund a portion of the consideration money which had been paid. That was the main object of the first subsection, but it dealt with two other matters as to both of which the Amendments of the Solicitor-General were in fulfilment of pledges which he had given on behalf of the Government in the course of these debates. The first object was to remove the duty of assessing the monopoly value from the licensing justices to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and that was a change which he thought those interested in the trade would themselves approve. It had at any rate the merit that it introduced uniformity into their system instead of the extraordinary variety of practices which had hitherto

1069
prevailed among different benches of licensing justices. In some cases the bench took a large lump sum down for the grant of a licence, and in other cases they granted licences for a term of years. The Amendment would secure that the persons interested in the public-house on the one side, and the State, upon the other, would have a tribunal acting upon fixed principles, and which could be relied upon to apply to every case as it arose the principles which were applied to others. That matter was dealt with by the first Amendment. The second change was to introduce—what the Act of 1904 did not attempt to do—a definition of monopoly value. The phrase "monopoly value" appeared for the first time in the Act of 1904, where justices were directed to attach such conditions to a new licence as they thought best adapted for securing to the public any monopoly value which was represented by the difference between the value of the premises licensed and unlicensed.
*MR. YOUNGER: Is that not a correct definition when dealing with a new licence?
MR. ASQUITHsaid it was correct so far as it went. He did not say that it defined it completely. Might he point out by way of explanation that Clause 24 was in the view of the Government a mere Amendment of the Act of 1904, and was not necessitated by any provision in the present Bill; nor would it have any fresh application to the state of things created by the Bill till the expiration of the time limit when, for the first time, the question would arise of the resumption by the State of the monopoly value. The Government thought it desirable, and there had been a feeling shown in the course of these debates that it was desirable, that the Legislature itself should place upon the Statute-book some measure by which the assessing authority—in future to be the Commissioners of Inland Revenue—could act in determining the difference between the value of premises licensed and unlicensed. Their proposal was to say that the monopoly value should be taken to be the sum by which, in the opinion of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, the value of the premises, as adopted or estimated for the purpose
1070
of income-tax under Schedule A, when licensed, and without taking into consideration any provisions for securing to the public the monopoly value, exceeds the value of the premises for that purpose when not licensed. In other words, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue were to take as the measure of monopoly value in the grant of a new licence the same criterion by which the Government proposed, when an existing licence was suppressed for redundancy, that the accompanying compensation should be fixed. It was the difference between the Schedule A value of the premises with a licence, and all its privileges, as compared with the Schedule A value of the premises without the licence.
*MR. YOUNGER: That is upon the system adopted in Scotland.
MR. ASQUITH: Exactly the same, and it was the principle which had been adopted, rightly or wrongly, as the basis of compensation. He need not remind the House that Schedule A value of premises as licensed ought to include and if properly taken did include, all the ingredients of monopoly value. It included local goodwill—the value arising from situation—and it included the value conferred on the premises by the licence in regard to freedom from competition, and the other privileges with which a licence was accompanied. On the other hand, Schedule A value of the premises without a licence was the rent which the tenant would pay for them without any of these special advantages, and the difference between the two the Government thought—and it was in accordance with commonsense—was the monopoly value. It was the additional value conferred on the premises by the licence. He might point out in passing that there were some words in one of the Amendments which seemed to require explanation. The words were—
"And without taking into consideration any provisions for securing to the public the monopoly value."
Of course, if they had premises actually let at a rack rent as a free house, the Schedule A value would represent, as compared with the Schedule A value of the same premises let to a draper or grocer, the monopoly value. In other

1071
words, the landlord was receiving the monopoly value. It did not matter to the tenant whether he paid that monopoly value in a lump sum as part of the rent, or whether he paid to his landlord the rent which he would pay for unlicensed premises, and also paid the monopoly value in another way to the State. The Government were inserting words with the object of providing that if and when the State resumed the monopoly value, the Schedule A value of the premises licensed and unlicensed should be the same—to show that they must take into account, when they were estimating the two things which had to be compared, that the monopoly value had passed away from the landlord to the State as an ingredient in assessing the value of the premises licensed.
*MR. YOUNGERasked whether that would be taken into account in the assessment.
MR. ASQUITHsaid it was just to meet that difficulty that the Government proposed to make this Amendment. The assessment of the premises licensed and unlicensed would be the same. The monopoly value which now went to the landlord would in future go to the State. It would not appear in the rate-book at all. This was the procedure which would be followed by the Inland Revenue when they were asked by licensing justices to assess the monopoly value of these new licences. They would look at Schedule A; it would not always be correct but they would look at it. There was no necessity for making any alteration in any way.
MR. BARNARDasked whether it would be subject to local rating by public authorities.
MR. ASQUITH: No, it has nothing whatever to do with rating. It was simply for making the calculation as to what was a fair sum for the State to take as monopoly value when it granted the privilege of a new licence. It was merely machinery for the purpose of ascertaining in particular cases what the monopoly value should really be.
*MR. YOUNGER: Assume that £120 goes to the landlord, and supposing the
1072
monopoly value is £20, what is to be the value in the valuation roll upon which the tenant is to be rated?
MR. ASQUITHwould say £100. But he was speaking not of the tenant but more of the landlord. That did not affect any question of rating. It was merely a question of machinery for ascertaining in particular cases what was the particular value. In the discussions on compensation he thought the general tendency of the criticisms to which the Government were exposed was that they were not acting over generously in giving to the persons interested in the extinguished licence merely the difference between the Schedule A valuation. At any rate, they were acting on the same principle now, and they were not securing for the State, in the shape of monopoly value, anything more than the persons interested in the licensed premises would obtain if the licence were extinguished on the ground of redundancy.
MR. CAVE: What is the meaning of the phrase "as adopted or estimated"?
MR. ASQUITHsaid that as was pointed out the other day the actual Schedule A was taken at the present moment, but the real Schedule A value ought also to be considered. The monopoly value had never hitherto formed part of Schedule A value.
SIR E. CARSONasked what the provision was to be in the case of a term.
MR. ASQUITHsaid that in the case of a licence not granted for a term, the monopoly value was not to exceed the monopoly value for one year as ascertained under this procedure. In the case of a licence granted for a term, it would be based on the monopoly value as so ascertained. If it was granted for one year, the monopoly value would be the difference between the two valuations.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked whether the monopoly value for a term would be paid in a lump sum at the beginning of the term, or as an annual sum each year of the term.
MR. ASQUITHsaid it certainly might be paid down in a lump sum. He did not see any objection to a lump sum payment on principle. When they were giving a licence for a term of years, it might be more convenient for all parties. The objectionable practice was taking a big sum down and giving a man only the precarious tenure of one year. What they were doing here was, first of all, to give the assessment of monopoly value in all cases to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue with the object of securing uniformity in principle, and, next, to lay down a measure of monopoly value corresponding, mutatis mutandis, with the measure which they had laid down for compensation, and which would prevent the State from taking from the licence-holder a larger sum than it was fairly entitled to receive in view of the privileges it gave in granting a new licence. He thought this provision would be a great improvement on the Act of 1904.
SIR E. CARSONsaid it was exceedingly difficult, at this stage of the Bill, to discuss an entirely new principle of granting a new licence. He doubted if anybody reading the Amendment could possibly have understood what it was it aimed at without hearing the speech of the Prime Minister, and, although he had had considerable experience in reference to licensing matters, and had followed the working of the Act of 1904 very closely, he confessed he hardly felt competent, on the short consideration, he had been able to give to it, to deal with the subject in any reasonable way.
MR. ASQUITHsaid he was extremely sorry that the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee should be embarrassed by the shortness of notice, though he thought he had more or less indicated in previous speeches what they were going to do. He agreed that the matter was of great importance, and he would undertake on the Report stage to put it in such a position that if, after mature consideration, further argument should be thought necessary there should be an opportunity for hearing them.
SIR E. CARSONsaid they were obliged to the Prime Minister for that
1074
offer, but it was necessary that he should make such observations as now occurred to him. As the section stood before the alteration now suggested it was a very simple section, and there was nothing in it which anybody could not understand. He did not think that it was ever intended that on the passing of the Act of 1904 in the grant of an annual licence they were to take something for a period which extended beyond the year, but only to take the monopoly value for one year. When a man was given a licence for a term of seven years he paid a sum of money for that, either an annual sum or a lump sum to begin with. He thought that in practice a good many paid an annual sum. In practice the Act of 1904 had worked perfectly well. What he understood to be the main objections to the present Amendment were two. The first was that the magistrates who were granting the licence, who were aware of the needs of the district and of the probabilities of the trade, and who were, most of all, aware of the value that was likely to accrue from the granting of the licence, were to have no voice whatever in the future in finding the amount to be paid. In his opinion that was a grave mistake, and he doubted very much whether it would work out in practice. He did not understand that Section 4, subsection (a) of the Act of 1904 was being repealed, and, therefore, what was to happen was that magistrates, when an application came before them, would have power to attach whatever conditions they pleased to the granting of the licence. Take the case of a six-days licence, or that the house was to be closed on Sundays or to be open only during certain hours. How on earth could the Inland Revenue Commissioners, sitting in London, ascertain what the effect of the various conditions which the magistrates might impose would be upon the value? The thing would really not be capable of working. No matter what the conditions were, all the Inland Revenue Commissioners would see would be the value of the income-tax schedule, and what it was unlicensed. That was all they would be able to do, and it would be a hard and fast rule in every case. Many valuers had different methods,

1075
and there was great variety in the conditions which they attached, and how on earth the Commissioners were to ascertain what was the effect quo ad Schedule A of the Income-Tax Act under these conditions he failed entirely to see. Surely the best qualified persons to decide this question were the justices, who were not only themselves attaching these conditions, but were the persons who knew exactly the needs of the district, and what was likely to be the proper value of a house. He suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that this was not a matter that could be done by the Inland Revenue, but it could only be done by those people who were acquainted with what was really the contract entered into between the parties, and with many other things which would occur to anybody familiar with the practice. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman approved or disapproved of the practice of telling a man who applied for a new licence that he must give up other licences, say in a place which could not be properly policed, but it was very common for magistrates to do that. The man very often undertook not to apply for a renewal under these conditions, but under this section all that wolud be at an end, or if it was not at an end, it would not be a matter which the Inland Revenue hard and fast line, which they were now laying down, could possibly take into consideration. It would be utterly impossible to work under conditions made by the magistrates, and at the same time run a hard and fast line between a comparison of the premises unlicensed and under Schedule A of the Income-Tax, so as to work out a just result in every one of these cases. He believed the thing was quite impracticable. There was another matter; were the Inland Revenue going to have a hearing? Were they going to hear the parties on the value of the premises as unlicensed? Surely if they were to form any kind of an estimate at all as to how this matter was to be worked out the parties ought to be heard. Take six-day licences when the houses closed altogether on Sundays. Take it that the magistrates put on conditions that the premises were to close at 2 on Saturday—because they could impose what conditions
1076
they liked—how on earth were these things to be gauged by the Inland Revenue if there was no hearing of the parties? It seemed to him that in practice, if the parties were not heard, and if the Inland Revenue did this behind their backs, that it would be found an extremely difficult system to work. He had not really had time to go into the question of how the income-tax Schedule A was to work. He really did not gather from the Prime Minister what was to happen to the book which contained the assessment under Schedule A. As he understood, it would go on just as it was at present. [An HON. MEMBER: They will alter it.] No; they might make a new assessment, but they could not alter it, because they were not repealing the Income-Tax Acts in any way. Possibly they might apply for a new valuation, but that was a different thing; but they could not alter the principles. They had pointed out before, but they had never had an answer, that if they were to alter the value under the Income-Tax Act only in the case of public-houses, they would be putting this high value, or this increased value for taxation, in opposition to the usual tax, and Schedule A of the Income-Tax Act would have no application. Where they were to get the Schedule A value was a part of the thing he had not followed at all. How they were to get the Schedule A value without licence, and without taking into account any of the conditions imposed for the security of the public, he did not know. He did not gather that the Prime Minister said that it appeared anywhere, and he did not see how it was to work out. He knew that the Government wanted to make a symmetrical scheme and to apply this principle as had been done in the case of compensation; but very often a plan might have a nice appearance but work out very badly. One of the great difficulties was this: in the estimate of compensation they had an estimate under Schedule A of the value of licensed premises, but they had not got it here. These premises were unlicensed, to which they were going to give a valuation under Schedule A as licensed. Therefore they had to make a new valuation in the case of the new licence. That was why he said it did not bear any relation to

1077
compensation even for purposes of symmetry. Here they would have to have an estimate made of what was to be the valuation under Schedule A. They would have then another valuation, he supposed, deducting from that—he did not know whether it was deducting or adding—deducting from that the money that had been paid for monopoly value. He supposed that was what was meant, because that was money which had, so to speak, been earned out of the item of valuation, and all that would have to be done. It seemed to be a tremendously complicated, business. It appeared to him also that they would have in the Inland Revenue a most unsuitable tribunal. In every one of the cases where a man had this new licence they would have to deal with it without the slightest assistance so far as amendment went and without having anybody before them to tell them anything or give them information as to these values. He regretted that he could, not make his point of view any clearer at present to the Committee, but it seemed to him, as far as he could understand the provisions, to be about as clumsy a method, as possible of carrying this out, and for no reason in the world except to secure symmetry. This was one of those changes of front to which they were becoming accustomed. On this matter the Government would not trust the justices. A short time ago they were trusting them absolutely, now they would not trust them, and said, they were not fit to decide on these matters on evidence. He hoped the matter would be reconsidered before the Report stage. He might say, however, that as far as he was concerned it was not a portion of the Bill that in the slightest degree excited him or in which he took any interest, comparatively speaking. He did not care very much how difficult the Government made it for any person to obtain a new licence, or how onerous were the terms upon which such a licence was granted, for the applicant acted with his eyes open and would get what the law said he should and what he bargained for. That was entirely different from the other clauses of the Bill, which took away from him something that he had already. Therefore he did not feel the same hostility to this kind of amendment
1078
of the law, but he did think they should not set up something which might prove extremely clumsy and take away the power of deciding from the tribunal which had all the facts before it, and which had been perfectly well able to make these assessments from time to time.
*MR. BARNARDwas very glad that the right hon. Gentleman approached this portion of the Bill without any of the excitement with which he regarded some other portions. He was in the same position, but he welcomed very much the decision of the Government to place in the hands of the Inland Revenue authorities this very serious duty. He thought it would have been a deplorable thing if they had left it to 999 benches in the country to come to different conclusions by perhaps various methods of arriving at this monopoly value. The right hon. Gentleman was not present yesterday, or perhaps he would have remembered what his ordinary allies and colleagues said about the magistrates. Yesterday they were not so inclined to trust the magistrates on a number of trivial things—much less important things than these—but to-day the right hon. Gentleman said he did not consider the Inland Revenue Commissioners able to come to a conclusion, but thought that the justices were. If he understood the position aright, the magistrates would be able to impose on every licence a variety of conditions, and he took it that the Inland Revenue authorities would be able to fill up what those conditions really meant, and so they would be able to decide the monopoly value according to the different conditions that were placed upon the licensee. He thought the House ought to remember, in discussing all questions of value, that they had been promised on a great many occasions, connected with a great many different subjects, that they should have a new Valuation Bill which would consolidate the valuing authorities of the country. If they had that it would assist them very largely in this matter. He thought that a Valuation Bill would be an advantage, and a great consideration in connection with the matter. In regard to Schedule A

1079
he would like to elicit from the Government some information. The Prime Minister had told them that this question would not affect the rating of the country, but—he might be quite wrong—it appeared to him that it would very seriously affect the rating considerations of the various local authorities of the country, and he would tell the House why. The value of a licensed house was apparently to consist, so far as Schedule A went, of the value of the structure, and the value for monopoly purposes. These two things put together would be what a person was paying to be inside the house. Would not that valuation, therefore, be the basis of assessment for ordinary rating purposes?
*MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: No.
MR. BARNARDsaid then perhaps the hon. Gentleman would tell the Committee what the real rating value would be. Because, if 30,000 public-houses were to be got rid of and if in the future they were not to have on the rating books this monopoly value, which after all represented a portion of what the man paid in order to be in the house, the local authorities would be heavy losers. The other point on which he desired some information was with regard to the £81,000 which the Prime Minister said had been received for the licences of sixty-five and twenty-five houses. No doubt some of that £81,000 would be returned as compensation. He found no fault with that, as most of them were new licences, and he did not suppose that many of them would come under the redundancy clause. But he protested against this monopoly being charged to the local taxation account. They had several funds in the country out of which this money could be paid: the compensation fund, the whisky moneys, which different Governments had kept, and others, and it certainly was hard lines whenever a few pounds were required that the local authorities should be raided by the money being charged on the local taxation account.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Dublin University had maintained in the first place that it would be very difficult for the Income-Tax Commissioners to
1080
assess the value of licensed houses to Schedule A if the imposition of conditions for new licences were not in their hands, but in the hands of the local justices. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that the local justices might limit the licence of certain premises to a six-days licence or impose any other conditions which they thought desirable. But, of course, the Income-Tax Commissioners would consider that in their assessment as they would any other circumstances. They would take everything into consideration, and there was no reason why the Inland Revenue Commissioners should not fix the assessment, although the local justices imposed the conditions. The Inland Revenue authorities would assess the value in the same way as they now did. With regard to the practicability of assessing valuations by considerations of this kind, he would point out that this clause would apply now and ultimately to two classes of licences, viz., new licences, premises open for the first time for the purpose of public-houses, and those which would be technically new licences at the conclusion of the time-limit of twenty-one years. With regard to the former, the duty cast upon the Inland Revenue Commission would be the same as that now cast on the local justices by Section 4 of the Act of 1904. They would have to assess the monopoly value as represented by the difference between the value of the premises when licensed and the value of the same premises when not licensed. That would not be difficult to do. With regard to those which would become technically new licences at the end of twenty-one years, but which had been used for public-house purposes between now and then, the Inland Revenue Commissioners would be able to take the valuation of the premises as between now and then. There would be no difficulty in assessing those premises for this purpose. He asked hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they could not approve of this basis of assessing monopoly value, what basis would they suggest? They had repeatedly complained and had said they did not wish the owners of licensed premises to be left to the mercy of the local justices without knowing what the assessment would be and what they would have to pay. They had asked repeatedly that

1081
the trade should be clearly informed what was meant by monopoly value and what they had to provide against. The Government had in this clause submitted a practical method of assessing it.
*MR. YOUNGERdid not think the hon. Gentleman's analogy between paying compensation and taking monopoly value was quite a fair one. He thought the Government had made a not unsuccessful effort to define in this clause what the monopoly value really was, but he thought it was unfortunate that the Government had not told the Committee before that the monopoly value was what it was now stated to be, and not what they had understood it to be from the right hon. Member for the Spen Valley and other supporters of the Bill. With regard to what the hon. Member had said on the subject of the difference between the assessable and the Schedule A rental being taken as the measure for compensation, he would only say that the hon. Member entirely forgot that in taking the monopoly value in twenty-one years he took that value for good and all, but in paying compensation he only gave fourteen years purchase and in some cases about four years—in the extreme cases fourteen years.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Subject to the modifications already announced consequential on the addition of seven years.
*MR. YOUNGERpointed out that he was allowing for that, and that this was a very different thing from taking the permanent value of the monopoly as the hon. Gentleman proposed to do. They were perfectly at liberty, if they chose, to argue that the scheme sketched out in this Amendment was a fair basis for estimating the monopoly value, and yet to say that the same basis as applied to compensation when taking the whole business was not fair. He agreed that if they took twenty-five years as a basis upon which to pay compensation it would be equal treatment as far as that part of the value was concerned. If they took this basis as the value for monopoly then they must give twenty-five
1082
years purchase as the value for compensation before they could claim equality. He was bound to say it was an extremely difficult thing to give a proper definition of monopoly value. They did not want to include the tenant's goodwill and other considerations of that kind rightly chargeable under Schedule D. What they wanted to get at was the monopoly value of the licence in whosever hands the house might be; that was to say, to get rid of the goodwill and take the local element only—the passing trade. In Scotland this question had been dealt with for many years under their system of valuation, and he did not think the great difficulties suggested by his right hon. friend were altogether likely to arise in valuing under Schedule A. In Scotland at this moment these values were for the most part fixed by assessors appointed by Somerset House. The Government I surveyor of taxes was usually appointed, and in valuing public-houses he invariably added a certain amount for the monopoly value. There was no actual system by which it could be accurately arrived at, but he believed that generally it was based on the quantity of spirits which the publican had sold in the course of the year. On that the assessor made his calculations, which enabled him to find out in a rough and ready way what the monopoly value of those premises might be. There were, of course, disputes. The publican always considered that he was too heavily rated, and the assessor was always trying to put on a little more. They very often found great difficulty in dealing with these cases in Court, and in deciding between the two. It often appeared to the assessor that he was entitled to place a certain extra valuation on the premises for reasons which did not always appeal to the Court. But they had the local county and borough councillors who were members of the Valuation Committee, and sat as a Valuation Appeal Court every year. They dealt with these appeals as with other objections to assessments which had been made by the Government assessor, and he had never known a case in which the Inland Revenue had refused to accept the decisions of that particular Court on disputed points as between the assessor and the publican.

1083
He should imagine that it would be the same in England if that system were adopted here, and that it would work fairly smoothly, and with an amount of fairness equal to that which had been experiencedin Scotland, though the system was not unattended with difficulty, and where, as his right hon. friend the Member for Dublin University had pointed out, they had the varying conditions which attached to these licences under Clause 20, probably differing in districts within the same area in which the assessor resided, they must inevitably have added difficulties in making the valuation. For himself, he thought that this would not yield nearly such a proximately accurate results as those which they arrived at in Scotland. Of course, in that country they dealt purely with statutory obligations or restrictions, which were identical wherever they met them; they did not vary in any way. This clause had been suddenly sprung upon them, and it was extremely difficult to commit one's self to any precise opinion on the subject. Personally, he must excuse himself from doing so. He should like to have some time to look into the various intricate points, particularly after the Prime Minister's ex-plantation of some of them. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman's explanation was very lucid, although it was somewhat difficult to follow him in the matter. Therefore, he hoped that they would not be expected to commit themselves to-night as to whether this was the best possible solution of the difficulty. If the time were to be extended in such a way and under such conditions as to make it palatable, then he thought that there was a method sketched out in this Amendment which probably afforded as good a chance of defining what might reasonably be called monopoly value, as any other system he could, for the moment, suggest. Therefore he was prepared to give it a friendly consideration, though it in no way altered his objection to the method aid manner of taking this monopoly value from those who now possessed it.
*MR. LUPTONsaid he took rather a different view of this clause and the Amendment of the Solicitor-General from that taken by
1084
other speakers, who had discussed the matter entirely from the point of view of the interests of the trade. He regarded the clause as one of the most important in the Bill. The very first time he read the measure through he thought he saw in this clause a possibility of making the measure a real temperance proposal. In the giving of monopoly value they had the means of making a temperance measure. Let him give an instance of what he suggested. Take the case of a public-house which was adjoining a colliery. Without a licence it would be worth £100 a year, and with a licence £500, leaving £400 a year as the monopoly value. According to the proposal of the Government, the Inland Revenue Commissioners would assess the monopoly value at £400, and that would be the amount to be paid annually for the licence. It would be all very well to go upon that basis, if that were all that had to be considered. But this Bill was framed for the purpose, as he understood it, of reducing the consumption of strong drink.
SIR F. BANBURY: No.
*MR. LUPTON: The hon. Baronet will pardon me. That is the intention.
SIR F. BANBURY: Ah, the intention!
*MR. LUPTONbelieved that was the intention sincerely held by the Government and by the Liberal Party, If the Inland Revenue had assessed the monopoly value at £400, then what must be the object of the licensee? It would be to sell as much strong drink as he could to recoup him that £400 and leave a profit. Was that the object of the Government, to bind every tenant to sell the maximum possible of strong drink? Let the tenant be as good as a man could be, it was ordinary human nature that he should seek to recoup himself, and they could not expect him to work day after day in a manner contrary to his interest. He would sooner give up the business altogether. This man had to pay £500 a year rental before he could get anything for himself and family. Could they not so arrange this monopoly value of £400 that it

1085
would be to the interest of the tenant to sell as little strong drink as possible, or at any rate, not to seek to sell as much as possible? The Inland Revenue Commissioners might say to the tenant that he could afford to pay £400 a year monopoly value, if he conducted the house In the ordinary way, and, therefore, it called upon him to pay £100 down on account. The Commissioners, having assessed the monopoly value at £400, would roughly estimate the amount of wine, beer and spirits that would be sold, and knowing the percentage of proof spirit contained in each of those drinks would be able to estimate approximately the total amount of proof spirit which the licence holder was expected to sell in a year. If in this particular case the estimated amount of proof spirit was 8,000 gallons, they would divide the £400 annual monopoly value by that number of gallons, and in this case the monopoly value per gallon would work out at 1s. a gallon on the proof spirits which had been sold. (The monopoly value would not be the same for each house, but would vary according to the situation and other circumstances, and the monopoly value per gallon of proof spirit would vary with each house, from a great variety of causes, and would have to be roughly estimated for each house; though in practice it would work out that similar houses would be grouped at the same rate.) But at the end of the year, it might be found that the tenant instead of having sold enough spirit to make up £400 at the above rate of 1s. per gallon, had sold only enough to make up £200. Now he suggested that what the Commissioners should do in those circumstances was to reduce the monopoly value to £200. Thus, instead of being compelled to sell a great amount of strong drink, the tenant would be benefited, by having sold teetotal drinks—tea, coffee, and mineral waters—by having to pay only half the provisionally estimated monopoly value. If the Government would adopt that view he thought it would be very easy to make provision for it. But suppose the publican took the other line, and sold as much strong drink as possible, say enough to make up £600 at the same rate per gallon, then they would increase the monopoly value, and make him pay £600. He knew it was
1086
possible to raise objections of detail, but provision could easily be made where there was a will and a thorough desire to effect the object. By his proposal the publican who sold a great amount of strong drink would be penalised, while the publican who sold very little strong drink would be benefited by the reduction of the monopoly value from £400 to £200 or whatever the difference might happen to be. If he sold 8,000 gallons of proof spirit he paid £400. If he sold twice that amount he paid £800, and if he sold half he paid £200. The amount he paid depended on the amount of alcohol that he sold. Alcohol was a poison, as was admitted by scientific men, the consumption of which they wished to reduce. The only way, in his opinion, to reduce the consumption was by educating the people as to what were and what were not poisons. Who was the greatest educator in a district? The public-house keeper, far more than the clergyman and schoolmaster. What was the use of having the best schoolmasters and lecturers when they had at the public-house the most influential man in the district, whose living depended and was made to depend upon the amount of strong drink that he sold? By this Bill they were going to charge him monopoly value and unless he sold enough alcoholic poison to cover this amount he would be ruined. How could they expect that man to instruct the people who came to his house that strong drink was a poison? He could not do it, and the effect of monopoly value payments, unless modified as he (Mr. Lupton) suggested, would be to cause him to increase the sale of drink because they gave him the very strongest motive that could possibly actuate him. What could be done by a public-house keeper who did not want to force the sale of drink in an unreasonable way, who did not want to make people drunk up to the verge of police drunkenness so that he just escaped having a note made on his licence? The average public-house keeper was just as good as any men in that House. They wanted to conduct their business to the honour of man and the glory of God if they had the chance. Hitherto they had not had the chance. This was the only way in which they could possibly have a chance, to let the

1087
monopoly value that they paid depend on the amount of alcohol that they sold. It might be asked what evidence there was to show that this would have a good effect. He would take a case from South Wales. The laws were identical in Cardiff and Swansea as to the mode in which drink was sold and yet the convicted drunks in Swansea were in 1906 more than three times the convicted drunks in Cardiff, and the population of Cardiff was nearly twice the population of Swansea. Therefore, the ratio of drunks in Swaneea per 10,000 of the population to those in Cardiff was six to one, with the same laws, much the same business, the same character of population, if anything a greater proportion of seafaring men in Cardiff. That showed what a difference might be effected by some slight difference in the mode of managing things where personal influence came in. He had been told the reason was this, that in Cardiff the police and the public-house keepers worked together. The police helped the public-house keeper and warned him at the entrance to his house of any man who was likely to be made drunk by being served. That was done in the friendliest possible way, and it enabled them to keep down the number of drunks to that small figure. That showed what personal influence was. Personal influence in each public-house would have very great effect in increasing or diminishing the sale of strong drink, in making the people who attended the public-house beastly drunkards or in making them reasonable citizens getting a reasonable amount of refreshment in an honourable manner. It was far better than any attempts to degrade the public-house. They had in the village three Government institutions, the church, the school, and the public-house. The last and most influential was to be made a degraded place because they were going to make it a condition of the licensee holding his licence that he sold so much strong drink a year, and unless he was going to ruin himself that was what he would have to do. He hoped His Majesty's Ministers might take this matter into serious consideration and introduce some Amendment into the Bill. He knew exactly what would happen. As soon as they went to their officials they would be
1088
told that what he was proposing was impossible. He never knew a good scheme yet but what the Government officials said it was impossible. He would be told that all sorts of difficulties would be created, but if they were going to be stopped by difficulties and frightened by every lion in the path they would never get on. But the question was, was the Government going to face this really serious proposition and make it the interest of every keeper of a licensed house to reduce the amount of alcohol he sold.
*MR. REES: On a point of order, may I ask whether the hon. Member is speaking to his own Amendment or to that of the Solicitor-General.
*THE DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. CALDWELL, Lanarkshire, Mid.): The hon. Member's own Amendment will be superseded by the Solicitor-General's Amendment and hence be out of order, so that he is quite entitled to discuss his alternative scheme in opposition to the proposal of the Solicitor-General.
*MR. LUPTONsaid the point on which, he was speaking when he was interrupted had escaped his mind. That was one of the effects of interruption—that it rather lengthened debate than shortened it. The public-house keeper who was in a position to affect the sobriety of his district could gradually lessen the amount of alcohol in the beer year by year until it went down to the minimum and could encourage the sale of light beers. He was aware that the Inland Revenue would object to that because it derived a revenue proportionate to the amount of alcohol sold. They had one Department in the Government bringing in a Bill intended to reduce the sale of alcoholic drink and another Department which would resist that because it would reduce revenue, and a reduction in revenue was a fearful thing for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to face. It was only by the very strongest influence and pressure of Members who really wanted temperance that they would overcome the difficulties brought forward by the Inland Revenue. If the public-house keeper sold whiskey

1089
with too much water in it he was prosecuted for adulteration because he mixed with an admitted poison the purest and best element in Nature. That was what the Revenue Department of the Government did towards temperance. He had been told that water must not be mixed with beer because it made a horrid concoction. He did not drink much beer but when he did he found it was greatly improved by being diluted with twice as much water as beer.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member was now going beyond the scope of the Amendment.
*MR. LUPTONsaid they must put pressure on the Government to introduce a clause on the Report stage to make the monopoly value dependent on the amount of proof spirit which was sold.
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid he would like to ask the Solicitor-General a question on the latter part of the Amendment at the end of line 32. That provision was intended to meet the promise which the Prime Minister gave him in July when he moved an Amendment to Clause 1 to exclude the post-1904 licences from the operation of the reduction scheme. The Prime Minister said he, would endeavour to make the best provision he could to meet the justice of the case, and he said—
"I will introduce words to make it impossible for those licences to be selected."
That was, to be selected for extinction. That had not been met. The hon. and learned Gentleman had put down an Amendment attempting to meet it, but it did not do really because these licences could well be extinguished under the reduction scheme, and he provided in this Amendment that compensation should be given to them. He failed to understand on what principle the Government proposed to compensate these licence-holders if their licences were taken away. Most of them had paid large sums—one £9,000 and several over £6,000—for an annual licence on the faith that it would not be taken away. He hoped that the Government would give them a further opportunity of discussing this question, because the
1090
Amendment they were discussing had only been put down that morning. The terms of the Amendment had been altered and this had made a change in the measure of compensation to be paid. What did the Government mean by the words: "If the amount required to be paid in any year on account of monopoly value is exceeded the monopoly value for a year"? That passed his comprehension. In consideration of some of the new licences being granted old licences had been surrendered in many cases. He hoped it would be taken into consideration that those people had paid the monopoly value down on the faith that their licences would be continued. They would not have paid so large a sum of money if they had felt that they would only have the licence for one year. Where a man carried on his house properly it would be an injustice to take his licence away without paying him full compensation.
SIR S. EVANSsaid he did not want to divert the attention of the Committee from the main question, but perhaps it would be convenient for him to deal with the point raised now. The Prime Minister was most anxious to fulfil not only in the spirit but in the letter any pledge he had given. On this matter he had consulted him personally. The hon. Member for Sheffield communicated with him with reference to the Amendment on the Paper and requested him to substitute the word "shall" for the word "may." He had made that change and that was the only alteration in the Amendment. This provision had been made in fulfilment of the Prime Minister's pledge. The Commissioners had to decide whether the amount paid exceeded the monopoly value for the year. If not, they had not made any over-payment, because they had had the benefit of it. But where the amount was shown to the Commissioners to be such as obviously to exceed the monopoly value for the year, then that must be taken into consideration, and they would allow the repayment of such proportion as they thought just, having regard to the time which had elapsed. Under this provision the Commissioners would have regard to all the circumstances and would consider the amount exacted in the first

1091
place as well as the period of time for which the licence had been in existence.
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked how they were going to ascertain what the annual value was when the sum had been paid down in a large lump sum.
SIR S. EVANSreplied that that was a problem which the Commissioners would have to decide. Let them suppose that £4,500 had been paid. It was obvious that was more than the monopoly value, and they would have to find out how much was the fair monopoly value per annum of the house. They would then decide how much of the original sum should be returned.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the hon. Member for Sleaford had been misled by the impression that the object of this Bill was to promote temperance. He advised him to correct that obvious error, and then he would understand better the proceedings of the Government. He quite agreed with the Under-Secretary when he said that the demand from that side of the Committee hid always been: "Let us know what the monopoly value is going to be and on what principle the different authorities are going to assess us, so that the licence-holder and the brewer may know where they stand." He acknowledged that they ought to be obliged to the Government for having introduced this clause. But whilst he admitted that, he did not think it followed that they were bound to believe that the manner in which the Government were going to define monopoly value was the right one. He had a great belief himself in the Inland Revenue authorities, and he did not in the least wish to throw any doubt upon their bona fides and capability. When they said they desired that a fixed principle should be arrived at to ascertain monopoly value the justices could do it upon a fixed principle, and there was some ground for the argument that the justices would be better able to find out what was just in each case than the Inland Revenue authorities sitting in London. Although he had had the advantage of hearing every word the Prime Minister said on this question he did not fully understand the effect of this clause. Take as an illustration a house the
1092
ordinary value of which under Schedule A would be £100 a year, and its value as a licensed house, £150 a year. The difference between £100 and £150 would be the monopoly value per annum, or £50 per year. He wanted to know whether the licence-holder would have to pay twice over when assessed for income-tax or rates upon that value. He understood the Prime Minister to say he would not have to do that, and that in future the real value would be £150. Consequently he would only be assessed at £100 because he would have paid £50 to the Inland Revenue as monopoly value. If that were so, it was evident that the local authorities would suffer a diminution in the rateable value of their areas. That ought to be considered when they remembered that although at the present moment this clause would only apply to new licences, at the end of twenty-one years it would apply to all the licences existing in the kingdom. He would like to know what was going to happen supposing existing licence-holders said: "This monopoly value is too great and we are not going to pay it." His recollection was that on the Second Reading of the Bill the Under-Secretary said that the result of this measure would be to bring in an abounding revenue to the State. These people paid the monopoly value, but if, because the monopoly value was fixed in this way, they did not pay, the State would not get it. What they ought to do in this matter was to act on ordinary business principles. In that case, when a licence fell in they would practically put it up to auction and say—What will you pay for this licence? That would be a business-like way of dealing, and they would avoid the multiplication of officials which must otherwise take place. It must be remembered that, in twenty-one years there would be something like 60,000 houses to be dealt with, and the-revenue authorities would have to go into all the circumstances of the cases. If they said to the justices that they could ascertain the monopoly value by putting a licence up by auction, the justices would be able to sell it to the highest bidder. Then if a buyer paid too much for it, he would not be able to blame anyone. That was his look-out. They would thus avoid all the trouble and

1093
expense which would be occasioned by the method proposed. He did not know what line hon. Members on that side of the House would take in regard to the Amendment. It was rather difficult to take any given line on an Amendment which was only brought forward yesterday, and only appeared on the Paper that morning. It was now eight months since the Second Reading of the Bill was passed, and it was rather curious that the Government had not made up their minds during the interval on this matter. It put the Opposition in rather an awkward position to discuss a new clause on an important subject at such short notice. His own idea was—when in doubt vote against the Government. In the circumstances, therefore, he would vote against the Government.
*MR. CLAVELL SALTERsaid he wished to say a word on a matter on which the Solicitor-General had addressed the Committee. There were two classes of cases where hardship might arise. There were those licence holders who had practically purchased their licences for cash, and those who had acquired licences by cash value by the surrender of existing licences. He thought the Prime Minister had fairly met the case of those who had purchased for cash, but from a study of the Amendment it did not appear to him that the other cases had been fairly met. The cases where there had been surrenders were very numerous. As to the main question before the Committee, namely, the monopoly value, he agreed that they should not desire to make too much of the grievance, but it did seem strange and most unfortunate that they should be called upon to discuss a matter of extreme difficulty and complexity at such exceedingly short notice. He heard with pleasure the promise of the Prime Minister to give a further opportunity for the consideration of the subject. At present it was really impossible for anyone to do more than offer a few disjointed observations, mainly in the nature of inquiry, as to the important new machinery which had been suddenly placed before the Committee. They were all agreed that the monopoly value must be ascertained and paid in certain, cases. They all desired that the real monopoly value should be ascertained
1094
as distinct from any other items of value, and further that the work should be done by a competent authority. The question was whether the authority proposed by the Government was better than the existing authority. It appeared to him quite clear that Section 4 of the Act of 1904 was not expressly repealed. Under that section the justices were not only entitled but bound to exact as the condition of the granting of a new licence payment of the monopoly value. The justices were to discharge the function of assessing that value. The justices might assess the market value of a house at £50, but the Commissioners of Inland Revenue might take the view that the value was £75. That appeared to him to be a difficulty, and he wished to have some light upon it from the Solicitor-General. He wished to know how far Section 4 of the 1904 Act was to be repealed, whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue were substituted for the justices, and whether there was in future to be a different method of assessment. As to the authority to make the assessment, he confessed he had a preference for the justices, who had local knowledge. At present the plain and simple plan followed by the justices was to make two assessments ad hoc, one representing the value of the premises licensed, and the other the value unlicensed. The difference was the amount they had to arrive at. Under the new machinery the Commissioners of Inland Revenue would not have to make two assessments of their own. They would find one assessment in existence, and they were to take that, and then make another assessment for the purpose of comparison. The assessment which the Commissioners would find in existence would not be a real and reliable assessment made ad hoc. It appeared to him that there might well be cases in which the Inland Revenue Commissioners might not be able to take the existing assessment at all. Take the case of a licence current for many years which would become a new licence at the expiration of twenty-one years, and suppose that in the granting of the licence for the first year after the time-limit the justices imposed new and onerous terms which would reduce the value of the licence, the Commissioners

1095
could not take that which they had found in years past, for the new terms would have greatly reduced the value. They would have to make two assessments of their own for this purpose. He did not in the least understand the manner in which the Commissioners were going to work the new machinery. It might be a familiar method in Scotland, but it had not been followed hitherto in this country.
SIR S. EVANSsaid the Prime Minister was anxious that the case put forward by the Opposition should be fully met. He therefore was quite willing to modify his Amendment to the clause which stood on the Paper, empowering the Commissioners to allow the repayment of such portion, if any, of the sum paid on account of monopoly value as they thought just, having regard to the time which had elapsed since the original grant of the licence, by the addition of the words "and to all the circumstances under which the amount was fixed."
MR. WYNDHAMsaid they were obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the concession. But they thought that, as further words were to be added to what was admittedly a new clause put down by the Government, the period at present fixed for the Report stage should be enlarged in order that it might be adequately considered. Was he to understand that the right hon. Gentleman had promised to give a greater period of time for the Report stage.
MR. ASQUITHreplied in the negative.
MR. WYNDHAMappealed to the right hon. Gentleman to say whether they were not entitled to ask for some further time to look at the fence before they took this leap.
*MR. CAVEsaid they were now dealing with a clause connected with those parts of the Bill which he had looked upon as involving confiscation, viz., the time-limit clause and that regarding the reduction of licences. He thought this Amendment made the element of confiscation stronger than it was in the clause as originally drafted. He said that for two reasons. To begin with, it defined
1096
the monopoly value. They had been told by the Government on the first stage of the Bill that there was no intention on their part to exact as monopoly value the value of the goodwill; but this definition did give the State the goodwill attached to the public-house. Monopoly value was to be the difference between the assessment of the house under Schedule A as licensed, and the assessment under Schedule A without a licence. The Under-Secretary in a very cogent argument on Friday last had assured the Committee that the Schedule A assessment included the local goodwill of the house, and the value of the tie. It was true that the assessment was not always rightly made in that respect, for in some cases the assessment did not include the goodwill, but he was disposed to agree with the Under-Secretary that Schedule A ought to include the local goodwill. Therefore the Government were going to take the annual value of the house and the goodwill, to deduct the house without the goodwill, and to exact the difference as monopoly value. Did it not follow that they were going to take the yearly value of the goodwill as monopoly value? Again, they were going to re-estimate every year, so that as the goodwill grew, as the capital and energy which the licensee put into the business increased, so the monopoly value to the State would also increase. That was bringing about the very thing he ventured to predict on the Second Reading. The intention was not merely to take the monopoly value of the licence but the profits of the house as well. The second objection he took to the Amendment was that under the existing law monopoly value was estimated by an impartial authority. The question being between the licensee or the house-owner and the State, an impartial tribunal was put in between the two, the justices, who might be trusted to make a fair and impartial estimate. But by the Amendment the Government were setting up the officers of the Inland Revenue themselves as a tribunal to assess the monopoly value which was to come into the revenue. In other words, they were empowering those officials to fix the sum to be paid into their own pockets; they were making them the judges in their own cause.

1097
He regarded the change made by the Amendment as of a very serious nature indeed. He would not go into the old controversy about the justices. The Government were always saying that the justices were an impartial and independent authority and might be trusted to do their duty; but here they took out of their hands something which they were quite competent to do, and which they had already done perfectly fairly; and put it into the hands of an authority which, from the public point of view, had the greatest possible interest in making the monopoly value as high as possible.
MR. ASQUITH: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us to whom the monopoly value now goes?
*MR. CAVE: The monopoly value for new licences goes into the public pocket.
MR. ASQUITH: But into what public pocket?
*MR. CAVEsaid he supposed the right hon. Gentleman meant that it went indirectly into the county fund. But most people knew that the justices had no control over the county fund. The county fund was under the control of the county council, and it was news to him to hear it suggested that the justices had any interest in increasing it. The county council was wholly independent of the licensing authorities, and consisted of persons, most of whom were not justices.
*MR. BARNARD: Who pays the clerk of the peace?
*MR. CAVEsaid he hoped he had made his point quite clear and he strongly pressed his friends to vote against the Amendment. The more they looked into it the more they would see that the Amendment would make a principle, already vicious enough, more vicious still, and increase the hardship to the tenant.
*MR. J. M. HENDERSONwished to say a few words in regard to monopoly value. What was running in the minds of the hon. and learned Gentleman and of the brewers was, first of all, the amount of compensation that would have to be paid them; and secondly, the monopoly value they would have to pay. Under the Act of 1904, the hon. and learned Gentleman said that the monopoly value was arrived at by assessment. It was not done by assessment; the monopoly value for a new on-licence was settled by the Committee after hearing sworn evidence of value. The monopoly value which the licensing justices had charged had been the most extravagant they could possibly fix; so much so, that the number of licences granted during the past few years had been very small. A clerk to one of the licensing justices had told him that in his district only four new licences had been taken up on the ground that the monopoly value attached to new licences by the present justices had been so exaggerated as to put a prohibitive price upon them. Of course, the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite said that this money was not taken by the licensing justices, but, like the motorcar fines in the Kingston Division of Surrey, it went to increase the county fund. However, what he was anxious

1099
to have was that just as the compensation should be reasonable and fair, so the monopoly value should be reasonable and fair. A true definition of the monopoly value as he held it to be was this, the difference of the profits which the licensee would make by reason of the fact that the number of people in the trade would be limited, and the profits which he would make in an ordinary business. Supposing a man could by ordinary trade make £500 a year, and supposing he got a licence, and by reason of the restricted number of the licences he could make £1,000 a year, then, according to one view £500 was the monopoly value. But he maintained that that was not the case, because it did not take into account the additional amount of labour and capital which the man put into the business to earn the additional £500. Therefore, the monopoly value must be held to be something less than £500. When it was fully and fairly considered it ought not to be prohibitive. He believed that Schedule A would give a very much less monopoly value than under the present method of arriving at value. They all knew what valuers were. If they were going to value up, they valued up; if they were going to value down, they valued down. They could get from any valuer any value they liked, and from a brewer's valuer even more so Old-established hotels like the Savoy and the Carlton paid £60 a year, but for new hotels the valuation of the monopoly value was fixed at 1,000 guineas. That was the new method by which the money went into the funds of the county council. He wanted the money to go to the State. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that if they were going to charge such monopoly values it would be nothing else than
1100
robbing the publicans. He agreed; and just as he protested against the system of compensation adhered to lately, so he deprecated the system of overvaluing the monopoly value. He was quite sure that taking the new value on Schedule A was not a perfect system, but it would be much lest onerous to the new licensee after fourteen years than the present extravagant methods which had been adopted by the licensing justices.
SIR E. CARSONsaid he had already spoken at an earlier period of this debate when he explained to the Committee the great difficulty there was in understanding what was the full effect of the clause they were then considering. He ventured to ask questions which might in his absence have been answered, but he had been unable to find out from his friends what the answer was. The question he asked was this. At the present moment under the procedure of the Act of 1904 the magistrates had the power of attaching any conditions they liked to the granting of a new licence, and they had the power of fixing the monopoly value. Anybody must see that a great deal of the monopoly value must depend upon the conditions made. For instance, the justices might make a condition that the house was not to be open on Sundays, and there would be a six-day licence or they might restrict the hours on Saturday when there would only be a partial six-day licence. The monopoly value in such cases must be entirely different from what it was in the case of a full licence. The question he desired answered was this—
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he had answered it.
SIR E. CARSONsaid he was sorry. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would pardon his putting it again. The justices when they heard the matter had before them all the materials, they knew the district, and had some idea of the probabilities of the amount of trade which would be conducted, the effect of the conditions they themselves attached, and they had the matter argued before them, on the application for a new licence. The question he wished an answer to was this: Would there be any hearing before the Inland Revenue Commissioners; or would they, sitting in London, be the persons who were to make this valuation, having regard to the conditions attached by the magistrates, without any local knowledge whatever?
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he had answered the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question shortly after he spoke, but unfortunately he had left the House. Of course, the Inland Revenue Commissioners would take into account all the conditions attached to the licence. Any restrictions which affected the rental value would be taken into account under Schedule A. There would be no difference in the procedure from that under the Act of 1904.
SIR E. CARSON: Will there be a hearing?
MR. ASQUITH: The same as under the Act of 1904—neither more nor less.
SIR E. CARSONsaid it could not be the same. There was nothing in the new clause setting up any hearing before the Inland Revenue, and he had never heard of any hearing before them before. Was there to be one or was there not?
MR. ASQUITH: The Inland Revenue will exercise exactly the same jurisdiction and proceed by the same rules and methods as they do under the Act of 1904 in assessing compensation.
SIR E. CARSONsaid that that surely, with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, was really misleading the House. It was not a question of compensation at all. It was a question of taking away a hearing that already existed, and of whether another was to be substituted. It was perfectly plain from what the right hon. Gentleman said that there was to be no hearing whatsoever.
MR. ASQUITHremarked that he had not said anything of the kind. The problem and the conclusion to be arrived at were precisely the same. In regard to the methods of procedure, if it were shown that persons had not a real opportunity of a hearing, he would consider whether or not the procedure ought to be modified.
SIR E. CARSONsaid that what the right hon. Gentleman had said amounted to this—that at all events, up to the present, there was no hearing in the Bill. How on earth could the Inland Revenue, who did not know the local circumstances, who had no arguments before them, who did not know what the full effect of the conditions attached by the magistrates might be, and who did not know what effect those conditions would have on the value of the licence and on the trade, properly assess the monopoly value that was to be paid? What possible reason had been shown for taking away from a judicial tribunal such as the justices were, and who had to hear the whole

1103
case in any circumstances, the power of deciding the one essential matter when they were granting the licence—namely, on what terms they were to grant it? They had to fix the conditions, they knew the local situation and the local effect of what they were doing. The Government said they might decide all that on the one hand, but were not fit to say what value was to be paid in regard to the very terms they were imposing.
*MR. CAVEasked the Prime Minister whether, as the Act of 1904 gave to any party aggrieved by the decision of the Inland Revenue Commissioners on the question of compensation an appeal to the High Court, he would, in this Bill, give to a person aggrieved by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue on the question of monopoly value a similar appeal?
MR. ASQUITH: I will consider that.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not wish to repeat arguments which had not been answered, and to which, he presumed, no answer was possible, but he did wish, in the three minutes that still remained to them, again to call the attention of the Committee to the conditions under which they were conducting their business. This was a matter which the Government might have laid before them any time since the Second Reading of the Bill, but not until the day itself were they allowed
to deal with the problem. The result was that, when it did come on, and in the few minutes which were allowed to them to deal with the problem, questions of the most simple and elementary character were asked and no answer was forthcoming. And the only solatium, a word appropriate to this Bill, given them by the Government was that, out of the time already fixed and irrevocable and unalterable on the Report stage some fraction that ought to be devoted, and originally was intended to be devoted, to other questions was to be allocated to discussing the errors the Government had made in framing their Bill. He did not think any further comment was necessary.
MR. ASQUITHthought a little more comment was necessary. The Committee had, ever since eight o'clock, been discussing this matter, and discussing it in very great detail. The Amendments he had put on the Order Paper, and on which the Committee were about to divide, were Amendments entirely in response to appeals made to him by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The response to those Amendments was not such as to encourage the Government in future to make further Amendments.
Question put.
The Commitee divided:—Ayes, 126; Noes, 318. (Division List No. 321.)

AYES.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

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

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Baldwin, Stanley

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

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Bull, Sir William James

Heaton, John Henniker

Rawlinson, John Frederick Pee

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Helmsley, Viscount

Remnant, James Farquharson

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Hill, Sir Clement

Renton, Leslie

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hills, J. W.

Renwick, George

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Houston, Robert Paterson

Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

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

Keswick, William

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Clark, George Smith

Kimber, Sir Henry

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

Clive, Percy Archer

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Stanier, Beville

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

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Starkey, John R.

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

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Craik, Sir Henry

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

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cross, Alexander

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

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

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Doughty, Sir George

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Thornton, Percy M.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

M'Arthur, Charles

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Faber, George Denison (York)

Magnus, Sir Philip

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

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

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Whitbread, Howard

Fardell, Sir T. George

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Fell, Arthur

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Fletcher, J. S.

Morpeth, Viscount

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

Gardner, Ernest

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Winterton, Earl

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Nield, Herbert

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Oddy, John James

Young, Samuel

Gretton, John

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Younger, George

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

Haddock, George B.

Percy, Earl

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Viscount Valentia.

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

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

Acland, Francis Dyke

Black, Arthur W.

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

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

Boulton, A. C. F.

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

Agnew, George William

Bowerman, C. W.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Alden, Percy

Brace, William

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Branch, James

Cowan, W. H.

Armitage, R.

Brigg, John

Cox, Harold

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Brodie, H. C.

Crooks, William

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Brooke, Stopford

Crossley, William J.

Astbury, John Meir

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

Curran, Peter Francis

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Bryce, J. Annan

Dalmeny, Lord

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

Barker, John

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Barnard, E. B.

Byles, William Pollard

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

Barnes, G. N.

Cameron, Robert

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Beale, W. P.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Beauchamp, E.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Dobson, Thomas W.

Bell, Richard

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Duckworth, James

Bellairs, Carlyon

Cheetham, John Frederick

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Bennett, E. N.

Clough, William

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Clynes, J. R.

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

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

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

1106

1107

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Erskine, David C.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lamont, Norman

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Everett, R. Lacey

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Robinson, S.

Fenwick, Charles

Levy, Sir Maurice

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Ferens, T. R.

Lewis, John Herbert

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Roe, Sir Thomas

Findlay, Alexander

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Lupton, Arnold

Rose, Charles Day

Fuller, John Michael F.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Fullerton, Hugh

Lyell, Charles Henry

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lynch, H. B.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Glendinning, R. G.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Glover, Thomas

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Maclean, Donald

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Macpherson, J. T.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

M'Callum, John M.

Sears, J. E.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

M'Crae, Sir George

Seaverns, J. H.

Griffith, Ellis J.

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Seddon, J.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

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

Seely, Colonel

Gulland, John W.

M'Micking, Major G.

Shackleton, David James

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Mallet, Charles E.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

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

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Marnham, F. J.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Massie, J.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Menzies, Walter

Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

Micklem, Nathaniel

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Hart-Davies, T.

Middlebrook, William

Snowden, P.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

Mond, A.

Soares, Ernest J.

Harwood, George

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Montgomery, H. G.

Stanger, H. Y.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Helme, Norval Watson

Morrell, Philip

Steadman, W. C.

Hemmerde, Edward George

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

Myer, Horatio

Strachey, Sir Edward

Henry, Charles S.

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

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

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Summerbell, T.

Higham, John Sharp

Nuttall, Harry

Sutherland, J. E.

Hobart, Sir Robert

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Hodge, John

Partington, Oswald

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Paulton, James Mellor

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Holt, Richard Durning

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Thomasson, Franklin

Hooper, A. G.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Thompson, J. W. M. (Somerset, E.

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

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

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

Horniman, Emslie John

Perks, Sir Robert William

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Toulmin, George

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Hudson, Walter

Pollard, Dr.

Verney, F. W.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Vivian, Henry

Hyde, Clarendon

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

Walsh, Stephen

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Walters, John Tudor

Jardine, Sir J.

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

Walton, Joseph

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Radford, G. H.

Wardle, George J.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Waterlow, D. S.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Rees, J. D.

Watt, Henry A.

Jowett, F. W.

Rendall, Athelstan

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Kekewich, Sir George

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

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Richardson, A.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Laidlaw, Robert

Ridsdale, E. A.

Whitehead, Rowland

1108

1109

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Yoxall, James Henry

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

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

Wiles, Thomas

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Wilkie, Alexander

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

Joseph Pease and Master of

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Elibank.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Winfrey, R.

Williamson, A.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

And it being after half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 17th July, successively to put forthwith the Question on the Amendments moved by the Government, of which notice had been given, and the Questions necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded this day.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 14, line 30, to leave out the words 'for any year.'"
"In page 14, line 30, after the word 'value', to insert the words 'shall in every case of a new licence granted after the passing of this Act be determined by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and in the case of a licence not granted for a term.'"
"In page 14, lines 31 and 32, to leave out the words 'estimated by the licensing justices,' and to insert the words 'ascertained in accordance with this section, and, in the case of a licence granted for a term, shall be based on the monopoly value as so ascertained. The monopoly value shall be taken to be the sum by which, in the opinion of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, the value of the premises, as adopted or estimated for the purpose of income tax under Schedule A, when licensed, and without taking into consideration any provisions for securing to the public the monopoly value, exceeds the value of the premises for that purpose when not licensed. Provided that in ascertaining the monopoly value of hotels or other premises where the value of the premises does not mainly arise from the sale of intoxicating
liquor, any value of the premises other than that arising from the sale of intoxicating liquor shall be excluded from consideration.'"
"In page 14, line 31, to leave out the second word 'the,' and to insert the word 'a.'"
"In page 14, line 32, at end, to insert the words '(2) If a licence, granted before the passing of this Act as a new licence under Section 4 of the Licensing Act, 1904, but not as a licence for a term, is extinguished at any time during the reduction period, and the holder of the licence proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that the amount required to be paid in any year on account of monopoly value has exceeded the monopoly value for a year, and that the licence has not been extinguished on the ground of misconduct, the Commissioners shall allow the repayment of such portion, if any, of the sum paid on account of monopoly value as they think just, having regard to the time which has elapsed since the original grant of the licence. Any sum allowed shall be paid by the Commissioners to the holder of the licence, and shall be deducted from the next payment made out of the local taxation account to the council of the county or county borough who have had the benefit of the original payment.'"
"In page 14, line 33, to leave out the word 'on-licence,' and to insert the word 'licence.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
Amendments agreed to.
Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 319; Noes, 127. (Division List No. 322.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Barnes, G. N.

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

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Bell, Richard

Alden, Percy

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Barker, John

Bennett, E. N.

Armitage, R.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Barnard, E. B.

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

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Maclean, Donald

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Black, Arthur W.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Macpherson, J. T.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

M'Callum, John M.

Bowerman, C. W.

Griffith, Ellis J.

M'Crae, Sir George

Brace, William

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Bramsdon, T. A.

Gulland, John W.

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

Branch, James

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

M'Micking, Major G.

Brigg, John

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Mallet, Charles E.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Brodie, H. C.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Brooke, Stopford

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Marnham, F. J.

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

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Massie, J.

Bryce, J. Annan

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

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

Menzies, Walter

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Hart-Davies, T.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Middlebrook, William

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

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

Molteno, Percy Alport

Byles, William Pollard

Harwood, George

Mond, A.

Cameron, Robert

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Montgomery, H. G.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Helme, Norval Watson

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hemmerde, Edward George

Morrell, Philip

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Clough, William

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

Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard

Clynes, J. R.

Henry, Charles S.

Myer, Horatio

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

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

Napier, T. B.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

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

Higham, John Sharp

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Nuttall, Harry

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Hodge, John

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Parker, James (Halifax)

Cowan, W. H.

Holt, Richard Durning

Partington, Oswald

Cox, Harold

Hooper, A. G.

Paulton, James Mellor

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Crooks, William

Horniman, Emslie John

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Crossley, William J.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

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

Curran, Peter Francis

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Perks, Sir Robert William

Dalmeny, Lord

Hudson, Walter

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Hyde, Clarendon

Pollard, Dr.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

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

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

Jardine, Sir J.

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

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

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

Dobson, Thomas W.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Radford, G. H.

Duckworth, James

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Jowett, F. W.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Rees, J. D.

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Kekewich, Sir George

Rendall, Athelstan

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Laidlaw, Robert

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

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Richardson, A.

Erskine, David C.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lambert, George

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Lamont, Norman

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Everett, R. Lacey

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Fenwick, Charles

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Ferens, T. R.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Robinson, S.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Lewis, John Herbert

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Findlay, Alexander

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Roe, Sir Thomas

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lupton, Arnold

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Fullerton, Hugh

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Rose, Charles Day

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

Lynch, H. B.

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Glendinning, R. G.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Glover, Thomas

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Bg'hs)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

1112

1113

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Watt, Henry A.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Schwann, Sir C. K. (Manchester)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

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

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Sears, J. E.

Summerbell, T.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Seaverns, J. H.

Sutherland, J. E.

Whitehead, Rowland

Seddon, J.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Seely, Colonel

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Whittaker Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Shackleton, David James

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Wiles, Thomas

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Wilkie, Alexander

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

Thomasson, Franklin

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

Sherwell, Arthur James

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Williamson, A.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Toulmin, George

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

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Verney, F. W.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Snowden, P.

Vivian, Henry

Winfrey, R.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Soares, Ernest J.

Walsh, Stephen

Yoxall, James Henry

Spicer, Sir Albert

Walters, John Tudor

Stanger, H. Y.

Walton, Joseph

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Wardle, George J.

Joseph Pease and Master of

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Elibank.

Steadman, W. C.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Waterlow, D. S.

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Percy, Earl

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gretton, John

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Baldwin, Stanley

Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

Haddock, George B.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Renton, Leslie

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Renwick, George

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

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Heaton, John Henniker

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Helmsley, Viscount

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hill, Sir Clement

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hills, J. W.

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Bull, Sir William James

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Houston, Robert Paterson

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Hunt, Rowland

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Joynson-Hicks, William

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

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Stanier, Beville

Castlereagh, Viscount

Kerry, Earl of

Starkey, John R.

Cave, George

Keswick, William

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kimber, Sir Henry

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

King, Sir Henry Scymour (Hull)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

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

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

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Clark, George Smith

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Thornton, Percy M.

Clive, Percy Archer

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

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

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

Valentia, Viscount

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

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Courthope, G. Loyd

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

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

Craik, Sir Henry

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Whitbread, Howard

Cross, Alexander

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

M'Arthur, Charles

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Doughty, Sir George

Magnus, Sir Philip

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Winterton, Earl

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Faber, George Denison (York)

Morpeth, Viscount

Young, Samuel

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

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Younger, George

Fardell, Sir T. George

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Fell, Arthur

Nield, Herbert

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Fletcher, J. S.

Oddy, John James

Lord Edmund Talbot and

Gardner, Ernest

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Mr. Pike Pease.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Clauses 25 to 27 agreed to.
Clause 28:
The Committee divide:—Ayes, 318;

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Helme, Norval Watson

Acland, Francis Dyke

Cowan, W. H.

Hemmerde, Edward George

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

Cox, Harold

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Agnew, George William

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

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

Alden, Percy

Crooks, William

Henry, Charles S.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Crossley, William J.

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

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Curran, Peter Francis

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Armitage, R.

Dalmeny, Lord

Higham, John Sharp

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hodge, John

Astbury, John Meir

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

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

Holt, Richard Burning

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hooper, A. G.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

Barker, John

Dobson, Thomas W.

Horniman, Emslie John

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Duckworth, James

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Barnard, E. B.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Howard, Hon. Goeffrey

Barnes, G. N.

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Hudson, Walter

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Beale, W. P.

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Hyde, Clarendon

Beauchamp, E.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Bell, Richard

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Jacoby Sir James Alfred

Bellairs, Carlyon

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Jardine, Sir J.

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Erskine, David C.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Bennett, E. N.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

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

Everett, R. Lacey

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Fenwick, Charles

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Ferens, T. R.

Jowett, F. W.

Black, Arthur W.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Findlay, Alexander

Kekewich, Sir George

Bowerman, C. W.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Brace, William

Fuller, John Michael F.

Laidlaw, Robert

Bramsdon, T. A.

Fullerton, Hugh

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Branch, James

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Brigg, John

Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

Lambert, George

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Glendinning, R. G.

Lamont, Norman

Brodie, H. C.

Glover, Thomas

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Brooke, Stopford

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

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

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Bryce, J. Annan

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Lewis, John Herbert

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Griffith, Ellis J.

Lupton, Arnold

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Byles, William Pollard

Gulland, John W.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Cameron, Robert

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Lynch, H. B.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Maclean, Donald

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Clough, William

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Macpherson, J. T.

Clynes, J. R.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh

M'Callum, John M.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hart-Davies, T.

M'Crae, Sir George

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

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

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

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Harwood, George

M'Micking, Major G.

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

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Mallet, Charles E.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Noes, 128. (Division List No. 323.)

Marnham, F. J.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Massie, J.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Menzies, Walter

Robinson, S.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Thomasson, Franklin

Middlebrook, William

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Roe, Sir Thomas

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampt'n)

Mond, A.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Toulmin, George

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Rose, Charles Day

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Montgomery, H. G.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Verney, F. W.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Vivian, Henry

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Morrell, Philip

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Walsh, Stephen

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Walters, John Tudor

Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Walton, Joseph

Myer, Horatio

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Wardle, George J.

Napier, T. B.

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Sears, J. E.

Waterlow, D. S.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Seaverns, J. H.

Watt, Henry A.

Nuttall, Harry

Seddon, J.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Seely, Colonel

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Shackleton, David James

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Partington, Oswald

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

Whitehead, Rowland

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Wiles, Thomas

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Wilkie, Alexander

Pollard, Dr.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Williams Llewelyn (Carmarthen

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Snowden, P.

Williamson, A.

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

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Soares, Ernest J.

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

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

Spicer, Sir Albert

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Radford, G. H.

Stanger, H. Y.

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

Rainy, A. Rolland

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Winfrey, R.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Steadman, W. C.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Rees, J. D.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Yoxall, James Henry

Rendall, Athelstan

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

Strachey, Sir Edward

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

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

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Joseph Pease and Master of

Richardson, A.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Elibank.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Summerbell, T.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Sutherland, J. E.

NOES.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Clark, George Smith

Gretton, John

Baldwin, Stanley

Clive, Percy Archer

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

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

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

Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingham

Haddock, George B.

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

Courthope, G. Loyd

Harris, Frederick Leverton

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

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Craik, Sir Henry

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Cross, Alexander

Heaton, John Henniker

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Helmsley, Viscount

Bowles, G. Stewart

Doughty, Sir George

Hill, Sir Clement

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hills, J. W.

Bull, Sir William James

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Houston, Robert Paterson

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Hunt, Rowland

Carlile, E. Hildred

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

Joynson-Hicks, William

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Fell, Arthur

Kerry, Earl of

Cave, George

Fletcher, J. S.

Keswick, William

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Gardner, Ernest

Kimber, Sir Henry

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

1118

1119

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Percy, Earl

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

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

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Thornton, Percy M.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Remnant, James Farquharson

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Renton, Leslie

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Renwick, George

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

M'Arthur, Charles

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

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

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Winterton, Earl

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

Morpeth, Viscount

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Young, Samuel

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Younger, George

Nield, Herbert

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

Nolan, Joseph

Stonier, Beville

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Oddy, John James

Starkey, John R.

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh)

Viscount Valentia.

Clauses 29 to 33 agreed to.
Clause 34:
The Committee divide:—Ayes, 317;
Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Noes, 125. (Division List No. 324.)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Seely, Colonel

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

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Shackleton, David James

Hart-Davies, T.

Marnham, F. J.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Massie, J.

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

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

Masterman, C. F. G.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Harwood, George

Menzies, Walter

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Simon, John Allsebrook

Haworth, Arthur A.

Middlebrook, William

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Helme, Norval Watson

Mond, A.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Hemmerde, Edward George

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Snowden, P.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Montgomery, H. G.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Soares, Ernest J.

Henry, Charles S.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Spicer, Sir Albert

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

Morrell, Philip

Stanger, H. Y.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Higham, John Sharp

Myer, Horatio

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Napier, T. B.

Steadman, W. C.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Hodge, John

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Strachey, Sir Edward

Holt, Richard Durning

Nuttall, Harry

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Hooper, A. G.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Summerbell, T.

Horniman, Emslie John

Partington, Oswald

Sutherland, J. E.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Paulton, James Mellor

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Hudson, Walter

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

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

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Hyde, Clarendon

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Thomasson, Franklin

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Pollard, Dr.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

Jardine, Sir J.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Toulmin, George

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

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

Verney, F. W.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Vivian, Henry

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Radford, G. H.

Walsh, Stephen

Jowett, F. W.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Walters, John Tudor

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Walton, Joseph

Kekewich, Sir George

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Wardle, George J.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Rees, J. D.

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Laidlaw, Robert

Rendall, Athelstan

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Waterlow, D. S.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

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

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Lambert, George

Richardson, A.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Lamont, Norman

Ridsdale, E. A.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Whitehead, Rowland

Levy, Sir Maurice

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Lewis, John Herbert

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Robinson, S.

Wiles, Thomas

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Wilkie, Alexander

Lupton, Arnold

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Roe, Sir Thomas

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Williamson, A.

Lynch, H. B.

Rose, Charles Day

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

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

Maclean, Donald

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

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

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Macpherson, J. T.

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Winfrey, R.

M'Callum, John M.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

M'Crae, Sir George

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Yoxall, James Henry

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

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

Sears, J. E.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

M'Micking, Major G.

Seaverns, J. H.

Joseph Pease and Master of

Mallet, Charles E.

Seddon, J.

Elibank.

1122

1123

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Percy, Earl

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Gretton, John

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Baldwin, Stanley

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

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

Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Haddock, George B.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Remnant, James Farquharson

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

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Renton, Leslie

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Renwick, George

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Helmsley, Viscount

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hill, Sir Clement

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hills, J. W.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bull, Sir William James

Houston, Robert Paterson

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hunt, Rowland

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Joynson-Hicks, William

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool Walton)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Kerry, Earl of

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

Castlereagh, Viscount

Keswick, William

Stanier, Beville

Cave, George

Kimber, Sir Henry

Starkey, John R.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. Worc

Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

Clark, George Smith

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Clive, Percy Archer

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Thornton, Percy M.

Cochrane, Hon. Thos H. A. E.

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

Valentia, Viscount

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham)

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Courthope, G. Loyd

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

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

Craik, Sir Henry

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Watt, Henry A.

Cross, Alexander

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

M'Arthur, Charles

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Doughty, Sir George

Magnus, Sir Philip

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Winterton, Earl

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Faber, George Denison (York)

Morpeth, Viscount

Young, Samuel

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

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Younger, George

Fardell, Sir T. George

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Fell, Arthur

Nield, Herbert

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Lord

Fletcher, J. S.

Nolan, Joseph

Edmund Talbot and Mr.

Gardner, Ernest

Oddy, John James

Pike Pease.

Clause 35:
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 311;

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Barnard, E. B.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Barnes, G. N.

Branch, James

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

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Brigg, John

Agnew, George William

Beale, W. P.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Alden, Percy

Beauchamp, E.

Brodie, H. C.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Bell, Richard

Brooke, Stopford

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Bellairs, Carlyon

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

Armitage, R.

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Bryce, J. Annan

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Bennett, E. N.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Berridge, T. H. D.

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

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

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Astbury, John Meir

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Byles, William Pollard

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Black, Arthur W.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Cawley, Sir Fredrick

Barker, John

Bowerman, C. W.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Brace, William

Cheetham, John Frederick

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Noes, 120. (Division List No. 325.)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Henry, Charles S.

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Clough, William

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

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Clynes, J. R.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Higham, John Sharp

Nuttall, Harry

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hobart, Sir Robert

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

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

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Compton-Rickett, Sit J.

Hodge, John

Partington, Oswald

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

Holland, Sir William Henry

Paulton, James Mellor

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Holt, Richard Durning

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Hooper, A. G.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

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

Cowan, W. H.

Horniman, Emslie John

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Cox, Harold

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pollard, Dr.

Crooks, William

Hudson, Walter

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Crossley, William J.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

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

Curran, Peter Francis

Hyde, Clarendon

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

Dalmeny, Lord

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

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

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Jardine, Sir J.

Radford, G. H.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Johnson, John (Gateshead

Rainy, A. Rolland

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

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

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Rees, J. D.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Jowett, F. W.

Rendall, Athelstan

Dobson, Thomas W.

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Duckworth, James

Kekewich, Sir George

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

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Richardson, A.

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Laidlaw, Robert

Ridsdale, E. A.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Lambert, George

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lamont, Norman

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Robinson, S.

Erskine, David C.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lewis, John Herbert

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Roe, Sir Thomas

Everett, R. Lacey

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Fenwick, Charles

Lupton, Arnold

Rose, Charles Day

Ferens, T. R.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Lyell, Charles Henry

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Findlay, Alexander

Lynch, H. B.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Fullerton, Hugh

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Maclean, Donald

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Glendinning, R. G.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Glover, Thomas

Macpherson, J. T.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

M'Callum, John M.

Scars, J. E.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

M'Crae, Sir George

Seaverns, J. H.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Seddon, J.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

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

Seely, Colonel

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

M'Micking, Major G.

Shackleton, David James

Griffith, Ellis J.

Mallet, Charles E.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Gulland, John W.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

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

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Marnham, F. J.

Silcock, Thomas-Ball

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Massie, J.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose))

Masterman, C. F. G.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Menzies, Walter

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Middlebrook, William

Snowden, P.

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

Molteno, Percy Alport

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Mond, A.

Soares, Ernest J.

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

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Spicer, Sir Albert.

Harwood, George

Montgomery, H. G.

Stanger, H. Y.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lynlph (Chesh.)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Morrell, Philip

Steadman, W. C.

Helme, Norval Watson

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Hemmerde, Edward George

Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Myer, Horatio

Strachey, Sir Edward

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

Napier, T. B.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

1126

1127

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Walters, John Tudor

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

Summerbell, T.

Walton, Joseph

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Sutherland, T. E.

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Williamson, A.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Waterlow, D. S.

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

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Watt, Henry A.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

Thomasson, Franklin

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

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

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Winfrey, R.

Toulmin, George

Whitehead, Rowland

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Verney, F. W.

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Vivian, Henry

Wiles, Thomas

Joseph Pease and Master of

Walsh, Stephen

Wilkie, Alexander

Elibank.

NOES.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Gretton, John

Percy, Earl

Baldwin, Stanley

Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston)

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Haddock, George B.

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Renton, Leslie

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Helmsley, Viscount

Renwick, George

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hill, Sir Clement

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hills, J. W.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Bull, Sir William James

Houston, Robert Paterson

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hunt, Rowland

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Joynson-Hicks, William

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Kerry, Earl of

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

Castlereagh, Viscount

Keswick, William

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

Cave, George

Kimber, Sir Henry

Stanier, Beville

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Starkey, John R.

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

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

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Clark, George Smith

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

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

Clive, Percy Archer

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark.

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

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

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham)

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Waldron, Hon. Lionel

Courthope, G. Loyd

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

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

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Craik, Sir Henry

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Cross, Alexander

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

M'Arthur, Charles

Winterton, Earl

Doughty, Sir George

Magnus, Sir Philip

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Young, Samuel

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Younger, George

Faber, George Denison (York)

Morpeth, Viscount

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

Morrison-Bell, Captain

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Fell, Arthur

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Fletcher, J. S.

Nield, Herbert

Viscount Valentia.

Gardner, Ernest

Nolan, Joseph

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Oddy, John James

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 31st
1128
July, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at half after Eleven o'clock.

EARL OF ROSSE.
Ordered, That the Report of the Lord Chancellor of the United Kngdom made to the House of Lords on Monday last, that the right of the Earl of Rosse to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to his satisfaction, be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, together with a certificate stating that such Report has been made, and that the House has ordered it to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) 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 read a second time a after the 18th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  KIRKCALDY AND DYSART WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a, (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 4159. China (Chinan Fu).
  No. 4160. China (Foochow).
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS—QUESTION OF COMPENSATION.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWrose "to call attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis and to that of the Select Committee on the Tuberculosis Compensation Bill, 1904, and
922
to the recent notification by the Meat Traders' Federation, that on and after 2nd November next they will require a warranty from every vendor of stock that animals purchased by butchers are free from disease; and to inquire whether, in view of the fact that tuberculosis is a disease which cannot be accurately diagnosed prior to slaughter, His Majesty's Government will take steps to comply with the views of the above-community, that compensation for cattle slaughtered in the interests of the public health ought to be paid for out of public funds."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the subject to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention is one which has been exercising the minds of the agricultural community for the past few months. It arises, I imagine, out of two causes—first, the fact that inspectors, especially in the large towns, have been more energetic lately in their condemnation of meat which, in their opinion, is unfit for human food owing to its being found to be tuberculous; and, secondly the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice, in the course of which he said that the only way in which a butcher could protect himself from the consequences of the sale of such meat would be by obtaining a warranty from the vendor—namely, the farmer—that the animal in question was sound and free from tuberculosis.
In consequence, the Meat Traders' Federation gave notice some time ago that on and after Monday last they would refuse to buy any meat unless they received with the carcase of the animal a warranty that it was free from tuberculosis. That was thought by farmers to be a condition to which they could not assent, and meetings have been held in all parts of the country at which it was determined to resist this demand on the part of the Meat Traders' Federation.
A few days ago my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture succeeded, I believe, in getting the Federation to go so far as to say that they would postpone the demand for a warranty until 1st January, and that they would meet in conference the Central Chamber of Argiculture. But, my Lords, I do not think that a mere postponment of this demand would in any way meet the point.

923
Farmers feel that this is a threat to which they ought not to be subject, and that they could not go into any conference unless the Meat Traders' Federation had agreed to withdraw the demand altogether, and I am glad to be able to say that at a meeting to-day it was decided that the demand for a warranty should be withdrawn, and that a Conference should be held in the hope that some arrangement might be come to.
I have much sympathy with the meat traders, who for a long time have suffered under these disabilities from which they are quite unable to protect themselves. It is impossible, as your Lordships possibly know, to tell from the appearance of an animal when it is alive whether it is tuberculous or not; it is only after the animal has been slaughtered and a veterinary examination has taken place that it is possible to say whether or not the animal is fit for human food. But while I have this sympathy with the meat traders, I cannot see on what principle of justice or equity the cost of sacrifice of the carcase can be expected to fall entirely on the farmer. This is not a new question. A Tuberculosis Compention Bill was introduced into Parliament in 1904 and was referred to a Select Committee. That Committee gave a most attentive consideration to the matter, and finally reported that in their opinion—for which they gave several cogent reasons, with which I need not trouble your Lordships—compensation ought to be paid to the farmers for the loss sustained, of which the larger part ought to come out of public funds. That is, I think, a very reasonable proposition. The object, of course, of condemning these carcases is to protect the public health, and if the public health is to be protected the public are the proper people to pay for that protection.
There is a very interesting statement in the October number of the Journal of the Board of Agriculture showing what has been done in this respect in other countries. I find that ever since 1893, compensation has been paid by the State in Denmark; in Norway that has been so for several years; in Holland any cattle owner whose animal is found to be tuberculous receives compensation from the State; in Belgium he receives 70 per
924
cent. of the value of the animal; and in France one-third of the value if wholly tuberculous, and three-fourths if the disease is only local.
A question somewhat similar to that which I am now addressing to His Majesty's Government was put to the President of the Local Government Board in the other House, and the right hon. Gentleman's reply was that he did not, as at present advised, contemplate introducing a Bill to deal with the subject. That might mean one or two things—either that it was the settled determination of His Majesty's Government to have nothing to do with it, or that the Government were too fully occupied at present with other business, but might be induced some day or another to bring in a Bill to provide compensation. What I want to know is, do the Government intend to do this, or do they not? If this conference is to meet—and certainly it is most desirable it should meet—are those who attend to waste their time discussing the question of pressing upon His Majesty's Government the desirability of providing compensation when the Government have made up their minds not to do so? I really think that the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture, who has shown his desire in so many ways to help the farmers, may best help them to help themselves by telling them quite plainly what is the intention of His Majesty's Government. If the Government do not intend to grant compensation, then those whose business it is to advise the farming community in these matters will look about and see if they can find some means by which this difficulty can be got over. All I ask is that His Majesty's Government should give a plain answer to a plain question, and state whether they do or do not intend to admit the principle of compensation by the State in such cases.
*LORD ALLENDALE: My Lords, my noble friend has asked a straightforward question, and I hope I shall be able to give him a straightforward answer. The substantial question raised by the noble Earl is whether compensation is to be paid out of public funds for tuberculous carcases destroyed in the interest of public health. If I may be allowed

925
to do so without being thought too pedantic, I might offer a remark on the form of the Question as it appears on the Paper. I would observe that cattle are not slaughtered in the interest of the public health; it is after the cattle are slaughtered and the carcases exposed for sale that the question of destruction in the interest of the public health comes in. When carcases are destroyed the loss, as the noble Earl has justly pointed out, usually falls on the owner—that is, the butcher. We have been reminded by the noble Earl that the National Federation of Meat Traders recently passed a Resolution that after 2nd November they would require a warranty from every vendor of stock that animals purchased by butchers are free from disease, the object, of course, being to divert the loss from the butcher to the farmer; whereas the farmer is naturally very anxious to receive compensation in respect of such cattle if he has to make good the loss sustained by the butcher. I am very glad to hear from the noble Earl that the Central Chamber of Agriculture has, on behalf of the farmers, agreed to meet the Meat Traders' Federation in conference on the subject.
For many years it has been a debatable question whether or not compensation should be paid in respect of loss due to the destruction of tuberculous meat. The Royal Commission on Tuberculosis of 1906 reported against compensation, mainly on the ground that the purchase of tuberculous animals was an incident of trade. They thought that the risk was not great, and that it might be met in the main by a system of insurance. It is the fact, however, that in 1904 a Select Committee of the House of Commons considered a Bill on this subject, and reported in favour of some compensation being paid. They recommended, I think, that it should not extend beyond one-half of the value of the animal, and that it should be paid out of Imperial funds. The noble Earl has referred to this recommendation. He inquires whether the Government will take steps to comply with the views of this Committee and of the farming community that compensation should be paid out of public funds in such cases. That is a plain question. The late Government,
926
of which the noble Earl was a member, did not act upon the Report of the Select Committee in 1904, and the present Government do not see their way to do so either. As your Lordships are aware, a Royal Commission, appointed in 1901, is still sitting on the subject of tuberculosis, and has not, therefore, dually reported. The Commissioners may, of course, have something to say as regards compensation, and their views will naturally receive the very careful attention of His Majesty's Government; but, as has already been pointed out, the previous Commission was not in favour of compensation. The Government, therefore, under all the circumstances, cannot hold out any expectation that they will promote legislation to provide for the payment of compensation where carcases arts destroyed in the interests of the public health. It is not admitted that in such circumstances a case for compensation arises, and it is considered that the difficulty can reasonably be met by insurance, the adoption of which system I trust the noble Earl will encourage amongst his agricultural friends.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, before my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture speaks, I should like to say a few words on this subject. Certainly my noble friend Lord Onslow has got a perfectly straight answer as regards theintentions of His Majesty's Government in the matter of the payment of compensation. It seems that the reason given by the noble Lord for not taking action is that the late Government had not done so. I do not think that is a very good reason, because in my opinion the late Government ought to have taken action in this matter. The noble Lord tells us that the Government are going to wait, as a Commission on Tuberculosis is sitting which may give them valuable information, and enable them to make up their minds more distinctly on the subject. I was rather surprised to hear that, because your Lordships know that in other cases the Government did not wait for the Reports of Royal Commissions, but went on all the same.
I wish to put one or two considerations before my noble friend Lord Carrington

927
and also before the House—considerations which are animated in me as a grazier. I come from a grazing district. I farm between 600 and 700 acres of land. I do not rear, I sell, and I sell as quickly as I can. I like the amusement of chopping and changing, and I very often take the smallest possible profit. These considerations are animated especially by my recollection of some years ago having served on a Committee on the question of the marking of foreign meat, of which my noble friend who raised this question this evening was Chairman. At that time the present Lord Burghclere, who was then Mr. Herbert Gardner, was President of the Board of Agriculture. It was my lot to do the little work that fell to the representative of the Board of Agriculture in your Lordships' House, and I was, therefore, put on this Committee as a representative of the Government.
I only arrived from Yorkshire this morning, having travelled as far as Leeds with a gentleman largely interested in grazing who is also a member of that autocratic body the West Riding County Council; and, from our conversation, I can say that Lord Onslow did not in the slightest exaggerate when he said that by farmers in that part of the world this whole question of warranty is looked upon as a danger to their industry. I turn back to the Meat Marking Committee. I have not troubled to look up the Report of that Committee, but anyone who read it and has an ordinary memory will have a distinct recollection that there is a predilection in the purchasing public in favour of home-grown meat. I do not say that that predilection is entirely patriotic. I do not think it is. But people regard home grown meat as better, and if they have friends visiting them they like to draw attention to the fine Scotch or the small Welsh smoking on the mahogany. But it would become altogether another thing if the confidence of the public were shaken as to the wholesomeness of home-grown meat.
We all live now in a state of morbid apprehension as to what we eat and drink. There was, I believe, an age called the Palælithic Age, and there was the Old Red Sandstone Age. I believe this age will come to be known as the age of the
928
bacillus, the microbe, and the tubercle. After all, butchers, like other people, are endowed with the faculty of forming opinions which spring from the pocket, and I have very little doubt that if, by side issues of any sort or by any suspicion thrown on home-grown meat, it came about that the general public preferred foreign meat to home grown, they would only be too glad to indulge their fancy. Butchers would be more than human if they would not prefer to buy more cheaply what they could sell more dearly, and give their customers equal satisfaction. Therefore, it seems to me that if, by casting imputation of unwholesomeness or unsoundness on English meat, the present predilection is at all shaken, we might very likely find butchers almost entirely giving up buying home-grown stock and relying on the foreign supply.
I hope that if this conference does got to work these points will not be overlooked, and I trust that the noble Earl who sits on the Bench below me (Earl Carrington), who, as Lord Onslow said, extends an aegis to all kinds of agriculture, will boar in mind a few of the considerations I have tried to put before the House. There was one thing my friend in the train pointed out; it has nothing to do with meat, though it does concern the health of the public at large—I refer to the question of milk. In country districts the rural authorities have considerable powers, given them, I think, under the last Local Government Act, but apparently for some reason or other, they are not, as my friend pointed out, very active in putting them in motion. I think something of that sort might be done. Those connected with farming no doubt resent anyone coming down and saying "This is all a mistake; you ought to have a great deal more room here, and plateglass windows there; and the man who does this sort of work ought to be dressed in suitable white ducks." Nevertheless, a little in this direction might be done with advantage; and if we do not help our small local authorities to look after these things, the tendency will be for central bodies like the West Riding County Council, largely made up of extremely capable and vigorous-minded townspeople, to get that into

929
their hands like other things, and they will insist on sending their own men who know nothing about the practice of the country and will not take into consideration the various vicissitudes and difficulties with which small dale farmers have to contend.
I do not wish to trouble your Lordships further; but I put it to you, if by any side issue, such as that raised by the question of warranty, it should come about that home-grown meat was discredited and that butchers were encouraged by their customers to buy in the foreign market, it would be a very serious thing for your tenantry.
*THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, I do not know that I have anything much to add to this interesting discussion. I can only repeat that an agreement to meet and confer with each other has been come to between the Butcher's Federation and the Central Chamber of Agriculture on the warranty question, and that we are now within measurable distance of turning a corner which appeared at one time a very awkward one to get round.
My noble friend beside me was quite right in calling the attention of the House to the fact that the noble Earl's Question as it stands on the Paper is not very happily worded. Cattle are not at present slaughtered in the interest of public health but only if suffering from contagious disease to prevent that contagion spreading, and then, of course, compensation is paid. There was an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Edinburgh recently, which was, happily, stamped out at a cost of £4,000. This money was paid without any grumbling. Still, I thank the noble Earl for putting this Question, because it was to a certain extent opportune, and it enabled my noble friend beside me to state perfectly clearly the attitude of His Majesty's Government with regard to the payment of compensation for meat seized as unfit for human food. In this connection, as my noble friend said, it is pleasant to think that our negative attitude is in harmony with, that of the late Government of which
930
the noble Earl was a distinguished Member.
The late Government remained in office about eighteen months after the Select Committee referred to reported, and they took no notice of the Committee's recommendations, though the Chairman of the Committee was the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board. One sentence fell from the noble Earl which I think I might ask him to explain. He said he considered that this demand for compensation was a reasonable proposition. Now, what does that mean? I should like very respectfully to ask the noble Earl whether he is himself in favour of compensation being paid out of public funds when meat, which is unfit for human food, is seized to prevent it being exposed for sale. If so, I think he is touching the fringe of a very serious question. My Department deals with other things besides meat. Are fish and eggs and vegetables to be excluded, and is compensation to be paid for meat only? As regards that, I think I might be permitted to remind the House of what Mr. Walter Long said on 16th April, 1904—three months before the Select Committee reported. Mr. Long said—
"The already heavily burdened ratepayers must be considered, and he certainly must be understood as giving no promise to support a proposal that compensation should come from the Imperial Exchequer."
There seems to be some diversity of opinion between the noble Earl and the right hon. Gentleman, both of whom have held the office of Minister for Agriculture.
As regards the fears of my noble friend behind me, Lord Ribblesdale, I am sure that everything he has said will be carefully considered at the conference, and I hope that his somewhat gloomy prognostications will not be realised. Tuberculosis, after all, is not scheduled under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, and there would be enormous difficulties to be faced were it included; but we are most carefully considering whether it is within the range of practical politics to deal with it in the living animal when it assumes the form of tuberculosis of the udder. If action in this direction is feasible and is attended with success, the difficulties

931
to which Lord Ribblesdale has alluded will be considerably diminished.

MARINE INSURANCE.
LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I rise to call the atention of the Government to the subject of what are termed "P.P.I." insurance policies on British merchant ships; to point out certain evils attaching to these policies; and to ask whether a committee representative of the different interests is to be appointed to consider the matter, or otherwise, whether any other steps are to be taken in regard to it.
It would, perhaps, be well if at the outset I explain what "P.P.I." policies are, as it is quite likely that some of your Lordships may not have heard of them. The letters "P.P.I." mean "policy proves interest," and underwriters or insurance companies settle claims upon these policies without requiring the insurer to prove that he has any interest whatever in that which he has insured. I venture to remind your Lordships that an insurance effected by any person who has no personal interest in it beyond pure speculation is, in law, invalidated. If, for instance, anybody insures a ship in which he has no interest whatever the insurance resolves itself into a gamble on her being lost or otherwise, and a very pernicious form of gambling it is.
The law is evaded by the issuing of "P.P.I." policies, otherwise they may be called "honour" policies; and in case of a ship's loss the underwriters settle the claims, even though, in law, they are not liable to do so. Recent disclosures at Board of Trade inquiries show that, amongst a certain class of the shipping community, it has become a favourite practice to pick out certain ships which, for one or several reasons, they think are likely to be lost at sea. They can get fairly big odds against it in the marine insurance market, and, consequently, take out "P.P.I." policies on these ships. Probably they know that they are old craft carrying every additional ounce of cargo permitted by the new deeper-loading Regulations. If the ships happen to meet with disaster and insurances on them of this class are subsequently re-
932
vealed, is it not natural that grave suspicion must fall upon somebody, principally, of course, on those who command the ships? It is only human to suspect that there has been a conspiracy on the part of somebody in perpetrating a criminal act for the sake of gain.
Coming to a case in point I would bring to your Lordships' notice the recent Board of Trade inquiry into the loss of the steamer "Albion." I understand that it was through the underwriters—who appeared not to relish paying on the "P.P.I." polices they had issued on the ship—that the Board of Trade first became aware of the fact that complete outsiders had effected large insurances on her. The Board then set on foot a most searching and expensive investigation in procuring all available evidence for presentation at the formal Board of Trade inquiry. Every little point out of the common provided an additional source of suspicion, and all the necessary witnesses were retained and maintained for a far longer period than is usually the case with these inquiries.
The inquiry was of a very protracted character, taking five days, and the expense falling upon the parties to the case in the shape of lawyers' fees far heavier than usual. The captain's anxiety was not lessened by the fact that not only his professional reputation and career might be doomed, but that an adverse decision so far as he was concerned would mean his figuring in the dock on a criminal charge of a most desperate character. Fortunately, the captain was, and had been for some years, a member of the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, who spared no effort in defending his interests, with the result that there was found to be not a scintilla of evidence showing that the captain had been guilty of a criminal act or had known anything of the nefarious transactions which had been going on regarding his ship in the form of "P.P.I." policies. What is more, in acquitting the captain from blame in connection with the loss of the ship, the Court made the following important statement—
"The Court desires to express its strong disapprobation of 'P.P.I.' insurances by persons who have no insurable interest in the vessel

933
insured, as such insurances tend to raise the premiums to be paid by ordinarily interested insurers, and also to throw suspicion on owners, captains, and officers on the ground of the vessel being over-insured. They are merely speculative gambles, and, in the opinion of the Court, they should be prohibited by legislation."
My Lords, my contention is that we must not let the matter rest where it is. We cannot allow innocent people to be placed under grave suspicion and at the same time put the country to great additional expense in connection with Board of Trade inquiries into shipping casualties merely that a few people—known chiefly as "Cardiff wreckers"—should be permitted to indulge in a most baneful form of gambling. I might quote also the case of the loss of the "Oxus," where it has been proved in evidence at the Board of Trade inquiry that a large number of "P.P.I." policies had been effected on her by people having no interest whatever in the ship, except that she should be lost. One of the witnesses said that he took out a policy for £1,000 on the steamer at £10 10s. per cent. It appears that it was not his first transaction, for he mentioned four other steamers in connection with which he had taken out similar policies. Two were lost, one was not lost but broken up, whilst the witness stated that his policy on the remaining one expired before she was lost.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: I hope the noble Lord will pardon me for interrupting him, but I would remind him that the case to which he is alluding is now under consideration. I would, therefore, suggest that it is hardly proper to refer to it at the present moment.
LORD MUSKERRY: I am only alluding to the evidence of this particular witness, and I do so because it has a very important bearing on the point which I wish to put before your Lordships. Further cross-examination elicited the fact that the witness had had speculative insurances on five vessels, four having been lost and been subject to Board of Trade inquiries. There is one point in this witness's evidence which will, perhaps, permit me to remind your Lordships of the earnest protest I entered when the new Regulations allowing the much greater immersion of British ships
934
were promulgated by the Board of Trade. In this case of the "Oxus" the witness whose evidence I have referred to, and who is a marine surveyor, said that he specially picked out vessels which had five or six inches less freeboard than they had before the new Regulations came into force, and mentioned the names of two steamers he had specially picked because of this fact. I hope that the Board of Trade will take this significant little bit of evidence to heart. It shows to what greater peril the lives of British mariners are exposed under the new Regulations. The case of the "Oxus," as the noble Lord opposite has pointed out, is still proceeding, but, whatever may be the decision, there can be no doubt as to the mischievous nature of these "P.P.I." policies.
Now, my Lords, it has been contended in several quarters that it is the underwriters who can very easily solve the difficulty by declining to grant these policies. But I am sorry to say that, in my humble opinion, it is hopeless to expect anything of the sort from underwriters. There is very fierce competition amongst them, and almost all of them are very closely identified with shipowning interests. Even where they are in cordial sympathy with anything which makes for the greater safety of ships—take, for example, the Light Load Line—it is almost impossible to get them publicly to take a stand in the matter. This was so in connection with the Light Load Line, where, although I knew that underwriters were in the greatest sympathy with me, it was only in one case that I could get active public support. Therefore, we must look elsewhere than to underwriters to deal with the question of "P.P.I." policies.
There is an absolute consensus of opinion amongst shipping interests that it is the Board of Trade who should take some firm action in the matter. Shortly after the case of the "Albion," Mr. Moore, the Secretary of the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, addressed a strong communication to the Press pointing out the dangerous evil of these policies as casting grave suspicion on innocent men. I heard of one shipowner who, discovering that there were a number of "P.P.I." policies effected

935
on his ship, dismissed all the crew and laid the vessel up. This shows what serious suspicions must have been aroused in him by these policies, and it also shows what hardship the captain, officers, and crew of that vessel had to suffer through them. Mr. Moore, writing on behalf of the captains and officers of merchant ships, stated that barratry amongst shipmasters at the present day was a thing unknown, and he dwelt upon the fact that their position at a Board of Trade inquiry where these "P.P.I." policies are shown to exist, was not so much the defence of their certificates, as to save themselves from gaol and the lasting humiliation and degradation of themselves and their friends.
Then, my Lords, from the chief seat of the evil—Cardiff—we find that the Shipowners' Association of that port have passed the following resolution—
"That this Association strongly deprecates the gambling that is taking place in 'P.P.I.' policies, whereby insurers gamble in vessels in which they have no interest, to the detriment of shipowners and other legitimate insurers, and trusts that the Board of Trade will devise some means to counteract the evil."
This resolution was strongly endorsed by the Cardiff Incorporated Chamber of Commerce. One of the members of the Chamber stated that Cardiff had been a hot-bed of these "P.P.I." policies, and it was really time the business was put a stop to.
Mr. Humphries, the President of the Bristol Chamber of Commerce and Shipping, regards it as most unsatisfactory that people without any interest, either direct or indirect, in steamships or their cargoes should be able to take out policies which are highly speculative and nothing more or less than a gamble. Mr. Humphries qualifies himself in stating that at the same time the legitimate current of insurance business should not be hampered. I quite agree with him in this. Another large shipowning organisation which supports the resolution of the Cardiff Shipowners' Association is the North of England Steamship Owners' Association, which has gone so far as to appoint a special committee of three of its members to take part in an interview with the Board of Trade and give evidence if required.
936
I do not think it is necessary for me to go further into my case. I think I have given your Lordships ample evidence of the fact that there exists a serious amount of gambling in connection with British ships and the lives of their crews. I hope that the Board of Trade will see that the question is thoroughly threshed out. It seems to me that a committee representing all the different shipping interests would be the best procedure to adopt in order to arrive at some satisfactory decision in the matter. If such a committee be formed I hope that, whilst shipowners will be represented, our captains and officers will not be ignored. They should have the fullest representation, as their interests are affected even more than those of the shipowners in this matter. I trust to hear from my noble friend opposite that this subject is occupying the earnest attention of the Board of Trade, and that they propose to take some practical steps to eradicate what I think your Lordships will all regard as an unquestionable evil.
*LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I am in entire agreement with Lord Muskerry on this question. There can be no doubt that these "P.P.I." insurance policies have added to the dangers of the sea. During the last half-century we have been rapidly reducing those dangers by means of better charts and methods of navigation, by employing more light ships and by improvements in shipbuilding; but this is a new danger which ought to be checked before it attains any large dimensions. The noble Lord did not give the House the figures of the insurances effected through "P.P.I." policies in the case of the "Albion." I find, from the Board of Trade Report, that there were insurances, other than re-insurances, effected upon and in connection with the ship at the time of her loss by persons having no insurable interest in the ship, cargo, or freight, to the extent of £12,600, in amounts varying from £100 to £3,400.
In the case of the "Powis," Mr. T. W. Lewis, the Judge, stated in his Report that—
"The difficulty of ascertaining the truth becomes insuperable when the witnesses deliberately mislead the Court. Misrepresentations

937
by seafaring men of the humblest class to whom the witness box is strange, who may not be quick of apprehension, may, perhaps, be ignored; but if highly intelligent astute men of business may with impunity deliberately mislead a Wreck Inquiry Court, the great public expense of such Courts is entirely wasted and the ends of justice defeated."
The Court added—
"There are, however, other parties affected whose interests are not protected and whose lives are disregarded, viz., the officers and crew. Where a vessel is over-insured, one of the most powerful incentives for keeping her in good condition and seaworthiness is removed; and over-insurance also offers a dangerous temptation to persons, or the agents of persons, who will gain by the loss of the vessel. Whether lost through unseaworthiness or foul play the lives of the crew are imperilled. The effectual prevention of such an unnecessary peril to seafaring men is worthy of the attention of the legislature. That the evil is not a small one is shown by the fact that in this Court alone the 'Powis' is the third inquiry within two years in which each of the vessels lost has been insured for many thousands of pounds in excess of her value."
The sum of £4,125 was in "P.P.I." policies, which had been effected, according to one witness's evidence, to enable the owners to pay the liabilities and debts she had incurred in trading; the insurances as a whole exceeded the genuine value by at least £9,500.
The system is nothing more nor less than gambling in human lives and should be declared illegal. When a man effects one of these insurances for a high sum all he has to do is to set about to bribe one of the crew to wreck the vessel. A scoundrelly act of that kind could be very simply done. Nothing is easier than for an engineer to lose a ship if he is a scoundrel, and these large bribes to men who are short of money should not be available. I heard of one owner who dismissed his captain and the whole of the crew because he had learned that people were playing with "P.P.I." policies on the ship, and he regarded this as the only certain way of getting rid of the person whom the "P.P.I." policy holders had got at. I have noticed that whilst there are most honourable exceptions, the ships of single ship companies are not as safe to go to sea upon as ships belonging to large companies. I have no more to say on the subject at present, but shall probably put a Question on the matter at a later period of the session.
*LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade has twice within the last few days made statements upon this subject in another place. I do not, however, for a moment complain of the action of the noble Lord opposite who has asked this Question to-day, because the subject is a deeply interesting one and the issues involved are of the greatest possible importance to the mercantile marine of this country.
I agree with almost everything which has been said by the two noble Lords who have addressed the House, and I can assure them that this matter is receiving the most earnest consideration of the Board of Trade. This practice of gambling in what are known as "P.P.I." insurance policies is, undoubtedly, carried on to a certain extent at the present moment. It is difficult to find out exactly to what extent it is done, because these matters are naturally conducted under a veil of secrecy. As the noble Lord who asked the Question has pointed out, any such insurance made by a person who has no insurable interest in the ship or cargo is void in law, but in practice these "honour" policies, as they are termed, are almost invariably paid, because the underwriters are so jealous of their reputation and so anxious to avoid gaining the character of being men who dispute claims made against them that they would sooner pay, even in doubtful cases.
We have heard lately that certain people frequent docks for the purpose of finding a ship which is likely to be wrecked in very much the same way as a man goes into the paddock on a racecourse with the object of "spotting a winner." This form of gambling is, of course, of a peculiarly ghoulish and horrible character, because of the grave risk to human lives involved in the wreck of a ship. But, if there were nothing else connected with it, I hardly think it would be a matter which would call for interference, much as we might deprecate its existence. Unfortunately, however, there are other considerations, because it is no doubt possible for collusion to exist between persons who have taken out this form of policy and some person connected with the ship, however distantly connected he might be—it might

939
only be as a dockyard labourer, who might have the opportunity of causing the loss of the ship; and the stakes which can be played for in this terrible game are so enormous that there is no doubt they must offer a very grave temptation to unscrupulous people. Again, if it were simply a question of fraud being perpetrated at the expense of the underwriters who choose to deal in this class of policy, I think that would be a matter which we might regard with a certain amount of equanimity; but, as the noble Lord has said, the counters which are played for in this game are human lives, and therefore it must be regarded as being extremely serious.
Investigations which have so far taken place have disclosed the fact that these policies are, occasionally, used legitimately in business for the purpose of insuring properly insurable interests, because, for certain reasons, they are sometimes more convenient; and what my right hon. friend is most anxious to do, in dealing with this matter, is to find some way of putting a stop to the illegal and dangerous use of this system, while not interfering with the course of legitimate trade. With that object in view, he is very shortly to hold a conference with the different interests involved, and when that conference has taken place I have no doubt that, if the noble Lord again asks a Question on the subject, I shall be able to give him a great deal more definite information on the matter.
House adjourned at half-past Five o'clock, till To-morrow a quarter past Four o'clock.