Sitting of 17 November 1908

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PETITIONS.
  ENFRANCHISEMENT OF WOMEN.
  Petitions for legislation: From Burnham; Wells; and Weston-super-Mare; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Holywell; and Tenby; to lie upon the Table.
  TRAWLING IN PROHIBITED AREAS PREVENTION BILL.
  Petition from Zetland, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos.

  1017
  4166 to 4170 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Report, Miscellaneous Series, No. 669 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 28, 1908).
  Copy presented, of Agreement and Protocol between the United Kingdom and Germany with regard to Sleeping Sickness. Signed at London, 27th October, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 29, 1908).
  Copy presented, of Protocol between the United Kingdom, the Independent State of the Congo, France, Germany, Portugal and Spain, prohibiting the Importation of Fire-arms, Ammunition, etc., within a certain zone in Western Equatorial Africa. Signed at Brussels, 22nd July, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 30, 1908).
  Copy presented, of Accession of Liberia to the International Copyright Convention of 9th September, 1886, and the Additional Act and Declaration of 4th May, 1896. 16th October, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF DURHAM).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the County of Durham, constituting a new Polling District for the Township of Hedley Hope, in the Northwestern Parliamentary Division of the County [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLLEGE CHARTER ACT, 1871.
  Copy presented, of Application received from the University College of Bristol for the establishment of a University in Bristol, referred by His Majesty in Council for the consideration and report of a Committee of His Majesty's Most Honourable, Privy Council, together with a Copy of the Draft of the Charter applied for [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN ACT, 1905.
  Copies presented, of Regulations made by the Local Government Board, dated 11th November and 17th November, 1908, respectively, being: (1) Supplemental Regulations amending the Regulations (Organisation for Unemployed, 1905) so far as regards the conditions under which an Application may be entertained by a Distress Committee; (2) Regulations rescinding the Supplemental Regulations and making fur her Regulotio is for the like purpose [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Leave of Postal Officials.
  SIR G. KEKEWICH: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has yet arrived at any decision with regard to the amount of leave to be granted to officers of the Post Office; and, if not, when his decision may be expected.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The Question is still under my consideration.

  County Councils and Motor Car Speeds.
  MR. MARKHAM: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will say how many county councils and other local authorities have during the past twelve months asked for power to regulate the speed of motor cars in their respective areas.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I presume my hon. friend refers to the number of authorities by whom applications have been made to the local Government Board during the last twelve months for regulations imposing restrictions on the speed of motor cars. The number of such authorities is twenty-seven. Under the existing law local authorities cannot themselves be empowered to make regulations on this subject.
  MR. MARKHAM: To ask the President of the Local Government Board

  1019
  whether in view of the statement recently issued by the highway committee of the Surrey County Council, that during the past twelve months of all the applications made to the local Government Board by the council to reduce the speed of motor cars only two had been inquired into by that body, he will see into the reasons of this delay.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) During the past twelve months two separate applications, and two only, have been made to the Board by the Surrey County Council for the imposition of low speed limits for motor cars. An inquiry has been held upon one of them, relating to three roads in Walton and Woking, and the Board have agreed to comply with

  Name.

  For Service as

  Salary.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Max S. Green

  Private Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, for himself and clerks.

  829

  0

  8

  The Earl of Liverpool, M.VO.

  State Steward and Chamberlain

  500

  0

  0

  Sir Antony Weldon, Bart., D.S.O.

  Vice Chamberlain

  300

  0

  0

  Gavin M. Hamilton

  Assistant Vice Chamberlain

  150

  0

  0

  Miss O. Phillips

  Permanent Clerk

  120

  0

  0

  The Right Hon. Lord Pirrie

  Comptroller

  300

  0

  0

  W. Harris

  Financial Secretary and Accountant.

  200

  0

  0

  John Lentaigne, M.D.

  Surgeon to the Household

  100

  0

  0

  Captain E. C. Coates

  Military Secretary

  250

  0

  0

  Viscount Anson

  Acting Master of the Horse and Aide de Camp.

  350

  0

  0

  Captain A. J. Hunter

  Aide de Camp

  200

  0

  0

  Mervyn Gwynn Williams

  Aide de Camp

  125

  0

  0

  Leasing of Foreshores.
  MR. C. B. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the acreage of foreshore in the United Kingdom sold
  the application. The second, which relates to roads in Farnham and Godalming, was received last week. Notice of the proposal will be advertised forthwith.

  Payments from Vote 32, Class 2, Subhead A.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will give the names of all persons receiving £100 a year or more out of Subhead A., Vote 32, Class 2, of Civil Service Estimates, stating the amount paid yearly in each case and the nature of the service for which it is paid.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The following table affords the information asked for—
  or leased by His Majesty's Commissioners of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues during the last ten years to local authorities and to other bodies or private individuals; whether, before parting

  1021
  with the Crown's interests in any part of the foreshore to other bodies or private individuals for any consideration, the Commissioners have first offered it on similar terms to the local authorities for the public use and enjoyment; and, if not, whether the Commissioners will consider the possibility of making it a rule to do so in the future.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The following are particulars of foreshores sold or leased by the Commissioners of Woods (excluding sales or leases of less than an acre) for the ten years to 31st March last. Sold to local authorities, about 48 acres; to other bodies or private individuals, 95 acres. These latter include 24 acres sold to Government Departments, 18 acres sold for the purpose of works carried out under Parliamentary authority or with the sanction of the Board of Trade, and 28 acres conveyed as part of an arrangement for the settlements of an adverse claim. Leased to local authorities, about 4,968 acres; to other bodies or private individuals, about 3,219 acres, made up of 113 acres leased to Government Departments, 867 acres for the purposes of works authorised by Parliament or sanctioned by the Board of Trade, 117 acres previously offered to the local authorities on similar terms and refused by them, and 2,122 acres let without being so offered mostly on short tenancies in continuation of previous similar lettings. The majority of sales and long leases are now made for purposes of reclamation or for other works sanctioned by Parliament or the Board of Trade; but, in the remaining cases, I agree as to the general desirability of giving the preference to local authorities, though no hard and fast rule can be laid down in view of varying circumstances.

  Small Holdings—Eviction in Bedfordshire.
  MR. WHITBREAD: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Board has any official information showing that at Swineshead, in Bedfordshire, notice to quit his holding has been served by a landowner on a tenant, on the ground that the tenant
  1022
  was an agitator for small holdings and that the owner hoped he would leave the village; and whether the Government will consider the question of providing, by legislation or otherwise, against such occurrences in future.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The President is making full inquiry into this matter, and I will be glad to inform my hon. friend of the result.

  Small Holdings at Oxted (Surrey).
  MR. BRODIE: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board has received a Memorandum from Mr. C. A. Fane relating to the position of affairs at Oxted, in Surrey; whether he is aware that two members of the Oxted Land Club each applied for an acre of land to the Surrey County Council, that the council kept the application for ten months and subsequently referred the men to the Oxted Parish Council, and that the parish council informed them that there was no land available nearer than Oxted village, which is a mile and a half away from the hamlet in which they live; whether, in view of the fact that the applicants have now asked for more than 1 acre of land, the Board will instruct the Surrey County Council to deal with their application and provide them with land in the neighbourhood where they live; and whether there is suitable land available in that neighbourhood.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) We received the Memorandum a few days ago and are inquiring into the matter. I will communicate the result of the inquiry to my hon. friend.

  Imprisonment of Persons under Sixteen Years of Age.
  MR. G. GREENWOOD: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any, and, if so, how many persons of sixteen years of age or upwards are now imprisoned or kept in penal servitude in respect of offences committed by them when under sixteen years of age.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The number of such persons serving

  1023
  sentences of imprisonment is twenty-five, and one is serving a sentence of penal servitude. Total, twenty-six.

  Unemployment—Case of Dillon.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his atenttion has been called to the case of a labourer, named Dillon, who was charged on Saturday at the Tower Bridge Police Court with attempting suicide, and stated that he had seven children at home in want of food, and one of them was dying, and that he had been out of work sixteen weeks, and applied in vain to the borough council for work; can he state in what union did Dillon live; whether the guardians of the union gave medical out-relief freely to children who were ill and whose parents could not pay for a doctor, or whether they put it on loan or required the parents to come into the workhouse if they needed medical relief for their children; and whether in that union the statutory provisions, that the guardians should give employment to those who were unemployed and had no means to maintain themselves, were carried out to the satisfaction of the Local Government Board.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I understand that Dillon resides in the parish of Camberwell. Medical relief is given on loan in this parish, but I have no reason to doubt that it is given freely in cases in which it is required. The guardians do not give employment to those who are unemployed and unable to maintain themselves except as a condition of relief.

  Relief of Unemployed at Whitechapel.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that about 200 unemployed men were given orders for the workhouse by the Whitechapel Guardians on or about 5th November, after applying to the board for work or relief; that the chairman of the board said that the guardians were powerless to give outdoor relief; and that the master of the workhouse told the guardians that the house was full, but he would do his best for the men with blankets, and accommodate them on the floor of the
  1024
  receiving room; whether, if the workhouse was full, the men were entitled to outdoor relief (having regard to the judgments of the Court of Appeal in the Merthyr Tydfil case) if they were ready and willing to perform any task of work which the guardians might impose in accordance with the Outdoor Relief Regulation Order, 1852; and whether, even if the workhouse were not full, the guardians could, instead of offering the workhouse, have given them employment and relief under that order.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have made inquiry and am informed that the guardians know nothing of the exceptional circumstances mentioned in the Question. During the week ended 7th November, the relieving officer gave 55 orders for the workhouse to destitute persons who were without permanent residence in the union, but not a single order was given or applied for in the case of anyone with a home in the union. In about half a dozen instances genuine unemployed residents sought the advice of the relieving officers, and these have been found work, either through the borough suveyor or through the agencies in the district. The workhouse is certified for 818 inmates and the highest number in it throughout the week ended 7th November was 642, so that there was no occasion for any such observations as those attributed to the master.

  Relief of Unemployed where no Distress Committee exists.
  MR. BEAUMONT: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can hold out any hope of its being possible for him to make immediate grants from the fund at his disposal for the unemployed to those towns, not being county boroughs, and districts where there is no distress committee appointed under the Unemployed Workmen Act. 1905 but where there is a relief committee known as the mayor's committee.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The grant is voted for expenses under the Act, and consequently payments from it can only be made where a central body or distress committee have been set up under the Act.

  Changes in the Coastguard Service.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state when the Report as to the proposed changes in regard to the coastguard service will be submitted to the House for consideration.
  (Answered by Mr. McKENNA.) The re-transfer of revenue duties to the Board of Customs, now performed by the coastguard, can only be effected by Act of Parliament. It is hoped a Bill for this purpose will be introduced next session, and it would be premature to make a statement in anticipation of the introduction of the Bill.

  Condition of Schools at Limpsfield.
  MR. BRODIE: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Board's inspector has, during several years, called the attention of the managers of the schools at Limps-field, Surrey, to the unsatisfactory condition of the schools and to the overcrowding that exists in them; whether the school at Limpsfield Chart was closed in June, 1907, causing additional over-crowding in the schools in Limpsfield village; whether he is aware that some of the children have to kneel on the floor to write; and whether anything can be done to remedy this state of affairs.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I am aware that the premises of the Limpsfield Church school are far from satisfactory, and that the school is seriously overcrowded. Plans for carrying out the necessary improvements were approved by the Board in July, and I propose to require that the work should be immediately put in hand if the recognition of the school is to continue. The provision of a new council school for 200 children has been sanctioned, and the Board have inquired of the local authority as to when the plans of the site will be submitted. The local authority are being urged to press on the provision of the new school with all possible despatch and to provide such temporary accommodation as is necessary in the meantime.

  Suggested Close Time for Herrings.
  MR. ROBERT HARCOURT: To ask the Secretary for
  1026
  Scotland whether he is aware that, owing to the absence of statutory provision for a close time for herring fishing, quantities of immature fish have been recently caught and thrown into the sea as useless; and whether, in view of this fact, and of the results of the past season's fishing, he is prepared to introduce legislation in regard to close time.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) No complaints of recent capture of immature fish have reached me and, as at present advised, I do not see my way to introduce legislation in the sense suggested by my hon. friend.

  Legal Expenses of Irish Local Bodies.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state, of the local bodies subject to the audit of the Local Government Board, how many pay a fixed sum yearly to a solicitor and how many do not; of those who pay a fixed sum yearly to a solicitor how many make additional payments to the same solicitor, and how many do not; on what principle does an auditor allow additional payments in such cases; and by what means does he protect the ratepayers from paying twice for the same service.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Local Government Board are not in possession of any information with regard to the first part of the Question. In auditing accounts the auditors have regard to the terms of the agreements made by councils with their solicitors and, by investigation of particulars of costs passed by councils, take every possible care to secure that the ratepayers are not charged twice for the same service.

  Irish Local Government Auditors.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if all the official local government auditors have passed a similar qualifying examination before appointment, how does he account for some of them passing accounts in which law, engineering, and other expenses are mixed beyond the possibility of subsequent segregation; whether the Local Government Board will in future appoint as auditors only duly-qualified men after competitive

  1027
  examination; and whether the Board will require an intelligent annual analysis of the accounts of local bodies or the keeping of the accounts in such a way that information useful to the public can be obtained when required.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) As regards the qualifications prescribed for candidates far auditorships under the Local Government Board, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a Question on the subject asked by the hon. Member for Kilkenny on the 9th instant. The Board are satisfied that their existing orders are quite sufficient for the purpose referred to in the last part of the Question.

  Tenders for Performance of Legal Work.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why the auditors of the Local Government Board for Ireland do not enforce the law of lowest tender for performance of the legal work as of the other public works of local governing bodies; if he is aware that in most cases in which an annual payment is made to a solicitor all real legal work is paid for according to scale in addition, being double payment out of the rates; and whether local bodies and auditors will be instructed to adhere in future to either one system or the other, subject in either case to the common requirement of advertising for tenders and accepting the lowest.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The hon. Member presumably refers to the law relating to the acceptance of tenders for the execution of public works, but this law does not appeal to apply to the legal work of local bodies. The Local Government Board are not aware of any foundation for the allegation that double payment is made for such legal work. There is no statutory provision which would enable the Board to issue instructions as suggested.

  Purchase of Townland of Toames, County Cork.
  MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the town-land of Toames, parish of Macloneigh,
  1028
  on the estate of Lord Bandon, County Cork, has been vested in the tenants by the Estates Commissioners.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The advances for the purchase of these lands have not yet been sanctioned by the Estate Commissioners, and, until this has been done, the lands cannot be vested in the tenants.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Submarines.
  MR. MIDDLEMORE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty how many submarines are to be laid down under this year's Estimates.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,): It is not in the public interest to state for the present what the number is.
  MR. MIDDLEMORE: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be in a position to give the information?
  MR. McKENNA: Not this session, but I should hope early next year.

  New Destroyers.
  MR. MIDDLEMORE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the purchase of the two destroyers to replace the "Gala" and the "Tiger" has been completed; and can he give particulars of their dimensions, their speed, and their names.
  MR. McKENNA: The purchase of the vessels in question has not been completed.
  MR. MIDDLEMORE: When will it be?
  MR. McKENNA: That does not depend on the Admiralty. It depends on the trials proving satisfactory.
  MR. REES: Is the House to understand that the new "Tigers" will possess to the full the destroying qualities of the abandoned

  1029
  boats or beasts? Will they be equally effective?
  MR. McKENNA: I hope so.

  Rosyth.
  MR. MIDDLEMORE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what progress has been made with the work at Rosyth.
  MR. McKENNA: Tenders for the Rosyth contract were invited on 23rd October; they are to be sent in on 22nd December.

  H.M.S. "Bulwark."
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty upon what date did the "Bulwark" leave Sheerness after repairs; whether she then joined the Channel Fleet; or, if not, where did she go, for what purpose, and by whose orders.
  MR. McKENNA: The "Bulwark" left Sheerness on 2nd October and, under Admiralty orders, proceeded to Devonport to embark part of her crew, calling en route at Portsmouth; she arrived at Devonport on 3rd October and proceeded on 6th October to Berehaven to adjust gun-sights, and thence, on 15th October, to Portland to carry out battle practice. The adjustment of gun-sights was proposed by the Commander-in-Chief, Channel Fleet, and approved by the Admiralty: the battle practice was ordered by the Commander-in-Chief.

  Refitting of Battleships.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether H.M.S. "Irresistible" "Swiftsure," "Triumph," "New Zealand," "Hampshire," and "Roxburgh" were refitting on 8th November; whether he has any official information to show what on that date was the estimated time required to get each of these vessels to sea; if so, what was the estimate for each vessel, respectively; and whether he can state which of these vessels have now completed refit, and the respective dates of completion.
  MR. McKENNA: The reply to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. With regard to
  1030
  the second part of the Question, I am not clear whether the hon. Member wishes to know the estimated date at which these vessels could be completed for sea in an emergency, or whether he wishes to know the date at which they are in the ordinary course to have their refit completed. The dates on the former basis I am not, in the public interest, prepared to give; on the latter basis, the dates are as follows:—"Irresistible," taken in hand 29th September, 1908; date for completion, 12th December, 1908. "Swiftsure," taken in hand 5th October, 1908; date for completion 30th November, 1908. "Triumph," taken in hand 7th September, 1908; date for completion, 26th December, 1908. "New Zealand," taken in hand 31st August, 1908; date for completion, 12th November, 1908. "Hampshire," taken in hand, 12th October, 1908; date for completion, 5th December, 1908. "Roxburgh," taken in hand, 17th September, 1908; date for completion, 15th December, 1908. With regard to the last part of the Question, the "New Zealand" was completed on 12th November.

  Hepburn-on-Tyne Dock.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the depth of water over the sills at Messrs. R. Stephenson's docks at Hepburn-on-Tyne.
  MR. McKENNA: The answer to the hon. Member's Question is, 29 feet over the sill at high-water springs.
  MR. FELL: Will there be this depth of water on more than two or three days a fortnight?
  MR. McKENNA: I assume the hon. Member correctly describes the high water springs.

  Admiralty Granite Contracts.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty considers quotations for granite from foreign and home producers on equal terms.
  MR. McKENNA: The answer to the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative.
  MR. CARLILE: In view of the terrible state of unemployment obtaining up and down the country, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that all Admiralty requisites shall be bought here, the price being reasonable?
  MR. McKENNA: I can give no such undertaking.

  H.M.S. "Hindustan."
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty upon what date the "Hindustan" left Portsmouth after repairing; whether she then joined the Channel Fleet, or, if not, by whose orders and for what purpose was she sent to any other destination; and to what place was she sent.
  MR. McKENNA: The "Hindustan" left Portsmouth on 16th October; she did not join up with the Channel Fleet, but by the orders of the Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Fleet proceeded to Portland.

  Horses for the Territorial Associations.
  EARL WINTERTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet received reports from the various Territorial Associations stating how many horses there are within their area which would be both suitable and available for the mounted branches of the force in the event of mobilisation.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): Up to the present only two Associations have forwarded Reports as to the number of horses within their area. The horses, however, were not classified. The information required necessarily takes considerable time to secure.

  Army Horses.
  EARL WINTERTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the number of horses in the Remount Department and in regiments that there are in excess of actual requirements for the Household Cavalry and Cavalry of the Line at home stations.
  MR. HALDANE: There are no horses in the Remount Department and in regiments in excess of actual requirement for Household Cavalry and Cavalry of the Line at home.

  Indian Government Contracts—Fair Wages Clause.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India what are the terms of the Fair Wages Clause in contracts placed by the Indian Government in Great Britain or on the Continent of Europe; and what means are taken to secure its enforcement.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,): The "Fair Wages Clause "in contracts given out by the India Office is the same as that contained in other Governwent contracts in this country. When complaint is made to the Department that the clause is not being carried out, an inquiry is made, and if the complaint is substantiated the firm would be compelled to observe the clause.

  Liquor Trade in India.
  SIR HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Resolution of the Government of India, dated 15th August, 1907, directing that local opinion in regard to the number and sites of liquor shops should be consulted more systematically and recorded more definitely, has been carried into effect in all the provinces of India; whether he can state in how many towns and municipalities local committees have been set up for the purpose of advising the Government upon this subject, and to what extent non-official opinion is represented upon these committees.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State regrets that he is not in possession of the detailed information necessary for a reply to this Question, but he proposes to direct that the three points referred to by my hon. friend should receive special notice in the next annual Excise Report of each Local Government.

  Indian Government Purchases in Belgium.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the trade union clause providing for rates of wages and hours of labour is included in the contracts made by the India Office, and particularly was any clause protective of wages and hours of labour included in the recent purchases of iron material from Belgian manufacturers.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I have just stated in reply to the hon. Member for Darlington, particulars of the "Fair Wages Clause," which is inserted in all our contracts. No clause relating to hours of labour is inserted in contracts made by the India Office.

  South Indian Labour Agency in Ceylon.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Ceylon Government subsidises the Indian recruiting agency; and, if so, to what extent.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,): Since its establishment in 1904, one quarter of the cost of the South Indian Labour Agency has been contributed by the Ceylon Government. The subsidy for the current year is Rs.12,000. The Report of the Ceylon Labour Commission has recently been received, and we are awaiting the Governor's recommendations on it.

  Evictions of Natives in the Transvaal.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that notices of eviction have been served on natives in the Zoutpansberg and other districts of the Transvaal based on a law of 1895, previously stated to have long fallen into disuse; whether, seeing that under Article 7 the eviction of families hitherto permitted to reside on farms has for sanction, in case of continuing or repeated offence, the penalty of flogging on every head of such family so living without a permit, and that by Article 8 coloured persons living with permits on farms are
  1034
  forbidden to leave without three months notice to the occupier and also to the Commissioner, he can inform the House how far it is understood that the revival of the law in question is an alternative to the proposed Natives' Occupation of Lands Bill, of which the withdrawal was announced in the House of Commons; and whether the Government are satisfied that the revived Act will not prove detrimental to the interests of all natives except such as consent to labour on particular farms.
  COLONEL SEELY: I have no information on the subject, but inquiry has been made of the Governor by telegram.

  Nigerian Spirit Imports.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how much of the gin and other spirits which were imported into Nigeria was imported from Hamburg and other German ports.
  COLONEL SEELY: The total declared value of spirits imported into Southern Nigeria in 1907 was £385,505. Of this, spirits to the value of £139,890 were imported from Germany.

  State Socialism in Crown Colonies.
  MR. LAIDLAW: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state in what other Crown Colonies besides Ceylon the Colonial Government runs its own workshops and undertakes contracts for private parties.
  COLONEL SEELY: The arrangement referred to by my hon. friend is by no means unusual.
  MR. REES: May I ask whether State Socialism is or is not good business, and, whether the answer be in the affirmative or in the negative, is it less suitable to Ceylon than to the British Isles and to any other British Possession?
  COLONEL SEELY: That is rather a wide and vague question, and I am bound to point out that this is a very modified form of State Socialism.

  Wesley College, Colombo.
  MR. LAIDLAW: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the total cost of constructing the Wesley College at Colombo, built by a contractor, with boarding accommodation for 450 boys, and the Public Works Department estimate for the new Royal College for 350 boys, without boarding accommodation; and the cost per cubic foot, respectively, of the two colleges.
  COLONEL SEELY: I understand that the cost of the Wesley College was Rs.175,000 without the principal's house, or 43 cents per cubic foot, and that the estimates prepared by the Ceylon Public Works Department for the new Royal College involved a cost of Rs.296,260 without the principal's house, or about 90 cents per cubic foot. The Ceylon Government have, however, given instructions for the preparation of new plans for the Royal College at a cost not exceeding Rs.125,000.

  Colombo Graving Dock.
  MR. LAIDLAW: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Government of Ceylon in November, 1907, accepted proposals submitted by a local firm for the construction of workshops at the graving dock at Colombo; and why the Government cancelled the arrangement on 23rd May, 1908, after the firm had made extensive preparations to carry out the contract.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Answer to the first part of my hon. friend's Question is in the negative. With regard to the second part, the negotiations broke down because the local firm required the whole available frontage of the harbour.

  Ceylon Government Workshops.
  MR. LAIDLAW: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that dissatisfaction exists in Ceylon at the Government's interference with private enterprise in repairing merchant ships and undertaking other private and public works, and that the competition of the Government workshops is considered very unfair to traders who contribute largely to the revenue of the Colony, whereas the former pay no rates, taxes, or duties on imported materials;
  1036
  and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  COLONEL SEELY: No representations have been received from Ceylon on the subject. As I informed my hon. friend on 10th November, the Ceylon Government have only proposed to undertake ship-repairing work because they failed after prolonged negotiations to arrive at satisfactory terms with local firms for the provision of the necessary workshops. The answer to the last Question is in the negative.

  Orange River Colony Loan.
  CAPTAIN CLIVE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the intention of the Government to guarantee the loan for £1,500,000 asked for by the Orange River Colony Government; and whether it is their intention to attach any conditions to the grant of that guarantee.
  COLONEL SEELY: I am unable to add anything to my reply to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Graves-end on 19th October.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he will take care that there are no conditions to the grant of the guarantee which will make it incumbent on the Government to do away with British employees in preference to Orange River Colony employees?
  COLONEL SEELY: I do not think that implication is merited, and, if I may respectfully say so, I do not think it should be made ii this Parliament in reference to a self-governing Colony. But, in any case, the request for the loan has not yet been officially received.

  British Passports in Russia.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Mr. Joseph Edelstein, a well-known and respected citizen of Dublin, was granted a passport, signed by the Secretary of State, to visit Russia and other places abroad, bearing date 20th October, 1908; whether he is aware that the

  1037
  Russian consuls refused to allow Mr. Edelstein to enter Russian territory, although he produced his British passport; whether he can say under what conditions British or Irish subjects are permitted to visit Russia; on what grounds was Mr. Edelstein refused admission; and what steps he proposes to take to secure due respect from Russia for passports issued under his name.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): A passport, worded in general terms for travelling on the Continent, not specifically for Russia, was issued to Mr. Joseph Edelstein on the date mentioned. I have no information beyond that given in the Question as to the difficulties he encountered in entering Russian territory. British subjects are permitted to visit Russia on the same conditions as the subjects of other countries. The Russian Government retain, as the Governments of other countries do, the right to make regulations respecting the admission of aliens. I have no information as to why Mr. Edelstein was refused admission; but I am quite ready to receive any which is forthcoming, and to inquire into it.

  Brigandage in Egypt.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fresh outbreaks of brigandage in Egypt, and the admission in Sir Eldon Gorst's Report for 1907 of the need for improvements in the existing police system, he will urge upon the Egyptian Government the expediency of establishing a committee of public security, in which experienced natives of the administrative and other classes may take part and suggest new measures.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I am not aware of the recent occurrence of any events in Egypt which would render the establishment of a committee of public safety necessary or desirable. Sir Eldon Gorst has pointed out that the degree of insecurity prevailing is greatly exaggerated. He has also stated, in his Report, that the effect of the measures
  1038
  taken for the gradual improvement of the present system for dealing with crime will not be apparent for some time to come, and we see no reason for making any further recommendations.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: Has not the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to recent reports of brigandage?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have not seen the reports. If the hon. Gentleman has any information perhaps he will forward it.

  Egyptian Administration.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the refusal to extend the legislative powers of the Legislative Council and General Assembly in Egypt, he will recommend to the Egyptian Government the expediency of appointing a committee to inquire into the working of the judicial, police, educational, and other departments of the administration, with a view to their amendment.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The hon. Member will see from Sir Eldon Gorst's recent Report on Egypt and the Soudan that the questions to which he refers are occupying the serious attention of the Egyptian Government; and I do not think that in the present circumstance any useful purpose would be served by making the particular proposal suggested in the Question.

  Russo-Japanese War—British Shipping Claims against Russia.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to give any information in reference to the steamers sunk and destroyed by the Russian Government during the Japanese War; and, if not, what steps he intends to take to enforce the rights of British subjects whose property has been destroyed.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKINNON WOOD,): My right hon. friend has nothing to add

  1039
  to the Answer he gave to the hon. Member for Boston on the 15th ultimo. Cases in which British subjects are interested, either as owners or underwriters, are still pending before different Russian Courts. His Majesty's Government greatly regret the delay that has occurred in the hearing of these cases, and it has formed the subject of several representations by His Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg; but they understand that the Russian Court will now deal with them very shortly.

  Conviction of Arthur Jones.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of Arthur Jones, a traveller, who was convicted of stealing a lace scarf and was sentenced at the Middlesex Sessions to six years penal servitude and two years police supervision; and will he say what action he intends to take in the matter.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I have received a petition from the prisoner for a reduction of sentence, but, in view of the character of the offence charged, and of the offences of which he has been previously convicted, I see no reason for interference on my part. It was, and still is, open to the prisoner to apply to the Court of Criminal Appeal.

  Flogging Sentences at Northallerton Quarter Sessions.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that at the Northallerton Quarter Sessions the chairman ordered twenty lashes to be administered to a so-called incorrigible rogue, to be given on two separate occasions, the first a week from that day and the other as soon after as the doctor certified that he was fit to receive it; and whether, in view of the Criminal Appeal Act of 1907, which provides for a ten days' grace for appeal, and of the provisions of the Vagrants Acts as to a whipping being inflicted by two instalments, and seeing that this is the first double flogging since Sir M. W. Ridley put a stop to such
  1040
  sentences in 1900, he will say what action he intends to take in the matter.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am aware of this case. The conviction was for living on the earnings of prostitution, and it was proved that the man had grossly ill-treated the unfortunate woman. He had three previous convictions of the same offence. In accordance with the regular practice of myself and my predecessors, one of the two instalments of corporal punishment has been remitted. The other, consisting of ten lashes, was carried out after the time allowed for appeal had expired, the prisoner having decided not to appeal.

  The Imprisoned Suffragists.
  MR. COOPER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether His Majesty's Government recognise the class of political prisoners; whether the suffragists now imprisoned in Holloway were committed under 34 Edw. III., because they refused to find bail; if not, whether he will state the nature of their offence.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The reply to the first Question is that His Majesty's Government is necessarily guided by the law, which does not recognise political motive as giving rise to any claim to special treatment in prison on the part of offenders against the ordinary law. As regards the second, I am advised by the chief magistrate that in requiring the suffragists to find sureties to keep the peace, the magistrates were acting under the general powers vested in them by virtue of their commission. These powers originated in part from the Statute of Edw. III., but the procedure for their exercise has been regulated by Parliament so recently as in the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879.
  MR. COOPER: Is it within the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman that he and the present Prime Minister and the Liberal Party went into the Division Lobby as a protest against the arrest and prosecution of the senior Member for the City of Cork on 1st July, 1889?
  MR. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with this Question.
  MR. COOPER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Mrs. and Miss Pankhurst, now imprisoned in Holloway Gaol, were deprived of exercise and put on bread and water because they spoke to one another when they met in the exercise yard.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Mrs. and Miss Pankhurst were not put on bread and water. They were both awarded one day's confinement to cell for taking part in a disturbance in the exercise yard. I may add that I have received satisfactory reports of the health of both Mrs. and Miss Pankhurst, and that directions were given on Friday last that they should be allowed to exercise together in the hospital yard without any restrictions as to talking.
  MR. BYLES: Are these ladies wearing their own garments?
  MR. GLADSTONE: They are now in the second division.
  MR. LUPTON: Would it not be better for exercise if the right hon. Gentleman allowed them to walk outside the prison?
  MR. COOPER: Is it not a fact that Mrs. Pankhurst and Miss Pankhurst were put into solitary confinement for one day because the mother and daughter met one morning and spoke, and were reported for doing so by the wardress?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am informed that there was an offence against the prison rules concerning talking.
  MR. COOPER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the suffragists now imprisoned in the second and third class at Holloway Gaol have been required to take exercise with women serving sentences for theft, drink, or soliciting; whether any of the suffragists have refused to exercise with criminals and have been deprived of exercise and placed on bread and water in a punishment
  1042
  cell; and whether, if the suffragists have been allowed to take exercise by themselves, he will state the terms of any instruction issued by the Prison Board to the prison authorities directing them not to require certain female prisoners not to take exercise with criminals.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The suffragists now imprisoned at Holloway are in the second division. There are none in the third division. None of them has been required to take exercise with women serving sentences for theft or any other offences, nor have any of them been placed on bread and water, or confined in a punishment cell. The obligation to keep second division prisoners apart from other classes is imposed by the Prison Rules (Rule 232), and does not require any special instructions from the Prison Commissioners.

  Books for Prisoners.
  MR. COOPER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether no books but a Bible and Prayer Book are allowed to a prisoner committed to gaol in the second or third class during the first month of imprisonment; whether during the second month's imprisonment a second book may be obtained from the prison library, but cannot be changed during the month; whether the prisoners are deprived of all writing materials during the first month's imprisonment, and whether the writing materials supplied in the second month consist of a slate and slate pencil; and whether persons detained because they have refused to find bail come under these regulations.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Prisoners of the second division are allowed a library book and books of secular instruction, as well as devotional books, from the beginning of their sentences; those of the third division are allowed books of secular instruction and devotional books from the day of their admission, but are not allowed library books until they enter the second stage, i.e., at the end of twenty-eight days. In the second stage the library book is changed once a week, and in the third and fourth stages twice a week. All prisoners

  1043
  receive slates and slate pencils on admission, but are not allowed other writing materials, except for writing letters to their friends or petitions to the Home Secretary. Female prisoners in the second division have their library books changed at more frequent intervals. Unconvicted prisoners detained in default of finding sureties are, under the Prison Act, 1898, treated in accordance with the rules for the division, whether first or second, in which they are placed under the order of the Court.
  MR. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange that the third book, in addition to the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer, provided for these ladies in gaol shall be Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England."

  French Import Duties on Limes.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMPSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the import duty in France on limes or lemons which are the produce of Spain and the British West Indies respectively.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): Limes and lemons, the produce of Spain, imported into France are dutiable under the "minimum tariff" at the rate of 5 francs per 100 kilograms gross weight. The produce of the British West Indies does not in general enjoy the "minimum tariff" rates on importation into France, and limes and lemons imported therefrom are dutiable under the "general tariff" at the rate of 15 francs per 100 kilograms net weight.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked what steps would be taken to get the most favoured nation treatment for British West Indies?
  MR. CHURCHILLasked for notice.

  Railway Combines—Investments in Railway Stock.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that more than half the railway stock of the United Kingdom is held in parcels of £500 and under, and that the average return is 3¼ per cent.; and
  1044
  whether in view of these facts, and of the serious results to multitudes of small investors from interference with the rights of the railway companies to make combinations and mutual arrangements, he will take into account and consider their case on each and every occasion on which he is urged by other interests to disapprove or disallow such combinations or mutual arrangements.
  MR. CHURCHILL: If my hon. friend means that half the separate holders of railway stock are holders of stock not exceeding £500, I have no reason to doubt the approximate accuracy of his figures. As regards the last part of the Question, I cannot add to the Answers I gave to his Question of the 11th instant, and to that of my hon. friend the Member for Dudley of the 4th instant.

  Working Railway Agreements.
  MR. WARDLE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if the working agreement between the Caledonian and North British Railways has received the sanction of the Railway and Canal Commissioners in accordance with Section 25 of the Railway Clauses Act, 1863, and amending enactments thereof.
  The hon. Member had also the following Questions on the Paper:—
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether his attention has been called to the action of the Great Central and Great Northern Railway Companies in entering into a working agreement after the matter had been before the Railway and Canal Commissioners, who declined to allow an amalgamation under an old Act of Parliament; and what steps he propose to take in the matter.
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many applications for working agreements between railway companies have been submitted to the Railway and Canal Commissioners for approval since 1905, and how many such agreements have been ratified.
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the agreements to

  1045
  pool receipts now in force between the London and North Western Railway Company and the Midland Railway Company have been sanctioned by the Railway and Canal Commissioners; and, if so, on what date.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I will answer the hon. Member's four Questions together. The Reports of the Railway and Canal Commission show that three applications were made to them for the approval of working agreements in the years 1905, 1906, and 1907. Of these three working agreements one was sanctioned and another was sanctioned in part, but the proposed working agreement between the Great Northern and Great Central Railway Companies was, as stated by the hon. Member, not approved. The other Agreements referred to in the Question have not been submitted for the approval of the Railway and Canal Commissioners, but I should explain that Section 25 of the Railways Clauses Act, 1863, does not apply generally to all Agreements between railway companies, but only to such as are made under the provisions of a special Act incorporating Part III. of the Clauses Act in question. I understand that an Agreement between the Great Northern, the Great Central, and the Great Eastern Companies will be submitted for the consideration of Parliament.
  MR. WARDLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the agreements which are now in force between the London and North-Western and Midland Railway Companies and the other agreements to which I have referred do Dot come under the Act of 1863?
  MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir; that is the purport of my Answer.

  Imports of German and Belgian Steel and Iron.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in regard to the plates and sheets of iron and steel consigned to this country from Germany and Belgium during the year 1907, he can state the amount of royalty per ton levied in each of the countries named; whether such
  1046
  royalties are paid to the State or the individual; if he can state approximately the royalty per ton levied in this country on similar articles; and, if not, whether he is prepared to obtain such particulars, and have some tabulated.
  MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir, I am not able to give the information desired, and I do not think it would be possible to define with precision in the case of particular articles, like those mentioned by the hon. Member, the proportion of the cost of production which may be due to royalties on the raw material.

  Unemployed Records.
  CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can recommend, with a view to discovering the genuine unemployed, that a column should be added in the register of applicants on distress committees showing for what reason each man left his employment.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (MR. JOHN BURNS,): The Regulations already require record papers to be kept, showing as regards each applicant the nature of his last employment and the date and cause of termination of that employment. I will send the hon. Member a copy of the Regulations.
  CAPTAIN FABER: What I want is the reason for leaving the employment of the distress committee. Cannot that be secured?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down an unstarred Question.

  Old-Age Pensions.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is yet in a position to say whether an old-age pension may be given to a woman who is fully qualified to receive a pension but whose husband is in receipt of outdoor Poor Law relief.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The reply is in the negative. I am expecting to receive

  1047
  the opinion of the Law Officers on the point very shortly.
  CAPTAIN DONELANasked a further Question.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I shall be obliged to hon. Members if they will postpone Questions on this subject until I am in possession of the definite views of the Law Officers.
  MR. ROGERS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have already decided that relief given to a husband for the sole use and benefit of his wife disqualifies him and not his wife; and whether, in view of the fact that the proceedings of a number of pension committees are being delayed owing to the need of an authoritative interpretation of the law, he will do his best to expedite an official pronouncement on the subject?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Certainly. The question is practical and, I think, urgent. I will do my best as early as possible.

  Distress Committee Areas.
  MR. CURRAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether any steps are being taken or will be taken to group localities with a population of less than 10,000, in order that a distress committee may be created for the district.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I can only refer my hon. friend to the Answer which I gave on the 13th instant to a similar Question which he put to me.
  MR. CURRAN: Are we to understand that nothing is to be done for any section of the unemployed, in accordance with the scheme laid down by the Prime Minister, where the population is less than 10,000?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Perhaps it may be convenient for me to read my previous Answer: "The Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, does not admit of the grouping of districts with a view to establishing in the grouped area
  1048
  a distress committee who would be enabled to provide or to contribute towards the provision of work for the unemployed. I am afraid, therefore that it would not be practicable to give effect to the object which my hon. friend appears to have in view."
  MR. CURRAN: What we desire to know is whether, in accordance with the scheme set before this House and the country by the Prime Minister for the temporary relief of the unemployed, it is not possible to group the smaller districts so that the committees could cover a certain radius.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Not in that particular way, but in another way. The best plan is by setting up distress committees, of which I have set up a number this week.

  Cheshire Roads.
  CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, looking at the fact that the Cheshire authorities have declared that tar macadam, when once laid down on roads, is only one-fourth the price of ordinary macadam to renovate, he can see his way to advising that the initial expense, which is much greater than that of ordinary macadam, should be provided for out of the Imperial Exchequer, to be repaid by the yearly saving with a view to doing away with the dust nuisance created by motor cars.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am afraid there is no probability of effect being given to the suggestion of the hon. Member. I may, however, point out that it is the practice of the Local Government Board to sanction loans for laying down roads with tar macadam, and to allow a period of five years for the repayment of the loan. Assuming, therefore, that the view attributed to the Cheshire authorities is correct, it would seem that the local authorities could recoup themselves the additional initial expense within the period of the loan.

  Provision for Hungry School Children.
  MR. HENRY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of

  1049
  Education if he will give the number of education authorities that are availing themselves of the provisions of the Education (Provision of Meals) Act; and whether, in view of the existing state of unemployment, he will inform the different education authorities of the desirability of making the necessary arrangements so that during the winter schools may be provided with the required equipment to meet the necessity of feeding children in accordance with the Act.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. TREVELYAN, Yorks, W.R., Elland): I have no complete statistics as to the number of authorities who have in one way or another taken action under the Education (Provision of Meals) Act, but information is now being collected as to the proceedings of local authorities under the Act during the year ended 31st March, 1908. Seventy authorities have been authorised by the Board under Section 3 of the Act to spend money out of the rates upon the purchase of food. The Board are not empowered by the Provision of Meals Act to make representations to local authorities urging them to adopt its provisions, but shortly after the passing of the Act the Board issued a circular calling the attention of local authorities to their powers under it and to the advantages that might be obtained by exercising them.

  School Inspectors' Reports.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if in the next General Report of the Board he will include the inspectors' reports, thus reverting to the practice which in former years was always adopted.
  MR. TREVELYAN: For the reasons to which I referred in answer to the right hon. Gentleman's previous Question, I am unable to adopt his suggestion.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the publication of these reports afforded almost the only means by which the general public obtained independent information as to the working of the schools throughout
  1050
  the country? From that point of view will he reconsider this matter?
  MR. TREVELYANasked for notice.

  Tuberculin Test at Aberystwyth College.
  MR. ELLIS DAVIES: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the attention of the Board has been drawn to the result of recent experiments carried on at the farm attached to the University College of Aberystwyth, when it was found, by the application of the tuberculin test, that 24 per cent. of the milch cows on the dairy farm were suffering from tuberculosis and were disposed of at a serious loss; whether the Board has reason to suppose that tuberculosis exists to the same degree in the country generally; and whether, with a view to stamping out the disease, the Government will pay to the owners the value of cows destroyed as being affected with tuberculosis in any form.
  THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY, Somerset, S.): The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. Such evidence as is available goes to show that a very considerable proportion of animals in dairy herds might be expected to react to the tuberculin test, and a percentage of reaction such as that quoted would probably not to be found to be unusual. The Board as at present advised would not be prepared to undertake operations against tuberculosis in animals on the lines suggested.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Why do the Government take less interest in tuberculosis in England than in Ireland?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I am not aware that they do.
  MR. LUPTON: Have not these tuberculin tests been proved to be utterly useless?
  [No Answer was returned.]
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Why are more stringent regulations in extended to England?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Ireland is not my Department.

  Small Holdings in Durham.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, how many applications under the Small Holdings Act, 1907, have been applied for in the county of Durham; the amount of land obtained and asked for; the number of applications acceded to; and the parts of the county in which the land is situated.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: There have been 350 applications for 6,452 acres and 314 of the applicants are regarded as suitable. A farm of 170 acres at Brafferton, near Darlington, has just been purchased, but it has not yet been divided up into small holdings.

  Radnorshire Small Holdings.
  CAPTAIN CLIVE: I beg to ask tn3 hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that the Radnorshire County Council, after dividing the land acquired by them under the Small Holdings Act into twelve small holdings, have had to let ten of the holdings as by-takes to large farmers, no small holders being found to take them at the rents asked; and if he can say how many other county councils have had the same experience.
  MR. MORRELL: What was the original rent of the farm, and at what rent was it offered to small holders?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I am not able to say. The Board are informed by the county council that the facts are not as stated. One of the holdings has been let temporarily till Lady-Day next to an applicant who already held forty-six acres, but none of the other tenants held more than fifty acres including the land held from the council.
  CAPTAIN CLIVE: Did not most of the applicants already hold over fifty acres?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: No, Sir.

  Small Holdings Return.
  CAPTAIN CLIVE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will state, by counties and as a whole, the amount of land let to small holders or agreed to be let from 2nd February, 1909, as compared with the amount of land acquired by county councils for the purpose.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will refer to the reply I gave on the 12th instant to my hon. friend the Member for South Oxfordshire. It is not possible to say how much land will be let from the date mentioned.

  Ordnance Survey Maps.
  CAPTAIN CLIVE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he will consider the possibility of depositing in the public library or some other convenient place in each county town the sheets of the 25-inch Ordnance survey of that county, so that applicants for small holdings may be referred to the numbers on the map of the fields that are offered to them, and the necessity of drawing plans in every case be avoided.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The cost of one complete set of the 25-inch maps of England and Wales is over £6,000, and it would not, therefore, be practicable to adopt the suggestion made.

  New Forest Roads.
  SIR ROBERT HOBART: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether His Majesty's Commissioners of Woods and Forests have now selected any works of public utility on the Crown estates on which to give extensive additional employment with a view to giving relief to the unemployed in the present emergency, thus showing an example as great landowners, and meeting the recent appeal of the Prime Minister; and, if so, whether he will state where; these works are situated, and if they comprise the repair

  1053
  of roads, much wanted and long neglected in the New Forest.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,): The Commissioners have arranged for some road-making to be specially undertaken during the ensuing winter at Oxshott, near Esher, also at Alice Holt, near Farnham, if the requisite labour is available. Owing to the refusal of the New Forest Rural District Council to pay any part of the expense, a proposal to make a road in the Minstead District, stated to be much required in the interest of the local public, but which would be of only slight advantage to the Crown property, has been abandoned.

  Estate Duty Office Clerical Staff.
  MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that all the second division clerks in the Estate Duty Office who have accepted promotion to the first division accompanied with a reduction of salary have been men located in the branch offices in Edinburgh and Dublin, where greater inducements to acceptance prevail than in the head office by reason, inter alia, of the larger proportion of superior posts likely to become available to the promoted men; whether the fact has been brought to his notice that, even in these cases, the promotion was only accepted under protest, and in view of the alternative being transfer to a London office and consequent separation from relatives and friends; and whether, seeing that a clerk on promotion will be required to perform superior duties, he will consider the advisability of granting an immediate benefit in salary rather than a benefit deferred for twenty years, and subject to a substantial loss in the meantime.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I am informed that the Answer to the first part of this Question is in the affirmative, inasmuch as no offer of promotion accompanied by reduction of salary has been made to second division clerks in the head office. In each case in which in the branch offices the offer has been made it has been accepted, and I am not aware of any instance in which this has been done under protest. As regards the remainder
  1054
  of the Question I must refer the hon. Member to my previous replies.

  Admiralty Second Division Clerks.
  MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that certain second division clerks in the Admiralty, promoted to the first division concurrently with the introduction of the new scale of pay for second division clerks under the Order in Council of 21st December, 1907, were given the benefit of the immediate increase of pay under that Order, he will say in what special circumstances the principle applying not only to the Estate Duty Office but to other offices was in this instance departed from.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: The cases of second division clerks in the Admiralty were not parallel to the others mentioned, e.g., those in the Estate Duty Office. In the latter case the conditions of promotion were settled before the passing of the Order in Council of 21st December, 1907. The readjustment of salaries under Clause 6 of that Order was intended to apply to second division clerks remaining such and was given in consideration of their accepting the reduced maximum of salary also provided for in the same Order. It would have been unjustifiable to allow the clause to be used merely for the purpose of increasing initial salaries in the case of the Estate Duty Office and other Departments where not only is there no reduction of maximum but there are prospects of promotion to a higher class. The second division clerks in the Admiralty, on the other hand, elected to come under the new scale before the question of their promotion arose; and when they were afterwards promoted exceptionally for special merit, and not in accordance with any pre-determined scheme, it was not considered equitable to require them to enter at a salary less than their readjusted salaries.

  Customs Statistical Department—Overtime.
  MR. W. THORNE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the amount of overtime done in the Statistical Department of His Majesty's Customs, he will abolish

  1055
  all Saturday overtime, and afford facilities for as many men as is consistent with public business to leave at 1.30 p.m.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I have looked into this matter very carefully. It appears to be impossible, in view of the public demand for information as to Trade Returns at the end of every month being supplied at the earliest possible moment, to do without overtime. But I think it may be reduced, and I am considering steps to be taken at once to that end.

  Tobacco Growing in Scotland.
  SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as tobacco used to be grown for profit in the county of Roxburgh, he has made any regulations to encourage the experimental growing thereof; whether he will consider the expediency of making an allowance in experimental cases in respect of the duty for the time being; and whether he is in a position to state what Excise duties will be imposed on tobacco in Scotland, manufactured or unmanufactured; and what will be the cost of a licence to manufacture tobacco in Scotland.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I may refer my hon. friend, to the replies given by my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 27th ultimo to my hon. friend the Member for Sutherland, and on the 28th ultimo to my hon. friend himself, in which he indicated the present position in regard to the cultivation of tobacco in Scotland.
  In answer to a further Question by Sir John Jardine,
  MR. HOBHOUSEsaid no application had yet been received from Scotland for permission to grow tobacco.

  Old-Age Pensions.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if the number of applications for pensions received already exceed the total number of pensions anticipated in the figures placed before Parliament on the passing of the Act.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: The total number of applications received up to 24th October was 562,171. No estimate was made of the probable number of applications, but the number of original pensioners was estimated by my right hon. friend in the course of the Second Reading debate before the introduction of the sliding scale, at 572,000. The adoption of the sliding scale was expected to raise the total to well over 600,000. On the other hand it was not expected that the full number would come on to the list of pensioners until some time after the beginning of the year 1909.
  MR. SNOWDEN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if the pension officers are instructed to regard a certain portion of the sum paid by a son or daughter for board and lodgings to an aged parent as profit, and to take it into account as income received by the parent, and whether, if the pension officers have such instructions, these instructions entitle them to take 2s. as profit to the parent out of a total sum of 8s. a week paid for board and lodging for an adult daughter.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: Pension officers have instructions to regard a portion of the sum paid by an adult son or daughter to an aged parent for board and lodging as part of the means of the parent only where profit actually arises and to the extent of such profit. Each case has to be considered upon the facts and the final decision rests, of course, with the pension committee, subject to appeal to the Local Government Board. The proportion (if any) of a payment of 8s. a week by an adult daughter which might be regarded as profit in any particular case would depend upon the standard of comfort in the household and the cost of living in the locality in which the case occurred.
  MR. SNOWDEN: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that any decent standard of comfort can be secured for 6s. a week?
  MR. HOBHOUSE: 8s., not 6s.
  MR. FORSTER: How is the standard of comfort for the home arrived at?
  MR. HOBHOUSE: By a consideration of the circumstances of the family.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer why the financial instructions of the Treasury to pension committees and sub-committees, which were laid upon the Table on 16th October, have not been printed; why the order to print these instructions which was given on 16th October was withdrawn on 19th October; and whether these instructions may now be printed for the information of the House.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: The financial instructions issued by the Treasury on 20th August for the guidance of pension committees and sub-committees are not "regulations" within the meaning of Section 10 (3) of the Old-Age Pensions Act, and could not, therefore, be laid before the House under that Act. It was, however, intended to present them by Command of His Majesty. On this being explained to the authorities of the House, the order to print was discharged, as the House does not give the order to print Command Papers. The printing of the Instructions as a Command Paper has been delayed because it was expected that they would at once be superseded by amended instructions, but the revision, the scope of which has since been widened, will take longer than was anticipated. They are, therefore, being circulated this week, for the information of the House, in the form in which they were originally issued.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: When shall we have these financial instructions?
  MR. HOBHOUSE: Within the next week.
  LORD R. CECIL: Why are they printed as a Command Paper while the instructions to pension officers are withheld from the knowledge of the House?
  MR. HOBHOUSE: The instructions to the officers are confidential as between the Department and its servants.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer under what
  1058
  authority the Treasury have called upon the clerk to the appointing council to perform duties and to correspond with the Treasury under the Old-Age Pensions Act; whether any provision exists for remunerating such clerk, and, if not, how it is proposed to remunerate him; and whether instructions of the Treasury, as distinguished from regulations under the Act, have any validity or binding force.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: The duty of accounting for the expenses of pension committees falls upon the appointing councils under Regulation 25, and the instructions were addressed to the clerk to the appointing council as the responsible officer of the council. No provision is made in the Old-Age Pensions Act for any expenses incurred by the appointing councils, and if the council should think it necessary to assign to the clerk any special remuneration in respect of this duty, such remuneration would be payable out of the council's fund. The Treasury Financial Instructions have validity only in so far as they determine under Section 10 (4) of the Act the amount which may be charged to moneys provided by Parliament on account of the expenses of pension committees and the conditions subject to which amounts advanced to meet such expenses are to be repaid. The present arrangements will remain in force only until the approaching annulment of Regulation 25 takes effect.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: But is it not the fact that there is no provision for the remuneration of these clerks?
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I have dealt with that in my Answer.
  MR. SNOWDEN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that at the rate at which the claims for old-age pensions are now being settled a considerable number of the claims already made will be undecided on 1st January; and can he give an assurance that all persons claiming before the end of November shall, if their claims are finally established, not lose any weekly pension on account of administrative delays.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. friend's information is that very good progress is being made, and he sees no reason, as matters at present stand, for thinking that a considerable number of the claims already made will be undecided by 1st January.
  MR. SNOWDEN: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of the Question?
  MR. HOBHOUSE: That is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I will consult my right hon. friend upon it.
  LORD R. CECIL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in London, at any rate, there is not the least prospect of the pensions being adjudicated upon and the pension-books delivered before 1st January?
  MR. HOBHOUSE: That is not the information which reaches the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the responsible Department, though it may be the opinion of the noble Lord.
  LORD R. CECIL: It is an opinion founded upon information.

  Customs Superintendents.
  MR. SNOWDEN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that out of a classification of twenty-six superintendents in the Customs service only eight have been promoted since the beginning of the year 1899; that some of them have been for years marking time at their maximum salary; that through changes which took place in 1899 some are actually receiving a smaller income to-day than they were ten years ago, though performing the same duties; that 69 per cent. of the superintendents entered the service by open competition and have spent an average of about sixteen years in charge of the smaller ports, he will explain why there is withheld from them a reasonable flow of promotion and less generous treatment than is shown to any other grade in the Department who entered the service under similar conditions.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I will endeavour to get the information if the hon. Member
  1060
  will put the Question down again tomorrow.

  British Investments Abroad.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount of income received from capital invested abroad as shown by the Income-Tax Returns for each of the separate financial years from 1900–1901 to 1907–8; and if he can give similar figures showing the amount of income remitted abroad to persons who have capital invested in this country.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: Statistics of that portion of the income received from British capital invested abroad which can be identified from the Income-Tax Returns for the years 1900–1 to 1906–7 are to be found on page 183 of the 51st Report of the Board of Inland Revenue [Cd. 4226]. For 1907–8 the figures are not yet available. I may also draw the hon. Member's attention to the text on pages 182 and 183 of the Report, where it is explained that a large amount of income from abroad cannot be identified.

  Foreign Investors in British Securities.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the amount of Consols and other Government stocks held by foreign investors or by persons resident abroad.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir. The information is not available.
  MR. FELL: Cannot it be obtained from the. Income-Tax Returns?
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I am informed it is not available. I cannot go beyond that.

  Civil Service Superannuation.
  MR. SNOWDEN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer when the promised Bill dealing with the superannuation of civil servants will be introduced; and, if it is not possible to pass it this session, will the Government introduce it early next year, and endeavour to pass it into law without delay.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I must refer the hon. Member to my right hon. friend's reply to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West on the 5th instant, in which he expressed the hope that the Bill may be introduced next session.

  Edinburgh Gas Commissioners' Pensioners.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any knowledge concerning the Edinburgh and Leith Gas Commissioners who have given notice to their pensioners that they will reduce their pensions from 10s. per week to 8s. per week in order that they many receive the full 5s. per week from the Government; and whether he intends taking any action in the matter.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: Under their Provisional Order of 1902 the Edinburgh and Leith Corporations Gas Commissioners are authorised to grant allowances to aged and disabled employees, the amount of such allowances being left in the absolute discretion of the Commissioners, subject to the proviso that it shall not exceed one-half the amount of the wage paid to the employee at the time of Ms retirement or disablement. My right hon. friend is informed that the Commissioners have now reduced the allowances of five or six of their beneficiaries, who are over seventy years of age, from 10s. to 8s. a week, and in one other case from 8s. 6d. to 8s. a week, so as to enable the men to obtain the full pension of 5s. a week from the Government. The Commissioners appear to be acting within their rights in the matter.

  Motor Speeds in Scotland.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland will he say under what Act of Parliament county council authorities Scotland have powers to reduce the speed of motor cars in villages to ten miles per hour; and whether he has granted powers of local self-government to county councils relating to the speed of motor traffic.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): There is no
  1062
  Act conferring the powers referred to in the first part of the Question. The Secretary for Scotland has no power to proceed as suggested in the second part of the Question.

  Irish Civil Service.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will give the names of all persons receiving £100 a year or more out of Sub-head A, Vote 32, Class 2, of Civil Service Estimates, stating the amount paid yearly in each case and the nature of the service for which it is paid.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): My hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate with to-night's Votes a tabular statement containing the information which he requires.

  Horse-Breeding in Ireland.
  MR. ELLIS DAVIES: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) what sum, if any, is annually spent out of Imperial funds in improving or encouraging the improvement of the breed of horses and cattle, respectively, in Ireland.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): The public money spent on improving the breed of horses and cattle in Ireland comes from the Endowment Fund of the Department and from local rates raised by the county councils. The respective amounts spent are, approximately: From the Department's Endowment Fund, £7,000 on horse-breeding, and £10,000 on cattle breeding; from the rates raised by county councils for purposes of agriculture and technical instruction, £10,000 for live stock schemes including cattle and horses. It is not clear whether, in the sense in which the hon. Member means the expression "Imperial funds" to be used, that this description applies to the Endowment Fund of the Department. The Endowment Fund consists mainly of Ireland's share of the beer and spirit money which

  1063
  in England, Wales, and Scotland, is given directly to county councils for agricultural and technical instruction, the remainder of the Irish Church Temporalities Fund and the equivalent of the salaries of abolished Irish judgeships. That fund, moreover, is not made available in Ireland for the local authorities until they raise a rate themselves in aid of agriculture and technical instruction.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Has any of this endowment been spent on the prevention of cattle-driving in Ireland?
  MR. MOONEY: In view of the intimation that a new fund will be established in England, may I ask whether the fact that Ireland has already devoted to horse-breeding a share of the Government grant to county councils, which in England and Scotland has been applied to other purposes, will be allowed to militate against Ireland's getting a fair proportion of the new fund?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The Department will not lose sight of the claims of Ireland.

  Dublin Crown Jewels.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the value of the Crown jewels stolen from Dublin Castle last year, and explain why the Irish Government and the Dublin police authorities have not yet held an open sworn investigation into that particular theft; whether he is aware of the belief prevalent in Ireland that the Government know the thief and do not desire to expose or punish him; and, if the Government desire to remove this impression, whether they will take the course of disproving it by instituting an open sworn investigation with as litle delay as possible.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): I am unable to state what was the value of the jewels. I understand that opinions differ widely on the subject. As regards the remainder of the Question I have nothing to add to the numerous replies which I have already given. I refer in particular to my reply to the
  1064
  hon. Member for St. Pancras East on 1st June last.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state who was responsible, at the time the Crown jewels were stolen from Dublin Castle, for the policing of the building from which those jewels were stolen.
  MR. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar Question asked by the hon. Member for North Armagh on 2nd July last.

  Evicted Tenants—Case of Mrs. Riggs.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the case of the evicted tenant, Mrs. Biggs, seeing that her evicted farm is untenanted and is neither demesne nor a home farm, and that, though in a wretched condition, she will take no other, he will ask the Estates Commissioners to reconsider her case and reinstate her in her old farm under the compulsory provisions of the Evicted Tenants Act.
  MR. BIRRELL: I have nothing to add to my reply to a Question on this subject asked by the hon. Member on 15th May last.

  Irish Ranch Land.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, with his knowledge of the desire prevailing in twenty-two counties of Ireland for the distribution of ranch land, of the people's ability to leave it derelict if not distributed, and of the cost and turmoil consequent on that course, his promised Land Bill will apply generally, or only to the western counties, leaving the people of the other counties to their own resources.
  MR. BIRRELL: I must ask the hon. Member to await the introduction of the Irish Land Bill. I cannot undertake to deal with the matter piecemeal.

  Ballylassan Cattle-drive.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant

  1065
  of Ireland whether he is aware that a cattle-drive took place on 8th November last, when a number of cattle and sheep were driven from a grazing farm at Ballylassan, County Mayo; whether he can state if all the animals have been recovered; how many arrests have been made in connection with the outrage; what sentences, if any, have been passed; and what steps the Executive propose to take to prevent further occurrences of a similar nature.
  MR. BIRRELL: A cattle-drive took place at Ballyglass on the date mentioned. All the animals were recovered. No arrests have been made. The police are taking every precaution to prevent a further occurrence of the kind.

  Ballinameen Cattle-drive.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a cattle-drive took place on 8th November last, when twenty head of cattle were driven from a grazing farm held by Mr. John Robinson, at Ballinameen, near Boyle, County Roscommon; whether he can state if all the animals have been recovered; how many arrests have been made in connection with the outrage; what sentences, if any, have been passed; and what steps the Executive propose to take to prevent further occurrences of a similar nature.
  MR. BIRRELL: Fifteen cattle were driven from Mr. Robinson's farm on the date in question. They have all been recovered. The police have not been able to make any arrests, but they are endeavouring by every possible means to prevent a repetition of the offence.

  Colthurst Estate, Ballyvourney.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the year 1906 the Estates Commissioners addressed a public letter to the senior hon. Member for the city of Cork, to the effect that when any tenant or tenants on an estate refused to sign purchase agreements on the terms agreed upon by the general body of tenants, alleging special reasons why
  1066
  they should be exceptionally treated, the Commissioners would order a special inspection and inquiry into their complaints; whether this implied that such tenants would get the benefit of the special inspection and valuation of an estates inspector; was the case of Mrs. Twomey, of Kippagh, on the Colthurst estate, Ballyvourney, County Cork, specially inquired into in July, 1906, by Estates Inspector Lapdell, and can he state the recommendations contained in this gentleman's report; was the same case subsequently inquired into by Mr. Carroll, estates inspector, in the present year; and, seeing that, in accordance with the public undertaking of the Estates Commissioners, there were two inspections of Mrs. Twomey's holding, and having regard to the fact that she holds as a non-judicial tenant, will he explain why it is now proposed to exclude her compulsorily from the sale of this estate, unless she agrees to purchase on terms which would compel her to pay an exorbitant and impossible annuity, and why she will not get the benefit of the special valuation of her holding.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that in the letter referred to they stated that where a landlord asks to have a portion of a property declared an estate, omitting certain holdings on the ground that the tenants are unwilling to buy, it is their practice to inquire as to the causes of the omission and the reasonableness of the terms offered to and refused by the tenants. The inspector's visit to the property in 1906 had reference only to turbary, but when the property was being inspected this year the inspector inquired into the case of Mrs. Twomey and the other tenants who have not agreed to purchase. As Mrs. Twomey has not signed a purchase agreement she cannot be included in the sale.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a number of tenants on the estate of Sir George Colthurst, Ballyvourney, did not claim from the Estates Commissioners a special inspection and valuation of their holdings, alleging that so far as

  1067
  they were concerned the terms offered to the general body of tenants would not meet the equities or circumstances of their cases, and that the Estates Commissioners officially informed the hon. Member for Mid Cork on more than one occasion that the special inspection asked for would be granted; will he explain why it is now proposed to deny these tenants, after over two years waiting, the benefit of any inspection or valuation; and is he aware that threatening notices have been served on them by the agents of the property with the connivance of the Estates Commissioners that unless they sign agreements immediately they will be excluded from the sale.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that certain tenants on this estate have declined to purchase on the terms agreed to by the vendor and the remainder of the tenants, some hundreds in number. The cases of the tenants who decline to purchase were fully inquired into by the Commissioners' inspector when he visited the property. The Commissioners have decided to allow the purchases already agreed upon to proceed, and the remaining holdings can be dealt with subsequently as a separate estate when the owner and the tenants come to terms.

  Crookenden and Casey Estate, Cavan.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners communicated to the tenants or to anyone that the owners of the Crookenden and Casey estate had accepted their offer since 7th July; have the owners of this estate attempted to levy for judgments and old arrears since 7th July; and will he say if the acceptance of the offer by the owners of this estate affects the entire estate, from what day will the purchase agreements run, and when will they be completed.
  MR. BIRRELL: The offer of the Estates Commissioners was only accepted on 19th October, since when they have informed any of the tenants or their advisers who inquired that the offer
  1068
  has been accepted. The Commissioners understand that the sheriff recently attempted to execute decrees which had been in his hands since the spring. The offer relates to the entire property except the Post Office, Courthouse, and Market House. The purchase agreements cannot be completed until the requirements of Section 6 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, have been complied with.

  Thomastown Estate, Meath.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have acquired or agreed to purchase untenanted land on the Thomastown estate, County Meath, and, if so, what is the acreage thereof; and will the Estates Commissioners in dealing with this untenanted land consider the claims of the evicted tenants in the union of Oldcastle, County Cavan, in which union this estate is situated, as very little land is available in County Cavan under the Evicted Tenants Act.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have notified in the Dublin Gazette their intention of acquiring compulsorily under the Evicted Tenants Act, 170 acres of untenanted land on the estate in question. The applications from those persons in the union of Oldcastle who come within the provisions of the Act will receive due consideration in the distribution of the lands.

  Strangford Bar Whistling Buoy.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the name of the firm to which has been entrusted the construction of the new modern whistling buoy for Strangford Bar; on what date did the work begin; is a duplicate being made at the same time; what will the total cost be; and whether it will be defrayed out of light dues collected by the Board of Trade from vessels bound inwards passing that point.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that this whistling buoy will not be constructed by a single firm, but that different parts will be made by about a

  1069
  dozen different firms, the apparatus being completed at the Commissioners' workshops. They state that the preparation of drawings and specifications was commenced on 12th August last, the date when they received the formal sanction of the Board of Trade to the adoption of the Willson type of buoy. A duplicate buoy will be provided at the same time, and the total cost is estimated at £1,000 for each buoy. This will be met out of the General Lighthouse Fund, and not by a special light due in respect of the buoy.

  The Tuberculosis Bill.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether it is proposed by the Government to extend the scope of the Tuberculosis Bill to England and Scotland; and, if not, will steps be taken to prevent poor persons suffering from the disease in England and Scotland being sent to Ireland to be a burden on the rates.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): I am not in a position to make any statement as to the extension of the scope of this Bill to England and Scotland. The hon. Member's concluding inquiry opens up a large question with regard to the Law of Settlement which at present applies to England and Scotland but not to Ireland. My right hon. friend the Chief Secretary has, I am informed, expressed the intention of considering that question in connection with contemplated legislation for the reform of the Poor Laws next year.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Why should people living in Ireland be allowed to cross to England in order to escape the net of the Bill?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Economy of Parliamentary Time.
  MR. HENRY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he will consider taking the necessary steps, by a resolution or otherwise, for providing that Bills that may have passed the Committee, and of which the subsequent stages are unable to be
  1070
  proceeded with during the present session, that the Report and Third Reading may be taken in the following session without having again to pass the First and Second Readings and be dealt with in Committee.
  MR. ASQUITH: This is a matter as to which great difference of opinion exists among persons of authority and experience, and I cannot as at present advised give my hon. friend the assurance for which he asks.

  Regulation of Clubs.
  MR. CLOUGH: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government can see their way to put down Amendments to a clause in Part IV. of the Licensing Bill which affects clubs, for limiting the hours in which intoxicating liquor shall be supplied to members or their guests in registered clubs, and imposing a minimum age-limit upon the admission of new members to registered clubs.
  MR. ASQUITH: I do not think after the full discussion which this part of the Bill received in Committee that the Government would be justified in putting down Amendments in the sense suggested by my hon. friend at this stage.
  MR. CLOUGH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he cannot, at this, the eleventh hour, introduce into the Bill the very modest recommendation of the Royal Commission that there should be a minimum age-limit of eighteen years for membership of clubs where intoxicating liquors are supplied?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am not at all hostile to the recommendation myself, but it is not desirable to introduce fresh Amendments at this stage.
  AN HON. MEMBER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think some restricttion of hours may be in the interests of real temperance reform?
  MR. ASQUITH: That is a matter of opinion. The question put to me was whether the Government would put Amendments down. I have replied to that.

  Rosyth.
  CAPTAIN CLIVE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, now that the Government have adopted a policy of encouraging local authorities to contract loans, he will reconsider a former declaration on the part of the Government and issue a loan for the completion of the works at Rosyth.
  MR. ASQUITH: His Majesty's Government see no occasion for adopting the course proposed by the hon. and gallant Member.
  CAPTAIN CLIVE: Why do the Government consider it sound finance to raise loans for the making of ornamental ponds and for similar purposes, and unsound finance to raise loans for the construction of naval works?
  MR. ASQUITH: The hon. Member is very imperfectly acquainted with the facts. The policy of the Government is to complete the works at Rosyth at the earliest practicable moment. Once the contract is let the payment of the whole cost is guaranteed, the total having been sanctioned by Parliament; and there was no reason even for considering the question of dealing with the matter by loans.

  English Education Bill.
  LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister when the Amendments to the Education Bill necessary to carry out the recent pledges of the Minister of Education will be placed upon the Paper.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: May I also ask the Prime Minister when the Government Amendments to the Education Bill will be placed on the Paper.
  MR. ASQUITH: A statement on this matter will be made on behalf of the Government possibly to-morrow and at latest on Thursday.

  Ladybank Councillors' Grievance.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the circumstances under which six employees of the North British Railway Company who had been
  1072
  elected to the Ladybank Town Council, Fife, have had to resign from the council owing to pressure brought to bear upon them by their employers; and whether he proposes taking any action for safe-guarding the rights of citizenship of the employees of railway companies and other large industrial concerns.
  MR. ASQUITH: It is understood that the North British Railway Company require their servants to devote themselves exclusively to the company's service, and do not consider that membership of a town council is consistent with this requirement. The matter is not one in which any Department of the Government has authority to intervene.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Does the limitation apply to the period when the men are not on duty?
  MR. ASQUITH: I cannot say.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEintimated that if necessary, in order to secure the removal of this regulation he would oppose any Bill promoted by the company in Parliament.

GRAND COMMITTEE PROCEDURE.
LORD R. CECILinquired what steps the Government proposed to take to secure the attendance of a Law Officer at the proceedings on the Housing Bill, in view of what was stated the other day and in view of the fact that no Law Officer had attended that day.
MR. ASQUITH: I think I must have notice of that Question. What the means at the disposal of the Government are for securing the attendance of a Law Officer is one of the most difficult problems of administration with which I am acquainted.
MR. LUPTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to let the Law Officers practise in the Courts, but to let them serve Parliament, which requires their assistance?
MR. ASQUITH: I can assure my hon. friend that we require their assistance in the Courts quite as much as we do here.

NURSES REGISTRATION BILL [LORDS].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 370.]
COMPANIES CONSOLIDATION BILL [LORDS].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 371.]
NEW BILL.
  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK (PUBLIC TRUSTEE) BILL.
  "To amend the Post Office Savings Bank Acts, 1861 to 1908, with respect to deposits by the Public Trustee," presented by Mr. Sydney Buxton; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 372.]

LICENSING BILL.
As amended, further considered.
MR. CAVEsaid that in moving the omission of Clause 10 he wished to express his satisfaction that they had that day something more like sufficient time to discuss what he thought was the second great injustice of the Bill. Yesterday they had only three hours and a half to discuss the time-limit and local veto, but that day they had six hours and a half in which to deal with the very important question of compensation. He wanted to deal with Clause 10 quite generally and to suggest that the provisions for compensation contained in the clause were by no means just and adequate. The question was dealt with by giving for a house dispossessed so many years purchase of the annual value as ascertained under the Bill. The first question was as to how many years purchase of the annual value were they going to give? With regard to the number given under this clause he had always admitted that the number of years purchase must be determined to some extent by the principle of the time-limit, and when once they had admitted time-limit into the Bill it was not logically wrong to limit the number of years purchase by reference to the
1074
time-limit imposed, but, speaking for himself, he could not accept in any shape or form the principle of the time-limit. He did not look upon the position of a licensee as that of a man who had nothing but a mere hope or expectation of a renewal of his licence. He had always held that he had a legal and equitable right to renewal, subject, of course, to certain conditions which were now fully understood. It was the law of the land that the renewal of a licence could not be refused except after notice given to the licensee, except on evidence given against him on oath, and except by a decision which must be founded upon legal principles, for the licensee was allowed to appeal against an adverse decision. The moment they allowed an appeal against refusal, they admitted that there were some principles by which a refusal ought to be guided. He wished to enter his protest against the view that the actual, legal, and moral rights of a licensee could be taken away by any system of time-notice. He had said that so far as regarded the number of years purchase of the annuity the Bill was not it logical having regard to Clause 3, but he wanted on this point to raise the question of what was the meaning of the Amendment put down by the Government adding three years to the number of years purchase. Why three years? The Government had given in addition to the fourteen years reduction period a further period of seven years during which monopoly value did not take effect, and yet, in estimating compensation for the purpose of this clause, they only took a further period of three years. The effect of so doing was that instead of buying a man up on the basis of his being entitled to twenty-one years renewal, they bought him up on the basis of seventeen years, or rather sixteen years, viz., thirteen years balance of the reduction period, and three years additional allowed by the Government Amendment. He quite appreciated that in giving the extra seven years they were still allowing the licence to be taken away by the justices, or by a local veto resolution, but he would like to know on what basis the calculation of three years was arrived at. He thought it highly improbable that as regards certain districts a prohibitory resolution would be passed

1075
within the seven years, yet the Government's estimate was that in every district the chances of it were so great that they gave a man rather less than ore half of the actual value of the extended period. It must be nothing more than an arbitrary figure put down for the purposes of discussion. There was another point. Why was it that if a licence was refused in the fourteen years they gave the man compensation, but if it was refused during the following period of seven years they gave him nothing at all? This right to renewal was at all events a substantial one during the further seven years, and yet he was to have no compensation. They were not giving him a further seven years run at all, but simply the chance of the seven years run without compensation. In the next place the number of years purchase of the annual value had reference, not to the reel annual value, but to the annual value as estimated under this clause, which was by deducting from the Schedule A value of the house as licensed, the Schedule A value of the house as unlicensed. He pressed upon the Government that that was not a fair basis of assessment for the purposes of compensation. Schedule A value did not rest on valuation. It rested entirely upon the opinion of an official who had perhaps some thousands of houses to value, and whose method of valuation might be different in one place from what it was in another, and they could not fairly take that mail's rough estimate of value, for it was nothing else, as the basis on which compensation for refusal could be put. It had been said in that House before that the methods of assessment differed in different unions, and to say that throughout the country that varying basis of assessment should be taken as the foundation for ascertaining on what principle compensation for the actual deprivation of profits should be based was, he thought, to lay down a basis which was vague and uncertain and arbitrary. On the Government's own showing it was not a right basis. He was glad to see the Under-Secretary for the Home Department in his place, because he thought he had at different periods laid down different rules with regard to the
1076
effect of Schedule A value, as to whether it included goodwill, that was, local goodwill, or not. When he was dealing with the question of monopoly value, i.e., the amount to be paid by the licensee when he obtained a new licence, he said that Schedule A did not include goodwill. He said there had been much misunderstanding as to the monopoly value to be taken at the end of the time-limit, and that the monopoly value did not include goodwill. If that was right, then, as monopoly value was to be ascertained by reference to the assessment under Schedule A, it followed that the Schedule A assessment did not include goodwill. But when they came to compensation the Government took exactly the opposite view. It had been stated in the House by the Under-Secretary on behalf of the Government that—
"The goodwill attaching to the premises was unquestionably included in Schedule A."
In each case they were dealing with the same goodwill, and he wished to know if the Government considered that that was included in the Schedule A valuation or not. One day the Government said it was, and the next day they declared that it was not. Which was right? This was a matter which affected the whole amount of compensation to be paid and they ought to have a clear understanding as to what the view of the Government was on this point. His own view was that local goodwill in the case of a public-house ought to be included in Schedule A valuation, but that in practice it was often omitted. Public-houses stood in quite a different position from any other trade premises, because they could not remove a public-house business. A licence was attached to the premises, and if the licence was refused they could not remove the business to other premises. The goodwill was therefore attached to the premises, and if so the Schedule A valuation ought to include goodwill. As a matter of fact in some cases it did, and in others it did not. Many valuers refused to put local goodwill into Schedule A, but others included the whole or some part of it, and certain rough and ready rules were adopted. If they took Schedule A as the basis of compensation the effect would be that in some

1077
cases the landlord would not, on the licence being refused, get the value of his local goodwill, but in others the State would take as the monopoly value the value of the goodwill, and in some cases the actual value of the buildings. He would put a case in point to the House. Supposing the owner of a public-house spent £1,000 upon improvements of his premises for the purposes of a public-house. They all knew that the following year the assessment of those premises would go up, and the Schedule A value would increase. That would not come into the account as unlicensed value, but it came into the licensed value. Therefore, in the monopoly value that owner would have to pay upon the improvements he had himself effected. Consequently, they would be taking from that man the actual value of the money he had spent upon improvements. Under this clause, by taking Schedule A as their basis they would be compensating the licensee upon terms which would often give him nothing for the local goodwill of his premises. His first point was that the number of years purchase was wrong, and secondly, the monopoly value was ascertained upon an illogical basis. The only remedy suggested for the grievance he had put was that the licensee could get his assessment raised; or, in other words, they were saying to the parsons engaged in this trade that they must get their own assessments raised in order to get fair compensation. A calculation had been made for the purpose of showing what increase of assessment would be required to give licensees something like the sum which they how got as compensation on the basis of market value. On the present assessment of public-houses in London the average was about £260 per annum. In order to give to the licensees such an assessed value as would produce for them on this basis the market value compensation they would have to raise the average assessment from £260 to £700 a house.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,): Has the hon. and learned Member made allowance for the additional com-
1078
pensation to be paid in respect of the tenant's interest?
MR. CAVE: Yes. Those assessments would be raised not because they were worth £700, but because without raising them in that outrageous way they would not get fair compensation. They had only to compare the official figures for London, which fortunately had been got out, to prove this assertion. The figures showed a variation in the number of years purchase given by way of compensation, the compensation amounting in some cases to not more than three years purchase of the assessment and in others to 100 years purchase. The figures were very striking and showed that there was no logical relation between the assessment and the market value. The reason was that those figures were ascertained for a totally different purpose, and they did not hang together. That was necessarily unfair to the people whose money interests would be affected by the Bill. He pressed upon the House if there was still time the advisability of rejecting this false proposal which was founded on an illogical basis, and he invited the Government to go back to the only businesslike basis, and that was the value in the market. Any valuer in ascertaining the market value of a licence, if this Bill became law, would take the provisions of the Bill into account, just as he would do in ascertaining the compensation. He pressed upon the House to do the only fair and logical thing, namely, to abandon this unsound principle of assessment and adopt the market value. Under the clause as it stood, compensation was to be ascertained not by any judicial tribunal but by the Inland Revenue Commission. The Government had been asked whether the Commissioners were bound to give a hearing to the persons affected. Would the Commissioners be obliged to give a hearing to the man whose pocket they were dealing with? If not, this was he thought the only instance that had come before the present Parliament in which they had refused to listen to a man whose living they were actually taking away from him. In the next place, he wished to know if there was going to be any appeal. Under the present law the

1079
question of compensation really went through three tribunals. In the first place, they had the justices on the county licensing committee, who listened to arguments and evidence as to the amount of compensation to be paid. If the parties were not satisfied with that they could go to the Commissioners; and if they were still unsatisfied, they could go to the High Court. Under this Bill they had only one tribunal sitting by itself, not bound to hear any evidence or to listen to any argument. He put it to any fair-minded man in the House whether it was right to entrust the fixing of compensation to a tribunal sitting under those conditions. They heard it said sometimes in the House, and very often in the country, that although the Bill might operate hardly upon the owners of licensed houses, at all events the actual licensee would be better off. Anything more untrue than that assertion it was impossible to conceive. There was one thing in favour of the licensee and that was that his compensation was separately assessed. Under the present law he did get compensation for the loss of profits, and must receive not less than one year's profits. It was true that that year's profits was taken from the total value of the premises, while under this Bill, it was to be separately assessed, but although that might be beneficial to the owner it was not necessarily beneficial to the actual tenant, who might not get a penny more. But even if that were to his benefit there was a set-off against it. First of all, the levy to be imposed was to be unlimited, although under the present Act it was limited in amount; secondly, the levy was to be spread over the whole country, so that licensees, when the claims in their own districts had been met, would have to go on contributing for the benefit of others in distant parts of the country; thirdly, there was increased risk of refusal owing to the statutory reduction under Schedule I.; fourthly, a man who had a leasehold interest in his public-house got a compensation which was merely a fraction of its value; fifthly, the amount of compensation was fixed by the Commissioners without hearing an appeal; sixthly, when a licence was refused the house was closed at once
1080
without waiting for the time when the compensation was to be paid; seventhly, the assessment of all public-houses would be immediately raised whether they were going to be suppressed or not; and eighthly, there was the time-limit and the monopoly value would be taken at the end of twenty-one years. If these eight points were set up against the very shadowy benefit which would come to the publican by reason of the separate assessment, he thought they would find that the balance weighed heavily indeed against any actual licensee who came within the scope of the clause. He had endeavoured to put his objections shortly and clearly. He hoped that, unless the objections were met, his friends would support him in the division lobby. He begged to move.
MR. G. D. FABERin seconding the Amendment, said his hon. and learned friend the Member for Kingston had made a transparently clear statement of the objections to the clause. He himself laid no claim to legal learning. All he could lay claim to was general business knowledge, and it was from that point of view that he had the temerity to enter upon the intricacies of the present discussion. The position with which they were face to face under Clause 10 was that the compensation to be paid by the trade to the trade was such a sum as would purchase an immediate annuity at 4 per cent. for tae unexpired term of the reduction period, and that figure would have to be arrived at according to the Government method of calculating the value of the annuity. People were under an entire misapprenhension if they thought that this clause meant that a certain number of years purchase would be given. It was difficult for the lay mind to follow the annuity process adopted by the Government. People not versed in such matters thought that so many years purchase on the rental value were to be allowed. Nothing of the kind. It was a mere annuity. It was not to be so many years purchase in the ordinary acceptation of the term, but only such a sum as would produce this limited annuity. The second point he wished to make clear was that it was not even a fourteen years annuity, because the annuity was based on the reduction

1081
period, and under Clause 44 of the Bill the reduction period did not begin on 5th April next as had been imagined. It did not begin until 1st January, 1910, the whole of 1909 being allowed to the Commissioners to get ready. There would only be a thirteen years reduction period and thirteen years compensation, and, therefore, the utmost that could be obtained under the Bill as originally drawn was such a sum as would at 4 per cent. produce an immediate annuity for thirteen years. The value of the thirteen years immediate annuity was just under ten years purchase of the annuity according to the actuarial table. He was well aware that under the recent concession of the Government, after the fourteen years reduction period there would be a seven years additional run allowed to those who were fortunate enough to have got into that period, and to get through it. The Government themselves recognised the impediments put in the way of the further seven years run. At what did they estimate it for compensation purposes? They only valued it at three years. If the Government only valued it at three years, it should not be called a seven years run. He should prefer to call it a further three years reduction period. A three years annuity, if purchased at once on the 4 per cent. table, was only worth one and a half years. Adding the thirteen years to the three years reduction period made sixteen years in all, and he found that the present value of a sixteen years annuity at 4 per cent. was eleven and a half years purchase of the annuity. That was all that the Government themselves professed to give under the clause. Therefore, the first position they arrived at was that instead of the trade compensating the trade on the basis of the full market value of the licence, which was the course followed by the authors of the Act of 1904, the present Bill restricted the compensation to a sum which represented merely the purchase value of an eleven and a half years annuity. That was the best that could happen to a licensee beginning with the first year of the reduction period, but the further they marched along the road the less the annuity became, until they arrived at
1082
zero. The second position, which was quite as important as the first, was that even with this narrow term of years it was not proposed to compensate according to the market value, but according to the fallacious canon of compensation adopted by the Inland Revenue after the passing of the Act of 1904. Why were the Government driving the trade into this impossible financial position in regard to the compensation to be provided by the trade itself? It was because of the reduction period and the number of licences which they insisted upon the authorities taking away during the reduction period. Inasmuch as the proposal was to take away 30,000 licences—probably the number would be a great deal more—if they were going to cut their coat according to their cloth, they would be precluded from giving proper compensation because the compensation fund would not go round. There was not enough butter to butter the bread, and, therefore, they would provide bread and scrape instead. The Government now condemned the method of arriving at compensation through market value, laid down by the Act of 1904, because on many of the speakers on the new Government side, when the Act of 1904 was before the House, had the temerity to make estimates for themselves as to how compensation would probably work out. The compensation worked out at much higher figures than the figures in the speeches. But even if the estimates of compensation made by Conservative orators in 1904 were wrong the basis that underlay their whole argument was not wrong. That argument was that they must ascertain the value of the licence in the open market. They never went away from that. The whole underlying proposition of the Act of 1904 was that the estimate of the value was to be the value in the open market. And why not? The only way of ascertaining the true value of any article, whether it was a licence or any other object of property, was what would the public give for it in the open market. That was the only tangible and true test. That was the basis which the late Sir William Harcourt laid down in the Death Duties Act of 1894. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue when

1083
assessing any property for death duties took the market value. And it was here that, in his view, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue went hopelessly wrong when trying to assess the compensation due for the extinction of a licence because they went away altogether from the course which they were accustomed to pursue in estimating the death duties. They adopted the altogether fallacious method of proceeding under Schedule A of the Income-Tax, and taking the difference between the value of a house when licensed and when not licenced. That brought him to the Kennedy judgment given in the case of the Ashby Brewery Company. Mr. Justice Kennedy held, speaking broadly, that what had to be ascertained was the value in the open market of the licensed property in question. Mr. Justice Kennedy having laid that down as a basis, proceeded to pursue his own method of ascertaining the market value. There might be many different methods of arriving at the market value, and Mr. Justice Kennedy took his own. That judgment was pronounced after the present Government came into office and they took the opinion of their own Law Officers upon it. Their own Law Officers told them that the judgment was sound, and that if they appealed against it to the House of Lords they had no prospect of success. The only quotation with which he need trouble the House was one from what the Lord Chief Justice said in another case about the Kennedy judgment. It was an obiter dictum, he knew, but nevertheless it was extremely valuable. In the present year, on the 17th March last, the Lord Chief Justice said—
"You do not attack Mr. Justice Kennedy's judgment. I do not think anybody can, as a matter of fact."
The Lord Chief Justice said that, not in the course of giving his judgment, but in the course of the case under hearing. But when giving his judgment on the 18th March the Lord Chief Justice said—
"It is not part of my duty in this case, nor have I the right, to criticise or deal with the Kennedy judgment in the Ashby case. Both parties have followed it. But I do desire to say this: that, in so far as it is necessary to consider the Ashby judgment in order to consider
1084
its bearing on subsection (2) of the Act of 1904—if I may be allowed to say so with very great deference—I cannot see how it can possibly be attacked. It seems to me to have proceeded on a basis practically admitted by the Law Officers of the Crown, and it has not been appealed against."
The Prime Minister when first introducing this measure, and at later stages, talked about the fundamental vice of the Kennedy judgment, and he inferred from these statements that what the Prime Minister objected to was not the Act of 1904 but the erroneous way in which he conceived Mr. Justice Kennedy interpreted that Act. Therefore, it was with considerable surprise that he found that on the 25th October, 1906, the hon. Member for the New Forest division asked the Prime Minister this question—
"Will His Majesty's Government direct an appeal to be made to a higher Court of justice to reverse the Kennedy judgment?"
And the Prime Minister, who now talked of the "fundamental vice" of the Kennedy judgment, said in reply to that question—
"His Majesty's Government do not propose to give directions for an appeal, as they are advised that as the law at present stands under the terms of the Licensing Act of 1904, an appeal cannot succeed."
The Prime Minister surely spoke in two entirely different voices. On the first occasion, in 1906, in answer to one of his own supporters he said in effect, the Licensing Act of 1904 standing as it did, that Mr. Justice Kennedy's judgment was perfectly right and that it would be useless to appeal against it. But a year and a half after, when this Bill was initiated, the Prime Minister appeared to have forgotten that answer to the question of his own supporter and made a violent attack on the judgment. It appeared to him that the Act of 1904 was right, that the Kennedy judgment was right, and that the present Government in now turning that Act and that judgment topsy turvey and substituting for that method of arriving at compensation value the Schedule A method, were getting on to an extremely boggy, dangerous, and if he might say so, impossible ground. The hon. and learned Member for Kingston had pointed out that they were now going to base compensation upon what? Why, on a new assessment for income-tax under Schedule A. The old assessment was to be altered and a new one

1085
put in its place. What must necessarily follow from any new assessment for income-tax under Schedule A? At present in the London area the assessment for rating purposes was the same as the assessment for income-tax; therefore, if they were going to put the screw on the assessment for income-tax in the London area, the assessment for rating purposes would follow. They would run in harness. That was not the practice in the country, but he was told that the inevitable result in the country would be that the raising of the assessment for income-tax purposes would be sympathetically followed by the raising of the assessment for rating purposes as well. The Government, in their blind desire to disturb the existing sound basis of compensation, were going to upset the rating on licensed houses all over the country. The result would be that on licensed houses the assessment for income-tax purposes and rating purposes would be like hillocks standing up on a flat plain. It would only be the miserable licensed property that would have to be submitted to that exceptional treatment and that exceptional process. It was the first step that counted. The Government had not looked sufficiently far forward to see in what position, this new assessment was going to put them. If they tried to arrive at a proper compensation for the extinguished licensed property on the basis of the present Schedule A assessment for income-tax purposes then they would arrive at a ludicrous result. He had in a former debate instanced the "Coach and Horses." The reserve price of the "Coach and Horses" was £10,000. That house was put up to auction and sold at that reserve price. If they worked out the value according to the Schedule A assessment of the "Coach and Horses" for income-tax purposes they would not get within many thousands of the price obtained, viz., £10,000. Speaking from memory he thought it worked out at no more than £2,000 or £3,000. This proved that to make the present assessment for income-tax purposes the basis of compensation was impossible, and that to raise the whole assessment of licensed property was grossly unfair. The Government were not going to make a friend of the licence-holder. All through the Bill
1086
the Government had been playing for the support of the licence-holder He wondered if the licence-holders, realised what was going to be the effect of this re-assessment of licensed property which was not going to stop at re-assessment for income-tax purposes, but was going to extend all round the orbit of local taxation. The licence-holder was not going to be very grateful to the present Government when he realised that fact. The Government were on unsound ground, and they must and did know it. They must and they did know that the only true basis of value was that adopted by the Act of 1904, namely, the value which any man would give for the property in the open market. The Kennedy judgment, having followed that canon of construction, proceeded upon firm and true lines which could not be upset. He begged to second.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 7, line 11, to leave out Clause 10.'"—(Mr. Cave.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out down to the word 'the' in page 7, line 13, stand part of the Bill."
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir S. EVANS, Glamorganshire, Mid): In his speech in moving this Amendment the hon. and learned Member for Kingston said that in his opinion there was a legal estate and a legal title in the licence at the present moment which could not properly be abrogated by time-limit at all. With respect to that matter, the hon. Member is, I think, at variance with a good many Members on his own side of the House. He certainly differs from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. But, as I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman, he only threw out his opinion on this matter by way of protesting against any suggestion that he acceded to the opposite view. I am not at all sure that he was raising a discussion upon it at the present moment, and therefore I will not discuss that point, which has been debated over and over again in this House, but I will address myself to the other portions of his speech. He referred to the period of three years, which by the Amendment of the

1087
Government will be added to the time in computing the annuity upon the basis of which the compensation is to be made to a person whose licence is taken away. He asked what is the logical basis for the term of three years, but the House will know that the reduction period has not been altered at all by the extension of the seven years after the fourteen years. The period of statutory reduction was and still remains a period of fourteen years. I will not discuss with the hon. Member for York whether it comes down to thirteen or lower or whether it is fifteen or higher, but whatever the reduction period was it still remains the reduction period, and it was only out of concession to the demands made on the other side in order to prevent further financial disturbance to the trade, that the Government made a further extension of seven years—not as a further extension of the reduction period, but as a rest period during which there should be no compensation levy at all, during which no such compensation should be paid, if a licence was taken away, and during which—and this is the main purpose of the concession—no monopoly value should be exacted from the licensee in possession at the end of the fourteen years reduction period. It is very difficult to estimate exactly what the value of that extension is, and I do not propose at the present moment to discuss it in detail. It does not arise on the Motion to leave out the clause, and we shall reach it very soon and discuss it upon my Amendment, or at least I hope so. But lest it should be said that nothing was stated about it from these benches in the event of its not being reached I will make one or two observations upon it. It is almost impossible to calculate the value to those who possess licences which may be taken away during the reduction period, of the possibility of being able to continue beyond the reduction period and going on for a period of rest for seven years. Various views may be taken of this. One view is this, and I think it is sound. If fourteen years is the right period for the reduction of the licences, and if a licence is taken away in that period, whether it is in the first, second, or fourteenth year ex hypothesi it is properly taken away, and therefore it may very
1088
well be sound argument that that person who loses his licence at that time or during any portion of the reduction period is not entitled to anything further by way of compensation because those licences which survive the reduction period have a period of rest for seven years. I think that is sound legal argument, but the Government notwithstanding have made the concession. They would have been entitled to say: "Your licence has been properly taken away, and you have no right to take into account the fact that other licences will be allowed to continue for another seven years." But perhaps as a sort of compromise it was said: "Well, at any rate, at the beginning of the reduction period, or during the reduction period there may be the expectation on the part of the holder of a licence that his licence will not be taken away, and if it is not, he will have a further seven years rest." In respect of that, the Government have proposed to move an Amendment later on, giving an addition of three years to the period which is to be calculated for the purpose of arriving at the annuity which is to fix the compensation of the licence-holder. That is more by way of bonus than by way of right, and I do not think it lies in the mouth of anybody who gets that bonus from the Government, to complain that it is not the exact actuarial value of the chance of his licence remaining during the period of seven years. Of course, the licence may be extinguished during the seven years by local veto. That is quite true, but in any event that possibility does not prevent the person whose licence has been previously extinguished getting three years. There are other conditions which are applicable besides the local veto, because during the period of seven years the licence can be taken away by the magistrates just as it could be taken away by them before the Act of 1904, not merely because of misconduct. The hon. Gentleman asked also this question: "Why do you not pay compensation during the further period of seven years?" The answer to that is perfectly simple. We do not exact the compensation levy during the seven years, and, therefore, it would not be right to pay compensation during that period. I am not quite sure, if

1089
it be the view of the trade that they ought to receive compensation during the seven years, and if they are willing to pay a compensation levy, that there would be any great objections to that, but the fact is that no compensation levy would be made, and, therefore, no compensation is possible during the seven years. The state of things as regards the seven years would be exactly the state of things which existed before 1904. At that time the licences might be taken away under the judicial discretion of the justices, without any compensation being paid at all.
MR. YOUNGERsaid there was then no local veto at all.
SIR S. EVANS: I am not discussing the matter in regard to local veto. I am now answering a question of the hon. and learned Gentleman as to why we do not provide for the compensation for licences taken away during the seven years period. The House will remember that many of these licences were taken away before 1904, and that the right hon. Gentleman was moved to bring in the Act of 1904 because of those cases. Some other questions were put by the hon. and learned Gentleman with regard to Schedule A value. I am not going again, at this time of day, into the question of the Kennedy judgment; it has been argued over and over, with more or less knowledge, by those who have argued for or against it. But whether the Kennedy judgment is right or not, I do not think it can be contended that it was the intention of the proposers of the Act of 1904 that their Act should be as declared by the Kennedy judgment. The Kennedy judgment stands as a matter of law, but that is no reason why the House should not change it. In hundreds of cases compensation was probably awarded both by the justices and by the Inland Revenue authorities before the Kennedy judgment upon a totally different basis. The Kennedy judgment was pronounced in 1906 and during the year 1905 all the licences which were reduced in that year were valued by the Inland Revenue upon a totally different basis.
MR. CAVE: A great many were valued on the same footing.
SIR S. EVANS: I said that they were probably valued by the justices on a different tooting. Whatever the state of affairs was as decided by the Kennedy judgment, this House, by the Second Reading of this Bill, has decided that it ought not to continue to be the basis on which compensation is to be paid, and the question which arises is not whether our proposals are within the Kennedy judgment, but whether they are right. We have put down definitely the basis upon which compensation is to be given, and we have also put down the basis of the monopoly value which is to be exacted both for new licences before the reduction period of fourteen years has expired and for all licences to which monopoly value attaches afterwards. You must take, as intended by the Act of 1904, the difference in value of the premises as licensed premises, and of the premises without a licence. That excludes altogether the brewer's profits. Let me give an illustration of how the Kennedy judgment would work out. A brewer might own one "tied" house, from which he derived considerable profit, but it was so situated as to be worth a considerable amount for other purposes; and he might have, another house from which he obtained a small profit, but so situated that it would be of little use for other purposes, and yet in the latter case, he would obtain under the Kennedy judgment, more compensation than he would on the former.
MR. CAVE: So he would under this Hill.
SIR S. EVANS: No, I think not. Let me take a case from Chester, that of the "Freemason's Arms," which was argued before Air. Justice Bray. It was an ante-1869 beer-house, and the brewer supplied 100 barrels of beer a year. During three years the number of barrels of beer supplied was sixty, but nevertheless upon that a considerable profit was made by the brewer qua brewer. The profit was said to be about 14s. 6d. or 15s. a barrel, and Mr. Justice Bray said 14s. 6d. was nearer the mark but he would take 15s. to make it less complicated, and in that case it was held that the brewer was entitled to £1,250,

1091
The Schedule A valuation is intended to mark the difference between the value of the premises with and without the licence, and that is not the case in any valuation that now exists. That ought to be found before you can comply with the law, and, therefore, I submit to the House that the proposals of the Government are perfectly right and equitable. First of all you take the value of the premises with the licence and without the licence, and the difference between the two represents the monopoly value of the licence. The proceedings before the Inland Revenue Commissioners, as to which the hon. and learned Member asked me, are precisely the same under this Bill as under the Act of 1904, save that under the Act of 1904 there is an appeal. The proceedings would also be exactly the same for estate duty purposes. There is no difference in the proceedings which lead up to the valuation under this Bill and those under the Act of 1904. Under the Act of 1904 there is an appeal, but that, so far as mere ascertainment of value is concerned, has been very rarely, if at all, made. Where there have been appeals they have been made, not on a question of fact, but on a question of principle. Is it necessary or advisable that there should be an appeal on the mere question of valuation? The proceedings before the Inland Revenue Commissioners are very like those in regard to arbitration, where when the two parties concerned fix on an arbitrator there is no appeal on a question of fact.
MR. CAVE: The arbitrator is bound to hear evidence.
SIR S. EVANS: I have dealt with that point and I have said that in that matter it is exactly the same as under the Act of 1904. What is the position? The Inland Revenue Commissioners have no duty to perform except to do what they think is right as between the parties. They have the evidence and material before them, and when they have found the difference between the value of the house with the licence and without the licence that is the value of the monopoly.
MR. YOUNGER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Scotland there is an appeal to the Court of Session from the assessment imposed by the Inland Revenue authorities, and it is thought desirable that there should be?
SIR S. EVANS: There is an appeal under Schedule A here, but I am not addressing my argument to that subject. I am addressing it to the figures to be ascertained. The hon. and learned Member said that the actual licence-holder will be better off under the Bill than under the Act of 1904. So he will be and so he ought to be. His exact position under the Act of 1904 depends entirely on the agreement he has with the brewer as to what compensation he receives, but we propose to give him not merely what is due to him as a tenant from year to year, but compensation for loss of profit, and we also provide compensation to the manager, who got nothing under the Act of 1904, if he is not the tenant.
MR. BERTRAMdesired to say a few words as to the question of assessment which had been imported into the discussion, and with regard to the question of what amount of goodwill should be considered for compensation. The hon. Member for Appleby had spoken with some disgust of the amount of compensation which had under the Act of 1904 and the Kennedy judgment, been awarded to licensed houses whose licences had been extinguished. He spoke of the compensation as being equivalent to forty-one times the value of the annual assessment of those establishments. That might be so, but it was also the amount upon which estate duty had been paid to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. Compensation had hitherto been given not only for local goodwill, but also for personal goodwill. Compensation was given for both because both were taken away. Under this Bill it was not only that the local goodwill was taken away by the closing of the house, but also the personal goodwill, because it was not intended that the tenant of that house should pursue his calling anywhere else. It was, therefore, only

1093
right that the man should be paid compensation for both local and personal goodwill. On the question of assessment, the Prime Minister had spoken, he thought, exceedingly unfairly, for he had imported a certain amount of animus into the discussion by speaking as if the under-assessment of brewery property for income-tax under Schedule A was an evasion not only of local but of national obligations; but the right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that so far as they diminished the amount paid under Schedule A, they increased the contribution under Schedule D. When they came to the question of assessment to local rates it had been suggested over and over again on those benches that inasmuch as the annual value of premises was augmented by reason of the fact that the business of a publican was carried on there, therefore the assessment should be raised above the value of similar premises not so profitably used for the purposes of local taxation. He dissented from that view. The obligation of a certain quantity of bricks and mortar to contribute to local taxes was measured by the demands which those bricks and mortar made upon the public services paid for out of the local rates. The amount of money made in business by the man who lived inside the walls formed by the bricks and mortar had nothing whatever to do with the rates. They would find, if they took other businesses, that if it was a question of compensation both of local and personal goodwill, forty-one times the assessment was by no means an extravagant amount to award. He took the figures of the hon. Member for Appleby, who said that forty-one times the assessment was wholly in excess of what ought to be awarded. He would apply this measure to his own case. He was not a brewer; he was a solicitor. He occupied premises which were assessed at something like £230 a year. He lived inside those premises in the exercise of his profession. He was not now giving accurate figures, but suppose that he made £1,000 a year, and that the authorities not only closed his premises, but said that he would not be allowed to carry on business anywhere else—which was what the publican would be told according to the Bill—if they
1094
give him forty-one times the assessment of the premises, the award would be rather above eight years purchase. That was not an excessive amount to give to anyone deprived of a business on which he relied for the livelihood of himself and dependents. He should certainly support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kingston.
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERsaid he was rather gratified to hear the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite in regard to assessment as the basis of compensation. They had heard a great deal about under-assessment of public-houses being one of the reasons for treating them differently from the way in which they would treat any ordinary property. In reference to assessments, at any rate in the north, it was generally known that the basis of assessment was 10 per cent. of the takings of the public-house; that was to say, the takings of the public-house were carefully examined, and the assessment for local taxation was based on 10 per cent. of those takings. The five years takings included beer, spirits, soda water cigars, and all the other various articles sold in the house. Therefore, when they heard statements as to the underassessment of public-houses, he thought there should be some recognition of the fact that the assessments, at all events in the north, were taken on that basis. He founded his statement on a decision of the Lancashire Quarter Sessions. It so happened that he had not the case with him, but it was reported in the Manchester Guardian. In that case Quarter Sessions decided that the basis of assessment of public-houses was five years takings. As to the clause they were now discussing, he regarded it as the most serious one in the Bill for the brewer. He could not understand how the Government could uphold it as a just principle upon which to base compensation in respect of those houses which lost their licences during the fourteen years. How did the Solicitor-General differentiate between the houses which lasted out the fourteen years and those whose licences were extinguished? On

1095
the Second Reading and early in these discussions the statement—prompted he thought by the dictator of the Government, the right hon. Member for Spen Valley—was repeated over and over again, that it was a most generous proposal to give the tenants fourteen years profits, which were equal to ten years purchase of the goodwill. That had reference to houses which remained during the whole fourteen years, and in respect of these the Bill gave full profits not only according to the Kennedy judgment, but over and above the Kennedy judgment. It gave them full profits, not only on the sale of beer and spirits, but on the sale of soda water, tobacco and other articles. It also gave to the manager, the servants, the carpenters, the cleaners, the plumbers and everybody connected with the house full employment during those fourteen years, which, as had been stated, was equivalent to ten years purchase of the profits during that period. If that was right, and it was stated to be correct in regard to the period of fourteen years, then how were they to look at the position of those houses the licences of which were extinguished in the course of the fourteen years? Were they to receive the same terms as those which lasted the fourteen years? The answer was: "Decidedly not." Those which lasted the fourteen years were to have the full profits of every sort and kind, but to those whose licences were extinguished within that period nothing whatever was to be given except the wretched difference under Schedule A, which, as had been amply proved by figures given to the House, was a very small sum indeed, and nothing in comparison with the ten years purchase of goodwill. They had, the other day, in answer to a Question, some figures given as regarded the compensation paid since 1st August, 1906. It was stated that in the case of 742 houses the compensation paid amounted to £671,795. In a further Answer given to the Question, it was added that under Schedule A the difference between the value of the houses with the licence and the value without the licence was £14,561, which was the basis on which compensation was now to be calculated. Hon.
1096
Gentlemen opposite had admitted that ten years purchase was a fair price to pay. But next year, if this Bill became law, all these houses would be taken as if compensation was to be paid on the basis under this Bill; that was to say, instead of receiving, as they had received since August, 1906, the sum of £671,000, the holders of those houses would only receive £145,000. The right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary shook his head. But it was quite clear that under Schedule A, according to the Answer given by the Secretary to the Treasury, they would only receive £145,000, or about one-fifth of the £671,000 which they had actually received since August, 1906. In addition to that enormous loss which those houses would have sustained had the provisions of this Bill been applied to them, there was the fact that the houses which remained during the whole of the fourteen years would receive full profits, including the whole of the brewer's profits, based upon Schedule A, but those houses which lost their licence in the fourteen years would receive compensation based on the difference between Schedule A when the house was occupied with a licence and Schedule A when it was occupied without a licence. Of course, there was this addition, that the licence-holder was to receive a certain amount for loss of business, but it was a very small addition. That compensation was qualified by one very curious provision in subsection (a) of Clause 11, which stated that the amount awarded as compensation, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, might be retained by the licence-holder. That appeared to be a very illegal clause, because the licence-holder as a rule was a debtor to the brewer, who he supposed could not enforce his debt. It was a new principle. It was certainly in accordance with the principle of this Bill. It was a curious thing that the brewer was the only person who was said to be doing an improper thing when he had a tied house, and in consequence of his having tied houses he was treated as a pariah and outside the pale of ordinary regulations. The tied house was one of the incidents of the trade of to-day. The Home and Colonial Stores, dairy companies, and

1097
millers, all had their tied houses, and were all paid in exactly the same way as the brewer, and there was no bigger instance of a tied house than the banker. But if a banker had his tied house and had his business interfered with for any purpose of legislation, on what basis was the compensation paid? The brewer, the publican, the miller, the grocer, and the co-operative stores were not content, when compensation had to be paid them for removal or disturbance of their premises, to be paid on the basis of what the books showed as the profits of the respective houses which were tied to them. They had to be paid on the profits which they could show not only on the house that was tied, but on the basis of the amount at which the goods were charged, because in all these cases, so far as his experience went, the goods were always charged at a pretty full rate to tied houses, and compensation was charged on the profits made by the wholesale house in reference to its sales to the tied house. But here they were putting the brewer in a different category from other tied houses. The man, under Clause 10, who lost his licence during the fourteen years received nothing in comparison with the others with whom the Bill dealt. If they were going to deal with the two classes let them deal with them on the same basis. The difference between the value of the premises licensed and unlicensed was very frequently little or nothing—£5 or £10—and on that basis they were going to buy the man out and cancel the enormous obligations which he had incurred. One reason given for taking this basis of compensation was that the money would not go round if they had it on any proper legal principle, and therefore the Under-Secretary had to tell them that he had to damage the property. He was like the boy who had a penny and wanted to buy a two penny tart. He stuck his finger through it and asked: "How much for your damaged tart?" That was the principle on which the Bill proceeded. They had not the money to go round and pay the proper compensation due to those who were to be extinguished under Clause 10, and so they paid on a basis which was absolutely illegal in principle and had no honesty about it. They considered that by this means they
1098
could reduce licences in consonance with the wishes of their supporters. When they came further to this three years term they found it was entirely rule of thumb. The right hon. Gentleman gave seven years, but he would not admit that he had given it rightly. It seemed to be a sort of gift that he was taking back into his pocket. He had no basis on which he fixed these three years, but he split the difference. Three years was very nearly a half of seven years, so they fixed three years. In no particular was the clause founded on principles of justice and he hoped it would be thrown out.
MR. LUPTONwas sorry he could not agree with the hon. Member, though by an entirely different mode of reasoning he had arrived at somewhat similar practical results. Hon. Gentlemen opposite regarded compensation as a matter of right. He had always looked at it from the point of view of the outsider who had not a licence but wished he had, who had no position of advantage and no monopoly. Why should these people who had had a monopoly for so long grumble when at last it was taken from them, and they were reduced to the same level as the outsiders who never had a monopoly? If it were a question of paying compensation to the owners of suppressed licences out of taxation, he should furiously oppose, but under the 1904 Act they were compensated by themselves, and not by the public. When it was a question of compensation out of the trade why on earth should not they have as much compensation as ever they liked to pay for? If there was not enough to go round let them raise the levy. They took the point of view of their legal right. Of course, the legal right was qualified. He had always taken, the view that de facto they had no right. Why were they bringing in this Bill? It was because the licence-holders had conducted war against society, and society therefore had a right to war against the trade. They might have had a right if they had conducted their business as if they held a solemn trust to be used in a way that would benefit the community. But they had held it in a way which benefited them solves and not the community.

1099
They had broken their trust and must not plead that they were entitled to this compensation as an inalienable right. If they came into Court they must come with clean hands. The question amounted to this. The whole business of the world was conducted by practical business men in a spirit of compromise. In every question of a bargain one man held one view and the other man another. It was no good one man trying to enforce his view. He must come to an agreement with the other man. It seemed to him that the people with licences had it strongly in their minds that this clause would do them a good deal of harm, and would take away their trade without compensation. Supposing a man had invested £1,000 in a licensed house and that licence was taken away from him under this Bill and he suffered a loss of £300. Nothing would make that man satisfied, and both he and his friends would go away saying that he had been robbed. Of course he would not have been robbed, but he would say that he had been robbed, and he hoped the Government would, in order to avoid such injustice, decide to give the market value. He did not care what market value was, but they ought to have it in the Bill, and then that would be a complete answer to anybody who said they were going to be robbed by this measure. The compensation was going to come out of the trade, and why should they quarrel about it? He had listened to the Solicitor-General with an intense desire to follow his arguments, and he had tried to understand why the seven years was not to be added when it was a question of calculating the compensation due under Schedule A. He was not satisfied that the difference in the Schedule A valuation was the correct measure of compensation due. When a man had taken a house with a licence and arranged to pay the rent, then he was in a position to start business, and he would probably go on, and in the course of time make a profit. Under this clause if they took away that man's licence they would not only take away the difference between the two valuations under Schedule A, but they would also take away that man's living.
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: And he would receive special compensation for that.
MR. LUPTONsaid he would be only too delighted to listen to any explanation which the right hon. Gentleman could give to the House in order to show where such provision was made. The man who had bought the house was going to lose something and it might be a case where he did not manage the licensed premises himself. He did not think the difference between the two Schedule A valuations represented the legitimate loss. He failed to see that the compensation proposed was sufficient, because they ought to take into consideration the business which a man brought to the premises which he had rented. He hoped the Government would see their way to substitute seven years for three years, and he thought in listening to the Solicitor-General that he was preparing the way forth at alteration, because he said they were giving this bonus of three years although he had no principle to give it upon. If they would only give seven years they would have a clear principle to work upon. This was a very trifling matter as regarded the cost and it would not cost the Government anything. It would be an immense advantage to hon. Members to be able to prove to the country that this was not a confiscatory Bill. He was certain that it was not himself, but the difficulty was to persuade the country.
MR. BARNARDsaid this clause appeared to him to be quite the most serious in the whole Bill, and the illustration which the hon. Member had just given happily described the situation in which a great many people would be placed. The hon. Member had mentioned the case in which a man would lose £300, and would then declare that he had been robbed. There would be no doubt that that man had that money a little time ago, but he would not have it when this clause was put into operation. The hon. Member for York, in a closely reasoned speech, had dealt with the reduction period and he thought that that speech was entitled to a more detailed reply than it had

1101
received from the representatives of the Government. The hon. Member for York had pointed out that the thirteen years had now been whittled down, and the seven years promised had been put into the form of three years, for no particular reason. The Solicitor-General called it a bonus, but that was the first time he had heard that word applied to this measure. The hon. Member for Lincoln last night said that there would be local option, as well as the justices' discretion over the last seven years during which the compensation levy would not be charged, and the money which they thought was a bonus would really have to go in paying the insurance to meet those two risks. The Solicitor-General whittled down his seven years to three years, and then the hon. Member for Lincoln said that that money would be needed to ensure them against the possibility of local option and magisterial discretion. The real point was that people were in possession of something which was going to be taken away from them, and they had to consider what they were going to receive in lieu thereof. He would like the Government to tell the House deliberately whether they intended to give the market value or not? He would like to know whether the Solicitor-General contended that Schedule A valuation represented market value. It would be illuminating to the House if the Government would state and argue that proposition. This particular scheme would hit the licensed trade in other directions beyond the mere question of compensation. He did not want to state the case too high, but they all knew very well that if suppressed licences were to be bought out on this basis, obviously it would be in the owners' interest, if in no one else's interest, to have placed upon the Schedule A assessment as high a valuation as possible. Of course, owners of the houses that did not expect to be suppressed and did not desire to speculate upon that probability would not place themselves upon such a high assessment under Schedule A. They had not been told whether in the scheme of reduction which the justices had to prepare the magistrates would have access to the valuation books. Would the justices have to contemplate the scheme of reduction simply judicially,
1102
or would they have regard to the valuation placed upon the premises, whether high or low, by other people? Whichever way they acted complications and inconvenience would naturally arise unless a public department stepped in to hold a fair balance as to the basis of valuation amongst the parties concerned. The scheme would hit the licensed trade very hardly in another way. It was obvious that the local rates ought to be carefully considered. He ventured the other night across the floor of the House to ask the Prime Minister whether this matter of the valuation would not affect the local rates, and he replied that in his opinion it would not. Since then he had taken an opportunity of looking into the matter, and he found that Assessment Committees had the power of access to the Schedule A valuation, and it was obvious enough when they found themselves assessed on that valuation upon the higher basis they would naturally take advantage of that intelligence and raise the local assessment. But that was not all. They were going a step further. The licence duty had to be paid, and that would be calculated upon the stardard of value. Therefore the licence duty would also rise. Then there was the compensation levy which was collected and assessed in the same way. The result would be that a higher local assessment—he was not saying that it ought not to be higher—a higher assessment of the licence duty, and a higher compensation levy during the fourteen years would all fall upon the publican. He had found it very difficult to get the information which was necessary to discuss this question of Schedule A valuation. It had been stated that the time-limit was taken in a haphazard fashion and that there was no statistical data upon which it was based. He had the answer to the question on this point which he put to the Prime Minister. He had tried to find out himself what would be the effect of this Schedule A valuation, and in answer to repeated questions the Department had stated that they had not got the necessary information which would enable them to answer his question. He admitted that he did get one set of answers in the case of two public houses which were suppressed in the county in which he lived, and where he was himself

1103
a member of the compensation authority. The houses were in Hertfordshire and were suppressed under the 1904 Act. He would quote the figures showing the decision of the Inland Revenue Commissioners in regard to these houses, the figures under the Kennedy judgment, and the figures under Schedule A. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in March last—
"If he will state the compensation which the 'Sawyer's Arms' at Hertford and the 'Queen' at Codicote would receive, respectively, under the 1904 Act if fixed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, if fixed on the basis of Lord Justice Kennedy's judgment, and what they would receive, respectively, in each of the fourteen years under the proposal of the present Licensing Bill."
And the reply he received was as follows—
"Although the trade done did not amount to a barrel of beer a week in either case, the compensation actually rewarded on the basis of Lord Justice Kennedy's judgment was £451 for the 'Sawyer's Arms,' and £362 for the 'Queen.' The first awards by the Inland Revenue Department on the basis adopted before the Kennedy judgment were £105 and £175, respectively. If these beer-houses were closed under the Licensing Bill provisions, compensation would be based on new valuations of the premises, licensed and unlicensed, and these valuations I am unable to give."
He thought he had better go to another Government Department and at a subsequent date he got this information—
"Prior to the abolition of the licence, the Schedule A assessment was £18 in the case of the 'Sawyer's Arms,' and £12 in the case of the 'Queen.' The effect of abolishing the licence was to leave the assessment unaffected in the case of the 'Sawyer's Arms,' and to increase it from £12 to £19 in the case of the 'Queen.'"
It was obvious that under Schedule A these houses would have received nothing at all, except, on the off-chance, a few pounds for the fixtures, whereas under the Kennedy judgment they received the amounts stated. The Solicitor-General had argued about some houses in the north of England; he said that if a brewer happened to own two houses near one another, it would be altogether monstrous, if one house was closed, that he should receive compensation for the loss which apparently on paper he had sustained, because the probability was that the trade would have filtered to the brewer's other house. That might be a perfectly good argument under the Act of 1904, but it could not be used under the present Bill. Under the 1904 Act,
1104
he admitted, the brewer would get the trade, but nothing of the sort could occur under the circumstances which would be created by this Bill. They were told the other evening by the right hon. Gentleman representing the Home Office that about 1600 licensed houses had been suppressed in recent years. That number included those extinguished under the Act of 1904, plus those which from other causes had been got rid of. He understood that under the present Bill it was intended to get rid of 2,500 per year. If the Government kept to the principle of getting rid of 2,500 houses, and also of levying, not according to the schedule, but in an unlimited way, why should it matter to them in any shape or form if the parties themselves preferred to pay on a principle which they understood and desired? He could not see why the Government should be contentious in regard to that. This was in no sense whatever an attack on the principle of the Bill. The Government said that they did not know exactly what the levy would be, but that did not matter. If the levy was unlimited and if they knew that they were required to get rid of a certain number of houses, why did they not show that they absolutely believed in this method of making the levy by leaving the parties themselves to compensate themselves? He put that point seriously to the Government. If they accepted the suggestion, he believed it would go a long way towards assisting many people who were very much inconvenienced as the present moment. He did not agree with the hon. and learned Member for Kingston that concessions had not been given to the tenants. On the contrary, he considered that great concessions had been given to the tenants since the Bill was brought in, but he did not think that the concessions had gone quite far enough. The Government and their supporters said that they disliked the tied house system, and anything which was likely to lead to a system of tied clubs. He had given notice of an Amendment dealing with a class of people who were not in tied houses, namely, those who brewed their own beer. He did not believe that 1 per cent. of licence holders brewed their own beer, and sold it in premises adjacent to the place

1105
where it was brewed, but they were a class whose interests ought to be protected. He asked the Government whether they intended to do anything in respect of that little class. Their position was unique. If their houses were shut up under the scheme of the Bill, they would not be able so carry on business in any form. They were not like the big brewers, inasmuch as they could not turn to somewhere else to sell their beer. If the Government did not believe in the system of tied houses, here was a good opportunity of encouraging free tenants who existed at the present time. He did not know that any lawyer or statesman would be able to devise a measure which would effectively do away with the tied house system. In the present form he opposed the clause, and he would be extremely grateful to the Government if they could see their way to alter the basis of compensation so that the people who paid would be left to decide how they were to collect and distribute the compensation fund.
MR. J. M. HENDERSONsaid he wished to revert to the question of what was meant by the phrase "market value." He had no objection whatever to the market value being paid for licences, but the difficulty arose when they proceeded to find out what the market value was. He had no objection to the Kennedy judgment in so far as the learned Judge decided that the market value was to be paid. He joined issue with the learned Judge in the method he adopted of finding the market value. The learned Judge said that the probable purchaser would be a brewer. That might be so, but a brewer would not buy if the public-house was not making money qua public-house. If they imagined that a brewer would give ten years purchase of the profits he might make by supplying a public-house, that seemed to him, as a business man, a great absurdity. Take the profits at £100 a year, was there any business man in the City of London who would give £1,000 for the purpose of earning £100 a year? He had never heard of such a man. A man no doubt would invest £1,000 at 5 per cent., but then he would not
1106
have to make the £50 interest himself. The Kennedy judgment in this respect failed to find the market value. In a previous debate he mentioned a case which came under his notice where £1,000 was paid for a business which was losing money every day. In another case a firm of brewers leased a public-house in Poplar. They offered to pay the landlord £200 to cancel the lease. The landlord declined. The house was put up for sale, and not a single bid was obtained. Last year under the Kennedy judgment the compensation paid for that house was £1,700. He was not a teetotaller, but he professed to be a business man. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were alarming themselves a very great deal about this matter, but he firmly believed, from the inquiries he had made and from figures he had seen, that ninety out of every 100 of the suppressed houses during the last two years had been failures, and as public-houses insolvent. He believed that the great bulk of the Kennedy judgment money paid by the brewers themselves to the trade had been paid for practically nothing. He had seen and communicated with clerks to licensing justices and asked why this and that house had been suppressed, and the reply was that it had been done because they were redundant. If they were redundant, they were not paying. [An HON MEMBER: No.] He quite agreed with the hon. Member that that did not necessarily follow. But if they asked any licensing justice why he had selected this or that house to be suppressed the answer in 99 cases out of 100 would be that he had not selected it; that there had been ever so many volunteers asking to be suppressed—not ostensibly asking, but practically offering. The valuers of public-houses and the brewers were laughing at the whole thing, because they knew that they could not sell the houses. To return to the Kennedy judgment, they were supposed to find out the market value of the house to be suppressed. He had given two cases, each of which was offered for sale in the open market. The owner went to brewer after brewer and offered the house for sale. Not only that, publicans came and inspected the figures and in

1107
both cases they would not touch either. Then both were put up for auction—and was there any known way of more effectively testing the market value—and there was no bid.
MR. YOUNGER: In what year was that?
MR. J. M. HENDERSON: In the year 1906, before this Bill was ever mentioned or thought of. The Kennedy judgment was given in 1906, and then these compensations were given. But why did he believe that the bulk of the houses to be suppressed would not be able to show under Schedule D a sensible profit? It was because the brewers had helped to kill the public-houses. What did the brewers do twelve years ago? Some of them got tied houses, but some not. Those who did not get tied houses, and some of those who did, were not content with doing a wholesale trade, but entered into the retail trade. He could remember the time when the lowest quantity of beer that a man could get from a good brewery was a nine gallon cask. Then it dropped to a 4½ gallon cask; but now it was a gallon jar. He knew of a firm of potters in the neighbourhood of London who sold 500,000 of these gallon jars to brewery firms. One bought 40,000, another 40,000, another 30,000, another 20,000, and so on. These gallon jars, which were equal to six bottles, were sent out by the brewers all over the place, and delivered at houses of customers of their own tied houses. How could the poor publicans live against that competition? Not only that; three years ago the six bottles dropped down to four bottles, and any hon. Member could now write to a first class brewer and get a case of four bottles of beer delivered at his house for 1s. 6d. The Leader of the Opposition asked why they were attacking all on-licences and not off-licences. But if they attacked off-licences the greatest sufferers would be those brewers who did large retail businesses. It had been said that the best way to ascertain the market value was by arbitration. Well, he protested against the idea of arbitration ever
1108
being treated as arriving at true market value. They all knew what happened at arbitrations; they had all been there. How was the market value ascertained by an arbitrator? They had first counsel on the one side and counsel on the other. The counsel for the claimant brought forward a valuer of the highest eminence in his profession who said that the subject of arbitration was worth £1,000; and then the counsel on the other side brought forward an equally eminent valuer who said it was not worth £100, and after the counsel and the solicitors had had their fees—they had always to be satisfied first—in a couple of days they met together and found that £500 was the market value. Now, who would say that such an amount so found was the market value? How were they going to ascertain what was the market value of a house that was about to be suppressed? They could not put the house up to auction because they could not offer it by the necessities of the case, in the open market, just because it was to be suppressed. Some simple form of reaching the value of the house had to be found, and that was by means of the Schedule A for income-tax. Why was Schedule A objected to in dealing with public houses? It was because all sorts of different methods had been adopted by the brewers in dealing with public-houses. A brewer who acquired a public-house might deal with it in four different ways. He might put a manager in, and then he got both the wholesale and the retail profit. But that was a system not very much used in the south, because it was found that the manager did himself too well and ate and drank up the larger part of the retail profits. Another way was to put a tenant into the business with a mortgage and the tenant paid interest on the mortgage. Still another way was to charge the tenant a premium, and lend him the money which he paid off by instalments. In all these three methods the rent was fixed as low as they possibly could. Why? Simply because Schedule A did fix the compensation fund contribution and did fix the rates, and, therefore, the rent was kept as low as possible; and the difference was made up by not allowing the full discount on

1109
the beer which was supplied to the tied tenant.
MR. BARNARD: Who controls Schedule A?
MR. J. M. HENDERSONsaid that Schedule A was controlled by the local assessors in conjunction with the owners of the public-houses. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] Well, he had asked Inland Revenue Surveyors who told him that it was done through the local assessor and the brewer's accountant—and what a brewer's accountant did not know of Schedule A was not worth knowing—and they worked up Schedule A. But there was a fourth way—a straightforward way. The brewer charged to the publican a rent which included everything, and there was no difficulty then about Schedule A, and the publican would be compensated on a true basis. He had never listened to anything more absurd than the talk about the "Coach and Horses." He would take that as an instance of what would happen under Schedule A. Here was a business for which a man gave £10,000—[An HON. MEMBER: "And worth how much"?]—The purchasers would have no difficulty in getting £11,000 for it—and he paid a rent of £120. But nobody knew what was the retail profit on the business of the "Coach and Horses," or what was the wholesale profit.
MR. YOUNGER: That was under Schedule D; you ought to know that.
MR. J. M. HENDERSONsaid that what he wanted to get at was what did the purchaser give the £10,000 for? When he was told that, then he would say whether he had been fairly treated or not. They knew that the business was manifestly making a large profit and the rent of £120 for the "Coach and Horses" was ridiculous. That was a manifest injustice. The Government had been consistent. They gave the compensation on Schedule A and they gave the monopoly value on Schedule A. The basis of payment was the same in both cases. The houses which were to be struck out during the fourteen years reduction period would be the smaller houses, and the remainder would
1110
do a better trade, and no harm would be done. Did anybody imagine that the justices would pick out the big, prosperous houses to be suppressed? Not at all; they would select the rotten houses. He was not a teetotaler or a prohibitionist—he only wanted to see done what was fair and just. What he maintained was that at the end of fourteen years they would get rid of any number of houses which were not paying, and were only preventing the others from paying. If compensation could be paid on a fair and just basis—not an extravagant basis—at the end of the fourteen years period the trade would be in a very much sounder position than it was to-day.
MR. GRETTONsaid he had listened to the experiences of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire with some surprise, but it seemed to him that the whole question before the House was as to the efficacy of the Schedule A as a means of arriving at the real value of a licence which had been taken away. He was not going now to argue about the Kennedy judgment, although he might have a few words to say about it later on. But he had in his hands a schedule of the licences which had been taxed for probate duty between the years 1901 and 1908. These licences were all in the London district, where Schedule A was practically the same for income-tax and rating purposes. He had there the value of certain freehold premises unlicensed, and the value of them licensed. There were twelve of them taxed for probate on a valuation of £255,000.
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: What is the date?
MR. GRETTONsaid that all the twelve licences dated from 1901 to 1908. These figures had been verified. The estimated assessment under Schedule A of these licences had also been given to him. They were all in the London district. The difference in the value worked out in the period of the time-limit which was given in the Bill, to the amount of only £51,400, or with the full three years added £66,800, or on the annuity basis of the Bill, £59,700—

1111
in round figures, a difference of nearly £200,000. He gave that as an illustration of the revolutionary changes which were proposed by the method of valuation under Schedule A for the purposes of compensation.
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The figures of the hon. Gentleman, like the other figures in many cases quoted on that side of the House, make no allowance whatever for the additional sum given to the tenant for his compensation, which would be in the total a very large sum.
MR. GRETTONasked if the right hon. Gentleman maintained that the tenant's compensation would amount to between three and four times the amount paid under Schedule A, because he must base his contention on some such line as that or he would not upset the figures which had been given. The State had actually taxed these twelve licences on that amount and now the Government came down to the House of Commons and desired the State to stultify itself and offer as compensation for the value of these licences a sum of less than one-third—little more than one-quarter—of the value which the State had already taken to be the value of the licences. It would be found that the valuation under Schedule A was really of no account—or practically of no account—as regarded the taxation which the State derived out of the licensed premises. Brewery companies and others had been accused of robbing the State because Schedule A was too low. Take the case of premises with a fair rental of £40, and earning a profit of £120. In one case those premises were only assessed at £20, and it would be found that the amount which they paid under Schedule A was £1, and under Schedule D £7—a total of £8. If the same premises were assessed at £60, and also earned £120, they would pay under Schedule A £3, and under Schedule D £5. There would be a total of £8 in each case, and it did not matter whether the licensed premises were over-assessed or under-assessed in Schedule A because their assessment for taxation was completed and adjusted under Schedule D. Therefore,
1112
the whole of that argument, which had been introduced for the purpose of creating prejudice, could be dismissed. As he understood the Kennedy judgment the profits were taken per barrel. These were the retail profits although it might happen, and did often happen, that a portion of those profits by the discounts, mortgages, or other arrangements, might go into the coffers of the wholesale house. That was so, but the basis of valuation was retail profits, and he thought he could show that the basis was very low. The cheapest kind of ale sold in London was 33s. per thirty-six gallons, with a 5 per cent. discount. Two gallons were wasted, for which the retailer got an allowance, but he sold thirty-four gallons at 1s. 4d., which brought him in £2 5s. 4d,. leaving him a profit of 14s. 1d. Of course as the value of ale increased the profit increased. Take the 60s. ale at 20 per cent. discount which cost the retailer 48s. for thirty-four gallons. For those thirty-four gallons he obtained £4 8s. Therefore, the gross profit to the retailer on that transaction was £2. Of course the proportion of cheap ale and dear ale varied at different houses, but there were many houses in the London district which sold a large proportion of the 60s. ale. He, therefore thought he had shown very clearly that the 13s. or 14s. profit given in the Kennedy judgment was a very low average to be taken as the basis of gross profit per barrel when the cheapest ale made a profit of 14s. 1d. This basis of Schedule A had a very remarkable history. It had been publicly considered on many occasions, and upon every occasion every competent authority actually and practically condemned it as a method of ascertaining the value of the licences. This question was discussed before the Licensing Commission, and the Majority Report was to the effect that a little consideration of the way in which licensed premises were assessed would show that it was wholly inadmissible. This part of the Report was signed by seventeen Members of the twenty-four who sat on the Commission, including the independent panel consisting of those gentlemen who did not go on the Commission with any declared opinions before they heard any arguments. All the independent party signed

1113
that portion of the Report with the exception of Lord Peel. It was signed by Sir Algernon West, who was one of the independent members, and a past member of the Board of Inland Revenue, and by two gentlemen of pronounce I temperance views, the late Dean Dickinson, and the late Mr. Allan, who was Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne. The only gentlemen who would not sign this part of the Report were Lord Peel, Archbishop Temple, and Sir William Houldsworth, who were members of the Church of England Temperance Society, and Sir Charles Cameron, well known for his strenuous support of extreme temperance views in Scotland. It was also signed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley, and the late Mr. Caine. Seventeen out of twenty-four members of that Commission, after full consideration, condemned the financial proposals which were now embodied in the Government Bill. The Inland Revenue endeavoured to establish the Schedule A as the basis of compensation under the Act of 1904. They issued a Memorandum that was the subject of appeal to the Law Courts, and was the cause of the Kennedy judgment. In the course of that hearing he believed the counsel who argued the case on behalf of the Treasury practically admitted that their case could not be carried any further, and the Solicitor to the Treasury in a very remarkable interruption said that he repudiated all responsibility for that Memorandum, as he had never been consulted. The learned Judge pronounced against the Memorandum and the Court of Appeal approved of the judgment. Every competent and independent authority which had considered this scheme of basing monopoly value and compensation upon Schedule A had practically condemned the proposal which the Government had put in their Bill. The hon. Member for Kidderminster had impressed upon the Government that the amount of the levy should be increased in order that the compensation given under this clause should also be increased. He wondered why the Government would not increase the amount of levy and so satisfy those who were to be compensated during the reduction period. The reason was extremely obvious. The Government were
1114
obliged to write down, at the lowest possible figure, the licence value for which they were going to pay compensation during the reduction period, because if they were to accede to the principle which the hon. Member for Kidderminster had urged upon them they would immediately acknowledge and embody in their own Bill a high value of licences and would stand convicted of a scheme of confiscation and spoliation when they assumed public control at the end of the reduction period. That was the reason the Government could not take the market value. Directly they took market value and put it into this clause they would at once stand convicted before the country of having proposed a scheme of spoliation and robbery.
MR. LEIF JONESsaid that nobody hereafter would be able to say that this question had not been fully discussed. It was a main topic of the debate on the Second Reading, two days had been given to it in the Committee stage, and there had been some hours discussion that day upon Report. Anybody who had listened to the debate would admit that very little new argument had been brought forward, and he could not flatter himself that he had anything very novel to say to the House. But the hon. Member for one of the divisions of Hertfordshire had referred to some statements he (Mr. Leif Jones) had made in Committee, and he had risen to say a few words in reply. His hon. friend had laid down a new theory of rating, if he had understood him aright. It was that the assessment for local rates should be in proportion to the demand made upon the rates by the bricks and mortar—
MR. BERTRAM: I said that in my judgment, so far as I could ascertain, the basis of assessment for rating purposes should be founded on the demand which the particular block of bricks and mortar made on local services and improvements for which the rate was required.
MR. LEIF JONES: That was to say that the assessment should be in proportion to the demand made by the particular block of buildings on the local resources, police and so forth. He did not quarrel with

1115
that, because his argument had always been that licensed premises did make a demand on the local resources, police and so on, out of all proportion to the rates they paid, as owing to the wrong method of assessment they paid a very small contribution to the expenditure they caused. His desire was that the licensed premises in this country should be taxed in proportion to the burden they laid on the local rates. Another reason why the temperance reformers welcomed this provision in the Bill was that the present system was very unequal throughout the country. In London the basis of assessment was very much that of Schedule A, but that was not so throughout the country. One great advantage of this Bill would be that as the result of Schedule A becoming the basis of assessment for compensation that assessment would be resorted to for all purposes, compensation, taxation, and rating. The hon. and learned Member for Kingston had said that to raise the assessment in regard to the liquor trade alone was unfair. Why, asked the hon. Gentleman, was this particular trade picked out? They were not responsible for their assessment. Why was this trade alone picked out for having its assessment raised? He should have thought the answer was plain. What other trades made such demands as were made by the licensed trade on the country? What other trade was so dangerous as to necessitate the Government in self-defence granting a monopoly to it? In the public interest there could not be free trade in licences. The danger of the trade had prevented their having free trade in licences in order to destroy the monopoly, and the result was that the nation were now called upon to give an extravagant value in order to get rid of that monopoly which never ought to have been allowed to pass into private hands. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition himself had said that if they were starting de novo the monopoly created by public action in that trade would never be allowed to grow up. It had been asked, why should there be no compensation at the end of the reduction period. But why should there be? The compensation was not payment for a public improvement, and it was not so regarded by the authors of the Act of 1904. Their whole
1116
argument was that it was a State insurance scheme; and the premiums were paid by the trade. It was, he believed, an insurance scheme which the trade could have carried out for themselves if the Government had not instituted it. The right hon. Gentleman opposite thought it necessary to yield to the brewers and licensees who came to him.
MR. YOUNGER: And the magistrates.
MR. LEIF JONES: And perhaps some magistrates, although it was on record that the right hon. Gentleman refused to receive the magistrates of Manchester, who were a reforming bench, when they asked for an interview with him. It was a mutual insurance scheme. The trade paid the insurance premiums, and now they would by this Bill receive notice that compensation would come to an end in fourteen years. When it came to an end they could institute another insurance scheme. The hon. Member for Kidderminster had asked why the Government objected to paying a little more compensation seeing that the trade themselves paid it. If it was really the case that the compensation proposed by the Government was insufficient and that the premiums of this compensation were paid by the trade, what was there to prevent the trade from carrying on alongside the scheme of the Act of 1904 a voluntary scheme of their own? He thought fourteen years was a reasonable notice to give to the trade, and at the end of the reduction period there was nothing against which they could not easily insure. His own belief was that the trade would be able to insure against the risks of the action of the magistrates in shutting up houses and imposing conditions and the action of local option for a great deal less than the compensation levy, and that the trade would be in the extra years left in a very favoured position, because then they would have only to insure against these risks and there would be no compensation levy to pay. Some complaint had been made that the seven years that would remain at the end of the reduction period could be commuted for a payment of three years monopoly value He thought that was a misunderstanding. He did

1117
not think that the three years had anything to do with the seven years at the end of the reduction period. The three years, as he understood it, represented a sort of admission on the part of the Government that possibly fourteen years annuity was insufficient, and therefore they proposed to add three years in every case. He did not altogether agree with them in that. In fact he had voted against the seven years, and he was equally against this increased compensation. The optional reduction by the justices, the further reduction by local option, depended on there being money in the compensation fund. The Government had given an effective undertaking, in fact it was in the Bill, that except for compulsory reduction there was to be no increase of the present levy. That being so the more they increased the sum for the reduction of houses during the fourteen years, and the more they paid out for compensation, the less they would have for optional reduction and for further reduction in Wales; and for that reason he personally felt that in giving anything beyond the fourteen years—a limit which he regarded as ample, and which the Government themselves had stated to be sufficient—they were making a concession at the expense of temperance reform which they must watch with the greatest possible care. With regard to Schedule A the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kingston, who made searching criticisms and analyses of the clauses, and who, as they all knew, in his searching questions said about the worst that could be said against the Bill, agreed with them in saying that local goodwill should be included in the Schedule A assessment, and admitted that personal goodwill was excluded from that assessment. The hon. and learned Gentleman had also referred to the possible improvements which might be carried out if the house was used as licensed premises, but which improvements, if the house was closed, would be useless for any other purpose. The hon. and learned Member suggested that these improvements might be included in the Schedule A assessment. He was bound to say that he thought there was certain force in that argument. It seemed to him that occasionally such improvements might
1118
find their way into the Schedule A assessment, and he did not really see any answer to that. It did not seem to him that it would be a frequent case or that it would be a very large element in it. In such a case there was in the Bill full compensation for the loss of fixtures which were useless for any other purposes than those of a licensed house.
MR. CAVEsaid he had referred to the buildings, and his point was that the occupier would not only have to pay for his improvements of the buildings under the assessment, but he would have to pay for them again under the monopoly value.
MR. LEIF JONESsaid it seemed to him that the assessment might be made applicable to fixtures—[An HON. MEMBER: Buildings.]—well, fixtures might be part of the building, But after all, that was a risk which practically every tenant of a house ran if he made alterations of which the landlord might afterwards deprive him. The hon. and learned Gentleman, he thought, had put his finger upon a difficulty, though he did not think that any method would be absolutely perfect. The method chosen by the Government had fewer difficulties about it than any other method which had been proposed, and certainly far less than the Kennedy judgment, which had been canvassed so much during these debates. He did not think it was in dispute any longer that the Kennedy judgment gave far more compensation than was intended by the authors of the Act of 1904. They might dispute it if they chose, but hon. Members had only to look at the speeches which were made to see that he was correct in what he said. The Home Secretary of the late Government said that compensation was given for an on-licence not on loss of business profits, but on the fact that the extinction of the licence prevented the house from being used for the purposes to which it was adapted.
SIR E. CARSONsaid that if the hon. Member read the succeeding passages he would find that the right hon. Gentleman also said that the market value would have to be an element.
MR. LEIF JONESsaid he would come to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University, because he was perhaps more precise and clear in his language. The late Solicitor-General said—
"What was estimated was the depreciation of property, and that was the whole basis and foundation of the Bill. It was said that the bulk of the compensation would go to the owners, who in many cases were brewers. He totally and absolutely denied it."
The right hon. Gentleman was capable and learned, but he doubted whether he could explain away those words. He had never done so yet, and they stood as a perfectly clear exposition of the intentions of the Government of that day in regard to the Act of 1904. It had been proved in the course of the debates that more than was just had been paid in compensation under the Kennedy judgment. His hon. friend beside him had given a great number of cases of compensation in respect of houses which were not paying the brewer-owners. The hon. Member for Ayr Burghs winced.
MR. YOUNGER: I never wince.
MR. LEIF JONESsaid the hon. Member was exhibiting appearances which other Members showed when they winced. He had asked the date of those cases.
MR. YOUNGER: And then the hon. Member winced on the other side.
MR. LEIF JONESsaid that in 1906 the Government came into power and this Bill was looming in the distance; and then what became of "The Coach and Horses." which was the mainstay of hon. Members opposite? If the fact of the election of a new Government was to make these houses unsaleable, what became of their argument? Under the Kennedy judgment the brewer-owner received more than the owner who was not a brewer. He contended that this had never been intended. Mr. Justice Kennedy himself, in dealing with the case of a house which was owned by a brewer, said that the rack rent was a fair basis of compensation value. In the case of a free house he took the difference between the value of the house licensed and the house un-
1120
licensed, and said that that was the right way to arrive at a valuation. Their contention was that when they turned to the case of a tied house, the wholesale profits of the brewers were included, and that they could not be included if the owner of the house were not a brewer. He had listened with great interest to the statement made by the hon. Member for Rutland as to brewers' profits. He hoped that they might see the speech in print so that they might be able to follow the extraordinary figures which the hon. Member gave as to the immense profits, retail and wholesale, made by the liquor trade on a barrel of beer. They were most useful figures. It was those wholesale profits to which they referred under the Kennedy judgment, profits which could not enter into a case where the owner was not a brewer. The Government in the basis they had taken had placed all owners of licences on the same footing. He believed their proposal with regard to the new assessment did justice all round, and he congratulated the Government on having chosen a definite and equitable standard of monopoly value.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has been in the painful position of voting against the Government, although it was only by way of protest; but I have always admired the enthusiasm with which the hon. Gentleman supports the predatory portions of this measure. Unless I am greatly deceived, right hon. and hon. and learned friends below him winced considerably when the hon. Member gave his own version, absolutely inconsistent with the version given two hours ago by the learned Solicitor-General, of the transmutation of what the hon. and learned Gentleman humorously called the period of seven years rest into a period of three years compensation. The Solicitor-General gave an argued defence of that, period of rest, but it was wholly contradictory of the defence given almost formally on its behalf by the hon. Gentleman who now enthusiastically supports the clause. The hon. Gentleman, I need hardly say, could not get away from the Act of 1904. He was perpetually referring to it and perpetually dealing with what he conceived

1121
to be the principles of its authors. I have heard him do this before, and I confess it is with a certain feeling of jealousy I notice that every one of his colleagues who took part in the defence of the Bill of 1904 is quoted and I am never quoted. I was, as it happens, Prime Minister at the time, and the author of the Bill and the Minister principally concerned in the Bill, and I think it very hard that when the hon. Gentleman wants to explain what really were the principles that animated the Government, he thinks me beneath his notice, and never condescends to quote from any of the innumerable speeches which I made in explanation and in defence of that measure. Evidently the hon. Member's researches have been carried very far into those long debates, though I do not know whether his patience equalled that of the hon. Member for Lincoln, who told an astonished House at an earlier stage of our proceedings that he had actually sat through all the debates upon that Bill. I never admired the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm in the cause of temperance more strongly, and I feel that if he asks sacrifices of others he is prepared to make sacrifices himself. But however that may be, anybody who reads the debates on the Licensing Bill of 1904 will admit that, whether you can or cannot pick out a phrase from its context in the speeches of any Gentleman on this bench, there can be no doubt in the minds of any impartial student of the question that the. Government of the day based their whole contention upon this particular proposition, that when you take away a man's property you should pay him the market value. There is really no use in quoting from this or that speech. I did not gather that the quotation even apparently carried out the views of the hon. Gentleman, but it is a small matter. That is the broad contention on which we went.
SIR S. EVANS: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman ever used that phrase.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. and learned Gentleman probably knows far better than I do what phraseology I used. I do not in the least pretend to
1122
remember the speeches I made, though I remember the general principles on which the Government of the day acted in carrying them through. But I have not attempted to maintain a verbal consistency between my speeches then and now, and I am sure any gentleman who thinks it worth while wading through all I said then will have an advantage over myself, of which I make him a full present, and I have no doubt his ingenious researches will find out that there are verbal inconsistencies, though what they are no one has yet discovered, since, for reasons I have not been able to discover, the students have rather devoted themselves to the speeches of my hon. friends than to my own. But after all we are not dealing with the Act of 1904 now, although nobody who listened to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down would have supposed that was the case. We are dealing with the Bill of 1908, and I think everybody who has listened to the laboured defences which have been given from the other side of the propriety of dealing on the basis of Schedule A alone, apart from the question of market value—indeed substituting Schedule A for market value—will have come to the conclusion that the Government themselves do not believe in their defences. A far better defence was put forward on their behalf by the hon. Member for Westmorland than they put forward themselves—a more candid, open defence, one which really touched the facts. He said, "Well, after all, if you attempt to base your compensation either on the Kennedy judgment, or on market value, or anything like the Kennedy judgment or market value, you will not have enough money to carry out temperance reform in Wales." Temperance reform in Wales may be a very excellent thing, but if that be the reason why you are going to take Schedule A as the basis of your compensation, let the Government frankly admit that they cannot take enough money out of the pockets of the trade to carry out all the schemes they have in view on the basis of a fair and logical method of compensation, and they have therefore adopted an illogical method. They have cut their coat according to their cloth, not because they did not think the coat

1123
would be becoming, but because they could not get the necessary cloth to make it. That would be, I do not say a statesmanlike, but a quite simple and intelligent argument. Is it not a fact that, as everybody knows, the assessment under Schedule A does not represent in any sense the market value of the property, that the rating may be high in one district and not so high in another? What is the reply to that argument which nobody can deny? It is, Make it equally high in all districts. You do not do that in this Bill. This is not a general rating Bill. It is not even a Bill by which you can raise the rating of the licensed houses under Schedule A. Let us suppose that it is a Bill under which you can raise the rating on licensed houses, or that the Government think they have power through the income-tax collectors or otherwise to raise these ratings to the level which they think appropriate to the case. What a gross and indefensible injustice would thus be committed. Everybody knows that if you are going to use the rating in your Schedule A merely for the purposes of compensation it might be a possible way of doing it. You have only to raise the rating until the compensation based upon it approaches or equals the market value, and you have an equitable system. But does not everybody see that if you are going to try to get equitable compensation in that way you incidentally produce the grossest injustice in other ways? And for this plain and simple reason—that the rating for local purposes is sometimes absolutely dependent upon Schedule A, and is always practically dependent upon it. Therefore, if the Government are going to raise the rating to such a point as would make the system uniform throughout the country and approaching anything that could be described as equitable, they are actually going to require of owners of licensed premises that they should pay more than the share their neighbours pay to all local purposes. I hope the right hon. Gentleman who proposes to reply to my remarks will say whether he thinks that a just arrangement, that the valuation of licensed premises and licensed premises alone, for income-tax purposes
1124
under Schedule A. should be raised in every district above the surrounding level of Schedule A rating. If the right hon. Gentleman does not think so, how could the rating be raised, unless we had a general valuation Bill? I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman would suggest that this Bill is not to come into operation until the Government has first devised and then passed that reform of valuation so long promised, so earnestly desired, and which still delays its coming. Supposing Schedule A is really no indication of the true market value of the premises and the Government are going to base their monopoly value upon it, it seems to me that at the end of their period they may be in danger of finding that in many cases you do not get the full monopoly value. After all, our definition of monopoly value was perfectly plain and simple. It was the difference between the value of the premises licensed and unlicensed. But that is not the definition of the Government. They have so altered it that it is impossible to see whether they are not grossly overcharging, or whether, in the long run, they may not find that a new monopoly value may grow up, because Schedule A is improperly adapted to meet the requirements of the case. The truth is that if you on once take a standard which is intrinsically unfit to carry out the conditions that you intend to put upon it—which is unfit to measure that which you desire to measure, and does not supply a real ground for estimating the value—you are liable to the double danger of doing a gross injustice by charging too much or finding at the period when the monopoly value is to be absorbed by the State that you do not get the whole monopoly value after all. There is no security so long as you do not have a rational system of measuring the worth of the property you are taking away. When the learned Gentleman opposite described the period of rest, did he have in his mind the position of the unfortunate licence-holder during that period of rest? The licence-holder after the fourteen years has elapsed will have, or be liable to have, new conditions put upon him by the magistrates. He will be in a position from which the Act of 1904 relieved him, or intended to relieve him, namely,

1125
the arbitrary action of particular teetotal benches of magistrates, and in addition be will be exposed to the action of the parochial authorities, who may at any moment take away the whole of his property. That is the period of rest promised to the licence-holder by the Government after the fourteen years. I am not surprised to find that the seven years period of rest is valued at three years purchase. I will not say that they have shown a fair estimate of the boon they are giving to the licence-holder. But, at all events, do not let them go about the country and say that they have modified in a generous spirit their original proposal of fourteen years by adding another seven years without payment to the compensation fund. Their own estimate of their own performance will be sufficient answer to their profession. There is one more question upon which I should like some information from the Government. They propose to deal by way of compensation not merely with the holders of licences, but with the managers of licensed houses. I am entirely in favour of the managers being generously dealt with. I should like to know on what principle the Government are acting in this matter. Do they propose to give the market value of any possession which the managers have, or is it something outside the market value of anything the managers may have lost? I understand that the licence-holder is to get less than the market value. Is the manager to be treated in the same way or in a different way? If in a different way, on what principle? We have never been told about that. We have been told indeed that the Government, with a speculative eye directed not so much to the fundamental principles underlying their Bill as to the electoral consequences which they anticipate, are dealing with great generosity towards the managers. That is all excellent. But let us know what the underlying principles are. Observe that when you know what the principles are when the Government are dealing with the managers we shall be able to see whether they are consistent in the manner in which they are dealing with other persons interested. We have always contended that you ought to give a
1126
man market value for what you take from him. Is that the principle? I want to know whether they are dealing with managers on the market value, or on something else with no relation to market value at all. That is not the only question I wish to ask about the managers. The view of the Government is that any manager dispossessed within fourteen years should have a solatium. With that we all sympathise, but I do not quite understand, and perhaps I never shall understand, why a manager should have compensation before fourteen years and not after fourteen years. Why not after fourteen years? Is it temperance in Wales again that stands in the way? I really am very much puzzled by this. There is clearly danger to the managers under local option, which comes in at the end of fourteen years. If the managers have—and I am sure the Government have concluded they have—some equitable right to compensation, why doss that cease after the fourteen years? We are not talking of accumulating assurance and reserve by the trade against possible loss; these managers are not capitalists in any sense of the word, and therefore you cannot ask them to accumulate capital to the end of fourteen years. If that is so, on what grounds of justice should people whom you think ought to have compensation up to fourteen years, be handed over after fourteen years to the arbitrary action of these licensing benches and local authorities? Necessarily I speak in ignorance, because so far the Government have not told us what principle they are acting upon in regard to that. I am quite sure the First Lord of the Admiralty will tell us in a perfectly clear manner exactly the case, and the whole equities upon which the Government are proceeding, and we shall be able to judge whether these equities suddenly cease at the end of fourteen years, or if they do not. One other subject I want to ask about is this. The Tight hon. Gentleman is connected with the greatest spending department of the Government, the production of ships and warlike stores. There must be a large number of estimable public servants in the position of managers in the Government employment, and I should be glad to know whether the principle exists of giving

1127
compensation when work is stopped, at Woolwich, for instance, and, if not, whether it would be a good thing to extend to a class of workmen not less deserving than the managers of licensed premises, the principles which the Government embody in this Bill. I am sure the Government will recognise that I put these questions not with a view of raising meticulous objections. I really want to know what we have not been told exactly—the ethical basis of this compensation. This is the only speech I shall trouble the House with upon Clause 10 of the Bill. The truth is, I do not attach myself anything like the same importance to this clause as I did, for instance, to the clause we discussed yesterday, because, as the money is raised in the way we know from the people you are plundering, it really is not a question more or less of injustice to the class as a whole, but as to the distribution of the injustice among the different members of that class. The Government in the earlier clause on the Bill have chosen to act like sixteenth century buccaneers levying forced contribution on some city in the West Indies. The House is now discussing not the amount of the contribution or the honesty of those who levied it, but the method of apportionment among the unhappy inhabitants. Though that may be of considerable importance, it is not nearly as fundamental as the question whether you should have levied a forced contribution at all. When we have once agreed to the earlier clauses by which this gross act of injustice was perpetrated all the questions raised in Clause 10 are necessarily of a subordinate character. They deal with the question of whether "A" is robbed more than "B," or "B" more than "A," and not with the question of whether the robbery ought ever to have been committed. Though the questions of my hon. and learned friend the Member for Kingston, and some questions I have put are of great interest and importance, and are deserving of a much fuller answer than they have yet received, I have to admit that the problem we are discussing to-night is far less fundamental than the great question we discussed yesterday. It is rather the comparatively insignificant balancing of relative injustices than
1128
the consideration as to whether you are going to pass a just or an unjust Bill in itself. Whatever decision the Government may come to on these points, it cannot mitigate the objection we feel to-the whole scope and purpose of the Bill.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,): I had no intention of intervening in this debate, because my hon and learned friend appeared to me to cover the whole ground in relation to this clause; but as the right hon. Gentleman has addressed certain questions directly to me, I rise at once to give him an answer to the best of my ability. The last question put by the right hon. Gentleman was a very interesting one. As I understand it, he says that under this Bill the Government propose to compel brewers to pay compensation to their servants in a business in which, those servants are engaged in public-houses closed by reason of the licence being taken away. Without challenging our action, the right hon. Gentleman asks, if this method of procedure is right under this Bill, why it is not right that the State as an employer of labour, if it discontinues any work at Woolwich or elsewhere, should pay compensation to its discharged servants.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; I did put that question. I also put another question, which was—Why should you stop at fourteen years?
MR. McKENNA: The question is—If we compel brewers to pay compensation to their managers if they are dispossessed of their work, why do the Government not do the same in the case of State employment? Whether we are right or wrong in proposing to give compensation to these managers, we are only extending the same principle as the right hon. Gentleman himself adopted in the Act of 1904. Under that Act the Leader of the Opposition himself admitted that the holder of the licence was entitled to compensation, and the only difference between our Bill and that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman is not one of principle, but the Government now propose to give managers

1129
a more adequate and reasonable compensation than was proposed in the Act of 1904. Therefore, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman rather to direct his question to himself. If he considered in the case of this particular trade which he was defending in 1904 that these people have suffered through the abolition of the licence and were entitled to receive compensation, why did he not give compensation to discharged State servants when he was Prime Minister? I can only assure him that the present Government are acting upon precisely the same principle as he did in the course they have adopted. It is only when the manager is the licence-holder that he receives compensation, and, as a matter of fact, under the right hon. Gentleman's own Bill at this moment compensation is paid to the manager when the licence is withdrawn; so that, whatever objection the right hon. Gentleman may have, it can only be an objection to the amount of compensation, and not to the principle which we have borrowed from himself. Then he asks—If it is right that managers should get compensation now, why should they not also receive compensation on the expiration of the fourteen years period? The answer on that point is extremely simple. The closing of a certain number of licensed premises under the operation of this Bill will take place by statute. It is compulsory, and it is conceded that, although the right to compensation has never been admitted, in the circumstances it is a case in which compensation might be properly giver. It is regarded that this operation of compulsory closing is to affect a great trade in a summary manner, and that the individuals who suffer may reasonably receive compensation. But we establish no new principle. The moment the trade reverts to the old condition as it was before the Act of 1904—
MR. BARNARD: What about local option and magisterial discretion?
MR. McKENNA: Magisterial discretion existed before 1904, and the only change is the condition of local option. That risk is insurable, and the risk which the licence-holders may
1130
have to ensure themselves against is one which, I am bound to say, in my judgment will not involve a very heavy premium. The point we are considering now is why at the end of fourteen years the State does not compel the brewers to compensate their servants if a licence is taken away from them. We are here not establishing a new principle. We are going back to the position in which the law stood prior to 1904 when the magistrates could take away a licence at their discretion. No compensation was then given or asked for, and we conceived that there was no need for introducing such an alteration into the present Bill. The right hon. Gentleman asked us for a fuller, or at any rate a clearer, explanation why the period of three years was added when the valuation was taken for compensation. The view of the Government in this matter is a very simple one. Following the principle of this Bill we conceive that if a licence is cancelled during the next fourteen years it is a licence which is redundant and ought not to exist. We say that it is properly taken away, and that if nothing but bare justice was done no compensation would be given. The principle of compensation has been admitted, and it is considered that the law will work more smoothly if compensation is paid. The Government had to consider what amount of compensation should be given. The period of reduction is fourteen years, and we conceived that the proper period for ascertaining the factor by which the monopoly value should be determined would be the present value of the remaining number of years. Very well, that was the Bill as originally introduced—perfectly clear and perfectly consistent. Violent opposition was raised to that part of the Bill under which the monopoly value was to be taken at the end of the period of fourteen years. There is obviously no necessary connection between the period when the monopoly value should be taken and the period of the suppression of the licence. In answer to the violent attacks which were made on that part of the Bill, the Prime Minister gave a period of seven years during which no monopoly value would be taken.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: A period of rest.
MR. McKENNA: The right hon. Gentleman will allow me to state the facts exactly as they are. I have never spoken of it as a period of rest; and if it was spoken of as such by my hon. and learned friend, I take it that it was only a period of rest in the respect that no monopoly value would be taken. The great argument against the Bill has been that by taking the monopoly value at the end of fourteen years the Government did not give the trade time to make a compensation fund in order to meet the loss. Well, for that purpose the additional period of seven years was given—a period, I will not say of rest to the trade, inasmuch as it remains subject to the very necessary control of the justices—but a period during which they can make provision for the loss of the monopoly value. The position then was this. If a licence was taken away in the last year of the reduction period, that was to say, in the fourteenth year—and inasmuch as it was only taken away in the fourteenth year, it was on the border line of those licences which should be suppressed by law—the holder of such licence would find himself, in the fourteenth year, deprived of compensation; whereas, if he had only survived the fourteenth year, he would have had a seven years certain run, only subject to the discretion of the magistrates to take away the licence, and to local option. Therefore, in the thirteenth or fourteenth year of the reduction period he would have conceived himself suffering from a great injustice owing to the fact of these seven years being granted as a concession to the trade. The Government felt that the claim of those licence-holders who lost their licences during the ending years of the reduction period would be very strong to have some compensation given in addition to that for the short term of the reduction period still unexpired when their licences were extinguished. Accordingly it was determined that some general addition should be given to the whole of the compensation for all classes of licences, but in such a way that those licence-holders whose licences were extinguished in the last year or two would reap the greatest advantage. The addition of three years to the present value gave a very small
1132
amount of additional compensation to those licence-holders whose licences were extinguished in the earlier years of the reduction period, while those licence-holders whose licences were extinguished in the last years of the reduction period would get almost the whole of the three years. We had been asked. Why three years? Why not two years, or why not four years? The principle on which the period of three years was settled was—I will not say very simple, but it was settled upon an estimate of what could be done with the money available out of the present compensation levy. I remember that the hon. Member for Kidderminster, on the Committee stage of the Bill, was strongly of opinion that the present compensation levy would leave a large balance over at the end of the reduction period after paying all compensation, and for such additional reductions as the justices might make. Although the Government do not agree with the hon. Member's estimate, still, so far as we could make an estimate in this very uncertain matter, we did consider that the funds at the disposal of the Commission will enable them to pay such extra amount of compensation all round without any increase on the existing amount of the compensation levy, and consequently the Government, actuated by those principles, and those principles only, have added three years to the compensation period. The last challenge which the Leader of the Opposition addressed to us was as to how we could reasonably justify Schedule A as the proper valuation for determining the monopoly value. If the right hon. Gentleman will excuse my saying so, he seemed to be somewhat in error as to our system of assessment. There is at the present time, as he knows, an assessment for the Poor Law and an assessment for Schedule A. Except in London, these two assessments are not the same. It would be perfectly possible to increase the assessment for Schedule A without increasing the assessment for the Poor Law, and, therefore, without increasing the assessment for the ordinary rates in the rest of the country except London. In London there is uniformity between the two assessments, and, therefore, the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's

1133
argument, which was directed to show that if you increase the assessment of Schedule A you will increase the assessment for rating purposes, and that the wretched holders of licensed premises will be rated more than their neighbours, has not really any substantial basis.
MR. BARNARD: The assessment committees have the right under the Union Assessment Act of access to Schedule A, and they invariably use it when it suits their purpose.
MR. McKENNA: I can assure the hon. Member that the assessment committees do not use Schedule A, taking the whole of the country through. If you take the assessment under Schedule A all over the country you will find that the total is materially in excess of the total assessment for the Poor Law.
MR. BARNARD: I am chairman of a committee within twenty-five miles of London, and we invariably take the Schedule A assessment.
MR. McKENNA: I have no doubt that my hon. friend endeavours to get the assessment in his area as high as he can.
MR. BARNARD: I endeavour to take it at the proper amount.
MR. McKENNA: It cannot be argued that the assessment for Schedule A is the same, or need be the same, as the assessment for Poor Law. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition went on to say that to increase the assessment under Schedule A would be exceptionally hard on the holders of licensed premises, because even under Schedule A they would have to pay something else besides the compensation levy. Under Schedule A they would be taxed at a larger amount if their assessment were raised. We are agreed on this side that licensed premises have been to a considerable extent under-assessed. The reason has been that in too many cases the assessing authorities have taken the rent as a guide, and in the case of tied licensed premises the rent is not a true guide to the value. Personally, I have not a
1134
doubt that the effect of this Bill, if it becomes law, will be to ensure that licensed premises are assessed at their proper value; that the assessment authorities will look behind the rents paid to the brewers who own the premises, and will look at the true value of the premises, and that Schedule A will form a true guide to the monopoly value. We contend that Schedule A valuation of licensed premises, with a time-limit, corresponds to their market value as a place of retail trade. I can assure the hon. Member for Kidderminster that we believe that Schedule A assessment subject to certain limitations—that is to say, with a time-limit and a measure of the retail trade added—furnishes a just and simple means of determining market value. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that until the Kennedy judgment under the Act of 1904 the principle of this Bill was the identical principle adopted by the Inland Revenue of that day in determining the market value of the licence. We have adopted exactly the same method as was pursued by the Inland Revenue authorities whilst the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was himself Prime Minister.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, no; the right hon. Gentleman must not say that. He implies that the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that time was in some way responsible for the action of the Inland Revenue authorities. He must know quite well that that was not the case.
MR. McKENNA: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me I will complete my sentence. I was saying that while he was himself Prime Minister, had the action been so startlingly unfair and such a gross breach of justice as he suggests, it would have been brought to his notice, and would have constrained him to introduce an amendment to his own Bill. It is perfectly true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day had no responsibility for the administrative action of the Inland Revenue officials, but if it had been so gross an injustice as the right hon. Gentleman says it is, surely a complaint would have been made to him, and he would

1135
have felt it his duty, responsible as he was for the Act of 1904, to have introduced an amending Bill at the first opportunity.
MR. CAVEsaid an appeal was brought in respect of one of the first licensed houses to be assessed. The remedy; was to go to the High Court, and that remedy was adopted by the owners.
MR. McKENNA: It is perfectly true that a case was brought to the High Court, but it was not soon after the passing of the Act; the case was not tried until the middle of 1906.
MR. CAVE: It related to a house assessed in 1905.
MR. McKENNA: These gross injustices affecting the property of individuals, if they are gross injustices, are never borne silently; and if there had been gross injustices, the trade would have represented those injustices to the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day. I never heard in the House of Commons that any question was raised with regard to the monopoly value as measured by the Inland Revenue Commissioners of the day, and I am bound to say that the whole of the present attack on the principle which the Government has adopted is not justified by the experience of what was done in 1904, or by the defence of that measure made from the Treasury bench. It is quite true that in quoting various speeches made in 1904 from the Treasury bench none were quoted as having been made by the right hon. Gentleman himself, for the very good reason that the right hon. Gentleman himself never expressed any opinion on the point one way or the other. Two hon. friends of mine have been good enough to go through his speeches on this part of that Act, and they find that he was judiciously silent upon it. Therefore, if we turn from him to those gentlemen who spoke on his behalf, if he does not repudiate them, we are bound to consider the statements of those gentlemen as the authoritative statements of the Government of the day upon the subject. Guiding ourselves by the principles laid down in the Act of 1904 by our prede-
1136
cessors, and guiding ourselves by the practice of the Inland Revenue Commissioners in their construction of the Act of 1904, we are entitled to say that whatever construction may subsequently have been placed upon the Act by a Judge, the Government in this respect are following the principles in that Act. The fundamental difference is that the authors of the Act of 1904 gave a larger number of years purchase, while we are limiting the compensation to fourteen years purchase. I will conclude by-saying that we do think that in taking away, not what the right hon. Gentleman calls a man's property, but an expectation we are giving them the full market value for what we are taking away.
MR. JAMES HOPEwished to say a word as to an expression used at an early period of the debate by the Solicitor-General. The hon. and learned Gentleman described the seven years which followed the reduction period as a period of rest. He really thought that there could not have been a worse description of that period.
SIR S. EVANS: What I meant by the phrase was a period of rest for brewers from the burden of paying compensation and the burden of paying monopoly value.
MR. JAMES HOPEsaid that a period of rest was not an accurate description; it might be a period of relief. The licence-holders would be subject to the fear of local option and of justices' discretion, and also to the fact that they would have the prospect of an annual fight before the licensing authorities and the great probability of having during two periods of the term to fight the local vetoists. Therefore, to describe it as a period of rest was, he submitted, a most complete misnomer. It would not be a period of rest but a period of nightmare; a period in which the unhappy licence-holder would know for certain that in seven years at the most the guillotine of monoply value would come down upon him, and that in the meantime he would be subject to the risk of being privately assassinated by the licensing justices,

1137
or being taken out by a mob of local vetoists and summarily lynched. He knew that the defenders of the Bill could quote from various authorities exactly what suited them and no more. For example, in the long discussion raised about the Kennedy judgment, the Solicitor-General in defending the Bill, spoke as if the contention of the Inland Revenue Commissioners at the time when this particular case was argued before Mr. Justice Kennedy was perfectly correct, and was unfairly and unjustly brushed aside by Mr. Justice Kennedy in his judgment. What was their contention? It was that while it was true that Schedule A should be adopted as a basis of compensation, there should be twenty-five years purchase allowed. He asked the hon. and learned Gentleman if he would be willing to grant to licence-holders, or if the hon. Member for Westmorland would be willing to grant to licence-holders twenty-five years purchase of the difference between the premises as licensed and unlicensed under Schedule A. It was no use attacking the Kennedy judgment and quoting the basis taken by the Inland Revenue unless they adopted the whole contention of the Inland Revenue, and took the twenty-five years purchase as a basis. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire said that he had no objection to taking the market value. He himself did not contend for a moment that all the procedure started in consequence of the Kennedy judgment was necessarily right. Possibly it might not be a right way of arriving at market value. All he contended for was that the market value should be taken as a basis of compensation, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman offered them (he was not speaking as a representative of the brewing interest) twenty-five years purchase of the difference between licensed and unlicensed value, he would admit that in the great majority of cases that would be a very handsome and large addition to the basis of compensation actually adopted in the Bill. But it would not be so in all cases. There would be some cases in which anything like that basis would entirely break down. The hon. Member for Kidderminster quoted two instances in which the un-
1138
licensed value according to Schedule A was greater than the licensed value. When the discussion on this point was opened in Committee he quoted various other cases to the same effect. They were challenged by the hon. Member for Lincoln, but he reiterated the figures that he then gave, which showed that in certain instances, especially in the Metropolitan area, there were licensed premises in which, owing to improvement in position or site, or the particular position of the premises concerned, the unlicensed value was greater than the licensed value. As he had said the hon. Member for Kidderminster had quoted other instances. What was the result? The result was that in those cases no compensation was to be paid at all, and very curious consequences would follow from that. He knew the hon. Member for Lincoln, who was not then in his place, challenged his figures at that time, and he hoped some hon. friend would repeat to the hon. Member the statement that those figures were not the figures of any odd valuer. The figures were supplied by Messrs. Orgill Marks and Company, but they were not their figures, but agreed figures as to the value of the premises under Schedule A, and what was their value unlicensed—they were agreed figures for compensation under the Act of 1904, before any of these present questions involved in this Bill were raised, and the hon. Member could not say that these were in any sense fancy figures. They proved in several cases in the Metropolitan area that the unlicensed value under Schedule A was larger than the licensed value and that consequently no compensation would be payable under the operation of this Bill at all. Yet when it came to the goodwill and the question of trade and value, these profits would be absolutely and entirely eliminated. He wanted to draw the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman to what he had described as a curious consequence of the wording of this clause. He did not want to speak dogmatically, but at any rate he thought it was a point to which the hon. and learned Gentleman should devote his attention. He questioned whether any licence-holder or manager would get any compensation whatever,

1139
owing to the way in which Section 10 had been drafted. The section ran—
"Where compensation is payable in respect of the extinction of an old on-licence the amount payable shall be determined by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and shall be such sum as will purchase (with interest reckoned at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum) an immediate annuity for the unexpired years of the reduction period equal in amount to the annual value of the licence as ascertained under this section with the addition of such sums (if any) as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue think just to add."
When they got the sum equal in amount to the annual value of the licence they had to look at subsection (2) and there it said—
"The annual value of the licence shall be taken to be the sum by which the actual annual value of the licensed premises, as adopted for the purpose of income-tax under Schedule A at the time when the renewal of the licence is refused, exceeds the amount which the Commissioners of Inland Revenue determine, for the purpose of this section, would be the annual value of the premises for that purpose if the premises were not licensed."
But in these instances the unlicensed value was greater than the licensed value. Therefore no compensation would be paid and if no compensation would be paid what would the meaning of the words "with the addition of such sums (if any) as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue think just to add"? If there were no sums payable for compensation there could be no addition of any sums to the licence-holders, and therefore under these particular conditions it seemed to him that, under the drafting of this section, although he did not say it was the intention of the section, the licence-holder would get nothing at all, although he in many cases, if he were an ordinary tenant or if he were the manager, would not be concerned with the annual value under Schedule A. He would not in any way be concerned with that, and yet he would entirely lose his livelihood.
SIR S. EVANS: I think there are words which are better than the words "with the addition of" because that implies, I think, that there is something to add to. Therefore I have already got an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the words "with the addition of" and to insert the word "and." What the hon. Member says would be met by that change.
MR. JAMES HOPEsaid he was glad that the Solicitor-General had seen that point, because otherwise there would be danger that the licence-holder would get nothing. But he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman must go further and add that where there was any compensation payable the licence-holder must get this amount. Then he thought that there must be a consequential Amendment in the next clause where "additional sums" were spoken of. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman would require some further words at line 22 of Clause 11.
SIR S. EVANSwas understood to say that that point had also been met. At any rate it was not his fault if it had not.
MR. JAMES HOPEsaid he was very glad that he was justified in his criticism on the clause as it stood and that the hon. and learned Gentleman would take care that the actual manager or tenant of the premises did not suffer. But this was one proof out of twenty that the original draft of the Bill left a good deal to be desired. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire had said that under the present circumstances the licence which was reduced was really in respect of premises which were of no value at all, and he suggested quite distinctly that the reason why this was done was that the brewers or owners concerned managed to get a particular house put before the licensing justices in the first instance, and thereby secured compensation for premises which were of no value at all. It was quite easy to out forward exoteric knowledge of the number of wicked things that were done in the world, and especially in the licensing world, but he did not think there was any foundation for this charge at all. At any rate he submitted that the hon. Member ought not to have made such a statement unless he could put forward some grounds upon which it could be vindicated, but the hon. Member did nothing of the kind. His own experience in this matter was limited. He did not profess to be a specially active justice, but he knew the practice of his own bench, which was that the magistrates took a survey of all the licences in their area without exception. They sent two of their number to report

1141
on the licences in each parish. The whole of the licences reported on were brought up to the bench and carefully-considered in the light of that report, and to suppose that any priority was given to any one licence rather than to another, and to suggest that the owners of those licences had any means, or if they had any means would have exercised them, of bringing one particular licence before the justices sooner than another, was, he believed, absolutely false and there was not a particle of evidence to support it. He supposed that what had been the practice of the bench to which he belonged had been the practice of all the benches in the country, and he was sorry that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire should from his place in Parliament have said what he had. The hon. Member ought not to have ma le that insinuation without giving some evidence in support of it. Now let him say a word about the question of assessment. It was suggested that in order to secure more compensation the owners of licensed premises ought voluntarily to promote a rise in their own assessments. On what possible principle could this be argued? The owners of licensed premises apart from the possibility of local option and reduction, would still remain, at any rate to the extent of two-thirds of the existing licences, up to the end of the reduction period. It was a little unfortunate that there was no member of the Government at present in charge of this Bill, so he supposed he must address his remarks to the hon. Member for Westmoreland, as the Treasury Bench was for the moment deserted. Under ordinary circumstances he should move the adjournment of the debate, but he supposed he might take it that for the moment the hon. Member for Westmoreland was in charge of the Bill.
MR. LEIF-JONESsaid his hon. and learned friend the Solicitor-General whispered to him that he had been fetched out, but that he would be back in a moment.
MR. JAMES HOPEsaid that from the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman whispered to the hon. Member he would take it that he left him in charge of the Bill, At the end of the
1142
reduction period the licensed premises existing would be two-thirds of the present number; roughly speaking, one-third would have been extinguished. Now it was suggested that all the licence-holders should voluntarily hiring about an increase of their own assessment, although at the end of the period only one-third of the licencees would have been abolished. That was a preposterous suggestion, because if their assessments were raised, they would pay more for the compensation levy and more for local rates, and they did not know whether they would be affected by these compensation proposals at all. But apart from that it was not fair to put upon any individual the obligation to bring about a change in the assessment which might be made against him. If the assessment was too low, it ought to be put right by the public authority, but no attempt should be made to put the onus of raising it upon the owner.
MR. REMNANTcalled attention to the fact that not a single Member of the Government was present, and that not forty Members were present.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. CALDWELL, Lanarkshire, Mid.)said that at that period of the evening (the dinner hour) under the Standing Orders a count could not be taken.
MR. JAMES HOPEsaid he felt some difficulty in addressing the House when no responsible Member of the Government was present and when the hon. Member for Westmoreland could not reply and had no authority. With regard to the question of assessment, he would come to what was really the fundamental fault of the clause, which had been alluded to by the hon. Member for Sleaford and others in the course of their argument. The fundamental fault of the clause was, that amend it as they would, they could only shift the basis of injustice. They did not relieve the burden under such circumstances. They only shifted it. If it were only a question of compensation without any reference to the further point of to whom the compensation was to be paid, he should then submit that not only Schedule A,

1143
but Schedule D should come into question, but as it was they were met with this difficulty. If they increased the compensation they increased the charge of the levy, and if they increased the charge of the levy they added to the burden on the other licence-holders. In either way there was an injustice. The fundamental defect of the Bill was that this clause was so peculiarly framed that any attempt to amend it would simply shift the injustice from one part to another. The Opposition contended that the compensation was too little and that it ought to be increased. But the only means of increasing it would be by making a higher charge on the levy, which meant that a greater burden would be put upon the other licensees. As had been pointed out, that was justifiable under the Act of 1904, because the extinction of licences then resulted in an enhancement of the value of those that remained. That was not so under this Bill. However much they tried to amend this clause, it could not be made to work justly; and the fact that the clauses of the Bill were so interdependent only emphasised the injustices which were so interwoven that any attempt to amend the clause would only put a further burden on the shoulders of a deserving, respectable, and highly taxed section of the community. They were entitled to emphasise that point and to say that, though no Amendment would make it right, still they had demonstrated the injustice of the Bill. He hoped that nothing would be left of it but waste-paper with which they might light their Christmas fires.
AN HON. MEMBERcalled attention to the fact that there was no member of the Government in the House, and moved the adjournment of the debate.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. CALDWELL, Lanarkshire, Mid.)said that under the Resolution of the House relating to this Bill he could not accept such a Motion.
MR. REEScomplained that the hon. Member for Appleby, who sat behind the hon. and learned Solicitor-General, and was apparently advising the Government, had said, in answer to the hon.
1144
and learned Member for Kingston who had so dissected this Bill—
"We know the worst that can be said of this clause."
The only natural construction that could be put on those words was that the hon Member was speaking for the Government.
MR. LEIF JONESsaid he spoke on behalf of the supporters of the Government.
MR. REESsaid the hon. Member had no right to speak for them or for the majority of the House or for the majority on his own side of the House. He was no doubt entitled to speak for the majority, possibly a large one, of the electors of Appleby, but for no one else except himself. He asserted that the hon. Member by the use of the word "we" did speak for the Government.
MR. FINDLAYon a point of order, asked if the hon. Member was speaking to the Amendment.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid he thought that the hon. Member's personal remarks were going too far.
MR. REESpointed out that he only wished to protest against anyone using the word "we" outside His Majesty's Ministers and the Leader of the Opposition, but he would not pursue the matter. The Leader of the Opposition seemed to have been a little exercised in his mind that under the joint operation of the Bill and the income-tax Schedule A, Wales might get a little more money than he thought she was entitled to. If Wales should get a little more money than she was exactly entitled to, there would be no great harm, seeing how much she gave to the rest of Great Britain and how little she received.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERpointed out that the remarks of the hon. Member had no bearing on the Amendment before the House.
MR. REESregretted that he should have been so unfortunate as twice to be called to order. If it was not in order to discuss the position of Wales under the

1145
section, he had no desire to pursue the matter further. He had presumed that what was in order for the Leader of the Opposition was in order for himself.
MR. YOUNGERsaid that the First Lord of the Admiralty had endeavoured to make the very strong point against the trade that they had calmly suffered an injustice until some period in 1906, when the High Court gave a decision. As a matter of fact, the moment Sir Henry Primrose's memorandum was issued the trade authorities protested against it as being grossly unfair and entirely out of harmony with what they believed to be the principle of Section 4 of the Act, and so impressed were the Inland Revenue authorities with that protest that they arranged with the trade protection society to take an agreed on case to the High Court in order to have the point settled. Surely the right hon. Gentleman must have known perfectly well that the ordinary licence-holder was hardly in a position to go to the High Court. As a matter of fact, it cost over £2,000 to pay the costs of getting the decision by Mr. Justice Kenned v. That was by no means an excessive sum of money to fight a case of that description. It included the costs of both sides. He made that statement on behalf of the trade in order to controvert, at the earliest possible moment, the statement by the First Lord of the Admiralty, which no doubt was made in entire ignorance of what was now stated. So far as the First Lord of the Admiralty's impassioned sentences dealt with this particular part of the question, they were quite uncalled for, unnecessary, and wholly irrelevant. He expressed his regret that Clause 10, as now drafted and settled, appeared to be the last word of the Government on the question. He thought the Government should have done something to modify the harshness of the clause. Apparently they had no intention of doing so. That was surprising, because if the discussions in Committee had done anything at all they had brought home to the supporters of the Government some appreciation of the harsh and ruthless clauses of the Bill. He had a copy of a letter written to The Times soon after the introduction of the Bill, in which the writer, the hon. Member for Sleaford,
1146
said that the argument was used that the. Bill would entirely destroy the property of brewers after fourteen years. The hon. Member proceeded—
"For that reason, I understand, he (the hon. Member for the Walton division of Liverpool) opposes the Bill.…I should have thought that if the effect of the Bill were entirely to destroy the property of the breweries and distilleries, it would be the most beneficent measure that had ever been introduced into Parliament, and would have the support of all good men of all parties."
Let the House compare that with the sentence in the speech delivered by the hon. Gentleman to-day, in which he pleaded for greater generosity, and regretted that by the passage of this clause a sense of injustice would be left behind. He was bound to say that he was surprised and bitterly disappointed that the Government had not done something to modify the ruthless injustice of the Bill, Under the Act of 1904, the market value of the premises was given as compensation, but under the provisions of this clause they were taking away a man's entire business and giving him a mere solatium in return—a derisory compensation. It had been claimed by the Prime Minister and also by the Solicitor-General that the trade had really no reason to complain, because the basis of compensation which had been adopted by the Government was the same as that which had been taken for monopoly value. But to start with, Clause 10 dispossessed a man of his livelihood at the end of fourteen years. They were taking from him everything which he possessed, everything on which he had to live. They were taking his personal goodwill as well as his local goodwill, and all those other accumulations of capital which had been the result of his energy and hard work. Surely while the basis taken by the Government might be perfectly fair in regard to monopoly value—he would not argue that now—it was no argument in the world for using that basis to compensate a man for the loss not only of monopoly value, but of goodwill and everything else. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire had made a speech which was somewhat astonishing. He had talked as if there were no objection to giving the market value, but that he did not know

1147
how it was to be ascertained; and he then discussed the proposition of the Government from the point of view that they were going to give ten and a half years purchase for what they were taking. It was not anything like ten and a half years purchase. Ten and a half years purchase on that particular basis of the valuation in no sense represented the value of the property, profit, or anything else. How the hon. Gentleman could possibly find any foundation for a proposition of that kind was more than he could understand in one of his acuteness and knowledge. That, however, was what the hon. Gentleman had said, and it led him to think that there was still in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite very great confusion indeed as to what was the real effect of Clause 10. There was not, he was afraid, in the minds of the trade the slightest doubt as to the very great burden it placed upon them, nor about the very heavy losses which would be incurred by them. They would have to provide for these losses within a comparatively short period of years, and he feared that the extra period which had been offered to them at the end of that time would not do very much to help them over the stile. "The period of rest," as it was so inaptly described by the hon. and learned Gentleman, was a period without the payment of compensation for loss or withdrawal, and, if he were asked to define a state of purgatory so far as the publican was concerned, he could not find a better one than the position in which he would be placed under the seven years so-called free run for the insurance of the loss of monopoly value which the Government were now going to give him. The hon. Member for Appleby who had gone into the question of rent, no doubt had in his mind the speech made by the hon. Member for Lincoln when this clause was under discussion some time ago, and when the hon. Member for Lincoln brought before the House some very startling figures as to what he considered the deficiency in the valuation of licensed premises under Schedule A for the purpose of income-tax. The Schedule A valuation was an extremely difficult problem. He intended to say something about it when the Prime Minister's new definition of
1148
monopoly value was before the House, and he had in fact said some words about its effect on public-houses in Scotland. He did not recede from anything he then said, but he had been making inquiries since about this particular system of valuation under Schedule A, and he found that there had been a very great change in the valuation of public-houses under Schedule A, in consequence of a recent decision of the Court of Session in a succession duty case. In making the assessment of public-houses there was more and more a tendency to add the personal goodwill to the local goodwill. He supposed that the hon. Member for Appleby would think it unfair to pay compensation on that method, just as it was extremely unfair to take as the local-monopoly value the result of a valuation which included something which was not local but personal to the man carrying on the business. Therefore, the arguments which had been used that day about the policy of adopting Schedule A for this purpose or the other, were arguments which were much more forcible perhaps than those who used them were well aware of. This system had been in operation many years in Scotland, and in the hands of Government assessors. The alterations, upon it had been so great that one of the most prominent assessors in Scotland told him the other day that he did not believe the Schedule A valuation, as used in Scotland, would be at all a fair basis for charging monopoly value to publicans in Scotland or elsewhere. So that the Schedule A valuation presented a far greater difficulty than hon. Members opposite were aware of. They had heard three versions of the Government's proposal of the fixing of a three years annuity for the seven years period. They had the version given by the Solicitor-General, they had the version of the hon. Member for Appleby, and they had the version of the First Lord of the Admiralty. He did not know that any two of them entirely agreed. He thought the most interesting and perhaps the most correct was the version given by the hon. Member for Appleby, who, they were told, spoke for himself and not for anybody else. There was one very important factor connected with, the seven years which had not been

1149
mentioned, and it was this, that at the end of the fourteen years all the licences dealt with would be treated as new licences. A man would not know whether he would get his licence again; he would have to fight for it. At present, the renewal was subjected to none of the conditions which might then be attached to it by the justices; and the man would have to fear local option, which was hanging over him, and also the untrammelled discretion of the magistrates; although hon. Gentlemen opposite had pointed out, as against this, that there would be the compensation levy which had been accumulating during a possible seven years run against the insurance of the loss of monopoly value. From its being an argument in support of the generosity of this extension of seven years in regard to taking the monopoly value, this saving had now become merely an instrument for the insurance of the publican against the risk of losing his licence during the seven years; so that what was compensation now merely became an insurance fee for the chance of carrying on the business after the end of the seven years—the gracious permission and authority of hon. Gentlemen opposite for the shadow of hope of existence. He doubted very much whether it would be possible to insure. He knew that before the Act of 1904, when justices were refusing licences on account of redundancy or for other such reasons, insurance companies which had suffered losses from this risk, in later years absolutely refused to insure against it. He believed it was a fact whatever hon. Gentlemen might say that they absolutely refused to insure that risk. He did not know about Lloyd's, but Lloyd's did not always pay, and he did not think a Lloyd's policy was as a rule regarded as quite as good a security as the policies of some of the larger insurance companies.
MR. LEIF JONES: Very much better than the Licences Insurance Corporation.
MR. YOUNGERsaid it depended on the names on the policy. Even Lloyd's he thought would find some difficulty in making a quotation for a policy which not only covered loss from redundancy, but all the other risks of local veto, and
1150
one thing and another. He knew what the experience of licence-holders was in the years before 1904, and he saw no reason to suppose that that position would be improved in the seven years after 1923. Therefore, he did not think there would be a possible insurance. In this clause the Government had shown a carelessness of ordinarily decent generosity which, to his mind, was colossal. They were dealing in Clause 10 with a levy provided by the trade itself. They did not even show generosity with other people's money. No doubt it arose largely from the fact that they had adopted a scheme of compulsory reduction, the results of which they had not taken the trouble to make themselves or the House acquainted with. They did not know how many licences would go under the scheme. They had no idea of the calls which would be made upon licence holders for compensation, and, therefore, they were obliged to alter wholly not only the basis on which they were going to pay compensation but also to make the fund national instead of local in its working. That last change made an enormous difference. Under the present Act those who paid compensation for the reduction of licences were receiving some benefit, in some cases large benefit, from the cancellation of the licences which were taken away. If there were 1,000 licences in a particular locality and they took away 300, would those who remained have gained no advantage through the closing of these houses?
SIR THOMAS WHITTAKER: What I was thinking of was a large county. You may have contributors paying in parts of that county for public-houses taken away scores of miles away, and no benefit whatever will accrue to them.
MR. YOUNGERsaid that was perfectly true, and he admitted there were cases in which no benefits would arise, but they narrowed it very much when they confined it to a locality. When they made it national there would be very harsh cases in which people would have to pay very heavy levies without a single house being closed within miles of them. It was impossible to avoid

1151
cases of hardship now, but they were, of course, much more unlikely to be so acute, and advantages did arise. But it was not so here. They had that disability, therefore, as well as the other. If Clause 10 had been drawn in a more fair and reasonable and generous spirit, and if it had dealt with the situation more on the lines of the 1904 Act, which was working very well, it would, at all events on this particular point of machinery, have minimised very much the serious opposition which they were obliged to offer to the clause.
MR. HART-DAVIESsaid the difficulties and complexities of this clause seemed almost to be greater than ever. It was a very difficult thing to arrive at the real value of a public-house. He did not think Schedule A was at all a satisfactory way of arriving at it, and neither was the rateable value. The only real way, to his mind, was to see what was the actual trade done in the house. He wondered it had never struck the Government to impose a licence duty based upon the actual trade of the house, which would have carried out all the objects aimed at in the Bill with infinitely less friction, worry, and trouble. There were a great many small houses which were kept alive simply for the purpose of compensation, or rather for the purpose of a transfer of licence. If they had a reasonable licence duty it would have the effect of closing down these houses, and then there would not be any compensation to be paid at all. That would get rid of all their difficulties, and it would arrive at the monopoly value—a small duty based on actual sales, getting higher and higher as the years went on, so that at the end of a certain period, they would acquire the whole of the monopoly value. The Government would have saved a great deal of trouble and time in discussing these exceedingly difficult and to the ordinary layman, almost incomprehensible questions. He hoped, if any accident happened to the Bill, that in future legislation on this subject the Government would seriously apply their minds, not to these complicated questions of periods of reduction and taking the monopoly value by these wave which were entirely
1152
unsatisfactory, but to the adoption of the simple plan of gradually increasing licence duties, and they would arrive at exactly the same results as if the Bill became law.
SIR GILBERT PARKERassociated himself with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down in at least one particular. He had suggested to the Government that if the Bill should fail they would have brought home to them very strongly the lesson that logic was not a bad thing even on the part of a Cabinet Minister. He was not associating himself with the idea that high licence duties might solve the question, but the idea was a perfectly logical one. At any rate, if they had that question before them it would be a straight, fair fight which everyone could understand. He did not pretend to understand all the intricacies of the Licensing Bill. He had not tried to understand them. There were experts enough in the House without the intrusion of the amateur. But they were obliged to consider these questions, because there was not a constituency but would be affected by the Bill. He had heard every speech that had been delivered from the benches opposite except two, but there was one difficulty which he had not heard surmounted. It was this. Why had Schedule A been taken as the basis for reckoning compensation; and, having been taken, would the results give fair compensation? They had in the Act of 1904 a perfectly clear statement of the intentions of the Government then in power, and that was to provide adequate compensation upon the basis of market value. The hon. Member for Appleby, and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen valley, would say: "Yes, but you are entirely wrong in putting public-house property upon the basis of any other kind of property." If that was a fair interpretation of their views, did the owner of the property, whether a private owner or a brewer, buy it as he would buy other property or not? He thought he did. He said to himself: "With good conduct and with ordinary consideration for the management of my house my licence will be renewed from year to year," and he bought accordingly, expecting to have continuity in his property.

1153
After the Act of 1904 the publican was justified in saying with regard to compensation: "At any rate if I am dispossessed now I shall have full market value for what I have been dispossessed of." If he was putting that point fairly, would the House go one step further? Why the Government had descended from the full market value to the depth represented by Schedule A he did not know. Schedule A, as he understood it from the speeches by hon. Members opposite, would not give the owner of a licence goodwill or the market value of his personal energy and all those other things which had gone to build up and make the business of value. The Secretary for the Home Department would probably tell the House that special compensation was provided for such a business; but that could not be sufficient, and the only just and fair basis would be what that property would bring in if offered for sale in the open market. The Government had discarded that consideration altogether, and he wondered if the Government had actually realised how grave an injustice would be done to a great number of people who had honestly invested their money in these businesses. The Solicitor-General that afternoon, in regard to the extra three years which had been spoken of several times, had said it was not intended to represent any right whatever; it was simply a gift, a bonus that the Government in a fit of generosity had given. They did not allow compensation on the basis of twenty-one years. The Solicitor-General had added three years, which made sixteen years altogether, and he said the additional three years was a gift. But what did the acute and careful Under-Secretary of State say on this point? Speaking on 23rd October last, he said—
"that no licence would be taken away after the fourteen years, but during the fourteenth year a man would get some compensation in respect of what he lost. He would get not merely his monopoly value for one year, but the prospect of seven years free from monopoly charge. It was only just and equitable that he I should receive a sum in respect of that."
That was not at all. The Under-Secretary for the Home Office said that for these seven years there would be some compensation, but the Solicitor-General
1154
did not agree with him, for he said something which was quite the opposite.
SIR S. EVANS: I do not at all disagree with my right hon. friend. What I argued was that we should be perfectly right in saying that as the reduction period was fourteen years a licence taken away during that period would be properly taken away by the authority of Parliament, and we should have been within our right in saying that no extension should be made in the period for which the annuity was calculated in respect of the licence so taken away. I said at the time, and I indicated it, that inasmuch as there might be an expectation in some of those houses the licences of which were taken away within the fourteen years, they might reasonably ask for a portion of the seven years.
SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid he was much obliged for the explanation, but the situation as far as he understood it remained the same. The Solicitor-General did not agree that any compensation at all should be reckoned for those seven years, but the Under-Secretary for the Home Office held the opposite view. Under the Act of 1904 they had two forms of compensation carried out. First of all, there was the estimate by the Commissioners of twenty-five years purchase. That was considered fair, being based upon Schedule A. The Kennedy judgment carried things much further, because it said: "No, that is not equitable; we must have the market value." The Government had thrown aside the original estimate made upon Schedule A, and they had thrown aside also the Kennedy judgment. He wondered if hon. Members opposite were really satisfied in their own minds that what was now being offered was equitable. He did not believe that hon. Members opposite, with the exception of those few who were deadly opposed to the licensed trade, would willingly say that every licensed victualler and brewer should be cut off without any compensation at all. He knew hon. Members on the Ministerial side were obliged to support the Government. Inadequate compensation he considered to be a very deep wrong. Values once accumulated represented energy of some kind or other which had crystallised

1155
into a commodity that was saleable, and every public-house business which had been built up in that way had been built up legitimately. It might be that the business was bad, and that it was not a good thing to drink or to be drunk. It might be that the whole business was bad, but it had been built upon the basis of accumulated energy, and for any Bill to destroy energy would be striking at the very foundation and root of national enterprise. That was what he believed would occur when Clause 10 was put into operation if ever this Bill became law. Parliament was a High Court and he regretted extremely that it was so much permeated by party prejudices. When they came to a great financial measure such as this—for it was more largely a financial measure than anything else—he regretted to see that prejudice existed regarding the brewing trade, which was represented by vast numbers of people who were not themselves brewers but had taken stock in businesses absolutely legitimate and entirely respectable. It did not speak well for a free deliberative Assembly such as the House of Commons that, when they came to deal with something which in its essence was financial, they could not at the same time give the gravest consideration to those who were going to be dispossessed of their property. The Under-Secretary would perhaps explain to the House why it was that the Government said when dealing with a publican's property for probate: "will have the market value to the last penny." but when it came to taking away from those people who inherited property then the Government said: "We will value this upon an entirely lower scale." They had not had during the afternoon a single statement from any responsible person on the Treasury bench or anybody behind them showing that the value to be given under Clause 10 would in any way nearly approach the market value. The hon. Member for Huddersfield made a very able speech and a very severe criticism upon this Bill, which he said was most inequitable. He pointed out that under the Schedule of the Bill the London publican would pay 9·7 per cent. levy; in a city of 500,000 people the publican would have to pay 12 per cent., and in small urban districts he would have
1156
to pay on the rateable value 16 per cent. He saw financial experts sitting opposite and on the front bench, and he would like to ask them were they going to leave that kind of levy and imposition upon the trade as a whole? Was it fair, just, or usual? Would the Government explain why, as the hon. Member for Sleaford and the hon. Member for Kidderminster had already asked, they would not allow the trade adequately to compensate themselves? One would think from the attitude of Ministers in these debates that they, as trustees for the people of the country, were safeguarding their financial interests by diminishing the compensation to be paid to those who were to be dispossessed of property. Whatever the property was—whether it represented goodwill, or monopoly value, or bricks and mortar—it still was property, and he could not understand why the Government had not gone on a broader basis. Hon. Members opposite would acknowledge that the basis on which compensation was to be reckoned was extraordinarily narrow. In ordinary circumstances when property was taken away for public purposes the broadest view was taken of the situation. It had been pointed out that when the London County Council took property in the Strand for public purposes they gave the men who were dispossessed the market value with 10 per cent. added. No one could estimate really the amount that ought to be paid for disturbance in connection with any business. A man who went into possession of a public-house brought what was called custom, and that was a great factor, and in respect of it he deserved great consideration. In all private affairs and dealings human justice said that when compensation for disturbance was being assessed the person disturbed should get something over and above the market value. The Government had not allowed anything whatever for disturbance.
MR. G. D. FABER: They have taken off 50 per cent.
SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid he did not know that, but if they had taken off 50 per cent., they had taken off a great deal of the value and given nothing

1157
whatever in exchange. It seemed as if the Government had a fixed idea to give as little as possible, or rather to permit other people to tax themselves as little as possible. He honestly thought, speaking without any party prejudice, that in dealing with the finance of this Bill the Government had been querulous, grudging, lacking in vision, and lacking also in ordinary human sympathy. [An HON. MEMBER: Justice.] He was not considering the question of justice under this Bill; he did not want to be disagreeable; but he had not seen from beginning to end in the action of the Government any thing like the element of justice.
SIR S. EVANS: Does the hon. Gentleman wish an increase in the compensation levy?
SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid he was urging that the basis of compensation should be different—a basis by which the proper value should be given to the men whose property was to be taken away. The basis of compensation laid down by the Government was inadequate. He believed the basis of the clause was wrong. He wished to say a word about the tenant or licence-holder. The Government were deeply concerned to injure the brewer. The Prime Minister said in his Second Reading speech that the brewer was the possessor of inflated values which he himself had inflated. The inference was that the Government were determined to pay the brewer out, and to break the bubble of inflation, but by injuring the brewer they injured everybody else interested in the brewery business. He was not an advocate for the brewer or anybody else in this matter. He was an advocate for general justice and fair play. The Government said that under this Bill the licence-holder would have a much better time than under the Act of 1904. The compensation to be given to the licence-holder for loss of business was a second thought on the part of the Government. They did not agree to give it until they were pressed from every side of the House. Finding that the tide was running strongly against them, they realised the difficulties of the position, and they tried to do some-
1158
thing for the licence-holder by compensating him to a very limited extent. If, as had been argued on both sides of the House, the compensation was, in many cases, a fifth of what it ought to be, then the licence-holder's share of the compensation would be exceedingly small.
SIR S. EVANS: It is an addition to the compensation given under the Act of 1904. The compensation is fixed for those interested in the property, and over and above that compensation is given to the licence-holder.
SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid the licence-holder would get compensation for the loss of business if the licence was extinguished, but if he was not dispossessed he would enter upon the seven years period which was to be added, subject to all the restrictions which the Bill imposed. There would be 60,000 of these houses, and they would be subject to local veto, constant supervision, and the increased vigilance of the licensing benches. He assumed that the licensing justices would grow more and more temperate. He did not complain of the growth of temperance, but, at the same time, he hoped that if restrictions were to be put on with respect to the sale of intoxicants justice would be done to those who were engaged in the trade. It was a poor prospect to hold out to the licensed holder that when the fourteen years were out he might have a period of genial quiet subject to yearly and daily re frictions which might be put upon him by any fanatics who might happen to be on the licensing bench. During the seven years no protection whatever was given to licence-holders. The Government would find, whatever approval their so-called high moral purposes might win from their supporters in the House, that a vast number of people outside would take the view that they had not been just or fair, and that this clause alone represented an element of cruelty and inconsiderateness which one would not expect from an enlightened administration.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSsaid he preferred the hon. Member for Gravesend as an expert on

1159
the taxation of the raw material of the brewing industry rather than as an expert on the finance of the brewing trade. The hon. Member said he was an advocate for neither the brewers nor anybody else. If that was so, why did he advocate a tax on the raw material of the brewing trade?
SIR GILBERT PARKER: I never did so.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSsaid his memory might be at fault, but he understood that the hon. Member advocated the taxation of hops.
SIR GILBERT PARKER: Never.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSsaid it might go forth now that the hon. Member for Gravesend was not in favour of the taxation of hops. Indulging in a cheap sneer, the hon. Member said it was a mistake to look into this Bill for justice. He was not sure that he did not agree with the hon. Member, for it would be found that the Bill was extremely generous to the whole of the brewing and the licensed trade. Was he to understand the hon. Member to lay it down as a principle that whenever a property was taken from an individual in the interests of the community that individual should receive full market value for his property? If so, that principle had not always' been carried out by the party of which the hon. Member was so distinguished an ornament. In the Housing of the Working Classes Act it was laid down that when slum property was acquired for public improvements, the owner should be deprived of compensation if he allowed illegal overcrowding in that property. He thought that there should be some exceptions to the hon. Member's rule that the public should pay full market value for property taken over for public purposes. So he also said that in the case of illegal adulteration of beer which had gone to swell the profits—[OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Name."]—there should be a deduction from the full market value of the house. The representatives of the brewing trade had not suggested until in recent debates that compensation should be paid for suppressed houses on
1160
the basis of full market value. The brewing representatives on the Royal Commission on licensing in dealing with the question of compensation expressly excluded from their proposed compensation the case of a certain artificial value due to what was called the surrender system. This was what the Report said—
"An artificial value has temporarily accrued to many low-class houses, owing to their suitability for surrender purposes. These are the very ones which would be the most likely to disappear under our proposals. It should, therefore, be made clear that in valuing them no account is to be taken of such past and temporary value, which will by that time have ceased to exist together with the system that gave rise to it."
That was taking a very large slice out of the market value of that particular type of house. The hon. Member for Gravesend had asked why should the Government have taken Schedule A as a basis for compensation. He submitted that there was one very good ground why they should do so, because it embodied the very essential principles which the representatives of the brewing trade on the Royal Commission themselves advocated as the basis on which compensation should be paid. In other words, the essence of the Schedule A proposal was that the owner himself should declare the value for the purpose of taxation, aid that that value should be used as the basis of compensation. That was the very proposal of the representatives of the brewing interest in the Report of the Royal Commission; and he was rather surprised that it had been lost sight of throughout the discussions. Here was the paragraph in the Report—
"We have come to the conclusion that, if compensation is to be paid, it must be raised from the trade itself. We now proceed to describe the machinery by which we propose to ascertain the true and fair value of all licensed houses, whether for the purpose of suppression, or taxation for the provision of a compensation fund. Several of the proposed Bills explained to us contained a provision for a declaratory value by the licensee, which might be taken as a basis for compensation if suppressed, or taxation if it survive, thus compelling the owner of a licence to consider either contingency. This principle we adopt."
He submitted that if an excessive value was declared, in expectation of getting compensation for the house to be suppressed, it should be taxed on that

1161
basis; but on the other hand, if, anticipating that the house might not be suppressed, a fraudulent return as to the value of the property was made, then that should be taken as the value of the property for compensation purposes. The hon. Member for Gravesend and several other speakers had suggested with regard to the licensee that the basis upon which compensation might very well be considered should have some reference to the personal energy, or what he would call the custom-bringing value of the licence-holder. This custom-bringing value was to be compensated under this clause. He presumed the hon. Member did not suggest that personal energy was an attribute of the brewers.
MR. GRETTON: Why not?
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSsaid that at any rate it was true that in that debate they had manifested a great deal of energy. The custom-bringing energy was an attribute of the tenant and not of the brewer or owner, and, therefore, it was right that he should be compensated upon the basis of the value of the house and loss of business to him if the licence was suppressed. That was what the Bill proposed. An hon. Member had suggested that a tenant under this Bill, should it become law, would not be compensated on any more liberal a scale than he would have been under the Act of 1904. That statement he entirely denounced. He had taken cases in different parts of the country where compensation had been paid to specific individuals when the licence was suppressed and had compared it with what they would be entitled to under the provision of Clause 10. Here was a case from his own constituency. A man received the sum of £25 as compensation, which represented the annual rental value of his place. If he had been compensated on the basis of the provisions of this clause, he would have received the sum of £280. In another case, a tied tenant was compensated on the basis of annual rental £34, whereas the net value of the business to him was £370, which sum he would have obtained at the very minimum under the provisions of this clause.
1162
Another tied tenant three months ago received £57 compensation, whereas the net value of his business for one year was £400, and that sum he would have received under the provisions of this clause. He would particularly remind the hon. Baronet that the compensation fixed here was a minimum compensation, and that it was within the discretion of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to expand that sum to any sum which they might deem reasonable.
MR. GRETTON: Will the hon. Gentleman explain in what way this Bill makes his position better than it is under the Act of 1904?
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSsaid he was rather glad that the hon. Gentleman had put his interruption in the form of an interrogative instead of in the form of a statement that what he had said with regard to the value of tied and free houses was untrue. In his view the advantage of this Bill in regard to compensation to the tenant as compared with the provisions of the Act of 1904 lay in this one very short point, that in the first place under the Act of 1904 a lump sum compensation was fixed upon the real property value of the place, plus the licensed value, and then out of that lump sum, the tenant, the licensee, got his share regulated by the annual rent that he paid, and the compensation was therefore fixed in definite relation to the amount of rent paid, whereas under this Bill the compensation was fixed in definite relation to the loss which he would suffer from the whole business as a tenant.
MR. GRETTONasked if the hon. Gentleman would read the words of the Bill.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSsaid he would do so. The Bill said—
"As compensation for the licence-holder's loss of business, or, where the licence-holder is managing the business on behalf of some other person, for the licence-holder's loss of employment, having regard to his conduct and the length of time during which he has been the holder of the licence not in any case being less than the amount of one year's net profits, to be determined in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Acts relating to income-tax."

1163
In other words, while under the Act of 1904 the compensation to the tenant was fixed in definite relation to the amount of rent paid, under this Act it was fixed in definite relation to the net profits of the business.
MR. GRETTONasked if the hon. Gentleman would refer to the words of the Act.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSsaid the Act of 1904 provided that in the case of the licence-holder, regard should be had not only to his legal interest in the premises or trade fixtures, but also to his conduct and the length of time that he had been the holder of the licence, and it was provided that the tenant should in no case receive a less amount than he would be entitled to as tenant from year to year of the licensed premises. He did not want to detain the House at any length, but to summarise what he was saying he would point out that it was perfectly clear, perfectly notorious, that the net profits of the business were very much in excess of the sum paid by way of rental by the tenant, and when they took the case of the tied tenant it was notorious that the rent was fixed low by design, so as to keep the rates down on the one side, and the amount of compensation levy payable on the other. The disparity between the rent paid and the net profits of the tenant was, therefore, still greater. The tenant under this Bill would get a sum which was above and beyond what the tenant could have got under the Act of 1904, by a sum which represented the difference between the annual rent paid and the total value of the net profit of that business to him. In a great many of the houses it was well-known that the licensees were not tenants at all. Under the Act of 1904 the manager did not get any compensation, but by the express provision of this clause the manager was to receive compensation which would be represented by one year of the value of the employment to him, so that where a man had received a salary of £3 a week, with coal and gas and certain service, he would be entitled to one year's full value of that salary,
1164
plus the cash value of the emoluments as compared with absolutely nil which he would get under the Act of 1904.
MR. GRETTONsaid he was sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but the clause was only applicable to the manager who was also a licence-holder. The licence-holder and the manager got compensation under the Act of 1904, as the hon. Member would see if he looked at the Home Office Rules for the guidance of compensation authorities.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSsaid that one's own experience was worth a deal more than any matter of that kind. He challenged the hon. Member for Rutland to cite any case in which the manager as licensee had received compensation under the Act of 1904. In these cases he carefully guarded himself by saying that in many cases the licensee was manager. He did not say, where they had a case of a manager who was not a licensee, he would get compensation. There was no provision of that kind, but where he was a licensee and manager he was entitled to compensation under this Bill, and he was not entitled to it under the Act of 1904.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid the hon. Member who had just sat down in the course of his exceedingly interesting and amusing speech had stated that the principle of this particular clause was the principle of "tax and take." He did not know that that was quite the English way of expressing it, but it evidently met with a good deal of support from the benches on the other side of the House, and he thought it really was true that they were face to face that evening with this particular clause, which might very well be described in the words of the hon. Member, as being a measure to tax all the unfortunate licensed victuallers in the country, and when they had all been taxed and the Government had got all they could out of them, they were to finish them off by taking all their property from them. Therefore it might be described very properly as a Bill to "tax and take." He thought that all of them who had seen and

1165
measured this piece of gross injustice might be grateful to the hon. Member for having furnished them in his speech with an observation which was uncommonly apt and correct. A good deal of misapprehension seemed to have been created in the mind of the hon. Member as to what was the precise subject matter of this section. He took it that if a licence was suppressed, if property was put an end to as a licensed house at some time during this period of fourteen years what was taken away was the goodwill of a business attached to and carried on upon these premises. The premises themselves were not taken away, but the goodwill of the business that was being carried on at the moment in them was the thing which was being put an end to. Speaking with some experience he could say that at all events in the neighbourhood that he was acquainted with, namely, Liverpool, there were a large number of licensed houses which owed a very considerable amount of their present high value to having come into the hands of brewers of means, position, ability, and honesty—men who had taken the trouble to make these houses all that they ought to be, in point of structural and sanitary accommodation, and to see that all the articles supplied in the houses were of the highest possible quality, and by the most constant supervision to ensure that the business should be carried on in a first class manner in those houses. The consequence was that a large number of those houses owned and carried on as he had described, had obtained a value quite different from the value which they previously possessed, and that particular value and goodwill was not incident to the premises as premises, or to the ordinary carrying on of a licensed house. It had been brought about by the express conduct of the brewer who owned the house. The hon. Member who had just sat down had asked in a scoffing tone, as though there could only be one answer to the question—
"Is there a case where the brewer has ever done anything to add to the good will of the house?"
He could give a number of cases. He knew of seventy or eighty licensed houses where a very considerable portion of the special goodwill which those houses had
1166
got, had arisen from the fact that they were owned and carried on in the way that he had described. The hon. Member had told the House that the Report of the Royal Commission recommended Schedule A—the income-tax assessment—as the basis of compensation. He was astonished at that statement—
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I did not say that the Report of the Royal Commission recommended Schedule A as the basis. What I did say was that the principle of declaratory value which they recommended was the essence of the Schedule A method.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that when he referred to the Report of the Royal Commission he found this—
"We further regard rateable value as altogether outside the mark as a basis for compensation, and it cannot according to our scheme be entertained as a basis of the taxation to which the compensation fund might be brought."
He failed to recognise the Report of the Commission quoted by the hon. Member.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSasked the hon. Member to read what the Report said specifically as to the income-tax basis further on. It said this—
"There were two objections to this, first that it would be a somewhat inquisitorial process; and, secondly, that it would not take into account the interest of the owner of the property which was recognised by the law and the Income-Tax Commissioners."
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid the hon. Member and himself read Acts, Bills, Reports, etc., and brought the best intelligence they could to bear upon them, and being two people, naturally came to two different conclusions. Let him give an illustration as to how this clause would work. Supposing the assessment of a licensed house were £100 a year, and supposing in the case which he had before his mind at the moment, if that licence were taken away the piece of property would in all probability be assessed in Schedule A at £50 a year, it was obvious that the difference there for the purpose of subsection (2) of this section would be £50 a year; and supposing they were in the

1167
tenth year of the period when this particular licence was to be put an end to, according to the way the Bill was expressed £50 a year would be given for five years. He supposed that this would be a sum of £200; £200 would be paid as compensation for taking away the business, and in this case, which was not an imaginary one, supposing the licence was put an end to, what would be the position? This was a managed house. The manager would get £500, whilst the man who owned the business and who had been paying to the compensation fund for ten years would get only £200. Why? He did not know whether the Government had considered what would be the astonishing effect to the servants towards the close of the reduction period—the giving of the whole of the profit to the servants who were subject to a month's notice. He did not want to cut down anybody's compensation. If the State were going to compensate the man he would have nothing to say, but when the Government proposed a provision under which a man who was a servant and, in all probability, had done little or nothing to build up the business, was to receive the whole of the profit, he asked himself on what principle the Government were proceeding. The answer was obvious. The man had got a vote. He supposed the idea was that if the Government could get hold of the funds contributed, and then, by some subterfuge such as this clause, only pay out about a half, or something less, of the moneys to which they were reasonably entitled, on the basis on which they had contributed, at some future day they might appropriate the balance, and take it over themselves. He had not been able to read the Act of 1904 otherwise than from the basis of market value; this was the first time in his experience that the State had proposed that anybody's business should be taken from them when it was a legitimate
business, and that they should receive practically no compensation for it. The remark made by the last speaker as to adulteration by brewers ought not to have been made. He was not interested in the trade, but to make a remark like that in the House of Commons against a business which had been carried on—taking it all round—under very great difficulties by respectable men, who had a legitimate trade, and to cast a reflection upon the whole trade, was not the right way to treat the House of Commons.
MR. RICHARDSONsaid the more one listened to the legal arguments on either side in regard to this question the more one became mystified, and therefore he could only rely upon his common sense and knowledge of business. He only rose to say that if the Government would come to Nottingham and offer compensation to the tea trade there in the way they proposed to give it to the licensed trade it would be accepted, and a good profit would be made. The Government could afford to be generous in the matter. It was more than a question of finance; it was a question of the lives and the homes of the people. He hoped the Bill would pass. If it were not no Bill would be passed and no Government would tackle this matter again for twenty years. The people of the country were looking to this Bill to remove a very great stumbling block in the way of social reform.
And, it being half-past Ten of the Clock, Mr. Deputy-Speaker proceeded, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 17th July, to put forthwith the Questions on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'the,' in page 7, line 13, stand part of the Bill."
The House divided:—Ayes, 287; Noes, 96. (Division List No. 390.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Armitage, R.

Barnes, G. N.

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

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Beale, W. P.

Agnew, George William

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Bell, Richard

Alden, Percy

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Barker, Sir John

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Barnard, E. B.

Bennett, E. D.

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

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Molteno, Percy Alport

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Mond, A.

Black, Arthur W.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Boulton, A. C. F.

Hart-Davies, T.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Bowerman, C. W.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Brace, William

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

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Harwood, George

Morrell, Philip

Branch, James

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Morse, L. L.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Brodie, H. C.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Muldoon, John

Brooke, Stopford

Hedges, A. Paget

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

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

Helme, Norval Watson

Myer, Horatio

Brunner, Rt Hn. Sir J. T. (Cheshire

Hemmerde, Edward George

Nicholls, George

Bryce, J. Annan

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

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

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Henry, Charles S.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Byles, William Pollard

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

Nuttall, Harry

Cameron, Robert

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Higham, John Sharp

O'Grady, J.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Hobart, Sir Robert

Parker, James (Halifax)

Chance, Frederick William

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Partington, Oswald

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hodge, John

Paulton, James Mellor

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Clough, William

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Clynes, J. R.

Horniman, Emslie John

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

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Philips, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

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

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Hyde, Clarendon

Pollard, Dr.

Cooper, G. J.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

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

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Jardine, Sir J.

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Jenkins, J.

Radford, G. H.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Crooks, William

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Crosfield, A. H.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Crossley, William J.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Rees, J. D.

Curran, Peter Francis

Jowett, F. W.

Rendall, Athelstan

Dalmeny, Lord

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Kekewich, Sir George

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

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Kelley, George D.

Richardson, A.

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Laidlaw, Robert

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Dobson, Thomas W.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Duckworth, Sir James

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Lambert, George

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Lamont, Norman

Robinson, S.

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Lehmann, R. C.

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Erskine, David C.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Everett, R. Lacey

Lynch, H. B.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Fenwick, Charles

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Terens, T. R.

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

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Sears, J. E.

Findlay, Alexander

Maclean, Donald

Seaverns, J. H.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Seddon, J.

Fullerton, Hugh

M'Callum, John M.

Seely, Colonel

Gibb, James (Harrow)

M'Crae, Sir George

Shackleton, David James

Gill, A. H.

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Shaw, Sir Charles Edw. (Stafford)

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

M'Micking, Major G.

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

Glover, Thomas

Maddison, Frederick

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Mallet, Charles E.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Marnham, F. J.

Snowden, P.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Massie, J.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Gulland, John W.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Soares, Ernest J.

Gurdon, Rt. Hn Sir W. Brampton

Menzies, Walter

Spicer, Sir Albert

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Stanger, H. Y.

1170

1171

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Vivian, Henry

Wilkie, Alexander

Steadman, W. C.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Walsh, Stephen

Williams-Llewelyn (Carmarthen

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Walters, John Tudor

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Walton, Joseph

Williamson, A.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Summerbell, T.

Wardle, George J.

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

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Waring, Walter

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

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

Thomas, Abel (Carmarhten, E.)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Waterlow, D. S.

Winfrey, R.

Thomasson, Franklin

Watt, Henry A.

Wodehouse, Lord

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

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Yoxall, James Henry

Thorne, William (West Ham)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.

Tomkinson, James

White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

Toulmin, George

Whitehead, Rowland

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Verney, F. W.

Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P.

NOES.

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

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Percy, Earl

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn Sir H.

Gretton, John

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Baldwin, Stanley

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

Remnant, James Farquharson

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Haddock, George B.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Barnard, E. B.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hill, Sir Clement

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hills, J. W.

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

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Stanier, Beville

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Starkey, John R.

Cave, George

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Staveley Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kerry, Earl of

Strauss, G. A. (Abingdon)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Keswick, William

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

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

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

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Thornton, Percy M.

Clive, Percy Archer

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

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

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

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

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

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Whitbread, Howard

Courthope, G. Loyd

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

Willioughby de Eresby, Lord

Craik, Sir Henry

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

Cross, Alexander

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Winterton, Earl

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

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

Du Cros, Philip Arthur

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Young, Samuel

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Younger, George

Faber, George Denison (York)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

Nield, Herbert

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Nolan, Joseph

Fell, Arthur

Oddy, John James

Fletcher, J. S.

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Gardner, Ernest

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERthen proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on the Amendments moved by the Government, of which Notice had been given, which were necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded this day, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 11th November.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 7, line 15, after the word 'for,' to insert the words 'a number of years being the number of.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 7, line 16, after the word 'period, to insert the words' with three years added thereto in each case, and.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
The House divided:—Ayes, 293; Noes, 97. (Division List No. 39.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Laidlaw, Robert

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

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Agnew, George William

Erskine, David C.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Alden, Percy

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lambert, George

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Lamont, Norman

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Everett, R. Lacey

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Armitage, R.

Fenwick, Charles

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Ferens, T. R.

Lehmann, R. C.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Levy, Sir Maurice

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Findlay, Alexander

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Barker, Sir John

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Lyell, Charles Henry

Barnard, E. B.

Fullerton, Hugh

Lynch, H. B.

Barnes, G. N.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Beale, W. P.

Gill, A. H.

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

Bell, Richard

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

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Glover, Thomas

Maclean, Donald

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Bennett, E. N.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

M'Callum, John M.

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

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

M'Crae, Sir George

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Black, Arthur W.

Griffith, Ellis J.

M'Micking, Major J.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Gulland, John W.

Maddison, Frederick

Bowerman, C. W.

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Mallet, Charles E.

Brace, William

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Branch, James

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Marnham, F. J.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Massie, J.

Brodie, H. C.

Hart-Davies, T.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Brooke, Stopford

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Menzies, Walter

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

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

Micklem, Nathaniel

Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

Harwood, George

Molteno, Percy Alport

Bryce, J. Annan

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Mond, A.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Byles, William Pollard

Hedges, A. Paget

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Cameron, Robert

Helme, Norval Watson

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hemmerde, Edward George

Morrell, Philip

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Morse, L. L.

Chance, Frederick William

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

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Henry, Charles S.

Muldoon, John

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

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

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

Clough, William

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Myer, Horatio

Clynes, J. R.

Higham, John Sharp

Nicholls, George

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hobart, Sir Robert

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

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

Hodge, John

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Nuttall, Harry

Cooper, G. J.

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

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

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Grady, J.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Parker, James (Halifax)

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Partington, Oswald

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Paulton, James Mellor

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hyde, Clarendon

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Crooks, William

Illingworth, Percy H.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Crosfield, A. H.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

Crossley, William J.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Curran, Peter Francis

Jardine, Sir J.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Dalmeny, Lord

Jenkins, J.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Pollard, Dr.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

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

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

Dobson, Thomas W.

Jowett, F. W.

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Duckworth, Sir James

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Radford, G. H.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Kekewich, Sir George

Rainy, A. Rolland

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Kelley, George D.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Rees, J. D.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Rendall, Athelstan

Soares, Ernest J.

Wason, Rt Hn. E. (Clackmannan)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

Stanger, H. Y.

Waterlow, D. S.

Richardson, A.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Watt, Henry A.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Steadman, W. C.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

Robinson, S.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Whitehead, Rowland

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Summerbell, T.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Rowlands, J.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Wiles, Thomas

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Wilkie, Alexander

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Thomasson, Franklin

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

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

Williamson, A.

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

Sears, J. E.

Tomkinson, James

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Seaverns, J. H.

Toulmin, George

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

Seddon, J.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

Seely, Colonel

Verney, F. W.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Shackleton, David James

Vivian, Henry

Winfrey, R.

Shaw, Sir Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Wodehouse, Lord

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

Walsh, Stephen

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Walters, John Tudor

Yoxall, James Henry

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Walton, Joseph

Simon, John Allsebrook

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Wardle, George J.

Snowden, P.

Waring, Walter

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Gretton, John

Percy, Earl

Baldwin, Stanley

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Haddock, George B.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hamilton, Marquess of

Remnant, James Farquharson

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hardie, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hill, Sir Clement

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Miles

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hills, J. W.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Cave, George

Houston, Robert Paterson

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

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hudson, Walter

Stanier, Beville

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Starkey, John R.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

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

Kerry, Earl of

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Clive, Percy Archer

Keswick, William

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

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

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

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

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Thornton, Percy M.

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Craik, Sir Henry

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

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

Cross, Alexander

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

Whitbred, Howard

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Winterton, Earl

Faber, George Denison (York)

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

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

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

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Young, Samuel

Fardell, Sir T. George

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Younger, George

Fell, Arthur

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Fletcher, J. S.

Nield, Herbert

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

Forster, Henry William

Nolan, Joseph

Gardner, Ernest

Oddy, John James

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Amendments proposed—
In page 7, line 18, to leave out the words 'with the addition of,' and to insert the word 'and.'"
"In page 7, line 19, to leave out the word 'add,' and to insert the word 'allow.'"
"In page 7, line 23, after the word 'regard,' to insert the words 'in each case.'"
"In page 7, line 25, after the word 'licence,' to insert the word 'but.'"
"In page 8, line 1, to leave out the words 'shall be,' and to insert the word 'is.'"
"In page 8, line 13, to leave out the word "additional.'"
"In page 8, line 13, after the word 'sums,' to insert the word 'payable.'"
"In page 8, line 22, to leave out the word 'additional.'"
"In page 8, line 22, after the word 'sums,' to insert the word 'payable.'"
"In page 10, line 12, at end, to insert the words, 'Provided that for the purposes of this provision statutory reduction does not include further reduction.'"
"In page 11, lines 20 and 21, to leave out the words '(which provides for appeals in the case of the refusal to renew or transfer a licence).'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
Amendment proposed—
"In page 11, line 36, after the word 'exercise,' to insert the word 'all.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
The House divided:—Ayes, 300, Noes, 95. (Division List No. 392.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

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

Cooper, G. J.

Hart-Davies, T.

Agnew, George William

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

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Alden, Percy

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Harwood, George

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Armitage, R.

Craig, Herbert, J. (Tynemouth)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Crooks, William

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Crosfield, A. H.

Hedges, A. Paget

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Crossley, William J.

Helme, Norval Watson

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Curran, Peter Francis

Hemmerde, Edward George

Barker, Sir John

Dalmeny, Lord

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Barnes, G. N.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Henry, Charles S.

Beale, W. P.

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

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

Bell, Richard

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Higham, John Sharp

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Dobson, Thomas W.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Bennett, E. N.

Duckworth, Sir James

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Hodge, John

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

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Hooper, A. G.

Black, Arthur W.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Horniman, Emslie John

Bowerman, C. W.

Erskine, David C.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Brace, William

Esslemont, George Birnie

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Bramsdon, T. A.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Hudson, Walter

Branch, James

Everett, R. Lacey

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Fenwick, Charles

Hyde, Clarendon

Brodie, H. C.

Ferens, T. R.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Brooke, Stopford

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

Findlay, Alexander

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Chesh)

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Jardine, Sir J.

Bryce, J. Annan

Fullerton, Hugh

Jenkins, J.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Gill, A. H.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Byles, William Pollard

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

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Cameron, Robert

Glover, Thomas

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Jowett, F. W.

Chance, Frederick William

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Kekewich, Sir George

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Kelley, George D.

Clough, William

Gulland, John W.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Clynes, J. R.

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Laidlaw, Robert

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

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

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Lambert, George

Lamont, Norman

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Pollard, Dr.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Lehmann, R. C.

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

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Levy, Sir Maurice

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Thomasson, Franklin

Lupton, Arnold

Radford, G. H.

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

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Rainy, A. Rolland

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Lynch, H. B.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Tomkinson, James

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Rees, J. D.

Toulmin, George

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Rendall, Athelstan

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

Verney, F. W.

Maclean, Donald

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

Vivian, Henry

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Richardson, A.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

M'Callum, John M.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Walsh, Stephen

M'Crae, Sir George

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Walters, John Tudor

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Walton, Joseph

M'Micking, Major G.

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

Maddison, Frederick

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd)

Wardle, George J.

Mallet, Charles E.

Robinson, S.

Waring, Walter

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Wason, Rt. Hn E. (Clackmannan

Marnham, F. J.

Rowlands, J.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Waterlow, D. S.

Massie, J.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Watt, Henry A.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Menzies, Walter

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

Mond, A.

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

Whitehead, Rowland

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Sears, J. E.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Seaverns, J. H.

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Seddon, J.

Wiles, Thomas

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Seely, Colonel

Wilkie, Alexander

Morrell, Philip

Shackleton, David James

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Morse, L. L.

Shaw, Sir Charles Edw. (Stafford

Williams, Llewely'n (C'armarth'n

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Murray, Capt. Hn A. C. (Kincard

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Williamson, A.

Myer, Horatio

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Wills, Arthur Walters

Nicholls, George

Simon, John Allsebrook

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

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Snowden, P.

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

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

Nuttall, Harry

Soares, Ernest J.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Winfrey, R.

O'Grady, J.

Stanger, H. Y.

Wodehouse, Lord

Parker, James (Halifax)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Partington, Oswald

Steadman, W. C.

Yoxall, James Henry

Paulton, James Mellor

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

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

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Summerbell, T.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt Hn Sir Alex. F.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Fell, Arthur

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Fletcher, J. S.

Baldwin, Stanley

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

Gardner, Ernest

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Clive, Percy Archer

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

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

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Barnard, E. B.

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

Gretton, John

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Courthope, G. Loyd

Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Craik, Sir Henry

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

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Cross, Alexander

Haddock, George B.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hamilton, Marquess of

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Duckworth, Sir James

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Carlile, E. Hildred

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Cave, George

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

Hill, Sir Clement

1180

1181

Hills, J. W.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Nield, Herbert

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Nolan, Joseph

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

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Kerry, Earl of

Percy, Earl

Thornton, Percy M.

Keswick, William

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

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

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Whitbread, Howard

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Winterton, Earl

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

Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Young, Samuel

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Younger, George

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster.

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Stanier, Beville

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Starkey, John R.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendments proposed—
"In page 11, lines 36 to 38, to leave out the words 'to the renewal and transfer of licences under the Licensing Acts, 1828 to 1906, and this Act,' and to insert the words 'licensing justices except their powers as to the confirmation of new licences.'"
"In page 12, line 20, at end, to insert the words 'In the absence from any cause of the chairman of the Court from any meeting of the Court, the members of the Court present shall choose one of their number to act as chairman.'"
"In page 12, line 33, at end, to insert the words '(6) The licensing appeal authority may make rules as to the costs to be incurred in any proceedings for confirmation of new licences, and as to the person by whom those costs are to be paid.'"
"In page 12, line 40, after the word 'last,' to insert the word 'published.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
Amendments agreed to.
And, it being after Eleven of the Clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
Bill, as amended, to be further considered To-morrow.

NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [BY ORDER].
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Bill be now read a second time."
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir H. KEARLEY,)said the Order Paper showed that different views were taken on this measure by many Scottish Members, and perhaps it would be convenient if he made an explanation in
1182
justification of the Motion he should make that the debate should be adjourned. From representations made to the Board of Trade they had been able to glean what was the important ground of complaint in connection with the Bill. It arose in connection with the dislocation of the mail service from Aberdeen to London occasioned by some change in the departure time of mail trains. The effect, according to the representations made to the Board of Trade, was that the country north of Aberdeen had lost the mail connection which it had enjoyed without interruption for a considerable period of years. He was so much impressed by the seriousness of the matter that he had felt it his duty to put himself in communication with the North British Railway Company. He had had the opportunity of discussing the matter that day with the chairman and some of his colleagues, and he had suggested that in the interests of a possible settlement it would be advisable that the Second Reading of the Bill should be postponed till a later date. The reason of the postponement was this: The North British Railway Company had agreed to a responsible suggestion he made to them that there should be a conference between the various interests next Monday. They had consented to attend the conference and they were in process of consulting the various interests that might be deemed to have a voice in the matter. Of course when he used the word interest he included in the invitation Members of Parliament who were directly responsible to their constituents for seeing that the question was solved as far

1183
as possible in a peaceful manner. It would be altogether contrary to the interests of the Bill itself were they to take the Second Reading, and then endeavour to adjust matters by conference afterwards. He had thrown out the suggestion, which he was very glad to acknowledge had been accepted in a kindly spirit by the North British Railway Directorate, that the Second Reading should be deferred until the conference had taken place. He was hopeful that it would load to an adjustment of this very serious question.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Sir H. Kearley.)
MR. YOUNGERthought that on the whole the hon. Gentleman had taken a wise course in the interests of the Bill in moving the adjournment. He was not himself concerned in the matter to which the hon. Gentleman had specially alluded, but he had on the Notice Paper an Amendment dealing with Clause 26 of the Bill, and he thought it extremely unfortunate that the agreed-on date should once again be postponed when counsel and solicitors and all the rest of the usual hangers-on had been brought to London and now had to go back in entire uncertainty as to when the Bill would be brought forward. He did not think he would be present next week to move the Amendment of which he had given notice. His object in rising was to ask that those who were interested in that particular question should in some way be consulted as to the fixing of the date.
MR. MORTONquite agreed that the question of the delivery of the mails ought to be settled before they let the Bill have a Second Reading. But there were other matters which they wanted to consider, and he did not want anybody to forget the question of the provision of third-class sleepers.
MR. KEIR-HARDIEhoped the hon. Baronet would consider whether the rights of the employees of this company might not be considered at the same time. He had brought before
1184
the House at Question time a case where six of the emlpoyees had been compelled under a threat of dismissal to withdraw from a public body to which they had been duly elected. That seemed to him a very serious matter, and he was sure in all quarters of the House there would be a desire that that condition of things should not be allowed to continue. The interests affected by the Bill were all matters which might be considered and adjusted on Monday, but unless some action was taken to consult and safeguard the interests of the employees their opposition to the Bill would still be continued. He hoped the hon. Baronet when convening the conference would consider whether the employees could not be represented so as to put their case before, the Board of Trade.
SIR H. KEARLEYsaid that the conference had been summoned to deal with the mail question, and there would be an opportunity on the Second Reading to raise any other point. If the hon. Member would place himself in communication with him he would be very happy to embrace the opportunity of putting his case before the directors when they were in London.
Debate to be resumed upon Monday, 30th November, at a quarter past Eight of the Clock.

CONSTABULARY (IRELAND) [PAY, ETC.].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Resolved, "That it is expedient to make further provision for the pay of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and for the pensions, pension allowances, and gratuities payable to them, their widows, and children."—(Mr. Cherry.)
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 31st July, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at sixteen minutes after Eleven o'clock.

BARON KILMAINE.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor that the right of John Edward Deane, Baron Kilmaine in the Peerage of Ireland to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TREATY SERIES No. 28. (1908.)
  Agreement and protocol between the United Kingdom and Germany with regard to sleeping sickness; signed at London, 27th October, 1908.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 4166. Portugal (Angola).
  No. 4167. Morocco (Tangier).
  No. 4168. Netherlands (Commerce and Finance).
  No. 4169. Cuba (Budget, 1908–1909).
  No. 4170. Western Pacific (Friendly Islands).

  MISCELLANEOUS SERIES.
  No. 669. France (Chemical, Metal, and Mining Industries of Lyons Consular District).
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF DURHAM).
  Order made by the council of the county of Durham, constituting a new polling district for the township of Hedley Hope, in the north-western Parliamentary division of the county.

  UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN ACT, 1905 (REGULATIONS MADE BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD).
  Supplemental regulations amending the Regulations Organisation for Unemployed, 1905, so far as regards the conditions under which an application
  1010
  may be entertained by a distress committee.
  Regulations rescinding the supplemental regulations and making further regulations for the like purpose.

  BANK OF ENGLAND.
  Return of the amount of notes issued more than forty years and outstanding on 28th October 1908, which have been written off.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  COLLEGE CHARTER ACT, 1871.
  Application received from the University College of Bristol for the establishment of a University in Bristol, referred by His Majesty in Council for the consideration and report of a committee of His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council; together with the draft of the charter applied for.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 226.)

LOCAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE (IRELAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
LORD ATKINSON: My Lords, I beg to move, in respect of this Bill, the Motion standing in my name on the Paper. That portion of the Standing Order which I ask your Lordships to dispense with did not contemplate the case of an autumn session. I desire the Standing Order suspended to enable me to put down for Second Reading this Bill, the object of which is to amend the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, by providing that omission to register may be rectified in certain cases.
Moved, "To dispense with so much of Standing Order No. XXXVIII as provides that the eight sitting days notice of Second Reading required when a Bill brought from the House of Commons has remained on the Table of this House for twelve sitting days without any Lord giving notice of the Second Reading thereof shall not be given notice after the first day of August."—(Lord Atkinson.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ADMISSION OF THE PRESS) BILL.
Report of Amendments received.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved an Amendment in Clause 1, subsection (2)—
(2) "Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) any local authority may make regulations as to the accommodation to be provided for representatives of the Press, and the manner in which the same is to be allotted; but no such regulations shall enable such local authorities to exclude the representatives of any newspaper on the ground of its opinions, or on the ground of any reports or comments published by such newspaper or through the agency of such representatives,"—
to insert, before the word "accommodation," the word "reasonable." This, he explained, was little more than a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 14, after the word 'the' to insert the word 'reasonable.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREnext moved an Amendment providing that this accommodation for the Press should be allotted "regard being had to the number of the representatives for whom accommodation is likely to be required and the size of the room in which the meetings of the local authority are held." This Amendment was merely explanatory.
Amendment movod—
"In page 1, line 16, after the word 'allotted' to insert the words 'regard being had to the number of the representatives for whom accommodation is likely to be required, and the size of the room in which the meetings of the local authority are held.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNregarded the Amendment as mere surplusage. Every authority had "regard" to the number of the representatives of the Press and they found all the reasonable accommodation that the size of the room would admit. He would not, however, oppose the Amendment, as it was his intention subsequently to move to omit the subsection altogether.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to omit the whole of amended subsection (2). He pointed out that this provision was merely enacting what was already done in every public and council meeting at the present time. As the subsection originally stood, a local authority would have been compelled to find accommodation without any regard to the size of the room; nothing was said which would have prevented the necessity of increasing the size of the room if the number of Pressmen requiring to be admitted rendered that course necessary. The insertion of the words "reasonable accommodation," however, met that to a certain extent; but it merely set down in words what was now done by every local authority. He saw no need to make a statutory regulation on the subject, as there had been no complaint except this unknown case from somewhere in Wales.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, lines 13 to 20, to leave out subsection (2)."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid the case from Wales was not an unknown case, but represented the decision of one Judge confirmed by three Judges in the Court of Appeal. The subsection in question was not drafted by the promoters of the Bill; it was inserted at the request of the London County Council, who, presumably, knew something of the needs of the county councils as affected by this Bill. He would regret to see the subsection struck out, as it had been agreed to by the promoters to meet the special circumstances as they existed in London. He would not press his objection to the Amendment, however, for the reason that the subsection was not part of the original Bill.
LORD ALLENDALEsaid the subsection was inserted in Standing Committee in the other House for the reason given by Lord Donoughmore, and it seemed to the Local Government Board to be on the whole a convenient and useful provision. In some cases more representatives of the Press might seek admission than could well be accommodated, and this difficulty could be got over under the subsection by making regulations on the subject. Without some such provision it might happen that where more Pressmen applied for admission than could be

1013
accommodated, the early comers would claim the seats and this might lead to difficulties. He could not see any reason why the subsection should be deleted, but if Lord Donoughmore did not press his objection to the Amendment, he (Lord Allendale) would not be prepared to do so.
LORD BELPERsaid the Bill provided for the admission of representatives of the Press to the meetings of all local authorities. He questioned whether that was a desirable enactment; but, if Parliament adopted the principle, he maintained that the accommodation should be of such a character that the representatives of the Press would be able to give a sufficient and adequate report of the proceedings. It seemed to him that the two things hung together. He would not have been surprised if his noble friend, Lord Camperdown, had moved to omit the whole of the Bill, but he failed to see the reason for rejecting subsection (2) if the principal provision were agreed to.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved to insert a new subsection requiring that three clear days at least before any meeting of the local authority, notice of the time and place of the intended meeting and of the business proposed to be transacted thereat, signed by the clerk or other responsible officer, should be fixed in some conspicuous place on or near the outer door of the place of meeting of the local authority; provided that this subsection should not apply as respects any meeting of a local authority of which not less than three clear days public notice was required by any statute or regulation to be given. He said the provision in the Amendment as to the giving of three clear days notice was identical with that in the Schedule of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, and Section 232 of the same Act specified where the notice was to be fixed. The Local Government Act of 1888, Section 75, applied those provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act to county councils. Therefore by the second part of his Amendment those authorities which were already under this obligation were excepted. If the Press were to be at liberty to attend the meetings of local
1014
authorities, it was not unreasonable that they should have some means of knowing when those meetings were to take place. Their Lordships had decided that it was not desirable that notices of the meetings should be actually sent to the Press, but he submitted that a notice as to time and place of the intended meeting should be fixed in some conspicuous place.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 20, after the word 'representatives,' to insert the following new subsection: '(3) Three clear days at least before any meeting of the local authority, notice of the time and place of the intended meeting and of the business proposed to be transacted thereat, signed by the clerk or other responsible officer, shall be fixed in some conspicuous place on or near the outer door of the place of meeting of the local authority. Provided that this subsection shall not apply as respects any meeting of a local authority of which not less than three clear days public notice is required by any statute or regulation to be given.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNwas sorry to appear to be continually opposing his noble friend's proposals. But did this Amendment come within the purview of the Bill? The object of the measure was—
"To provide for the admission of representatives of the Press to the meetings of certain local authorities."
That was perfectly clear; but this Amendment gave an instruction to local authorities as to the notice they should give of their meetings. As a matter of fact, only minor authorities would come under the subsection, as the larger bodies were already provided for. He suggested that nothing could be more inconvenient than that a distress committee, for example, should not be able to hold a meeting unless it had given three days previous notice.
LORD ALLENDALEdid not think there was very much in the objection that the Amendment was not within the scope of the Bill. He did not offer any opposition on the part of the Government to the Amendment, as it only extended to the minor authorities the obligation which county councils, town councils, and Metropolitan borough councils were now under.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREthought the answer to the noble Earl's

1015
contention that the Amendment was outside the purview of the Bill was to be found in the fact that a similar provision was in the Bill before the noble Earl and his friends struck it out.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Two blacks do not make a white.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid their Lordships need have no anxiety with regard to the Amendment being in order, as the original provision relating to the giving of notice had withstood the fire which was always directed against measures from that point of view in the other House. If everything in a Bill had to be covered by the title, he thought the noble Earl, with all his skill as a draftsman, would experience difficulty in finding titles for all the Bills that passed through their Lordships' House.
LORD BELPERsaid that, personally, he had no objection to the Amendment, as county councils were not only obliged under the present law to give notice of their meetings, but invariably sent an agenda to the representatives of the Press who regularly attended their meetings.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved to insert a clause providing that nothing in the Bill should be construed so as to prohibit a local authority from admitting the public to its meetings. He explained that the object of this Amendment was to redeem a pledge he had given in Committee. He noticed that Lord Belper had on the Paper an Amendment to this Amendment to add to the new clause the words "and, subject to the accommodation available, the public shall have the right of admission to meetings of local authorities at all times when the Press is admitted to such meetings under this Act." He was quite willing to accept this addition.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 4 to insert the following new clause: 'Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to prohibit a local authority from admitting the public to its meetings.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
LORD BELPERthen moved his Amendment to this Amendment, and ex-
1016
pressed his satisfaction that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill was prepared to accept it. It was only for the purpose of putting the public in the same position as the Press.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
"To insert at the end of the proposed new clause the words 'and, subject to the accommodation available, the public shall have the right of admission to meetings of local authorities at all times when the Press is admitted to such meetings under this Act.'"—(Lord Belper.)
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 227.)
House adjourned at Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.