Sitting of 20 October 1908

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

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against: From Burton Latimer; Desborough; Faversham; Great Addington; Polebrook; Raunds (four); Ringstead (three); Rothwell; Thrapston; and Woodford (two); to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour: From Barnstaple; Burnley; Calne; Cheetham Hill (two); Cottingham; Keighley; Liverpool; London (four); Manchester; Walsall; and York (three); to lie upon the Table.

  POOR LAW AMENDMENT (SCOT LAND) BILL.
  Petition from Slamannan, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LOCAL TAXATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of the Annual Local Taxation (Scotland) Returns for the year 1906–7 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 302.]
  Copy presented, of Further Correspondence relating to Native Affairs in Natal [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  OLD-AGE PENSIONS ACT, 1908.
  Return ordered, "of Copies of Circulars issued by the Local Government Board, dated the 4th day of August, the 21st day, of August, and the 10th day of October, 1908."—(Mr. Burns.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Persons under Police Protection in Ireland.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the number of persons receiving constant police protection by patrols throughout Ireland on the last day of each month from January to September, 1908.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The following list gives the numbers of persons receiving special police protection; (a) constant; and (b) by patrols, on the dates mentioned—

  Date.

  Constant.

  By Patrol.

  1908.

  31st January

  54

  216

  29th February

  61

  217

  31st March

  60

  225

  30th April

  63

  228

  31st May

  70

  232

  30th June

  71

  238

  31st July

  83

  246

  31st August

  89

  244

  30th September

  104

  252

  Treatment of the Imprisoned Suffragists.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what modifications, if any, have been made in the treatment of the ladies now undergoing terms of imprisonment for offences in connection with the women suffrage agitation as compared with the treatment to which ladies undergoing imprisonment for such offences on former occasions have been subjected; were these ladies, or any of them, as in the former cases, searched by female warders and divested of all clothing during that search; are they kept in solitude for twenty-three hours out of the twenty-four, and is the twenty-fourth hour of recreation allocated half to attendance in chapel and half to exercise in the prison yard; have they, or any of them, been compelled to wear prison garb, and has this prison dress in any cases been previously worn by the ordinary class of women convicts, the dress being in actual contact with the skin; are
  916
  they permitted to send or to receive letters or to be visited, and are they supplied with books, and, if so, at what time are they permitted to read them; and whether, having regard to the intimation that consideration would be given to the question whether the prison conditions would be relaxed or modified in cases in which the offence did not fall within the category of ordinary crimes, he will now state what steps, if any, have been taken to lighten the severity of the prison regime in the case of these ladies.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Certain changes have been made at Holloway for all female prisoners in the second division, and are now in operation. They are briefly as follows: (a) A chair with a back has been placed in each cell instead of the stool usually provided; (b) Warm water for washing is supplied to those who desire it, with the medical officer's permission; (c) Visits are now received in a special room and not in the usual visiting box; (d) Work is carried on in association; (e) Books are allowed to be changed more frequently. With regard to the suffragist prisoners in particular, the reply to the Question is as follows: They were all searched on reception, but were not divested of all clothing during that search. They are not kept in solitude for twenty-three hours out of the twenty-four. They go to chapel for about twenty-five minutes every week-day, and about two and three-quarter hours on Sunday. They are occupied about five hours daily at associated labour, and they take exercise for one full hour every day. They wear the prison dress of the second division, which is of a different colour from that worn by other prisoners. In every case the underclothing has been new, while the outer clothing, if not absolutely new, has been previously worn only by suffragist prisoners. They are allowed letters and visits in accordance with the rules for second division prisoners, namely, to receive one visit in each month, and to write and receive one letter in each month, but special letters and visits are permitted if any emergency arises. They have a liberal supply of books, and are allowed to read them at any time during

  917
  the day, or evening up to eight o'clock, when they are not engaged in work.

  Hours of Duty at Lurgan Post Office.
  MR. MOORE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the duties at the Lurgan office are principally late evening and right, and cover an attendance of fourteen and a half hours; whether the male staff do not average one month's early evening relief during the year; whether, in official evidence given before the Hobhouse Committee, it was stated that at the last revision it was arranged to withdraw women and employ men only; whether the female staff is practically equal with the male; and whether he will make inquiry into these duties with a view to improvement.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The inquiries which are being made in the matter are not yet completed, and I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as I am in possession of the facts.

  Recommendation of Committee on Irish Forestry.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether the Government, intend to carry out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee in Ireland on Forestry.
  (Answered by Mr. T. W. Russell.) The Department are in communication with the Treasury on the subject, but are not yet in a position to make any definite announcement.

  Reduction of Sentences on Bombay Rioters.
  MR. REES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of Bombay has commuted the sentence of transportation passed on Bal Gangadhar Tilak from transportation to simple imprisonment, and has reduced the sentences pissed upon the persons convicted of participation in the recent riots in Bombay.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) The Answer is in the affirmative.

  Indian Criminal Appellate Judges.
  MR. REES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can inform the House what answer was returned by the High Court of Calcutta to the communication it received from the Government of India bringing under its notice the representation of the Behar Planters Association, arising out of the murder of Mr. Bloomfield, that Criminal Appellate Courts, whose judgments are final, should invariably be composed of Judges who are thoroughly experienced and are well versed in the Indian criminal law.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) The Secretary of State has no information as regards the correspondence referred to between the Government of India and the Calcutta High Court.

  Memorial of Mr. C. W. Allan, Indian Forest Service.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State has now considered the Memorial addressed to him by Mr. C. W. Allan, an extra Deputy Conservator of Forests in the Burma provincial service; whether Mr. Allan, after passing through the college at Dehra Dun, joined the Indian Forest Service on 1st February, 1887, at a time when it was provided by Section 21 of the then Forest Department Code that, after five years approved service as Sub-assistant Conservator of Forests, he would be drafted into the upper controlling staff whether he is aware that in 1891 the Government issued a new Forest Department reorganisation scheme debarring all officers thenceforward appointed in India from promotion to the upper controlling staff; that, having done four years of admittedly approved service, the new scheme was by ex post facto ruling applied to Mr. Allan's case; whether he is aware that recently the Secretary of State for India has sanctioned the transfer of Mr. Shrish Chandra Chakrabatti from the provincial to the Imperial engineering service on the ground that, as he had actually entered the Sibpur Engineering College before the issue of the orders closing the Imperial service to students of Indian engineering colleges, he had an equitable right to an

  919
  appointment in the Imperial service; will he state on what ground, in an analagous case, Mr. Allan has been refused similar treatment; and whether the Government of India will be directed to remedy the grievance from which Mr. Allan is suffering.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) The Secretary of State has considered Mr. Allan's Memorial and has decided not to interfere with the orders of the Government of India refusing to promote him to the Imperial Forest Service. The Government of India have found that the rules in force in 1887 did not guarantee to Mr. Allan that he would be drafted into the upper controlling staff after five years approved service, but merely made him eligible for selection for such promotion on the ground of special merit. In the reorganisation of 1891 it was held, after consideration, that Mr. Allan had no claim as of right to be promoted to the Imperial Service. He was therefore placed in the Provincial Service, and the Government of India, having regard to his training and abilities have declined to promote him to the Imperial Service. The case of Mr. Shrish Chandra Chakrabatti stands on quite a different footing and was governed by other rules.

  Trypanosomiasis in Uganda.
  MR. REES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how much of the grant-in-aid of £85,000 from the Imperial Exchequer to Uganda Protectorate in 1907–8 was expended on preventive measures taken against the spread of trypanosomiasis and syphilis; and how much of the like grant of £25,000 to Nyasaland was expended in preventing the spread of the former disease towards the latter Protectorate.
  (Answered by Colonel Seely.) A sum of about £11,000 was provided in the Uganda Estimates for 1907–8 for the purpose of combating trypanosomiasis. An expert was sent out during the same year to report on the question of syphilis. His report has now been received and considered, and a sum of £2,000 has been inserted in the Estimates for the current year for the purpose of providing better and more systematic medical treatment for the natives who are suffering from
  920
  the disease. With regard to Nyasaland, efforts were directed during 1907–8 to ascertaining the distribution of trypanosomiasis in the countries bordering on the Protectorate and of the various kinds of tse-tse fly within the Protectorate. This information appears to be an essential preliminary to any proper scheme of prevention.

  Native Protectorates—Payment of Taxes in Kind.
  MR. REES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the tax payable by natives in Protectorates should not be paid in kind in order to the development of local crops and products, rather than in money, to earn which they have to some extent to emigrate to more or less distant territories.
  (Answered by Colonel Seely.) In West African Protectorates there is but little direct taxation, and payment is accepted in kind wherever coin does not circulate freely. In Nyasaland and the other Protectorates north of the Zambesi, and also in the Bechuanaland Protectorate, the hut tax is payable in coin, but power is given, under varying conditions, to the collector to accept stock or produce in lieu. In South Africa the hut tax, which is the usual form of direct taxation, is collected in money, but it is a form of taxation which has been in force for many years and is well understood by the natives. The natives in the East Africa Protectorate and Uganda can pay their hut tax in kind or money, but now that the natives are getting more money payment in the latter is becoming more general.

  Railway Rate on Spirits in the Gold Coast.
  MR. ARMITAGE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies why there has been a reduction in the railway rate on spirits in the Gold Coast, and what the reduction amounted to.
  (Answered by Colonel Seely.) There has been no alteration in the railway rate on spirits in the Gold Coast since May, 1907, when the special rate of 3s. 9d. a ton was abolished and spirits

  921
  were placed in Class I. They are now carried at the highest rate charged on other Class I. articles, namely, 2s. 6d. per ton for the first 50 miles, 2s. 3d. per ton for the next 50, 2s. per ton for the next 50, and 1s. 9d. a ton for mileage beyond 150 miles.

  Land Acquired for Small Holdings.
  MR. R. HARCOURT: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he can state the acreage of land actually acquired or in process of acquirement under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act by the county councils of England and Wales, severally.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) Numerous negotiations for the acquisition of land are going on of which we are not fully informed, and it is not possible therefore to give accurate information under this head. But some 12,000 acres have actually been acquired, about 600 acres of which are in Wales and the remainder in England.

  The Movement of Swine.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what basis there was for issuing the Swine Fever (Regulation of Movement) Order, 1908, what was the object of the same, how many local authorities enforced it, and in how many instances cancelments of the original Order were issued.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The need for the uniformity and simplification of the conditions attaching to the movement of swine for slaughter has been for some time past strongly urged, especially by meat traders, and the object of the issue of the Order, to which, my hon. friend refers, was to give effect to those representations. The Order applies to the whole of Great Britain with the exception of three boroughs, which are subject to special Orders. The original Order was superseded and the new Order imposed in eleven districts.

  Recruiting of Provincial Telephonists.
  MR. SEDDON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will state the manner in which telephonists employed in provincial offices are recruited; whether local postmasters have the power of selection delegated to them; and whether, if this is the case, any steps are taken to eliminate preference being shown to individuals.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Bux'on.) Telephonists in provincial post offices are recruited from among candidates whose names have been recorded by the local postmasters; and, provided they are suitable and eligible under the regulations, they are selected, on the occurrence of vacancies, in the order in which they have made application. I have no reason to suppose that postmasters show improper preference.

  School Attendances—Time occupied travelling to Swimming-Baths.
  MR. HORNIMAN: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the fact that under the present regulations of the Board of Education the time occupied by children in travelling to and from the baths is not reckoned as part of the minimum time for school attendance, which must not be less than two hours for secular instruction to enable a grant to be paid, and that consequently the present regulations prevent many children from receiving instruction in the healthy and useful art of swimming; and whether he will consider the advisability of amending the regulations accordingly.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The Board have decided that a reasonable time spent by scholars in going to and from swimming-baths may be reckoned as part of the minimum time required for an attendance.

  The Unemployed and the Construction of Motor Roads.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will consider the possibility of utilising some portion of the supply of unemployed labour now available upon the construction

  923
  of motor roads throughout the country to accommodate the growing motor traffic.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) Parliament has not at present authorised the construction of any roads for the exclusive use of motor traffic. In the absence of the legislation necessary to give such authority I am afraid it would not be practicable to adopt the suggestion in the Question.

  Expenses of the Clerical Staff of the Edmonton Urban District Council.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the salaries paid to the clerical staff of the Edmonton Urban District Council amounts to £6,000 a year, which is equal to an 8d. rate; and, if so, whether he can take steps to urge upon the Edmonton Urban District Council the desirability of keeping clerical and official expenses within reasonable limits.
  Answered by Mr. John Burns.) According to a statement furnished to me by the clerk to the district council, the salaries of the officials and clerical staff of the council during the last financial year amounted to £5,891; but this sum includes the salaries of such officers as the road foreman, farm bailiff, and the superintendents of the baths, cemetery, and fire brigade, and also the salaries of the medical officer of health and inspector of nuisances, half of which are repaid by the county council. It will be seen, therefore, that a considerable part of the amount mentioned above is not expended on the clerical staff.

  The Suffrage Disturbances—Cost of Extra Police.
  MR. BERTRAM: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state what was the cost of the special police protection afforded to the Palace of Westminster by reason of the suffragette demonstration directed against the House of Commons on Tuesday, 13th October last; and whether in the interests of the taxpayers, he will take any steps to recover any portion
  924
  of this cost from the Women's Social and Political Union, which gave notice of and arranged the demonstration.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I cannot say what was the total cost involved on the occasion in question. I know of no means of recovering any portion of this cost from the Women's Social and Political Union.

  Franco-British Exhibition—Payment of Income Tax by Foreign Stall-holders.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now state the decision arrived at with reference to the payment of income-tax by foreign stall-holders at the Franco-British Exhibition.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) As the result of inquiries which have been instituted, it would appear that no profits assessable for income-tax purposes have been made by foreign stall-holders at the Franco-British Exhibition.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  War Office Extensions on Salisbury Plain.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to acquire more land for military purposes in the neighbourhood of Salisbury Plain; and, if so, whether this House will have any opportunity to consider the matter before definite steps are taken.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): It is proposed to acquire an additional area of land adjoining existing War Department property on Salisbury Plain for the purpose of an artillery range. I do not think I should be carrying out the wishes of the House when it passed the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act if I failed to take such steps as were essential for securing the efficiency of the Territorial Force. The immediate provision of an artillery range in the South of England is an absolute necessity, and I should not consider myself justified in agreeing to any delay with regard to it. The House will have an opportunity of discussing this purchase on next year's

  925
  Estimates, but I do not think I should be doing what is right or what the public interest requires were I to suspend action until that time.
  MR. WALTER LONGpressed for an answer whether the House would have an opportunity of discussing the question whether the land selected by the Government was the most suitable for the purpose, and whether land of a more suitable character could not be obtained without carrying out a wholesale system of evictions.
  MR. HALDANEsaid that he had carefully inquired into all the circumstances, and he was satisfied that the mass of public opinion was entirely in favour of the action the department had taken. He could not suspend what was necessary action in behoof of the Territorial Forces.
  MR. WALTER LONGasked whether the House was to understand that this proposal involving grave hardship was to be carried out without an opportunity being given to the House to discuss it.
  MR. HALDANEsaid that it was a question of purchasing four houses and, 5,500 acres from willing sellers.
  MR. WALTER LONG: No.
  MR. HALDANEsaid as far as he knew this was the case; at any rate, no notice had been given of any serious opposition. He was satisfied that in no other way could he provide for the efficiency of the Territorial Forces, and with the hope of progress being made before next summer. The War Office had taken the utmost pains to provide for those who wanted small holdings and compensation for those affected.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: On what Vote is this expenditure to be charged?
  MR. HALDANEsaid that the purchases would be made under powers contained in the Public Works Loans Act of last year.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Are we to understand that the Government proposes to carry this out without giving the House any opportunity of discussing it until the whole operation has been completed?
  MR. HALDANE: The House passed the Public Works Loans Act last summer for the very purpose of enabling the Territorial Associations to acquire ranges. It is under those powers that we are proceeding. We are taking every step in our power to prevent hardship. Everywhere the War Office goes for land it is met with this kind of objection and prices are raised. I must really be allowed some discretion. I am blamed at one moment for not going fast enough, and whenever I move I am pulled up.
  MR. GOULDING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that great distress exists among aged agricultural labourers, who have lost their avocation by reason of the purchase, and are at the present time in want?
  MR. HALDANE: The hon. Member appears to be a little mixed. The purchase has not yet been carried out.
  MR. GOULDING: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to whether the negotiations carried out by him on behalf of the War Office have not already led to the dismissal of a great number of aged agricultural labourers; and if so, whether, when awarding compensation, he will see that compensation is paid to them?
  *MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will look at the Paper he will see that he is getting a very long way from the Question.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask a further Question.?
  *MR. SPEAKER: We have had eight supplementary Questions already.

  Territorial Artillery.
  CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the actual number of guns already issued

  927
  for Territorial Artillery brigades compared with the number laid down.
  MR HALDANE: The total number of guns and howitzers required to equip the Territorial Artillery Brigades, is 728, of which 263 have been issued.
  CAPTAIN FABER: When will the remainder be issued?
  [The reply was inaudible.]

  Oats for Army Horses.
  *CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state whether oats are issued in the same year as they are grown to horses in the Army; and, if so, at what particular date.
  MR. HALDANE: Oats can be issued in the same year as they are grown to horses in the Army, provided that they comply with the contract specification which governs the quality. No particular date for the issue of oats is specified.
  *CAPTAIN FABER: Is it not the fact that oats are not really fit to use before 1st January?
  MR. HALDANE: That is a question for the Army Service Corps experts. They are better judges than I am.
  *CAPTAIN FABER: Will the right hon. Gentleman urge the contractors not to issue damp oats as I am assured they are doing?
  [The reply was inaudible.]

  Edinburgh Cavalry Barracks.
  MR. C. E. PRICE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Heriot Trust of Edinburgh has agreed to sell the Redford esate for the purpose of erecting a cavalry barracks; and, if so, will he press forward the work with all possible speed in order to give employment to the large number of men in the building trade who are at present out of employment in Edinburgh.
  MR. PIRIE: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this Question, may I ask whether he will take into consideration the fact that this is
  928
  a national matter, and not a local one, merely fulfilling an obligation long overdue to Scotland and therefore will he distribute the work regardless of any local jealousies?
  MR. HALDANE: In this case, as in the case of Salisbury Plain, I have received a storm of protests against the selection of the locality.
  MR. PIRIE: I do not protest at all.
  MR. HALDANE: I am glad to be able to inform my hon. friend that negotiations with the Heriot Trustees are proceeding satisfactorily. I can assure him that as soon as the purchase of the site is completed no time will be lost in setting to work; but as the hon. Member is aware, before building operations can be actually started plans have to be prepared, contracts have to be placed, and other similar arrangements have to be made. All this will take a certain amount of time, and I should not like to promise that the building can be begun before I am certain that these preparations have been thoroughly made, though preparation of the site, road-making, and such work may commence earlier.

  Bengal Administration.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Anglo-Indian Association of Calcutta has represented to the Government of Bengal that the separation of judicial and executive functions seems likely not only to be unpopular amongst the great masses who have never demanded it, but also to be fraught with great harm; and, if so, whether this representation will be duly considered before the present experiment is extended.
  THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,): The Secretary of State has no information as to the representation in question, but the Government of India will no doubt give it due consideration in formulating their proposals. No effect has yet been given to the experimental scheme to which I understand the hon. Member to refer.

  Punjab Education Department.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that several Europeans and Eurasians have been taken into the provincial branch of the Punjab Education Department within the last year, and that they have been placed over the heads of a number of Indians in the matter of pay and seniority to the detriment of the prospects of the latter; did these Indian gentlemen protest against such treatment; and, if so, with what result.
  MR. BUCHANAN: No record of any such appointments can be found in the official lists received up to the present time. But if the hon. Member can quote specific cases, the Secretary of State will inquire.
  MR. REES: Is it not the fact that the natives of India do not believe in our system of education and are very bad agents for carrying it out?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I do not see how that arises out of the Question, The provincial branch is a branch of the service set apart for natives.

  Europeans in the Punjab Municipal Service.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State is aware that the number of Europeans in the Punjab municipalities' service has increased within the last ten years; that out of five appointments carrying salaries of over £15 per month in the municipality of Lahore not one is held by an Indian, and that out of twelve appointments with salaries of £8 a month only two are held by Indians; and whether this state of things has the approval of the Secretary of State for India.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Municipal Committees in the Punjab under the Punjab Municipalities Act of 1891 appoint their own servants, and the Secretary of State has no detailed information as to the numbers, rates of pay, or nationalities of such employees. The Lahore Municipal Committee is composed of twenty Indians
  930
  and ten Europeans. On the committees of other municipalities the Indian element is still more predominant. The Secretary of State does not feel called upon to express an opinion on the mode in which the committees exercise their powers.

  Sirhind Canal—Water Rates.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India when the water rates were last raised on the Sirhind Canal in the Punjab; what the rates were before the enhancement and what they are now, and especially whether the rate for sugar cane was enhanced by 100 per cent.; and whether the area of sugar cane cultivation has since decreased on the land irrigated by that canal.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The present rates came into force in 1905. It is difficult to compare them in detail with the rates previously in force, as the schedule is a lengthy one, and the two sets of rates were not framed on the same system, but the general effect was an increase of about 20 per cent. on the yield of the old rates. The old rate for sugar cane was 7 rupees, 8 annas, or 10s. the acre; the present rate is 10 rupees, or 13s. 4d. the acre in one zone, and 12 rupees, or 16s. in the other zone; the percentage of increase being 33 in the one case and 60 in the other. There has been some decrease in the sugar cane area on this canal since 1901–2, but in the Punjab generally the area under this crop has of late years decreased. The cane crop on the Sirhind Canal is relatively small to the total irrigated area.

  Trinidad—Indentured Coolie Labour.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the cost of introducing indentured coolies into Trinidad is about £27 per head; that towards such cost the employers requiring such labour only contribute about £5 per head, the remainder being made up by a contribution from general revenue of £9 and by an export tax on produce of £13; and, if so, whether he is prepared to take steps having for its object the placing of the entire charge for introducing such coolies on the employers who require such labour.
  THE UNDER-SECRETAEY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,): As my hon. friend was informed in reply to a similar Question on 27th March, 1907, the cost of importing indentured immigrants varies. In the last completed financial year it was between £27 and £28 per head. The sources from which this amount is made up are as stated in the Question. So far as we are aware the balance of opinion in the island seems to incline to a continuance of the present system, but the Secretary of State is prepared to address further inquiries on this subject to the Officer administering the Government.

  Newfoundland Fisheries Settlement.
  *SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Papers can be presented showing the present attitude of the Government of Newfoundland towards the recently concluded modus vivendi in the fishery question with the United States.
  COLONEL SEELY: There are no Papers which can conveniently be laid at present, but I am glad to inform my right hon. friend that the Government of Newfoundland have expressed much gratification at the conclusion of the modus vivendi, and the revocation of the Order in Council of 9th September, 1907, which the acceptance of the modus vivendi by that Government has rendered possible.

  British Indians in British Columbia.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information as to the intentions of the Dominion Government with regard to British Indians in British Columbia.
  COLONEL SEELY: Proposals have been made for sending some of the East Indians now in British Columbia as free labourers to British Honduras, and it appears from Press telegrams that the Dominion Government are taking steps in this direction by sending two Indians to British Honduras to inquire into the practicability of the scheme.
  In answer to a supplementary Question by Mr. Mitchell-Thomson—
  COLONEL SEELYsaid he was awaiting a Report on the scheme, and some little time would elapse before that could be received.

  Telegraphic Communication with Demerara and Trinidad.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made with regard to the improvement of telegraphic communication to Demerara and Trinidad.
  COLONEL SEELY: Considerable progress has been made in the negotiations since I replied to the hon. Member's last question on this subject in July last, in fact I may say that they have been practically completed. The question of a site in Trinidad has, however, still to be settled by the local Government, some difficulty having arisen through the possibility that the new service may interfere with the existing service to Tobago. The Secretary of State in writing to Trinidad has expressed the hope that every effort will be made to establish direct communication with British Guiana by means of wireless telegraphy at an early date.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the rate for cable communication to British Guiana?
  COLONEL SEELYsaid he would get the information for the hon. Member.

  The All Red Route.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the present position with regard to the All-Red Route proposals.
  COLONEL SEELY: No Report has yet been made by the Committee on the All-Red Route. The Committee are considering an Interim Report, but will be unable to report finally until certain further information has been obtained from the self-governing Dominions.
  EARL WINTERTON: Can the hon. Gentleman give any indication when the Report is likely to be received? Will it be before Christmas?
  COLONEL SEELY: I am afraid I cannot say at present.

  Newfoundland Fisheries Dispute.
  *SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information concerning the recent conclusion with the United States of a modus vivendi with regard to the Newfoundland fishery; and whether Papers can be presented showing the form in which the question is submitted to the Hague Tribunal.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): Full information with regard to the nature and effect of the modus vivendi was given in a statement communicated to the Press on 14th August last, to which I do not think that I can usefully add anything. With regard to the second portion of the Question, I would state that the terms of reference to arbitration of the fishery questions at issue are still under discussion, and it would, therefore, be premature to lay any Papers on the subject.

  Macedonian Gendarmerie.
  MR. PONSONBY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any suggestion has been made for the reduction of the British officers attached to the Macedonian Gendarmerie; and, if so, whether he will take into consideration the importance of maintaining the whole staff of British officers whose services are still cordially welcomed by the Turkish Government.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Turkish Government have been asked by the Powers whether they wish for the withdrawal of the foreign officers attached to the Macedonian Gendarmerie. No answer has yet been received. There is no intention of reducing any officers
  934
  whose services the Turkish Government desire to retain.
  MR. LYNCH: May I ask what course it has been decided to take with regard to the financial position?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I see nothing about that in the Question on the Paper.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of it.

  Tong-Shan Engineering College.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the dismissal of the English principal of the Tong-shan Engineering College without previous reference to the engineer-in-chief of the Northern Railways; and whether, seeing that the college is maintained from the earnings of a railway mortgaged to British bondholders, he will make inquiry as to the circumstances.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The facts of the case are as follows:—The principal of the college was engaged in 1905. By the terms of his engagement, three months' notice was to be given by either side to terminate it. About a month ago the principal received notice under this clause. His Majesty's Minister at Peking has been asked to intervene on the principal's behalf on the ground that six months' notice is usual, and Sir John Jordan has appealed to the Director-General of Railways in regard to the case. The matter is still under consideration.

  British Employees on Chinese Northern Railways.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the number of dismissals of British employees from the Chinese Northern Railways; whether Article 6 of the Loan Contract of 10th October, 1908, expressly restricted the right of dismissal to cases of incompetency and misconduct; and what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take, in view

  935
  of the British financial interests involved in the railways, to prevent the persistent violation of this article.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I am informed that two traffic inspectors on the railway have received notices of dismissal, and Mr. Kinder, the Engineer-in-Chief, has protested to the Director against the step; but no official information has reached His Majesty's Minister in China either from Mr. Kinder or from the British and Chinese Corporation as agents of the bondholders. Sir John Jordan is, however, inquiring into the matter, and as to the bearing of Article 6 of the Loan Contract of 10th October, 1898, on these cases. The article in question provides that the principal members of the railway staff may, in the event of their misconduct or incompetency, be dismissed after consultation with the Chief Engineer.

  The Dardanelles.
  MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the event of an agreement being reached between the Governments of Russia and Turkey for the passage of Russian warships from the Black Sea into the Mediterranean, His Majesty's Government will make it a condition of their assent to such an arrangement that our warships shall have similar rights of passage into the Black Sea; and whether, in the recent discussions that have taken place between His Majesty's Government and that of Russia, the Russian Government have been informed in this sense.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The question of the Straits is not included in any suggested programme for the Conference and it would in my opinion add to the difficulties of the situation if the discussion of subjects outside those with which we have immediately to deal wore insisted upon. The hon. Member may rest assured that in any discussion about the opening of the Straits His Majesty's Government will see that British interests are not injuriously affected.
  MR. LYNCH: Arising out of that answer, may I ask whether it is a fact that His Majesty's Government expressed the view that this is a matter which can be settled between Turkey and Russia;
  936
  and that the Turkish Government demurred to that?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I do not desire to promote any discussion of the question of the Straits at this moment, when there are so many other things under discussion. I must decline to answer these questions piecemeal.

  Old-Age Pensions.
  *CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state whether a man of over seventy years of age, having £800 stock in Consols producing an income of £20 a year, is eligible as an old-age pensioner for 5s. a week; and whether a man in receipt of a compassionate allowance of 13s. a week, which he has received for a year, is not eligible for any old-age pension whatever.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): On the assumption that the claimant has no other means, the Answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. The Answer to the second would, under the provisions of Section 4 of the Old-Age Pensions Act, depend upon whether there was, or was not, a reasonable expectation that the claimant would continue to receive the allowance during the succeeding year.
  *CAPTAIN FABER: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see his way to put a man who has been working all his life on an equal footing with those who happen to possess £800 worth of Consols?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is a very conjectural case, and one that is unlikely to happen.
  CAPTAIN FABER: May I have an Answer to my Question?
  [No Answer was returned.]
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the receipt of sick pay by a member of a friendly society will be taken into account in considering the income of

  937
  the person under the Old-Age Pensions Act.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The matter is one for the pension committee to determine in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 (1) (a) of the Act upon the facts of each case.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: Will instructions be given to the pension committees on this point?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I must ask for notice of that.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of obtaining a decision at once on this very important matter?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Each case will be decided by the pension committee as it arises on the facts.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the conflicting instructions issued by the Local Government Board and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue with reference to the areas of the subcommittees and the districts of pension officers under the Old-Age Pensions Act; and whether he proposes to take any steps to bring these instructions into agreement with one another.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am not aware of any conflict. The administrative arrangements which have been adopted do not require that the areas served by pension officers should be co-terminous with those served by the pension committees, nor is it intended that this should invariably—or even usually—be the case.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I beg to ask Mr. Chancel of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the fact that under No. 35 of the Old-Age Pensions Regulations, 1908, a great deal of information will be required from boards of guardians and their officers as to whether relief has been given to applicants for old-age pensions, and also as to the mode of life of many
  938
  such applicants, he will arrange that provision be made for payment for such information from the national Exchequer, as the Local Government Board have stated in a circular letter, addressed to boards of guardians, and dated 10th October, 1908, that it is understood that the pensions officers have no funds out of which such payments can be made.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am not prepared to propose a grant from the Exchequer for this purpose. In view of the enormous saving which will ultimately accrue to local rates from the diminution in the charge for poor relief to be expected from the inauguration of the pension scheme, I think it will be generally conceded that the ratepayer may reasonably be asked to bear the slight expenses incidental to supplying the information required.
  LORD R. CECILasked whether the effect of that arrangement would not be that while the pension officer was a representative of the Treasury he would receive payment from the ratepayers?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think so.
  LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is intended to issue instructions to the pension officers directing them in reporting on the means of a claimant for an old-age pension not to take into consideration the fact that he occupies a cottage at a rent less than the full rack rent; and, if not, will he explain why.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Pension officers have been instructed in calculating the means of a claimant to take into account, as provided in the Act, the yearly value of any benefit or privilege enjoyed by him. In regard to questions of rent such as that referred to by the noble Lord, the circumstances of the different cases are likely to be so widely divergent that it would not be practical to issue more specific instructions.
  LORD R. CECIL: Have any specific instructions been given to the pension

  939
  officers with regard to the valuation of rent?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think there are any specific instructions bearing on that point.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Board of Inland Revenue has instructed the pension officers to take into account, in estimating the income of claimants, the value of free board, lodging, or clothing; whether the execution of this instruction will involve meticulous inquiries into the precise value of ordinary articles of food and clothing; and, if so, whether he proposes to direct the Board of Inland Revenue to issue a fresh set of secret instructions to pension officers to ignore food and clothing of less value than the equivalent of a capital sum of £30, so that poor people may not be deprived of their pensions by the meticulous inquiries of pension officers.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Answer to the first Question is in the affirmative; that to the second in the negative; the third does not arise.
  MR. HAROLD COX: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that it is the duty of the pension officers to take into account the value of board and lodging, but that it is not their duty to make any inquiry as to the value?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is certainly not what I said.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I think it is.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the general powers which a public department possesses to direct its own affairs would enable the Board of Inland Revenue to issue instructions to pension officers to report against the claim of any persons who were deemed by that Board to be unfit for pensions; and what means a pension committee has of compelling a pension officer to report in accordance with the terms of the Act instead of in obedience to the orders of the department.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE;: I presume that it would be within the power of the Board of Inland Revenue to issue such instructions to pension officers, but I would remind my hon. friend that the Board would be responsible for any action taken by their officers in accordance with their instructions, for which I, in my turn, should be answerable to Parliament. The pension officer has, under Section 7 (1) (b) of the Act and No. 11 (2) of the Regulations, a statutory duty "to procure any further information which it is in his power to procure in reference to any matter to be considered by the committee" if the committee require him to do so, and it would not be open to him to plead official instructions as an excuse for the neglect of that duty.
  MR. HAROLD COXasked whether the pension committee could dismiss the officer if he disobeyed the law.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that statutory obligations were imposed upon him, and the officer was responsible to the Minister for refusing to carry out the law, while Parliament could call the Minister to account.
  MR. HAROLD COX: That is just what I should like to do.
  LORD R. CECIL: How is the House to make the Minister responsible unless the instructions are laid upon the Table of the House?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Question can be raised on the Minister's salary.
  *MR. HERBERT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has caused any estimate to be made of the additional cost of old-age pensions due to the exclusion from calculation of the means of applicants of furniture up to £30, in accordance with the departmental instructions to pension officers, above what would have been the cost as sanctioned by Parliament under Section 4 of the Old-Age Pensions Act, which requires all furniture to be taken into account in calculating the means of applicants.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have no statistics of the value of furniture possessed by claimants to old-age pensions, and the original estimates of the scheme were based on the assumption that any property of this character, of which account would be taken in calculating the means of an applicant, would be so small in amount as not to affect appreciably the cost of the scheme.
  *MR. HERBERT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will issue instructions to pension officers to keep a record showing the number of persons who become eligible for old-age pensions by virtue of the exclusion from the calculation of their means of furniture under £30 in value who would not have been qualified if all furniture had been taken into account in accordance with Section 4 of the Old-Age Pensions Act, the number of persons who receive pensions at a higher rate, and the total additional cost.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: No, Sir. The cost of making the detailed valuations, which would be necessary in the case of every claimant, for compiling such a record, would be considerable, and I should not feel justified in asking Parliament to vote money for the purpose.
  *MR. HERBERT: Will not the pension officers be obliged to make that valuation in any event? If they are to carry out the instructions and disregard the first £30 worth of furniture, and reckon the balance, how can they do that without making a valuation?

  Income-Tax.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that unnecessary hardship is imposed on tradesmen by the enforcement of the production of a balance sheet for the purpose of assessing their incomes for income-tax; and whether he can see his way to limit the demands of the Commissioners in such cases to the production of a profit and loss account.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I may perhaps be allowed to refer the noble Lord to a very full reply which I gave on this point on 19th May last in answer to a Question by my hon. friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. I do not think that I can usefully add anything to that reply, except to say that I have no power over district Commissioners.
  MR. RENWICK: Is it not the fact that the Commissioner and surveyors have no legal power to demand a balance sheet?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think that the hon. Member had better refer to the full and elaborate answer previously gave entering into the whole of this question.
  MR. RENWICK: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give me an answer now? It is a very simple question.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Answer is that I have given the answer already. I cannot traverse the whole ground again.
  MR. RENWICK: I believe that the Commissioners are acting illegally.
  MR. MYER: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Commissioners have no power to ask for a balance sheet?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I cannot accept the interpretation of the Act given by my hon. friend. I think that they have the power.

  Administration of the Aliens Act.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if four Russian Jews, who were recently refused permission to land at Hull because they were undesirable emigrants, and who were deported under the Aliens Act, returned in another ship that did not carry twenty emigrants, and were then allowed to land; and, if so, whether steps will be taken under the Act to prevent the relanding of aliens who were found to be undesirable a short while previously.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): It is the fact that recently four aliens, who had been refused leave to land at Hull, returned a few days later and landed from non-immigrant ships. The Aliens Act gives the immigration officers no power to prevent any alien passenger from landing from a nonimmigrant ship. I regret to say that I have reason to believe that the landing of undesirable aliens from non-immigrant ships at Hull is carried on systematically; and the matter is engaging my attention.
  MR. FELLasked whether regulations could not be made which would prevent such an anomaly as a man described as an undesirable alien being refused one week and allowed to land the next.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that Question down.
  MR. LUPTONasked when the right hon. Gentleman proposed to bring in a Bill to repeal the Aliens Act.
  [No Answer was returned.]

  The Licensing Demonstration in Hyde Park.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received any Report from the Chief Commissioner of Police with respect to the demonstration in Hyde Park on Sunday, 27th September; and whether he will communicate the nature of that Report to the House.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have not received any such Report.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any evidence in his D apartment justifying the recent declaration of the Secretary of State for the Colonies that the demonstration consisted of imported inebriates?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not aware that any such declaration was made. ["Oh."] I repeat I am not aware of any such declaration. I have answered the Question on the Paper.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the number of arrests for drunkenness in the Metropolitan area on Sunday, 27th September, and Sunday, 20th September, respectively.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The number of arrests for drunkenness in the Metropolitan Police District was as follows: On Sunday, 20th September, 144; on Sunday, 27th September, 165.

  Overcrowding on the Metropolitan Railway.
  MR. WARDLE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the difficulties which passengers on the Metropolitan Railway whose journey necessitates changing at Baker Street Station between the hours of 8.30 a.m. and 9 a.m. have to experience in getting from one train to another; whether he is aware that the crowds of passengers have to pass through a narrow iron gate, which results in a scramble; whether he is aware that the trains at this time of the day provided to carry passengers to the City are few in number and of insufficient length, thereby causing overcrowding and inconvenience; and whether, in view of these facts, he proposes to take any, and, if so, what action.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): I have communicated with the railway company in the matter to which my hon. friend calls attention, and have received a reply of which I am forwarding him a copy.
  MR. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people who travel by this route are astonished that the volume of traffic is so well handled in so exceedingly confined a space?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I will send the hon. Member also a copy of the Company's reply, which will give him an answer to his Question.

  Sewage Disposal.
  MR. CLOUGH: I beg to ask the President of

  945
  the Local Government Board whether any further reports will be issued by the Royal Commission on the Treatment and Disposal of Sewage; and, if so, how many, and when does he expect to receive the final Report; and whether he proposes to introduce legislation for the regulation of trade effluents into public sewers before he receives the final Report of this Commission.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): I understand that the Royal Commission propose to issue a Report in the course of the next three months on the disposal of distillery refuse, and that in their final Report they will deal with the disposal of other trade effluents when not mixed with sewage. The date of the issue of the final Report cannot at present be given, but I do not think it will be necessary to await it before proposing legislation on the subject referred to in the Question.

  Deaths from Starvation in London.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the number of cases in the coroners' returns of starvation cases, respectively, connected with Shore-ditch, Holborn, and the whole of London; whether he has taken any, and, if so, what steps to reduce the numbers in future; and whether he will suggest to the guardians of those unions that they should make it known to the poor that they are willing to give necessary relief, and especially medical relief, to the poor who need it, in accordance with 43 Eliz., c. 2, s. 1, and 4 & 5 Will. IV., c. 76, so that the poor may apply before they become totally destitute.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The latest return of the number of deaths upon which a coroner's jury returned a verdict of starvation or death, accelerated by privation, shows that in the year 1907 there were forty-six such cases in the whole of London, of which eight were connected with Shoreditch and seven with Holborn. There appears to be no reason to suppose that the poor are unaware of the facilities for obtaining medical or other relief. In many of the cases mentioned in the return
  946
  relief was applied for and given, but the application was made at too late a stage. I will give consideration to the matter, but it is difficult to see what effective action can be taken in respect of persons who are unwilling to apply for relief, and whose cases are in no way brought under the notice of the guardians or their officers.

  Civil Service Socialist Society.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to a meeting of the Civil Service Socialist Society to be held on 20th October, to be presided over by Mr. S. F. Green, the prospective Socialist Parliamentary candidate for South Bristol, and to be addressed by Mr. H. M. Hyndman on the coming social revolution; whether the action of this political society has his approval; and whether he will allow the formation of other societies among Post Office servants having for their object the advancement of anti-Socialist principles.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): The hon. Member's Question has called my attention to the meeting to which he refers. Were the society an organisation within the Post Office, I should consider that its action in apparently inviting the public to attend the meeting constituted a breach of the Regulations. As, however, I understand the society is open to the whole Civil Service, and draws its Members from various Departments, I am communicating with the Treasury on the subject. As regards the last part of the Question there already exists among Post Office servants a society having among its specific objects the advancement of anti-Socialistic principles, and I have more than once stated I have no objection to the formation of other societies within the Post Office provided they observe the conditions laid down as regards the character of their activities.

  The National Telephone Company.
  MR. LEVERTON HARRIS: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether any employment has yet been found in the

  947
  Post Office service for men recently discharged by the National Telephone Company, owing to the stoppage of construction work due to the Government taking over the business of the Company; and what provision he proposes to make for finding work for men who are discharged in districts where there is no Post Office telephone system.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: As I stated yesterday, such discharges by the National Telephone Company as have recently taken place where they were not due to misconduct or incompetence, or to the termination of temporary employment or employment for certain special purposes, have been mainly caused by an exceptional falling off in orders obtained from the public consequent on the recent depression of business throughout the United Kingdom, and not by such a stoppage of the general construction work as is suggested in the Question. Employment has been found in the Post Office during the last six months for more than 100 of the men discharged, and I am anxious to do what I can in that direction; but the existing openings at my disposal are, of course, limited. As I have already stated, I desire to come to an arrangement with the Company whereby the general construction work of the telephone system can be steadily continued in the best way until the Company's undertaking is taken over by the Post Office.
  *MR. JAMES HOPE: Is not the right hon. Gentleman convinced by his own experience of the inexpediency of any attempt on the part of the State to resume the monopoly of traffic over which it has lost immediate control?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: On the contrary.
  MR. LUPTON: Is not the present an opportune time for new construction inasmuch as work can be done at moderate rates? Is it not the fact also that agricultural districts would benefit largely by an extension of the telephone system?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: That is too large a subject to be dealt with in an answer to a Question across the floor of the House. I should be glad, however, to discuss it on a suitable occasion.

  Hyde Park Roads.
  CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, looking at the state of unemployment now existing, he can recommend that the roadway from Princes Gate over the Serpentine to Bayswater Road be doubled so as to avoid the inconvenience for residents in Kensington having to go round by Park Lane to Paddington when the existing road across the park is shut.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. L. HARCOURT,): I regret that I am unable to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member. The existing road is a very wide one, and to double it would be to create an eyesore. It is only closed once a year, and then at the time of year least calculated to cause inconvenience.
  CAPTAIN FABER: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear the suggestion in mind?
  MR. L. HARCOURT: Certainly.

  Civil Servants and Territorial Camps.
  MR. BRODIE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any circular has been issued by the Treasury to say that if additional leave is given to Government employees who are in the Territorial Army they must refund their Army pay to the Government, and that if they want additional leave they may be called on to provide a substitute and also refund their Army pay; and whether such, or a similar, circular was issued after camp was over this year, leaving no choice to the men.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,): Circulars were issued on 30th March and 6th June last before the annual camps were held pointing out to Civil Servants that if they choose to spend their ordinary leave in camp they may draw both civil and military pay during

  949
  the camp period; if they take special leave for the purpose, and no substitute is required to perform their work in their absence, a deduction will be made from their civil pay equivalent to the amount of their military pay, excluding allowances. The cost of a substitute when required falls on the civil servant whose duties he performs, and the latter is in this case allowed to retain both civil and military pay from which to meet the charge, but any excess over the total amount of the military and civil pay is borne by the State.

  The Lews.
  MR. YOUNGER: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether any change has yet taken place in the financial situation in the Lews; whether the local administration remains in a position of bankruptcy owing to nonpayment of the greater part of the rates; and what he proposes doing to prevent the complete breakdown of that administration.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): I have no reason to believe that any change has taken place in the financial situation in the Lews. The Local Government Board are in communication with the parish councils, and any representations will be considered as soon as they are received.
  MR YOUNGER: If the rates continue unpaid how is it proposed to carry on the local administration?
  MR. SINCLAIR: My Answer covers that Question.

  The Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps are to be taken during the present session to improve the pay and position of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): I am anxious to proceed with the Constabulary (Ireland) Bill as soon as possible, and will take advantage of the first opportunity that may arise. The hon.
  950
  and learned Member is probably aware that the financial Resolution, which is a necessary preliminary to the introduction of the Bill, is at present before the House, and that the Committee on the subject has been deferred until Monday next.
  MR. MOORE: Will the Bill include provision for the improvement of the position of the officers as well as of the men?
  MR. BIRRELL: I would sooner not answer that Question, as it would involve entering into particulars.

  Loughgeorge Outrage.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Wednesday, 30th September last, an attack was made on the residence of a widow, named Mrs. Great-head, situate at Loughgeorge, about eight miles from Galway Town, shots being fired through the windows; whether he can state if the direction of the shots indicated an intention to do bodily harm or merely to intimidate; whether he is aware that Mrs. Greathead has been persecuted for a long time because she will not give up the farm which is her only support; how many arrests, if any, have been made; and what sentences, if any, have been passed on the perpetrators of the outrage.
  MR. BIRRELL: At eight o'clock on the evening of 30th September several gun-shots were fired through the windows of two rooms in Mrs. Greathead's house, one room being on the ground floor, and one on the first floor. The rooms were lighted up and the windows were unshuttered. Two members of the family were in each room but no one was hit. Many flattened grains of shot were found inside the windows. An empty cartridge case was found at forty yards distance from the house, and several gun-wads were found between that spot and the house. The shots therefore do not appear to have been fired at short range. It is the fact that Mrs. Greathead has been subjected to annoyance because she declines to give up a portion of her farm. All necessary protection is being

  951
  afforded to her. The police have not yet succeeded in obtaining sufficient evidence to justify any arrests in the case.

  Rinneen Outrage.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any arrests have been made in connection with the attack made on Michael Casey, a farmer living at Rinneen, near Ruan, about seven miles from Ennis, county Clare, in August last, when he was twice shot in the back of the head; whether he is aware that twenty-eight pellets were found in his head, shoulders, and back; whether it is the second time he has been the victim of firing outrages; what sentences have been passed in the case; to what reasons the police authorities attribute the outrages, and what steps they have taken to afford him protection in the future; and has Michael Casey quite recovered.
  MR. BIRRELL: Michael Casey was fired at and injured in the manner described in the Question on 11th September last. He was also fired at on 14th July, 1907, but was not hit. No arrests have been made. As the offender has not been traced, I am unable to state the motive for the offence. The police are affording full protection to Casey, who has quite recovered from his injury.

  Firearms in Ireland.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any arrests have been made in connection with the attack made on three labouring men in the employment of Miss Godley, Kilrar, near Farrigallen, by Carrick-on-Shannon, in August last, when they were fired at when engaged in, reaping oats, and one of their number, John Clay, was wounded by a bullet piercing his thigh; what sentences have been passed in the case; to what reasons the police authorities attribute the outrage, what steps they have taken to afford these men adequate protection in the future; and has John Clay quite recovered.
  MR. BIRRELL: On 9th September last John Clay and two other labourers
  952
  were reaping for Miss Godley when a shot was fired in an adjoining wood and Clay was injured in the leg. No arrests have been made. Tho police are not aware of any possible motive for firing at Clay, as both he and his employer are popular in the locality. In the opinion of the police authorities there is no necessity for affording protection to the men. Clay is progressing favourably, but has not yet quite recovered.
  EARL WINTERTON: What steps have been taken to discover who carry firearms in this district?
  MR. BIRRELL: I do not know that any special steps have been taken.
  MR. MOORE: Is it not the fact that since the Act has been repealed in twelve months outrages from firearms have increased by more than a third?
  MR. BIRRELL: It is the fact.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: We warned the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. MOOREasked whether the increase was not directly due to the action of the Government in repealing the Arms Act.
  MR. BIRRELL: No, Sir. During the most disturbed times in Ireland firearms were to be had and outrages were more frequent than now.

  Ministerial Salaries.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if it is proposed during the autumn session to introduce a Bill dealing with the revision of Ministerial salaries.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. As-QUITH,): The Answer is in the negative.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: Has the proposal to revise these salaries been abandoned?
  [No replay was audible.]

  The Government and Home Rule.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will state the nature of the pledges that he has given to make Home Rule one of the living issues at the next general election, and whether he will give the House an opportunity of discussing his proposals.
  MR. ASQUITH: The pledges which I have given on the subject on behalf of the Government are to be found in the debate this session on the Motion of the hon. Member for Waterford, and in answer to some later Questions. The whole matter was then fully discussed, and I see no reason for reopening it at this moment.
  *VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHasked whether the statement of Mr. Redmond at the Boston Conference that the right hon. Gentleman had given both public and private pledges that Home Rule would be one of the living issues at the next general election was correct.
  MR. ASQUITH: I have given no private pledges. My pledges have been public, and are to be found recorded in Hansard.

  Bakers and the Eight Hours Bill.
  MR. W. THORNE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he can see his way to give facilities for the passing of the Eight Hours Bill for bakers, in consequence of so many of them working eighty, ninety, and in some cases 100 hours per week.
  MR. ASQUITH: I am afraid that this is not a Bill which comes under the category of strictly non-controversial measures, and I cannot therefore hold out hopes that the Government will be able to afford facilities.
  MR. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the bakers protest against this suggested interference, and that at least one hon. Member has been strictly informed by his constituency to block this Bill on all occasions?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am afraid this is not a Bill for which the Government can hold out any hopes.

  Licensing Bill—Time Limit.
  MR. ELLIS: I wish to ask the Prime Minister the Question—of which I have given him private notice—whether he is prepared to put the House in possession of the terms of the Amendment by which it is proposed to carry out the suggestion that for a short term of years succeeding the fourteen years the surrender of the monopoly value shall not be necessarily a condition of the renewal of an old licence.
  MR. ASQUITH: Without pledging myself in this stage to any precise form of words the suggestion which I made would, I think, be given effect to by adding the following proviso to subsection 1, Clause 3: "Provided that until the expiration of seven years after the termination of the reduction period there shall be no power to attach as a condition to the regrant of an old licence any condition for securing to the public the monopoly value of the licence." A definition of "old licence" will have to be inserted defining the term to mean, as regards on-licences, existing licences within the meaning of the Act of 1904, i.e., licences existing before the passing of that Act, and as respects off-licences, licences existing before the passing of the Bill.

POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
Mr. Sydney Buxton, Mr. Crossley, and Mr. William Nicholson nominated Members of the Select Committee on the Post Office Sites Bill.—(Mr. Joseph Pease.)

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B. (in respect of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Bill): Mr. Munro Ferguson; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. Charles Corbett.
Report to lie upon the Table.

LICENSING BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham), in the Chair.]
Clause 3:
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. L. HARCOURT,)was about to propose the Amendment standing in his name, when—
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the Prime Minister had just told them the terms in which the Amendment which he foreshadowed would be ultimately couched. Could he not move it in this place?
MR. LEIF JONESasked if they had not by the closure Resolution finished subsection (1) of Clause 3.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that if the Amendment was a part of subsection (1) it was clear that they could not deal with it now.
MR. JAMES HOPEsaid that if the Resolution on the Paper was carried subsection (2) disappeared; would it not then be possible to move a new subsection (2) other than what was on the Paper?
MR. WALTER LONGsaid the Motion on the Paper was to omit the existing subsection and substitute a new one. Was it not open to the Government to retain the Motion for the omission, and substitute for the new subsection the Amendment which the Prime Minister had read to them?
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,)said he would be very glad indeed to do that, but it was impossible, because his Amendment was a proviso to subsection (1), and could not be introduced as a new subsection.
MR. L. HARCOURTsaid he would explain the object of the Amendment on the Paper. It was put down to fulfil a
956
promise made by the Prime Minister a few days ago that he would make two things which were the intention of the Government abundantly clear; first of all, that the local option provided under Clause 2 should continue under the extended circumstances after the reduction period of fourteen years had terminated, that it should extend to new and to old on-licences after the period of fourteen years, and also that where the local option was exercised after that period and under somewhat different circumstances a two-thirds majority of those voting would be necessary for the carrying of that Resolution. He was aware from the Notice Paper that there was some difference of opinion as to the particular fraction which should be adopted for such a majority, but the proposal of the Government showed that on this occasion at all events they had chosen the golden mean. He might be told by some of his hon. friends that three-fifths was a common figure in use in the United States of America and in many of our Colonies; he might even be told that where two-thirds was in use—he believed it was in Queensland—it had never been operative; but he would also ask whether three-fifths would be operative either; he thought it would probably be discovered that it would not. They had thought that it was reasonable that where what a certain number of people regarded as an inconvenience was to be inflicted on the locality it should be done by a sensible and a considerable majority of those who had taken the trouble to express their opinion on the subject. As to the reason for the selection of two-thirds instead of three-fifths, it was always difficult to explain why one fraction should be chosen rather than another, and perhaps it would be as good a reason as another to say that we were at present a duo-decimal rather than a decimal nation and that our people were more accustomed to think in thirds than in fifths; but he would point out to those who disapproved of the two-thirds majority that it was the provision that was maintained in the Liquor Traffic (Local Control) Bill of 1895, and a proposal which was at that time frankly accepted. The two-thirds majority had even appeared in some of the permissive Bills

957
which were introduced into the House by the late Sir Wilfrid Lawson, although not in all of them. Therefore he could not believe that that figure was one which would be objected to by any large number of those who were concerned in the discussion of this question. He thought that for the sake of temperance itself they should aim at securing a large majority. As to subsection (b), it had been slightly enlarged or amplified in form from that in which it originally appeared on the Paper. It had been done in order to show that they anticipated in the future that power would be given by this House to localities not only to limit but to reduce the number of licences then in existence. The whole of subsection (b) was suggestive, and it was quite impossible to bind them either to a minimum or to a maximum. They had thought it right here to suggest what seemed to them two obvious and necessary developments of this policy at a future date, but it did not exclude other developments which might be added by Parliament fourteen years hence. His own opinion was that by that time the public view on this matter would have so developed, owing possibly to the success of this Bill in operation, that that public opinion would then carry with it its own amplification. As to subsection (c), that had been put down in order to make it clear that a resolution for the prohibition of the issue of new licences during the period of reduction, if it happened to be in operation at the close of that period of reduction, should not be taken then to mean a total prohibition of all the licences in existence. That would be an obvious injustice, because the vote would not have been taken on that question when it was carried, and it would have been carried, too, by a simple majority; but at the same time it was provided that if such a resolution had been put into effect less than three years before the termination of the reduction period, that Resolution should come to an end then and should not prevent the locality from taking a fresh vote under the different circumstances immediately the reduction period had come to a close. He hoped that these provisions had met the promises which were made by the Prime Minister, and
958
that this elucidation of the policy proposed would meet with a more or less general acceptance from the Committee.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 18, to leave out subsection (2), and to insert' (2) On the termination of the reduction period: (a) The foregoing provisions of this Act as to local option shall take effect as if a majority of two-thirds of the votes given were required for the carrying of a resolution instead of a bare majority; and (b) those provisions shall be extended in such manner as Parliament may determine so as to authorise a resolution limiting the number of licences to the number existing at the time, or reducing that number to any less number; and (c) a prohibitory resolution in force at the date of the termination of the reduction period shall cease to have effect, but the provision of this Act as to the interval required between the taking of polls shall not prevent a poll being taken on a further resolution, although three years have not elapsed since the date of the poll on the resolution which has so ceased to take effect.'"—(Mr. L. Harcourt.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'after' in line 18, stand part of the clause."
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not propose at that moment to say anything upon the general principle of local option, to which he was unalterably opposed, but he had other observations to make which must be made in order that they might enter on the wider discussion with a freer hand and a more intimate knowledge as to what were the real intentions of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman began his statement by saying that the proposal with regard to a two-thirds majority had always been the intention of the Government, and that his Motion was intended to make that intention perfectly clear. It was a very extraordinary statement to make. They were quite prepared to give the Government a large licence in changing their minds, but it was too great a strain for their credulity to believe that the Government were quite clear that they always wanted this subject determined by a two-thirds majority, and that they happened to forget to give that information to the draughtsman. The truth was that they had found their own plan would not work, and they now found it necessary to alter

959
fundamentally, or at any rate in a very important particular, their original proposals. That was not the only point in this subsection on which the Government had entirely altered their original views. He must remind the Committee that this subsection gave local veto not merely in the question of on-licences but in the question of off-licences.
MR. L. HARCOURT: No.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Certainly. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me quite clearly whether this applies to off-licences or not?
MR. L. HARCOURTsaid he was sorry he did not have an opportunity of explaining on Friday the intention of the words added to the Bill. Nobody regretted the absence of the possibility of explanation more than the Minister himself. If he had had that opportunity he would have explained what was the intention of the Government, and what had been the result of the Government's Amendment. The intention of that Amendment was merely to provide that the monopoly value, if any, of old off-licences after the reduction period should be secured. Under Clause 5 of the Bill the monopoly value of all new licences was taken, including off-licences. In taking the monopoly value in future of off-licences they were not taking any property which they had now got—nothing in the nature of an equitable expectation or a sacred right. It was clear that that view was held by the late Government, because in their Bill of 1904 they left the discretion of the justices as regards off-licences what it had always been. He believed it was universally admitted that off-licences had no monopoly value now, but it had perhaps only recently been realised that when this Bill became an Act, under the operation of Clauses 1, 2, and 3, it was quite possible that after the expiration of fourteen years they might create some monopoly value for off-licences which they did not now possess and to which they were not entitled. They had all suffered from the growth of accidental claims of that sort, and they thought it was desirable to take steps now to prevent such growth after the reduction period. Therefore the
960
intention of the words was merely to secure that if any monopoly value between now and then for off-licences came into operation it should be secured to the State, and that notice to that effect should be given now to the holders of off-licences so that no such expectation could arise. That was the intention, and he hoped the effect, of the Amendment.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the right hon. Gentleman had absolutely mistaken the point of his observations. He thought the question of monopoly value was irrelevant to this subsection, and the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in supposing that he was clearing up a difficulty in regard to the monopoly value of off-licences, with which he was not attempting to deal. This point was of a different kind. As he read the language of subsection (1) of Clause 3, the Government extended to off-licences all the provisions applicable to the grant of new licences. One of those provisions was that after a certain period there should be local veto upon them, from which it seemed to him that the inference was absolutely clear that local veto was applicable to off-licences, or would be applicable to them after the reduction period. He was himself quite incapable of reading the words in any other sense, and unless the Government were prepared to get up now and contradict him on that point—
MR. L. HARCOURT: That was not and is not the intention of the Government and I hope it is not the effect of the Amendment. If it is the effect of the Amendment which has been inserted it shall be altered on Report.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think he had put a strained and paradoxical interpretation on the language of the Bill as amended. Might he interject the remark that the Opposition had never interfered with the Government in the framing of their Amendment; they were never allowed the opportunity of discussing it. The Government and their draftsmen had been given ample time for considering how to draft their Amendment, being protected from inconvenient criticism after they had drafted it. They then came

961
to the House of Commons and told them two things. In the first place, they said, it carried out the original intention of the Government, though quite obviously it should not. Secondly, the meaning of the Amendment, as far as he could see from its words, and which every single Gentleman with whom he had talked had always held that they carried with them, was that local veto was to be applied to off-licences as well as to on-licences, which he should have thought the Government, in strict logic, would have thought to be the proper course. When he was told that this interpretation of their words burst upon the Government with surprise, that they had never agreed to that policy, and that they were going to correct it on Report, he was really filled with amazement. He was always aware, partly from his own painful experience and partly from his observation of the painful experience of other people, that when there was a small interval given between the arduous work of Parliamentary sessions the Government did not do its work as well us it would have been done if a longer time had been at their disposal. He was bound to say that never was there clearer proof that the Government was utterly overworked and incapable of considering the words of the Bill which they were driving through the House than that which was presented to them that day by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Amendment. In the plain meaning of the words, as interpreted by the right hon. Gentleman's own friends, by hon. Gentlemen opposite as well as by the Opposition, the principle of local veto was to be extended not merely to on-licences, but to off-licences. So clear was the Prime Minister that there could be no mistake as to the effect of the Amendment, that when he suggested that a little more time should be given to the House for discussion, the right hon. Gentleman told them that they had not voted against it, that, therefore, it was clear they had all agreed to it, and that at all events they were precluded from asking the Government to grant an opportunity for discussion. Yet the very first five minutes of this discussion had been the means of eliciting from the Government an inter-
962
pretation of their own policy which no human being who read their Amendment had ever thought it was capable of. However, the right hon. Gentleman now told them that the plain intention of the Government, as it had always been, was that there should be a two-thirds majority after the period of reduction, that off-licences should not be included in the local veto scheme, and that he meant to put down an Amendment making that patent and effective on the Report stage. He would only be wasting time if he were to discuss the very important and interesting question which would be raised if the Government's clause really carried out the Government's policy. But as it did not carry out the Government's policy, and as they were going to re-think their new thoughts, he withheld until the Report stage any criticism upon that subject. Without trespassing upon the broad issue raised by the principle of local veto, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman a question with regard to subsection (b) of the proposed new clause—
"Those provisions shall be extended in such manner as Parliament may determine so as to authorise a resolution, etc."
Had the right hon. Gentleman, or those under whose advice he acted, any precedent for a subsection which contained terms so amazing as those which he had placed upon the Paper? The terms were mandatory to the Parliament of fourteen years hence to carry out the object which this Government wanted carried out, but the machinery for the carrying out of which they were too idle to devise. Parliament fourteen years hence "shall do something"; it might choose its own method of doing it, but this Parliament said it "shall be done." This Parliament ordered them to do it, and they were to find the means of doing it. Was there any precedent in any Act of Parliament for this kind of direction? Some future Parliament was to deal with this, very complicated and difficult question which they, who were the authors of this mandatory provision, had not themselves thought of doing. [An HON. MEMBER: The Water Board.] It was a private Bill to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but he could not

963
imagine their dealing with a great question of public policy by such means as were provided by subsection (b), in which the policy was laid down, while the mode of carrying it out was not prescribed. He did not know how many general elections there might be between the present moment and the fateful period when the fourteen years elapsed. [Cries of "Two" and "Three."] There were to be two general elections according to the prophetic instinct of the Solicitor-General, and the second Parliament elected was ordered by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends to carry out their present object, and to devote its best abilities to find out the means. The future Parliament would be allowed to settle its own methods, but not its own policy. He really thought that this subsection was one of those illusory pretences or illusory contributions to the temperance literature which carried with it no effect, which might have some effect on the consciences of hon. Gentlemen who were deeply interested in this particular form of dealing with the problem, but which ought not to be allowed to appear with the authority of the responsible Government upon the Statute-book of the country. They had no right whatever to tell some future Parliament that it was to do something whether it liked it or not, and that it was hoped they would find a convenient and expedient method of doing it. Subsection (b) certainly ought to be excised, and he would only say, in this part of the debate, that even in the short discussion which they had had, it was perfectly clear that the Government had never known their own minds, and they had not been able, with all the advantages they had, to draft their Bill so as to carry out what they now said was their original intention; and when they put a new Amendment on the Paper it appeared to carry with it effects which, however pleasing to hon. Gentlemen behind them, never were part, they were given to understand, of the original scheme of the Government. If the objection to local veto and local prohibition could be strengthened by the mode in which the Government tried to put it into force, then it would certainly be greatly strengthened by
964
this extraordinary proceeding, a proceeding which would have been amazing in any circumstances, and which was little short of a Parliamentary scandal from the way in which it was carried out under the regulations for discussion.
*MR. WHITEHEADsaid he wanted to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to press this Amendment, but either to withdraw the clause or go back to the former clause as embodied in the Bill and as fully considered by the Government themselves. That clause involved leaving in the hands of future Parliaments the duty of working out all the details of a very complicated question. There were two or three considerations which made the former clause more expedient and more worthy the acceptance of the House. In the first place, there was no adequate time for the discussion of this very important question. The time-table under which they were acting was fixed under very different conditions from those now existing, because the Government Amendment opened up a new discussion. Secondly, there was no need to leg slate hurriedly to-day on an issue which concerned only the future after the lapse of fourteen years. But another reason which weighed with him with equal if not greater force was that he regarded the Amendment of the Government as an absolute stab in the back for the future of temperance reform. He believed that local veto, saddled with the two conditions of absolute local prohibition and of a two-thirds majority, would be fatal to any future ratepayers exercising the popular veto. That was a very grave consideration, and those of them who were ardent supporters of the Bill, and who were anxious to see not only a diminution of licences in the next few years, but a steady and continuous reduction in the years to come afterwards, could not help regarding such a clause as that now proposed as one seriously affecting the interests of temperance reform. There was one assumption underlying the clause which affected the whole principle of local option and local veto, namely, that it was a purely local question. It never was a purely local question. If they went back to the remotest times of licensing

965
there was always a wayfarer or traveller—a man whose business called him from home and who might legitimately expect to have facilities for refreshment in whatever part of the country to which his business might call him. If that was true a hundred years ago, or fifty years ago, it was increasingly true to-day. The whole conditions of modern life were such that the work which men had to do lay far from their homes; and as facilities for locomotion increased, licensing became less and less a purely local question. It was very largely a local question, but not a purely local question, any more than the use of our roads was a purely local question. Roads were maintained at the expense of the localities, but it would be an extraordinary proposition to say that therefore they were not to be free to the public at large. The conditions which rendered the licensing question less a purely local one were increasing in their effect day by day. To take a single illustration of the anomalies that would arise if they had regard solely to local considerations: in the City of London there was an electorate of about 30,000 people, and a population who came there during the day time of, perhaps, something like 1,000,000. He was quite aware that the City would not form a single licensing area under the Bill. But it would suffice to take it as a type and illustration. Yet, as he understood, if the doctrine of local option pure and simple were applied, this 30,000, or it might be a residuum representing so many thousand caretakers and charwomen, would decide absolutely whether a large body of men coming from all parts, and residing at Brighton, Seven-oaks or Southend, should carry on their business under conditions to which they were accustomed, and which were almost necessary to the performance of their work. Therefore, it was not a purely local question, but he felt very strongly indeed that the local view was of very great importance, and in any reform of the licensing system the local view ought to be given full effect to. But when he said the local view he did not mean merely the view of any majority or any minority. As he understood the Government Amendment, if they had 100 electors, and 65 of them were in favour of a prohibition of licences and 35 were against, the view of
966
those 35 would be absolute and binding on the whole community. That was a reductio ad absurdum of the doctrine of popular control. He did not believe in these days that any minority or any majority either in a matter of this kind had any moral right to trample down the views of other people. He believed any sane system would allow due regard to be given to the views of all. Surely his hon. friends who were Nonconformists could not fail to remember how deep-seated had been the feeling throughout the community at the action taken by the Church of England Party with regard to the education question when they were the dominating power in that House. There was the grievance which the Nonconformists felt because their view, whilst they were in a minority, was unduly disregarded in the settlement of that question. In the same way fair treatment of minorities should be accorded in the settlement of the licensing question, as in the settlement of any other question which deeply stirred the interests, the opinions and habits of a large body of the people. He spoke as one most anxious for the carrying into effect of the Bill, and most anxious to support the Government in the immediate but also the future reduction of licences. If it was left in the Bill in the form in which it was proposed by this Amendment they would have a system which, so far as it went, was complete. That was to say they would have a system of local veto with merely two conditions attached to it. If Parliament hereafter added other conditions well and good, but they knew very well that Parliamentary time was constantly taken up by new questions arising, and as there would be no absolute necessity thrown upon the future Parliament to legislate on the matter it might well be that the conditions imposed in this Bill and by the Government Amendment would not merely become law for the next few years, but would remain law for a long period either because they were in the view of the dominant Party of the day sufficient for the purpose, or because there were other questions which Parliament thought more urgent, and felt called upon to deal with. In this matter where they were creating an instrument which was to carry out certain work

967
they must consider the material of which that instrument was going to be made. The instrument in this case was made of the elector—the average man of the country. They must bear in mind who and what the average elector was. They would never get a majority of two-thirds unless they carried with them the moderate man, the man who was neither a publican nor a drunkard, nor one who believed that every form of alcohol was an injury to the system, and to the State. The moderate man had after all merely the instincts of an Englishman. He, as a rule, was not a deep political thinker, but the fundamental instinct, perhaps the guiding principle of English political life was the love of liberty, and that applied, not only to themselves, in so far as they disliked to be interfered with and liked to lead their lives according to their own views, but it affected also the attitude they took towards public questions. Especially did it affect those who belonged to the Liberal Party and believed this love of freedom was peculiarly in their own charge. He believed the average elector, if the issue were put to him: Shall I vote in favour of depriving my neighbour of all right to that form of refreshment which he is accustomed to, and thinks necessary for his system—would say: "No, I have no moralright to deprive him of it absolutely," and the result would be that local option would not in effect have any operation on an extensive scale. That being so, any system of local veto must be one which came into force gradually, and allowed for a reasonable reduction in accordance with the views of the locality. He hoped the Government would see their way to accept at a later stage some Amendments he had on the Paper to effect that purpose. He desired to see a gradual and steady reduction of licences not only to-day but also in years to come, and he wished to have fair consideration of the needs of the travelling public, and those who carried on their life's work away from their homes. He desired to see reasonable treatment of the minority as well as the majority, and he believed he was speaking in the true interests of the Bill and of temperance reform when he asked the Government not to insist upon imposing these two terms only in formulating a
968
scheme of local option, but to leave the whole matter to be carefully sifted at some future date by a Parliament which would have time to deal with the whole question. He made this appeal to the Government of which he was a faithful supporter, in no spirit of hostility to the Bill or to giving effect to local wishes, but with a sincere desire to see the work to which the Government had put their hand carried to a successful conclusion, and that it might really prove beneficial to the State.
EARL WINTERTONsaid he quite agreed with a good deal of what the hon. Gentleman had said. It would be quite impossible to make local veto or prohibition as contained in this clause anything but unjust and hard upon a large number of people. The Government might have failed to express their intentions, but at any rate, they had succeeded in introducing into their Bill the whole principle of prohibition. Whether or not grocers' licences were included, was a small matter compared with the question as to whether prohibition, as it was known in America and the Colonies, should be introduced into this country. What they had to deal with was prohibition pure and simple. That was the proposal which he was prepared to discuss on general lines. Although several opportunities had been given to the Government, they had not given the House one word of justification for the introduction of prohibition into this country. In every country where prohibition had been enforced, it had proved a total failure. It would be impossible without detaining the Committee at great length to go into the whole question of prohibition, and he would only endeavour to show that where it had been tried it had been such a dismal failure that the majority of people were anxious to go back to the previous state of things. He quoted an extract from an article by the hon. Member for the Woodstock division in the Nineteenth Century, which, he said, only bore out the view of every impartial person, whether Liberal or Conservative, who had been in a prohibition area. He had been in New Brunswick where the Scott Act,

969
passed twenty years ago, was in operation in certain areas, and he was assured by many people, Liberals and Conservatives, holding many different positions in life, that where the Act had been put in operation, though the saloons and the liquor traffic had been injured, and there was less open drinking, there was twice as much secret drinking us there had been before, and so far from inducing temperance it had led to the worst form of intemperance, namely, intoxication from drinking badly-distilled liquor which had never been sold in a properly conducted bar. That had been the effect all over the country. There was hardly a single State in which prohibition was enforced in which there was not some form of selling drink. They had not heard in that debate a single word in justification of the American system. The Prime Minister had told them how the system had worked in other countries, yet he came down to the House with a very badly drafted Amendment of which he could not explain the provisions and expected them to adopt the whole principle of prohibition and local option. It might be urged that they were not likely to have such violation of the law in this country, and so much corruption as had taken place in the United States and in other countries, but he did not see that there was any reason to suppose that that would not happen. They said it was an ill bird that fouled its own nest, but he would be sorry to say that the average man in Maine or New Brunswick was more corrupt than the average voter in this country. What had caused the law to be violated and corruption so prevalent was not the corruption of individual men but the badness of the laws themselves. There was no purer Anglo-Saxon community than in the New England States and Southern Canada, and they were in other respects a most law abiding people, but they expected to carry out things which could never be carried out by laws. Apart from that there was in America, Canada, and Australia at all times far less drinking of alcoholic liquor than in this country, and it was quite a common thing to go into a man's house and find nothing but temperance drinks—tea, coffee, and water. At any rate the temperance advocates and Governments of that country had been
970
consistent. He believed that in many instances in the prohibition States of America and in provinces in Canada where prohibition was in force no kind of alcoholic drink was admitted to the tables of members of the Government.. That was quite true; there were two cases in America where at the Governor's State banquet nothing but temperance drinks was permitted. What he wished to ask right hon. Gentlemen opposite was: were they prepared to go to that length in this country and carry the principle of prohibition to its logical issue. The prohibition areas of the United States and Canada had made the experiment and they admitted that it had failed to make total abstinence universal throughout those areas. No such suggestion of a general prohibition was made in the Bill nor had it been advocated by its promoters. As it stood, the effect of the subsection under discussion would be simply to prevent the poor man obtaining his drink under proper conditions, whilst on the other hand the rich man might have as much as he liked. It was for that reason that he and his friends maintained that the proposal was an undemocratic one and essentially a scheme to set up one law for the poor and another for the rich. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman to bring forward any justification for the proposal contained in the clause. They had not been able to prove the success of prohibition in any part of the world; it would simply lead to great inconvenience and even to universal corruption and disregard of the law.
MR. BELLOCthought the Committee was by this time convinced that the proposals of the Government were substantive as well as limiting. This was not merely a limiting Amendment—not merely an Amendment limiting the conditions under which local option would take place. It laid down that local option should exist in a very drastic form. A majority without doubt of the voting Liberals of the country, and probably a majority of the population, certainly a free majority of the House, were in favour of the main principle underlying the Bill, that the State should resume control, and that within a comparatively short period, over the liquor traffic. But on to that had

971
been tacked, and this was an example of it, a number of clauses which had nothing whatever to do with that main principle. They had to do with a totally different principle, the principle that fermented liquor was a bad thing for the individual or for the State and in some way to be legislated against. That point of view probably did not carry the majority if it were free, and it most certainly did not carry the majority of the English people. It did not even carry a majority of the drilled Liberal voters. He could not deny that he felt some surprise when he noticed in whose name the Amendment had been put down. Even those who had no very long political memory could remember 1895, and if there was one thing that it was the fixed resolution of the English people to have nothing whatever to do with, it was local option—not the politicians, not the local fairly well-to-do men who arranged elections, but the working people who voted. He could tell two constituencies in which the elections turned mainly on this matter, and one of them was Derby. He had spoken to a very full meeting of the licensed victuallers of his constituency. The House would appreciate what their point of view was likely to be. They treated him very courteously, but there was no enthusiasm. He had also spoken by request to a large and very representative meeting of the temperance people who thought fermented liquor to be a bad thing; he distinctly affirmed his position in the clearest manner, and though of course the meeting could not be unanimous, the Chairman and more than one of those present recognised that if they were to have a right to limit the number of licences by a democratic vote, at least they must also have a right to say whether there should be more or whether there should be any. If they were to have a public vote over small areas in which a two-thirds majority of ratepayers might say to the other third: "You shall not use your local club or public-house," it was a principle to which he was opposed. It was impossible for a man who desired to represent his constituency and voted freely to vote in favour of an Amendment which gave local option. The whole country was definitely against it.
*MR. F. E. SMITHsaid, in reference to the question as to whether off-licences were or were not included in the Bill as it stood, taking into consideration the Amendment and the original draft, he would be interested to hear the opinion of the Solicitor-General, because he could not conceive that there was any doubt at all that, as the Bill was drafted, off-licences must clearly be included. Clause 2 stipulated that, in respect of new licences local option should apply, while Clause 3 provided that on-licences should be treated as new licences at the termination of the reduction period. That provision in Clause 3 with the Amendment of the First Commissioner of Works would apply of course to off-licences. Another point was that if the Government were going to alter what the Bill now said so that local option should apply to off-licences, on what principle were they going to do so? He was opposed to local option and to the interference with off-licences contemplated by the Bill, but if it was the idea of the Government that local option was the proper way to deal with the spread of alcohol, which they were satisfied was at the bottom of very much immorality, and if they were going to leave it to the democratic vote of a constituency, what difference did it make whether it was sold for consumption on or off the premises? If there was anything in the panacea at all, it must apply to both forms of sale, and should not be limited to off-licences alone. There was another point which he hoped the Solicitor-General would explain. On what principle was a distinction drawn between the majority required in regard to local option in the first fourteen years and the majority required afterwards? In the first fourteen years it was to be a bare majority, and afterwards a two-thirds majority. He could not conceive what was the distinction of principle before and after the period of fourteen years. Another point to which he thought more attention should be given at present was the extraordinary proposal that—
"Those provisions shall be extended in such manner as Parliament may determine so as to authorise a resolution limiting the number of licences to the number existing at the time, or reducing that number to any less number."

973
Of course, that was pure prohibition. It was utterly irrelevant to draw a distinction between a passage in the Report of a Commission which condemned prohibition, and to point out that in other passages local option was not condemned at all. As to the proposal in the subsection, what it came to was this. The Government dared not propose prohibition in the degree to which they contemplated it would be possible to make proposals at a later date in some future Parliament, and, therefore, they laid down an academic instruction to future Parliaments which probably would have the utmost contempt for their policy.
While he thought the methods of the Government were novel and inconvenient, he commended their prudence. The hon. Member for Salford said there was nothing in the election of 1895 which was more responsible for the discomfiture of the Liberal Government of that day than local option, and that statement was received with considerable dissent by hon. Gentlemen opposite. He had there an extract from the Westminster Gazette, a journal which, he thought, would be regarded as representative of Liberal principles. After the election of 1895, that journal applied itself to the melancholy duty of ascertaining from Liberal candidates to what they attributed the uncomfortable experiences they had at the poll. Of the successful ones, who were not particularly numerous, 54 found the Licensing Bill harmful, 14 found it innocuous, and 16 only stated that it was helpful. Out of 157 defeated candidates 134 found the Bill harmful, 16 said that it did no great harm, and 7 said it was helpful. Only 13 out of 231 found it acceptable to the electorate on the Liberal side. The Prime Minister in introducing the concession by which for seven years after the expiration of the reduction period the monopoly value was not to be exacted in the case of licences renewed seemed to indicate that that breathing space would be of considerable value to licensed victuallers. He understood that during those seven years the licensed victualler would be exposed to having his licence taken away under the effect of a local option resolution. He wished to know from the Solicitor-General whether he was
974
right in that. What was the value of a concession of that kind if as the result of one of those popular votes the licence was liable to disappear? The licensed victualler's life would be one long convulsion as to whether or not his licence would be in existence when the next popular vote was taken. On Friday last the Westminster Gazette had a leading article stating that it would be a debt of honour which licensing justices and voters in a locality would be sure to recognise that during those seven years licences should not be interfered with. He would like to ask whether the Westminster Gazette represented the view of the Government on this point. Was I it the view of the Government that during those seven years there would be an honourable understanding that licensed victuallers were not to be dispossessed? If that was the view of the Government, and of the hon. Member for Westmoreland and others who held strong views on the subject, it would considerably clear the air. Was it the view of the Government that during those seven years local option should not work to the prejudice of the security of licensed victuallers? It might not be convenient for the Government to tell the Committee at the moment. If the view expressed by the Westminster Gazette was the view of the Government what was the objection of the Government to accepting the Amendment? If it was the desire of the supporters of the Government that there should be an honourable obligation, why give the voters in a locality who might not share the honourable obligation of the Government, the opportunity of taking away the licence? Another point to which he wished to call attention was the arrangements made by the right hon. Gentleman for ascertaining the opinion of a locality. They were told in the form of an Amendment that was to be determined by three-fourths of the votes given. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thought that was the best way of determining the sense of the locality on the point, or whether he thought he was in the least likely to get a really representative vote instead by taking the alternative method and insisting on a certain proportion

975
of votes in a particular area. In regard to that point there was a useful analogy. When the Government brought in the Education Bill of 1906 it was suggested by the present Secretary for Ireland that it was the genuine desire of the Government to give certain special facilities to parents who were not satisfied with the normal instruction. Their opinion was to be ascertained by ballot. He himself and his friends on that side of the House suggested that only the votes of those actually voting should be counted, and the Government utterly declined to consider that proposal; they said a representative ballot could not be got in the way they proposed. Speech after speech was made by his hon. friends and by Irish Members pointing out that it would be an essentially inadequate ballot taken under those circumstances, The Government told them repeatedly that the proper way to get the opinion I of the parents was to take, not the votes given, but the total number of voters qualified to give votes, and to take the majority of them. Surely they were entitled to know why a ballot which represented the sum of political wisdom when dealing with an Education Bill was totally inadequate when dealing with a Licensing Bill. An answer was not necessary, for everyone knew that under the Education Bill the desire was to make the facilities sham facilities, while the desire under this Bill was to make the will of the faddists effective. Therefore, the Government adopted the converse course in this case. The more he examined the provisions for local option in detail, the more he was struck by their inconsistency. The provisions were objectionable, and so far as the north of England was concerned, if the Government chose to go to the country on these local option proposals on the lines of the Bill, the statistician of the Westminster Gazette would have a more extensive field of inquiry than in 1895.
*MR. LEIF JONESsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman had challenged an appeal to the north of England in regard to the local option proposals. He would find that the opinion of the electors had al-
976
ready been expressed. Those who represented the north of England in this House had more right to sneak for the electors of the north of England than those who did not. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would consult their votes, he would see that a majority were in favour of local option in the form in which it was in the Government Bill. The debate that afternoon had resolved itself into a sort of Second Reading discussion on the principle of local option. He did not resent that, although personally he thought the time would have been better spent in discussing the method in which local option could be applied. If hon. Members would recall the Parliamentary history of this question, they would find that whenever in recent years there had been a majority of Liberals in the House there had been a majority in favour of local option legislation. The hon. Member for Hull, in one of those ejaculations with which he enlivened their proceedings, said on Friday that this was local veto in six hours. It was forty-four years since local veto was first presented to this House.
MR. LANE-FOX: And it would be forty-four years more.
*MR. LEIF JONES: It was forty-four years since the late Sir Wilfrid Lawson first introduced his Permissive Bill, and the question had been as fully discussed in the country and the House as any question could be. [An HON. MEMBER on the OPPOSITION Benches: In this Parliament?] Yes. It was perfectly well known at the general election that the result of returning the present Government to power would be the introduction of a local veto or local option measure. [Cries of "No" from the OPPOSITION Benches.] He held in his hand a manifesto put out by the National Trade Defence Association on the eve of the general election, and this was what that Association said to the licensed traders—
"No general election has ever meant so much to you as this. If you don't exert yourself now, you will have to face local veto. There is no sensationalism about this and no exaggeration."

977
That was the expectation of the trade. The speeches of His Majesty's Ministers were open to Members to read. Every one of them was deeply pledged on this question. Soon after the general election he had the opportunity of taking the opinion of the House on the question, and on a division the House declared in favour of the principle of local option on Colonial lines, by a majority of 227. Therefore, it was rather late in the day to pretend that it was a surprise to the trade to find this proposal in the Government Bill. The pledges of the Government and their supporters and the vote of the House, both led them to expect that local option would be part of the Government scheme for dealing with the licensing problem when they framed their Bill. He was sorry that the Government had not taken the Colonial precedents in regard to the proportion required to put local veto into operation. A two-thirds majority had been chosen. It was quite true that that majority found a place in some private Bills and in the Bill which the late Sir William Harcourt introduced in 1895. But he ventured to say that it was too large a proportion of the electorate to require to endorse any proposal. If a two-thirds majority were required in a Parliamentary election, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would not now be sitting there. Very few Members on the Government Bench received a two-thirds majority at the general election. Very few Members of the House received a two-thirds majority. He himself was elected by a bare majority, and there were many other Members who were in the same case, while some Members even represented a minority of the electors in their constituencies. If a majority vote was counted sufficient to change the Government of this country and Empire and to place in power a set of men holding entirely different ideas and principles from those who preceded them, was it not rather idle to pretend that a two-thirds majority was necessary on the question as to whether in a village there should or should not be the public sale of alcoholic liquor? He thought a majority vote was the logical and reasonable proposal. He had, however, accepted a three-fifths majority in the Amendment he had put
978
down. That would be ample to secure that there should not be the sudden changes of opinion on the matter which might be caused by a majority vote, although the experience of other countries did not point to the fact that a three-fifths vote was a more steadfast vote than that of a majority. The history of Cambridge, Massachusetts, was very instructive. It had had a "no licence" vote for twenty years. It was first carried in 1886 by a bare majority, and it had been maintained by a gradually growing majority since then. It was an annual vote, but it had at no time during twenty years reached more than 65 per cent. He had used the phrase "no licence" rather than "prohibition," because there was a very marked distinction between them. The hon. Member for Horsham rather emphasised that there was no logical distinction to be drawn between them. He believed that the same principle underlay "no licence" and "local option"; but "no licence" was not "prohibition." The noble Lord had insisted that the prohibition law had largely failed in Portland, Maine. His contention was that at its worst, so far as drunkenness was concerned, the Maine area would favourably compare with any licensed area in the world. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh."] If statisticians employed by hon. Members opposite would go into the convictions of people for drunkenness in Portland they would find that they were largely drawn from visitors to that place, and not from residents in the State. But so far as there were breaches of the law in Portland, he thought they might be said to arise as a consequence of the population which was to be found in Portland who were against the prohibition law which was imposed on the State not by their vote but by the vote of people in the rural districts of Maine. That was a possible danger in a prohibition law, but he was not afraid to face the danger, believing as he did that the benefits exceeded the defects. It was a danger arising from a vote over a large area. They might have a rural population desiring prohibition and enforcing it on an urban area which did not want it. It was obvious that such a condition tended to breaches of the law in a way that would not be possible if the vote were taken in

979
areas small enough to make it clear that the public opinion which enacted prohibition would also be behind the enforcement of that policy. The controversy in the United States was not as to popular veto or no popular veto, but as to the area over which it extended. The Member for Sal-ford had declared that the English people would never tolerate this interference with their liberty. But this liberty argument did not really arise in a discussion on a local veto Resolution; it had been settled by the adoption of a licensing system. There was no liberty to sell drink recognised in this country, no liberty on the part of anyone in this country to buy drink when and where he wanted to buy it. It was sold and bought when and where the justices determined it should be sold and bought. There were 3,900 parishes in this country where there was no public-house licensed for the sale of intoxicating drink; and that prohibition, for what it was worth, was enforced by wise and large public-spirited landowners in their own districts. In the county of Northumberland three neighbouring landlords had, of set policy, prevented the establishment of public-houses on their estates; and this was the verdict of Sir George Trevelyan, when Secretary for Scotland, as to the result of that experiment long continued on an extensive scale. And he would like the hon. Member for Salford, if he would extend his researches, to say if he could impugn the testimony of Sir George Trevelyan. Sir George said—
"Drinking shops are an evil in themselves, and they can be abolished and can be extinguished without any disadvantages to the public which in any degree can be weighed against the enormous disadvantages and evils of their existence. This may be to others a matter of theory, but it is to mo a matter of experience. Forty years ago Sir Walter Trevelyan took the matter into his own hands and suppressed public-houses over a large district of country. Since then a generation had grown up with the tastes and habits which were formed under a new system; with self-respect, frugality and a high standard of comfort for themselves, and what is much more important, for their wives and children. And I will venture to say that the most minute and even the most malevolent scrutiny could never discover in that district any evil whatever which has resulted from the suppression of the public-houses."
MR. YOUNGERsaid that Northumberland was one of the worst
980
counties in England in the way of drunkenness.
*MB. LEIF JONESasked if the hon. Member suggested that the drunkenness was caused by the absence of public-houses from these districts? Sir George Trevelyan was more interested in the matter than even the hon. Member, though he could recognise how very angry the liquor trade was at their exclusion from so large an area. Sir George continued—
"On the other hand, the most superficial observer would see signs on the very face of the country of innumerable blessings which have resulted from the change."
EARL WINTERTONsaid he now found that Northumberland, with the exception of Glamorganshire, was the most drunken of all counties.
*MR. LEIF JONESsaid that drunkenness was due to the sale of drink, and where drink was not sold it did not occur. But he was quoting Sir George Trevelyan who said—
"It has changed the face of the country and the appearance of the people. My neighbours—"
he invited hon. Members to go and see them. [An HON. MEMBER: Would he give you anything to drink?] He did not know about that, but if that was the only difficulty he thought it could be arranged, but Sir George went on—
"My neighbours have good health—"
MR. WALTER LONG: So have mine.
*MR. LEIF JONES:
"Good wages, good honour, good houses full of furniture, and have saved money—"
MR. WALTER LONG: So have mine.
*MR. LEIF JONES:
"They are neighbours indeed, and are not dependants—there is not a single pauper on the estate."
MR. WALTER LONG: Nor is there on mine.
*MR. LEIF JONESquite agreed that the right hon. Gentleman was one of the most enlightened landlords in the country, and he had

981
no criticism to offer in regard to him, but he was quoting this to show the state of things which was only to be found on the estates of the best and most enlightened landowners. That was one result of the enforcement of the provision. What were the results of local option according to the universal testimony of those who had gone into the question—though not, he admitted, by superficial observers? He would like to enter a protest against hon. Members running through the United States or Canada, and on their return posing as authorities on the question. Hon. Members opposite were ready enough to deprecate that sort of thing when it was done by people who went out to India. They should be very cautious of dogmatising in regard to the effects of legislation, and the opinions they had formed as the result of a cursory visit to Canada and the United States. He had been to Canada and the United States and Australia too, and he could only say that in forming the opinion he had come to on this question he had read everything in reason that had been written on the subject, and as far as he could inform himself as to the effects of these laws he had taken pains to do so. If hon. Members would do what had been done by the Liberal Party by degrees—if they would understand the case which the advocates of this legislation tried to put before the House, and realise the effects in other countries as shown by statistics and the observations of persons living many years in those countries, they would reach a very different opinion from that they now held. He claimed first for local option legislation throughout the world, that it diminished drinking. None who studied the figures could deny that the local option countries of the world were those where the people drank least. The effect of local option was to diminish the amount of drink sold, but even more remarkable still was the diminution of drunkenness in the no-licence areas. He had some figures from the town of Waltham in Massachusetts, a manufacturing town of watches and one which in regard to licence "wobbled" from one side to the other. It was alternately under licence and no-licence, and the point brought
982
out in the statistics was that the effect of no-licence was to reduce drunkenness by at least two-thirds. Waltham had a no-licence year in 1899–1900, and the arrests for drunkenness were 221 or 9–4 per 1,000. Waltham went back to licence in 1900, and the instant result was that the convictions for drunkenness jumped up to 634, or 27 per 1,000. The experience of that year drove Waltham back to no-licence in 1901, and convictions for drunkenness dropped to 179, or 7 per 1,000. Taking a period of fourteen years—five years of licence and nine of no-licence, the average arrests for drunkenness in licence years were between two and three times as many as in no-licence years. He could multiply instances of that kind. And when drinking and drunkenness were diminished the prosperity of every industry in the place was increased. Hon. Members might have seen a placard about in the last few months: "Less beer, more boots." That was the pictorial expression of a truth. If there was less consumption of drink and less drunkenness there was more consumption of useful articles, such as furniture, clothes, and better food Every industry benefited, and that was the cause of the steady growth of no-licence vote in Canada, the United States, New Zealand and Australia. A previous speaker was mistaken when he said the cause of prohibition was going back in America. It was spreading. In this year three States had gone prohibitionist throughout their whole area, and at the present momen about half the population of the United States was living in no-licence areas. It was not the mere spread of temperance "faddism" which made for the spread of no-licence. It was the vote of the steady level-headed men of business in New Zealand and elsewhere who knew that if they could get the licensed houses closed the share of the wages and the money spent in public-houses would go to other shops. No-licence also had the good enect that, even if workmen drank, at any rate they took their wages home first. They went home and changed. They left with their wives what they thought fit and went and got their drink in a licensed area, if they wished it. At all events the home came first

983
and the public-house second, and not the public-house first and the home second, as was too often the case in this country. Another result of local option was a great education of public opinion. In Cambridge, U.S.A., a University and manufacturing town of 100,000 inhabitants, for instance, for six years there was a majority for licence. In the seventh year no-licence was carried, and since then had been carried year after year. No-licence was originally carried by a very small majority—about 400—but the town was now 65 per cent. for no-licence, such had been the education of the community by the operation of the law. Another good effect was its immense restraint on the operations of the liquor traffic. It had good results in raising the standard of conduct in the public-houses. No greater restraint could be put before the eyes of the licensed traders than the knowledge that if their houses were badly conducted, or if they outraged public opinion in their neighbourhood, public opinion would be able to close the houses which had done violence to the feelings of the neighbourhood. That tended to improve the conduct of the public-houses, even where the vote was not in favour of no-licence. These were the effects to be seen in no-licence territory in other countries. There were a certain number of no-licence districts in this country by the favour of landowners, and he claimed that the same results could be shown there. Under the operation of the veto of the people in the United States they had what the liquor trade called a tidal wave. He had read an article in an American liquor-trade paper headed "What shall we do to be saved?" It went on to say that the liquor trade had outstayed its welcome in the United States, and was being swept away by a tidal wave of public opinion. That opinion did not, perhaps, exist here at present to any great extent, although he believed it was stronger than some supposed; but after this Bill had become law, and had been in operation for fifteen years, for it would be fifteen years before a vote could be taken on this question, he believed those who opposed it now would find that they had made a mistake in resisting this social reform,
984
which would enable the people to protect their homes from the demoralising influence of the open public-house. Hon. Members opposite jeered sometimes when this demoralising influence was spoken of, but he believed no Member of this House lived next to a public-house. The licensing justices placed the public-houses near the poor, but there were no public-houses next where the justices lived. This was, in his opinion, a real piece of democratic legislation, and he believed the country was grateful to the Government for it.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the speech to which the Committee had just listened showed once more the enormous disadvantage which they had been under in discussing this Bill. Up to within an hour or two ago they were absolutely in the dark as to the Governments proposals with regard to one of the most vital principles of the Bill. He did not know now whether it was quite clear how the matter really stood. A great deal had been said by the hon. Member for the Appleby Division of Westmoreland which made it extremely doubtful from the hon. Member's own point of view whether the First Commissioner had placed a correct interpretation on those proposals. The hon. Member had told the Committee that there was to be no local option, or local veto, for fifteen years, but if his arguments were to have any weight at all that was the first thing that should come into effect. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of what the Government were doing now and reminded the Committee that they were not now settling the question of local option. The Opposition asked the Government to give a single precedent for what the Committee was now asked to do. They were still waiting and would wait long for a precedent. What was the use of the Government asking the House to bind Parliament for fourteen years? The thing was grotesque. They could not bind Parliament two years hence. The hon. Member for the Appleby division appeared to take the view too often taken by his friends. He said that the Opposition jeered at the conclusions he tried to force upon them. That was far from being the case. The hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to show in his arguments

985
the value of sobriety and of moderation in the use of drink. With that they all agreed. Where they differed with him was on an entirely different point. They differed as to methods by which that result should be obtained. For the last half hour the hon. Gentleman had been endeavouring to show that his special specific ought to be adopted. It was perfectly true that for forty-four years, ever since Sir Wilfred Lawson introduced his Permissive Bill, the Liberal Party had been in favour of local veto.
*MR. LEIF JONES: I did not say for the whole of that time. Since 1880.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERaccepted the correction with pleasure. During the whole of the time the Liberal Party had been in favour of some restriction of this kind, and since 1880 they had been specifically in favour of local veto. What had been the history of those forty-four years? How long had the Liberal Party been in power during that period? If they went from Bruce's. Bill right down to the present time they could not find a single thing that had been done by the Liberal Party in favour of the principles the hon. Gentleman advocated. The hon. Gentleman went into detail as to the consumption of alcohol and the liquor laws of the United States. He had gone rather far afield for his illustrations; he might have come nearer home. He took the United States and told the Committee of the effect of prohibition in certain areas. But side by side with that they found a steady and constant increase in the consumption of alcoholic liquor in the United States. In 1897 the consumption of beer alone was 1,000,000,000 gallons and in 1906 it was 16,000,000,000 gallons. That was to say it had gone up from 14 to 20 per cent. per head of the population. What was the use of quoting these illustrations of what took place in certain parts of the United States side by side with facts of the kind he had just stated? If they abandoned that point of view, they were driven to the conclusion that some good reason must be found for adopting in this particular regard a restriction which was discarded in every other action of their lives. The hon.
986
Member quoted sanitary legislation, which he said was as serious an interference with liberty as local option, which he himself had confessed was local prohibition. But did that help the argument? What was the licence? It was a licence to trade. There were scores of licensed trades, the tobacco trade, the liquor trade, chemists—
*MR. LEIF JONES: When I referred to the licensing system I meant the restrictive system which limits the number of licences.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he would take that definition and ask what application it had to this case. Had it been the object of licensing up to this time to deprive people of a right which they had hitherto enjoyed? Nobody could suggest that the taking of intoxicating I liquor was an evil in itself. Yet it was suggested that they should give a locality power, by a small majority, to prevent an individual taking intoxicating liquor. There was no precedent for such legislation. To adduce arguments of that kind was to waste the time of the House. On the Continent of Europe everybody drank, but what harm did they do? Were the countries of Europe drunken countries? One part of France was, and it was a great pity; but how was it proposed to remedy that? Not by local option. It was proposed to remedy that in a way that commended itself to every serious thinker in this country who felt strongly on this question. The hon. Member had said that no Member of this House would allow a public-house to grow up side by side with his private house. Why? Because the whole train of this legislation was to make the public-house a place where persons went to stand up before a zinc counter to drink. He happened recently to be in Bremen, and what did he see there? A great public building in the heart of the city, a building of which any city might be proud, and in the basement of that building a great refreshment room to which all classes went, because everything possible had been done to make it a proper place of rest, refreshment, and recreation. As a due result of this local option Resolution he saw publicans being fined by being made to contribute to a compensation

987
fund. That was the very antithesis to what he would like to see. He would like to see the public-house made into what it was in every country in the world but this. He believed that if a little more energy was shown in making these places proper places of rest and refreshment very little would be heard of local veto. There had been no serious argument at all from the Government in favour of this proposal of local veto. It was not local option, though it was called so in the Bill; it was palpable on the face of it, to any man of reason, that it was local veto and not local option. Since the beginning of this debate they had learned a fact which ought to be clearly realised by everyone, namely, that this was prohibition; it meant that, so far as in them lay, they were giving powers to shut up the whole of the supply of any district, under the operation of this Bill. What was the argument of the right hon. Gentleman? None. They had not had a single argument except that of the hon Member for the Appleby division of Westmoreland, that if they did introduce this new form of tyranny they would achieve the object desired. They had heard from all quarters of the House arguments based on experiences and research, based indeed on what was much more important, the common sense of those who come and go in the world, that this proposal could not have the effect desired. Under these circumstances it was too much to hope that they could rid themselves of this clause, but it was not too much to hope that by the time, the far off time, when some other Parliament had to deal with this subject, a perhaps very different verdict would be given. Here, as in every other instance, the Government appeared to him to be guilty of the most reprehensible action of putting from their own shoulders the burden which belonged to them. That was what they were doing with the national finance; they were postponing important liabilities which would have to be placed on the shoulders of those who came after them. It was the same with the naval and military services—they were postponing great duties which would have to be performed by those who came after them. And so, in this case concerning morals, they dared not
988
they knew they dared not, and after what had been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Walton division still less dared they do this thing themselves. They knew that the country would not accept it, and they knew that it would be the ruin of their Party if they attempted it. But they were endeavouring to gain the temporary satisfaction, which he supposed their consciences could feel from the unction which they poured upon themselves, by compelling their followers, willing and unwilling, to vote for this Amendment, and postponing the operation to fourteen years hence.
*MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had taunted the Party opposite with having done nothing for temperance for forty years—which seemed a very good reason why they should pass this Bill. Reference had been made to the débacle which overtook the Liberal Party in 1895, and the hon. Member for the Walton division of Liverpool had placed the responsibility for it on the Temperance Bill of that year. He was one of the victims at that time, and was therefore in a position to speak with some authority on the point. He endorsed the opinion that the Temperance Bill of Sir William Harcourt largely influenced the election of 1895, and adversely to the Party opposite. He believed the reason was not the introduction of the Bill, but the fact that the Bill was not passed through the House of Commons. The measure raised the fighting instincts of the liquor interest, but the fact that it was not persisted in did not rouse the fighting instincts of the temperance forces of the country. As a consequence the Government suffered. He would like to give it as his own opinion that the Party opposite stood to gain considerably in the opinion of the electorate by persisting strenuously with the measure now before the House. The back of the opposition was now broken. Members on the Labour benches were under no delusion as to the probable effects of the Bill. They wanted to see drunkenness diminished, and believed that one means was to reduce the temptations to drink—
"The sight of means to do deeds,
Makes ill deeds done."

989
The first outcome of the Bill would be to weed out the more disreputable public-houses which existed. At the end of fourteen years a new phase of the question was to be entered upon. He desired to deal with subsection (b) of the Amendment now before the House. As far as he could ascertain, the only effect of subsection (b) was to indicate to the Parliament of fourteen years hence what was the opinion of this House of Commons. He would like to see the indication extended somewhat. It was proposed by the Bill, if it became law, to say that at the end of fourteen years the local option provisions should be extended in such a manner as Parliament might determine so as to authorise a resolution limiting the number of licences to the number existing at the time or reducing that number to any less number. He thought the House would be interpreting the sense of the country and of the bulk of temperance opinion if they enlarged the scope of that indication. He could conceive a position of things at the end of fourteen years in which the people would be willing to reduce the number of licences and might even be willing to abolish licences altogether, but would be afraid to take that step because of certain results which might follow. He was sorry the Government had fixed for this purpose a two-thirds majority. He quite admitted that legislation of this kind could not afford to go ahead of public opinion, and that there might be danger, if a bare majority were sufficient to put the Act into operation, of these provisions being evaded. The other week he was in a part of Nova Scotia where the prohibition law was in force. He lunched at an hotel with some friends, and they had a discussion on temperance and the effect of prohibition. One who was present asked him if he would like to see the "Blind Pig." He confessed his ignorance, and was taken to a room at the back of the office, where there were whisky, brandy, wine, beer and all forms of liquor served to those who called for them. He was sure that the House desired that if legislation of this kind was to be put into operation, it should not be evaded in the manner he had indicated. He did not object at all to a considerable majority being required to put the Act into operation, but he thought two-thirds
990
too large, and that a three-fifths majority would be amply sufficient. To come to the point to which he specially desired to call attention, he suggested that the Government might incorporate in subsection (b) words which would place licences in the hands of the municipality or some other form of public control. Such words would indicate what was the opinion of the House, and if what he suggested were adopted, in those areas which were not prepared altogether to prohibit the issue of licences, the people could have an option as to whether such licences as were granted should be in the form of a private monopoly, as at present, or become a public monopoly. The right hon. Member for Croydon had referred to the fact that public-houses, in that part of England at least, had degenerated into places where men and women stood up to drink. The houses no longer possessed their social qualities, and that was true also of houses in the country districts. He knew that in Scotland persons who went to public-houses were very unwelcome visitors unless they kept continually consuming liquor. That was destructive of the ideal public-house which was present in many minds. Where people desired to have a public-house in their midst, many would desire to see it run as a municipal institution, not necessarily to make a profit, but to which a man could go with his wife and children, and where he could enjoy social converse without being under the temptation and compulsion of consuming liquor, as was the case to-day. He should very much like to see a provision of that kind inserted by the Government in this new subsection. He believed a sober population would be good not only for trade but for the national well-being. A mere prohibitory Bill would not produce a sober population. In New Zealand the tide of opinion was rising steadily in favour of prohibition of the liquor traffic, but that was due as much to the comfort and wellbeing of the people as to the teaching of temperance advocates. They desired, first of all, a measure for reducing the number of public-houses, and secondly a measure for empowering the people to say whether they desired liquor shops to be opened or not. What he suggested was that, since they were taking upon

991
themselves the duty of indicating to Parliament fourteen years hence what the opinion of the House was upon this question, they should also indicate the opinion that the power to municipalise the public-house or place it under some other form of effective control should be entrusted to the people as well as the power to abolish or diminish the number of public-houses.
MR. LANE-FOXsaid the hon. Member for Westmoreland had told them that there was a very much stronger feeling in favour of this Bill in the North of England than was generally imagined. He claimed to know something about the North of England, but he ventured to say that if hon. Members opposite gave their vote in the direction indicated it would be the duty of the Opposition to convey that fact to their constituencies, and then he had very little doubt as to what the result would be at the next election. The recent bye-elections had been quoted as evidence of the satisfaction of the people in regard to this Bill, but in his view nothing in the legislation of the present Government stood so much condemned at bye-elections as this Bill. He had taken part in the Newcastle bye-election, and he was told: "It is no use talking here about the Licensing Bill, because it is like a dead horse, for not a single voter will cast his vote in favour of it." They had been invited to protect the homes of the working classes, but he would like to know how they were going to achieve that under this subsection, which would place an enormous premium upon secret drinking in the case of off-licences. There seemed to be some doubt as to the actual meaning of the Bill with the addition made by the Amendment of the First Commissioner of Works. An extraordinary Parliamentary position had been created by this proposal, because on Friday night the whole House voted under the impression that off-licences were to be included in this Bill. That was the opinion of all sections of the House. Now they were told that this was not intended by the Government, but the opinion of the House was distinctly recorded in favour of putting off-licences under this provision. He
992
would like to know whether it was in the power of the Government to reverse the decision of the House at their, own sweet will. The hon. Member for Westmoreland was a great believer in small areas, where he said prohibition would do an enormous amount of good, but he said nothing about the areas outside. If they enforced prohibition in one village they would only drive all the drunkards to the next village. What he desired to point out was the gross tyranny which this proposal might inflict upon certain individuals. Under this subsection there was not only complete prohibition, but also partial prohibition. In the case of an election in a particular village there was nothing to prevent a meeting being got up and a two-thirds majority being obtained to close some particular public-house belonging to some individual who for the moment might have rendered himself unpopular upon some particular question. As the subsection was worded it would be far better to have total prohibition or the present system continued. The hon. Member for Westmoreland had quoted the Resolution of the House in favour of local option. But those who had been long in the House of Commons knew the value of academic Resolutions passed on private Members' nights: they were not worth the paper they were written upon. Nothing would please him better than to see the great majority of hon. Members opposite committed to total prohibition. It was because he believed they had absolutely no mandate to bring forward such a provision as this, and because the people were opposed to the whole principle, that he should vote against this Amendment.
*MR. SHERWELLsaid his complaint against the Government, as far as the particular provisions of this clause were concerned, was that they were likely to suffer from an excess of generosity. He thought he was expressing a view largely held on the Ministerial benches when he said that the Government had generously enlarged the area of controversy without any compensation in the form of immediate practical benefit. Speaking for himself alone, he regretted that the Government,

993
in dealing with a Bill so complicated in character as this had not seen fit to leave the powers that were to be exercised or might be exercised at the close of the reduction period as the concern of the Parliament whose responsibility it would be to deal with the situation. If, however, the Government desired to give a general indication of the options to be exercised at the end of the time-limit, then he thought their indication should not be framed in such a way as either explicitly or implicitly to exclude other possibilities and other powers. It could hardly be seriously contended that the particular option referred to under this subsection exhausted all the possibilities of Parliamentary action in connection with this great question. He did not think it represented the best method that could be employed in the legislative treatment of this particular question. His own position in the matter was that of one who was deeply conscious not only of the moral but of the social and physical significance of this question. He was specially attracted to a consideration of this subject from its serious economic significance, having regard to the future development of the country. There was no hon. Member of the House who could not but feel that the present expenditure of the people of this country upon alcohol was excessive and ought to be substantially reduced. Therefore, in considering proposals for practical reform, he was bound to ask himself what would be their actual effect in achieving the primary end of legislative reform, namely, a substantial diminution of the expenditure upon drink in this country. The two powers contemplated by the Government were a still further reduction of licences and prohibition by local vote. Personally, he should not be prepared to enlarge the area of controversy for the comparatively unimportant benefits likely to accrue from a still further reduction of licences. He had always held that the value of a reduction of licences as an instrument for reducing drinking had been greatly exaggerated. But if the reduction of licences were the end aimed at why set up such a cumbrous machinery to attain that object? A further reduction of licences could readily be brought about by the application of the economic check of adequate
994
taxation. The present excess in the number of licences was historically due to our failure to apply this economic check. He might be asked how, holding this view, he could support a Bill which included proposals for compulsory reduction by means of monetary payments. His answer was a simple one. The essential feature of this Bill was the settlement of the compensation difficulty by means of a time-limit. But given the enactment of a time-limit no reduction of licences was possible by economic check throughout the whole of the time-limit period. Unless, therefore, he accepted the reduction proposals of the Bill he would be forced to perpetuate an excess of facilities for obtaining drink during the time-limit period. If, however, a further reduction was desired at the end of the time-limit he would accomplish it by adequate taxation. With reference to the second option contemplated in this Bill, namely, local veto by a popular vote, his position could be simply stated. So far as prohibition was likely to be effective in bringing about some diminution in the drink expenditure, he was prepared to welcome it as one amongst other options in a comprehensive scheme. So far as it might achieve that end it should be favourably considered, but as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon had pointed out, in the United States of America, where prohibitory legislation on the most extensive scale in the world's history had been applied, since 1880 there had been a progressive increase in drinking. Ten years ago the consumption of alcohol in the United States per head of the population was only half that consumed in this country, but during the last five years it had risen to three quarters. He was not suggesting for one moment that the consumption of alcohol in the United States would not have been greater without prohibition, but the conclusion he drew was that there was not in prohibition that prospect or promise of the panacea that was needed. Allusion had been made by the hon. Member for the Appleby Division to the recent great extension of prohibition in America where, next year, eight States in the American Union would come under

995
prohibition. But how far did those States offer them any illustration or evidence of the possibilities of prohibition in this country? In considering the practical application of a particular system they were bound to ascertain how far the general social and economic conditions obtaining in the two countries were alike. The eight prohibition States in America were extremely sparsely peopled, and had an average density of population of only twenty-five persons to the square mile. England and Wales had a density of population of 558 persons to the square mile. A county like Staffordshire had 1,063, whilst Lancashire had a density of population of 2,346 to the square mile, and the West Riding of Yorkshire of over 2,700. It was only when they came to compare social and economic conditions in the two countries that they understood the limits within which local veto was successful in America and elsewhere. The hon. Member for the Appleby Division had reminded them that there were urban districts under prohibition in the United States and he had particularly referred to Massachusetts. What were the prohibition areas in Massachusetts? They were of a strictly suburban character, and in close proximity to Boston. In fact, they had been described as the bedrooms of Boston. Cambridge, to which his hon. friend had referred, was in the closest proximity to Boston, and was for practical purposes a part of the city of Boston. Even in Cambridge, which was a University suburb, with only a small industrial population, the voters in the industrial ward had constantly given a majority against prohibition. He was aware that there were areas in this country where no licences existed, but he drew a sharp distinction between a prohibition enactment on the part of a landlord and one which might withdraw facilities from a neighbourhood where people had been accustomed to I have those facilities. The people who went to those areas did so knowing the conditions obtaining there, and the veto was modified by the fact that in close proximity to those areas there were facilities which offered an effective safety valve. Therefore, the existence of these prohibition areas did not
996
offer a fair argument as to the probable operation of local veto over large urban areas in this country. He submitted that it was not enmity to the cause of temperance reform to recognise those facts. He mentioned them because after the closest possible observation and investigation of prohibitory laws all over the world for many years, he had concluded that experience did not justify him in looking forward hopefully to local veto as the sole method of temperance reform in great urban communities. Some of his hon. friends might ask if it did not operate what harm would be done. That argument might be valid from a strictly negative point of view, but he was looking for a positive method of obtaining some substantial reform. He did not want to weary the Committee, but he would like to indicate what was a very deep-rooted conviction in his mind, namely, that the attention of Parliament had taken a wrong direction in considering the methods by which this great evil could be solved. He believed that if any statesman, whether Unionist or Liberal, were deliberately to set himself to find out what was the radical defect in our licensing laws; what it was that, for centuries, and notably during the last century, had defeated the efforts of Parliament, and, despite repeated and multiplied restrictions, had left the evil in its present dimensions, he would be forced to admit that the reason lay in the fact, that in their search for remedies they had not gone back to first principles and had not recognised the paradox that lay at the very I heart of their licensing question. Their licensing system in its very structure was based upon the assumption that a dangerous trade, which was peculiarly liable to abuse, and capable when abused of infinite mischief to the community, could be safely entrusted to those whose only interest in it was the commercial interest of gain. He was one of those who held that it was in the highest interests of the community that they should have as little expenditure upon alcohol as they possibly could. But it was in the highest interest of the private trader that he should sell as much alcohol as possible. Sooner or later these two opposing forces were bound to come in collision,

997
and the results which this Committee recognised as deplorable were nothing more than the historic evidence that this inevitable collision had already taken place. He did not blame the publican for that result. It was not his fault, but the fault of the system under which the country had placed him. So long as the publican stood to gain by every glass of beer he sold, so long would he do his best to sell as much as he possibly could. There was not a man in the House who would not do precisely the same thing if he stood in the publican's position. Again, anyone who studied the history of their licensing legislation realised that it was to a large extent a story of baffled effort and repeated failure. Moreover they had never been able to achieve the most moderate instalment of temperance reform without a severe and prolonged struggle with the representatives of the trade. Here again one must not blame the licensed victualler; it was the principle of the system which was at fault. Every licensing reform, whether large or small, even the most moderate of them, was aimed at a diminution of the publican's profits. Therefore they were bound to encounter the organised resistance and opposition of the trade. In this direction lay the fundamental defect of their licensing system. For many years he had pleaded for some Parliamentary recognition of the paradox which lay at the heart of the licensing system and for statutory sanction of the principle of the Gothenburg system, especially as it was carried out in Norway. He did not wish for one moment to be held to suggest that the elimination of private profit from the drink traffic would work as a charm, because he did not think that by itself it would solve the problem. What was the problem? What after all was the explanation of the attraction of the public-house for the average man or woman? Some of his hon. friends would say that it lay in the fascination of the drink. He was not prepared to admit that. Speaking generally they found that a thing fascinated in proportion to some felt deficiency in life. If there was at the bottom of a man's life a deficiency which the community by wise social arrangements did not try to meet, the man himself acting under the compulsion
998
and laws of his own being would try to meet the deficiency in his own way. It was well, perhaps, to disestablish public-houses. It was ill if their efforts were going to stop there. Indeed it might be questioned whether before they abolished the public-house they ought not to seek to put something better in its place. He might be told that the true centre of life was the home. He believed it. But before this Committee gave its sanction to that dictum they should see first of all that the people had homes to stay in. He might be told that the habitué of the public-house would not be drawn by counter attractions if they were provided.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to stop the hon. Gentleman, but he is really getting much too wide.
*MR. SHERWELLsaid he would close with an appeal to the Government to consider whether they could see their way to add to the clause some such words as he had indicated in the Amendment that stood in his name.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid the whole Committee had listened with deep interest to the eloquent and earnest speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield. Was it too much to hope that that speech might persuade the Government, even at that late hour, to abandon their present project of inviting the House of Commons to take the unprecedented step of trying to control a Parliament which was to meet in fifteen years time? Some supporters of the Government had explained why they supported or differed from them. The hon. Member for Huddersfield had said that he looked forward to a time when there would be higher licence duties; the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil hoped to see public-houses put on a different footing; and the hon. Member for Salford, speaking as a democrat, said that if there was to be local option, there should be power to increase as well as diminish facilities. The hon. Member for the Appleby Division alone acquiesced in the course which the Government were asking Parliament to take. If he were to conjecture what the object of the Government was in asking them to take this extraordinary step he should

999
say that probably—he hoped he was not uncharitable—it was to withdraw the question of prohibition as a practical issue from general elections during the next fifteen years. Another thing which had been made perfectly clear in the debate was that this House of Commons contained no willing majority prepared to affirm the principle of prohibition, and that was why it was being shelved for fifteen years. The Amendment was a pious opinion in the sense that it would have no binding force on Parliament in fifteen years time. But, although it could have no effect upon the will and liberty of Parliament in the future, it would exercise a very prejudicial effect on the whole licensing question during that interim. To place an opinion of this kind on the Statute-book was to make the licensing trade of the country a speculative and disreputable business. The two main currents of opinion behind the Government were those who thought they had discovered a gold mine, and those who thought that all opportunities for drinking in public should be abolished. Those two distinct opinions were incompatible, and that was why the Government had not seen its way to tell the House which of the two it intended to take. Perhaps their policy was concealed inside Clause 2, subsection 6. If that was not so, they must mean one of three things—a prohibitionist policy, a Gothenburg policy, or a policy of treating the trade fairly in order that it might be conducted decently for the benefit of the people at large. Instead of getting a better class of house and deriving larger revenues from the trade, the effect of the Amendment would be to make the houses worse and to diminish the revenue.
MR. L. HARCOURTagreed with the statement made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield at the commencement of his interesting speech that the proposal of this Amendment had extended the area of the discussion. If they had succeeded in doing nothing else, they had succeeded in that. They had encouraged the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil to debate the question of municipalisation. It had naturally enabled his hon. friend the Member for Huddersfield to deal with the question of disinterested
1000
management, and it had led to a much larger and wider discussion than he should himself have expected. Some reproach had been addressed to him by hon. Members opposite that he did not deliver the whole mind and opinion of the Government on the question of local option or local veto. He did not think it now necessary to undertake to debate again a question which had been fully debated in this House on the First and Second Reading of the Bill, namely, the general question of the control of the liquor traffic. That question had been annually and profusely debated in the House for the last forty-four years. Some observations had been made with which he would shortly deal. The hon. Member for Huddersfield said he would have preferred to deal with the liquor traffic on the basis of adequate taxation. That had not been the method which the Government had thought most desirable for the commencement or at the moment, although it was always open for the Government and the House to deal with the liquor traffic by that alternative. His hon. friend spoke of local veto as it appeared in this Bill, as if it were the only alternative which the Government had in their mind. That was not and never had been the case. They would first of all attain during the fourteen years reduction period what they believed would be an improvement in the condition of the trade. He could not imagine how the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover could think that the gradual reduction of licences in that term, when the less reputable and most speculative, houses would be dealt with, could be anything but a real advantage to the State, to temperance, and to the welfare of everybody concerned.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid the right hon. Gentleman was misrepresenting him. What he said was that what would make the trade disreputable was the proposal now before the Committee, namely, that a future Parliament was to expose the survivors to the chances of prohibition.
MR. L. HARCOURTsaid he would tell the Committee why there was only prohibition in the Bill. He admitted

1001
that after fourteen years local option practically became prohibition, although it was not actually prohibition. During the currency of the fourteen years reduction period power was given to the locality under the Bill to prohibit the issue of any new licence. That was a local option which he hoped would be largely and wisely exercised in many places. But when they came to the end of the reduction period, if this alteration were not made in the Bill a small majority of the electors, operating upon what would then be technically new licences, but which would mean the old and the new, would be able to obtain absolute prohibition. The Government had proposed this Amendment in order to secure that when that power accrued to the people at the end of fourteen years it should be exercised only by a two-thirds majority. The Government were not providing in the Bill the machinery for future limitation and reduction of licences. The right hon. Gentleman had asked him what he thought would happen in fourteen years. He believed that after fourteen years Parliament would be forced by public opinion to give to the people of this country a very much larger number of options in the management of this trade than anybody now contemplated. Some hon. Gentleman had described subsection (b) as a "pious hope." He did not disclaim the words. The subsection was not of a limiting character. It was true that only two methods of dealing with this traffic were mentioned in it; but they were not mentioned as limits.
SIR THOMAS WHITTAKER: Why mention them at all?
MR. L. HARCOURTsaid that the reason for mentioning them was that in the past complaint had been made on behalf of the trade that Parliament had not given those concerned sufficient notice of what was likely to happen. The Government did not wish to allow any expectations or sacred rights to grow up during the fourteen years. Though they had not included every option which might in future be given to the people, they had thought it right to notify the trade that in their opinion these prospects and others
1002
were things to which it should look forward.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he would not have intervened in the discussion if the right hon. Gentleman had made any effort to cover the ground which his opponents had taken on this question. This was one more illustration of the great difficulties under which the House of Commons laboured when it deliberately bound itself to come to a decision at a particular hour, quite irrespective of what the Government might mean to say or do. He would add to that, that the Government had introduced yet another change in our Parliamentary procedure, apart from their extreme use of closure by compartments, which was a matter of great inconvenience and regret. They had superimposed upon this system of closure by compartments a system of management of Bills by compartment, and different Ministers turned up on different days to deal with the various watertight sections of the Bill, and made speeches that had very little reference to what had gone on in debates that had previously taken place. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not think that he complained of his conduct of the Bill so far as that was a matter personal to himself. What had happened that day? The right hon. Gentleman in one of the very few observations with which he had favoured the House, observed that the right hon. Member for Dover was wrong in supposing that any deleterious effect would accrue to this trade in the next fourteen years by the suppressing during that time of at least one-third of the licences, and said that it would be the least reputable of public-houses that would be closed during that period. But how did that agree with the speeches and action of his colleagues when they selected, to use his own term, the least reputable public-houses to receive compensation for the loss of licences? The houses which had the smallest claim to considerate treatment were to receive this compensation at the hands of the more reputable licence-holders who themselves were to be deprived of any

1003
compensation. Really this kind of argument on the question immediately under discussion without any reference to what had gone before, and without any regard to what might come after, led the Government and the House of Commons into positions of intolerable inconsistency and would lead to great hardship in legislation. The right hon. Gentleman had not had a word to say in defence of the proposal which he had advanced, to the surprise of both sides of the House, for excluding off-licences from the proposal under discussion. He at once stated there was a great deal to be said on one side and the other, but the Government said nothing at all. It only put down an Amendment which included these licences one day, and on another day announced an intention of altering the Amendment so as to exclude them on the Report stage of the Bill. That was making Parliamentary procedure a farce.
MR. L. HARCOURTsaid he had not gone into this matter because he understood that it was not germane to that day's discussion.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINthought it was germane to the discussion. The right hon. Gentleman must know that they had heard that day some of the most interesting speeches delivered during the debates, many of them fruitful of good suggestions, and coming nearest to the heart of this question. He had listened to the speeches of hon. Gentlemen, not only amongst his own friends, but speeches from Gentlemen with whom he did not act, and with whom he did not ordinarily agree. The hon. Member for Huddersfield had made a most remarkable speech drawn from rich stores of knowledge, and he ventured to say that it struck at the whole root of the proposal which the Government had asked them to adopt. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil also made a speech earlier in the evening, which, although there was a great deal in it with which he could not agree, pointed in the same way to the inefficacy of the remedy which the Government had proposed as a cure for the evils of intemperance, and the
1004
possibility of making people sober by any measure of prohibition, and the necessity, referred to by the hon. Member for Huddersfield and which the Opposition had tried to press on the House, of devoting attention not to suppressing these evils in isolated districts by small majorities, but by establishing more wholesome businesses throughout the length and breadth of the land wherever these were required by the necessities and convenience of the people. The discussion had turned on the question whether they were to indicate to the country and future Parliaments their opinion that at the expiration of the time-limit licences should be subject to the operation of local veto. He asked the Government why they had selected certain licences as licences which were to be subjected to this local veto, and on what grounds they excluded others, the evils arising from which were admitted on all hands, though they might, just as the ordinary on-licence did in many cases, serve a very useful and a harmless purpose. If the remedy was good in one case it was good in the other; if it was bad in one case, it was bad in the other. The action of the Government was wholly inconsistent in itself, wholly inconsistent with what they had been told the previous day; it was unexplained, he believed, because it was inexplicable to themselves, or by any reason which could be given either in the House or in the country.
SIR THOMAS WHITTAKERsaid that when the First Commissioner of Works was speaking he had asked him what was the reason for putting Paragraph (b) in his Amendment on the Paper, but he did not feel that the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman was at all satisfactory. This was an instruction at least fourteen years ahead to future Parliaments as to what they were to do. Now, he quite agreed that it was essential that there should be no misunderstanding that at the end of the time-limit, fourteen years hence, the nation should be at full liberty to deal in the freest and most extensive manner with all licences, and he was ready to assent to the insertion of such an intimation as might be necessary for that purpose. In subsection (2) of

1005
Clause 3 there was an indication that Parliament should be free to enact prohibition, or other methods of reducing licences; but in the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman had now on the Paper nothing was said about prohibition; it was merely a matter of reducing, or retaining licences as they were. It not being necessary to put in prohibition, it was perfectly clear that it was felt that Parliament in the future would have the fullest power, and that there might be prohibition. But the right hon. Gentleman said that he anticipated that at the expiration of the time-limit, when they would have full control and freedom, there would be methods of dealing with the trade of which nobody now dreamed. If that were so, why should they do anything which would limit it in this kind of way? If it were necessity to give this notice of any of these various ways of dealing with the trade to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, surely in this Paragraph (b) they ought to give notice of all of them. If the notice were required at all it ought to be notice of all of them. It ought to have its full scope, and if they only gave notice of some of them surely that was limiting the law. It appeared to him that this Paragraph (b) was not necessary. It was not necessary to intimate to future Parliaments what they ought to do at all. They would have the fullest liberty, and there was no necessity to have anything of the kind. He entered the strongest protest against this Paragraph (b) being left in, as Paragraphs (a) and (c) covered the full ground. No substantial reason whatever had been given for its inclusion, and he thought that even now they ought to insist that the paragraph should be dropped out, as there was no necessity for it.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid he had listened with interest to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and also to that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Appleby Division of Westmoreland, and he could only say that it appeared to him a very curious thing that these gentlemen who claimed to be the advocates of temperance should be so singularly immoderate in their dealing with other people's property, and other people's liberties. He noticed also, in
1006
the speech of the hon. Member for Appleby, that he was desirous of prohibiting hon. Members from travelling abroad, and satisfying themselves as to what went on in localities there. [Cries of "No."] He thought that was what the hon. Member said.
*MR. LEIF JONES: No; I should be very glad if the noble Lord would go abroad.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHthanked the hon. Member very much, and said he could assure him that he had been abroad, and on this subject had had as many opportunities of satisfying himself as the hon. Gentleman himself. He had heard no reason of an adequate character that afternoon in favour of this local option or local veto. They had heard various instances of how local veto had been put into operation, and he did not think in one single instance could it be claimed to be successful. They had often discussed the question of local veto in this House. It had been discussed for forty-four years. An academic vote had been given, but the discussion had been of the most unsatisfactory character, and he ventured to join issue with the hon. Gentleman in saying that the people of this country were in any way unanimous in their views as to local veto. The last time it was put before the electors was in 1895, and, notwithstanding all that the late Chairman of the Labour Party had said, he was convinced that the people of the country gave their decision emphatically against it, and he believed that would hold good to-day. Hon. Gentlemen put forward the question of local veto on the grounds of "trust the people," but he ventured to disagree with the suggestion altogether, because it was not a case of trusting the people. If the people would only do what the temperance faddists on the other side of the House desired they could have their way, but if they desired, on the other hand, perhaps to increase the number of licences, then they were not, under any circumstances, to be allowed to do so. He certainly thought that the situation that had arisen to-day was one of the most astounding character. They heard that the

1007
licensing trade should have known perfectly well what was in the Bill which the Government was going to bring in, and have made arrangements accordingly, but from what he had seen, it appeared to him that the Government themselves did not know what was in the Bill, nor did they appear to know what was going from day to day to be put into their Bill. There appeared to be certain anomalies with regard to the Bill. One of them was spoken of by his right hon. friend the Member for Dover, and that was with regard to the houses that would have an auxiliary licence. Under the Bill, as it at present stood, licensing justices were allowed to override—if he might use the expression—local wishes in these cases, subject, of course, to the Licensing Commission. He understood that according to the Bill the Licensing Commission came to an end after a period of fourteen years, and what he wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman was, if the Licensing Commission did come to an end at the end of fourteen years, what was the position of those licences which were held as auxiliary? Were they to come under prohibition or were they to be in the jurisdiction of the local licensing justices? He certainly hoped that if the Bill went on the Government would take some steps to instruct themselves with regard to their own measure, and if it was going to become law, as he sincerely hoped it would not, that these anomalies with which the Bill was brimful, would be removed as speedily as possible.
*MR. BENNETTsaid he wished to endorse every word which had fallen from the lips of the hon. Members for Spen Valley and Huddersfield, and to make his appeal with them that the Government would recast this objectionable paragraph or leave it out altogether. A long quotation had been given from an article of his in the Nineteenth Century with regard to prohibition, but he would point out that he was referring to State prohibition, which was a very different thing to anything contemplated in the Bill, and to the populous town of Portland. They were taunted with the fate of the Liberal Party when they next faced the electors,
1008
but they were prepared to take their chance. ["When?"} When they liked, and he supposed that every thoughtful Member on that side knew perfectly well that any Government which tackled this question ran electoral, risks, but simply because the Government was prepared to take these risks it deserved their warmest support. With regard to this Amendment, he confessed that he joined hands with nearly every speaker that afternoon, and that he was very sceptical indeed as to the utility of legislating in 1908 about the precise methods of local option which were to be applied fourteen years hence in 1923. Temperance sentiment and temperance effort in this country might perhaps develop along different lines and assume a different complexion during so long a period as fourteen years. Nor in any case did he imagine that their successors, or those of themselves who survived with the public-houses would in 1923 feel themselves at all bound by what would probably be then regarded as an almost obsolete section of the Act. But, if the Government insisted on specifying now the methods of popular control which were to be exercised when the temperance millennium was inaugurated in 1923, he ventured to say that in the opinion of many of them the scope of their proposals was too narrow. Why should the broad general principle of local option be narrowed down to the two methods of "limitation" and "prohibition?" Few of them on those benches had any quarrel with the principle of local option, even in the narrower sense contemplated in the Amendment, provided it was carried out on reasonable lines, and with a due regard for the opinions and habits of considerable minorities. But they must remember that by 1923 the number of the licensed premises which survived the process of elimination would ex hypothesi have been reduced to the sensible limits prescribed in the Bill, and in some cases would correspond more or less to the normal and legitimate needs of the people. There would be far less need, so to speak, for local option in 1923 than any which arose now amid all those fatal facilities for securing liquor which unfortunately existed around them that day. Further, many of them who yielded to none in their

1009
earnest desire to see effective temperance reform an accomplished fact, believed that the late Mr. Gladstone was right when he described local option as "only a partial and occasional remedy." Local veto would probably tend to be least effective in districts which needed it most; and as to that far-off event, total prohibition, to which the whole cosmos of the United Kingdom Alliance was moving, well, he had seen enough of prohibition in the United States and Norway to lead him to realise the truth of the statement that prohibition might be both practicable and beneficial in sparsely populated districts, but that it was almost impossible to enforce it in larger centres of population. Why, then, as he said, were they to lay down definitely in 1908 that in 1923 local option was to be exercised solely for the reduction or prohibition of licensed premises? Why should other methods of local control be rigidly excluded? Why, for example, should local veto be inserted, while the option of disinterested company management was left out? The advocacy and support of this form of local option had been the definite policy for years past of the Temperance Legislation League, which numbered amongst its members nearly every bishop of the Anglican Church, practically every Nonconformist divine of eminence, 150 Members of Parliament, and a very large number of distinguished and public-spirited men and women of various political parties. In short, he could assure the Committee that in intellect and moral worth, experience and knowledge of affairs, they compared very favourably with some of those gentlemen who, under the banner of Messrs. Kempster, Malins, Hayler, et hoc genus omne, missed no opportunity of hurling abuse at those of their fellow-workers in the field of temperance who refused to bow the knee exclusively to prohibition as the one great panacea of the drink evil. That, of course, was not the time or occasion in which to enter into any description of the option to which he referred, that of disinterested company management. It was not the fault of the Temperance Legislation League if the scheme was not by this time thoroughly understood by the hon. Members of that House. He would
1010
only add one note of personal experience. He knew a good deal about Norway, as he had visited it almost every year for the last fifteen years. He had lived in the interior and in the towns on the coast, and for the last six years he had spent some five weeks every year in one of the Lofoden islands. That island was under prohibition. It was a mountainous and sparsely populated island, and it was an earthly paradise. It had no crime, and one small policeman enjoyed a sinecure existence in one of the more remote islands of the group. But let them take some other parts of Norway. He had during the last fifteen years written to and talked with a large number of representative Norwegians—members of the Storthing, clergymen, doctors, farmers, tradesmen, working-men—on the subject of the Samlag or company system. The chorus of approval was practically unanimous. One and all agreed that the Samlag had conferred incalculable blessings upon their nation, and had been a prime agent in rendering Norway one of the two most sober countries in Europe. He had met Good Templars in the islands and elsewhere, and they, like the Good Templars here, regarded prohibition as the ultimate ideal to be attained. At the same time they were willing to recognise the immense benefits conferred by the Samlag, and in any case infinitely preferred it to the mischievous system of private sale and private profit which had previously existed. He did not think the request they made that afternoon was other than a reasonable one. All they asked was that the Government should either by the deletion of some words, or by the addition of some words, give all temperance reformers a fair field and no favour. All they said was that if the trade could not be eradicated it should be regulated. He hoped the Government would see its way to meet the wishes of his friends and himself.
SIR GILBERT PARKERexpressed the opinion that no one could have listened to the debate which had taken place without feeling a sense of the absolute futility of the Amendment brought forward by the Government. The discussion that day had been the

1011
most severe criticism of the Bill since the debates upon it had been opened in the House. They had listened to speeches from earnest temperance reformers, who, like the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, had experience and observation behind them, and who had shown that the one thing that this Bill aimed at—temperance—was not being achieved by any clause in it. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had said that the Amendment which had been moved was inadequate, and gave no opportunity to anyone except those who were for absolute prohibition. But it did not give them a chance. The right hon. Gentleman had said not a word upon the Amendment which he had brought in. If this Amendment was to be moved at all, and if the principle of local option was to be embodied in the Bill, it certainly ought to have been supported by some reason from the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for the Appleby Division attempted to give some reason why local option should be incorporated in principle in the Bill. The hon. Member had been impressed with the effect of local option in Canada, the United States, New Zealand, and Norway, but the hon. Member for Woodstock had made it perfectly clear that he did not find that prohibition in Norway had been effectual in reducing the number of cases of drunkenness.
MR. BENNETT: I laid stress on the fact that prohibition was effective in sparsely-populated districts.
SIR GILBERT PARKERcontended that prohibition applied to the national life of a country would not be effective. The hon. Member had said it was effective in a sparsely-populated district, but here we had a small island, the smallest country in the hemisphere, with a crowded population, and the proposal before the Committee was an attempt to introduce into this small geographical area a system of stopping intemperance by local option. It was not effective in Norway. It had not been effective anywhere where it had been tried. In the areas in Canada where it had been tried drunkenness was greater than in parts where prohibition did not exist. In
1012
Prince Edward's Island one person in every 341 was convicted of drunkenness. In Ontario one in every 128. There was no local option in Ontario. Wherever it had been tried in Ontario under the Scott Act it had been a failure. What had been noticed in Australia, New Zealand and Canada, was that the spirit of evasion which had been engendered by the introduction of local option—the desire to evade the law—had deteriorated the moral character of the people in the areas where it had been applied. One of the mayors in New Brunswick, speaking to the City Council in Monkton, said that the law should be better carried out; that it was quite apparent that the consumption of liquor in the city was on the increase and drunkenness was very prevalent, especially among youths; that most bar-rooms remained open night and day, and that no attempt was made to stop that state of affairs. That was in a district where local veto had been applied. As the hon. Member had said, in urban areas local option did not succeed. It was easy to make it succeed in sparsely-populated districts. There was no temptation to drink there. The rules of life in such districts were much healthier. The habit of drinking sprang from a fundamental want in the lives of the people who lived under hard conditions. If a temperance measure was intended by the Government the Bill should have contained a far wider system of local option than was contained in this Amendment—an Amendment which had not been supported by a single argument on the part of the right hon. Gentleman who moved it. He did not believe that local option would be beneficial to this country, but the Government did, and had brought in this Amendment to embody it in the Bill. The national character of a people was not often affected by legislation, but if it was, it would be affected deleteriously by legislation of this character. If any effect was to be produced at all by temperance legislation the effect should be the strengthening and the development of the best qualities of the local life of the people. Where local option had been tried it had resulted in deteriorating and destroying to a considerable extent the quality and efficiency and simplicity which ought to belong to the lives of the

1013
people. He thought this Amendment had defeated itself in the opinion of the House, and if it was supported in the lobby it would only be by the assistance of the Government Whips and not because those who sat in the House were convinced of its utility or manliness.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBYsaid that, as he understood this Amendment, if it were carried it would put into the hands of a locality the power to close the public-houses if they obtained a two-thirds majority, but that if the Licensing Commissioners were willing they might grant licences to hotels. That meant that the rich would vote for the closing
of the public-houses, and the hotels which they used would be kept open.
And, it being half-past Seven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 17th July, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 295; Noes, 135. (Division List No. 270.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Grant, Corrie

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Cleland, J. W.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Agnew, George William

Clough, William

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Alden, Percy

Clynes, J. R.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Gulland, John W.

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Asquith Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

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

Hall, Frederick

Astbury, John Meir

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Barker, John

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Barlow, Sr. John E. (Somerset

Crossley, William J.

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

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Curran, Peter Francis

Hart-Davies, T.

Barnes, G. N.

Dalziel, James Henry

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

Beale, W. P.

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Beauchamp, E.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Beck, A. Cecil

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

Helme, Norval Watson

Bell, Richard

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

Hemmerde, Edward George

Bellairs, Carlyon

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

Duckworth, James

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

Bertram, Julius

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Henry, Charles S.

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

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

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

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Higham, John Sharp

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Black, Arthur W.

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Erskine, David C.

Hodge, John

Bowerman, C. W.

Essex, R. W.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Brace, William

Esslemont, George Birnie

Holt, Richard Durning

Branch, James

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Hooper, A. G.

Brigg, John

Everett, R. Lacey

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

Bright, J. A.

Fenwick, Charles

Horniman, Emslie John

Brodie, H. C.

Ferens, T. R.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Brooke, Stopford

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Bryce, J. Annan

Findlay, Alexander

Hudson, Walter

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Hyde, Clarendon

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Fuller, John Michael F.

Jackson, R. S.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Fullerton, Hugh

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Jardine, Sir J.

Byles, William Pollard

Gill, A. H.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Cameron, Robert

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Glover, Thomas

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Jowett, F. W.

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Kekewick, Sir George

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Steadman, W. C.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford

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

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Laidlaw, Robert

Perks, Sir Robert William

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Stuart, Sames (Sunderland)

Lambert, George

Pickersgll, Edward Hare

Summerbell, T.

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Pirie, Duncan V.

Sutherland, J. E.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Pollard, Dr.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Lehmann, R. C.

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

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Levy, Sir Maurice

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

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

Lewis, John Herbert

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

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Radford, G. H.

Tomkinson, James

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Rainy, A. Rolland

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Lyell, Charley Henry

Raphael, Herbert H.

Toulmin, George

Lynch, H. B.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Rees, J. D.

Ure, Alexander

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

Rendall, Athelstan

Vivian, Henry

Macpherson, J. T.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

M' Callum, John M.

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

Walsh, Stephen

M' Crae, Sir George

Richardson, A.

Walton, Joseph

M' Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

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

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

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

Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.

Wardle, George J.

Maddison, Frederick

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Waring, Walter

Mallet, Charles E.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Robinson, J.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Waterlow, D. S.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Watt, Henry A.

Marnham, F. J.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Massie, J.

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Menzies, Walter

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Middlebrook, William

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wiles, Thomas

Molteno, Percy Alport

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

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

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Sears, J. E.

Williamson, A.

Montgomery, H. G.

Seaverns, J. H.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Seddon, J.

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

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Seely, Colonel

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

Morse, L. L.

Shackleton, David James

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

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

Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

Myer, Horatio

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Napier, T. B.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Winfrey, R.

Nicholls, George

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Norman, Sir Henry

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Yoxall, James Henry

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Nuttall, Harry

Snowden, P.

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

O' Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

O' Grady, J.

Soares, Ernest J.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Stanger, H. Y.

NOES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Brotherton, Edward Allen

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

Ashley, W. W.

Bull, Sir William James

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Craik, Sir Henry

Balcarres, Lord

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

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Baldwin, Stanley

Carlile, E. Hildred

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Castlereagh, Viscount

Faber, George Denison (York)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Cave, George

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

Barnard, E. B.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Fell, Arthur

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

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

Fletcher, J. S.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Forster, Henry William

Bottomley, Horatio

Clive, Percy Archer

Gardner, Ernest

Bowles, G. Stewart

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

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

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

1016

1017

Goulding, Edward Alfred

M' Calmont, Colonel James

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Gretton, John

Magnus, Sir Philip

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

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

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Haddock, George B.

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Stanier, Beville

Hamilton, Marquess of

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Starkey, John R.

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Moore, William

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Morpeth, Viscount

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Morrison-Bell, Captain

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

Heaton, John Henniker

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Thomasson, Franklin

Helmsley, Viscount

Nield, Herbert

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Hill, Sir Clement

Oddy, John James

Thornton, Percy M.

Hills, J. W.

O' Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffi'ld)

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Hunt, Rowland

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

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

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Percy, Earl

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Kerry, Earl of

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

Keswick, William

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Kimber, Sir Henry

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

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

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Winterton, Earl

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Remnant, James Farquharson

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

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Renwick, George

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Young, Samuel

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Younger, George

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

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

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

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

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Salter, Arthur Clavell

M' Arthur, Charles

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded at half-past Sever, of the Clock this day.
Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 301; Noes, 131. (Division List No. 271.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Brace, William

Crossley, William J.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Branch, James

Curran, Peter Francis

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Brigg, John

Dalziel, James Henry

Agnew, George William

Bright, J. A.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Alden, Percy

Brodie, H. C.

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Brooke, Stopford

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Bryce, J. Annan

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

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

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Duckworth, James

Astbury, John Meir

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Barker, John

Byles, William Pollard

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Cameron, Robert

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Barnes, G. N.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Erskine, David C.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Essex, R. W.

Beale, W. P.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Beauchamp, E.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Beck, A. Cecil

Cleland, J. W.

Everett, R. Lacey

Bell, Richard

Clough, William

Fenwick, Charles

Bellairs, Carlyon

Clynes, J. R.

Ferens, T. R.

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

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Bertram, Julius

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Findlay, Alexander

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

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

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

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

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Black, Arthur W.

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Fullerton, Hugh

Boulton, A. C. F.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Bowerman, C. W.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Gill, A. H.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Macpherson, J. T.

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

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

M' Callum, John M.

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

Glover, Thomas

M' Crae, Sir George

Sears, J. E.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

M' Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Seaverns, J. H.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

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

Seddon, J.

Grant, Corrie

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

Seely, Colonel

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Maddison, Frederick

Shackleton, David James

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Mallet, Charles E.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Gulland, John W.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Gurdon, Rt. Hn Sir W. Brampton

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Marnham, F. J.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Hall, Frederick

Massie, J.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Menzies, Walter

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Snowden, P.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Middlebrook, William

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Soares, Ernest J.

Harmsworth, RL. (Caithn'ss-sh

Mond, A.

Stanger, H. Y.

Hart-Davies, T.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Steadman, W. C.

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

Montgomery, H. G.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Helme, Norval Watson

Morse, T. L.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Hemmerde, Edward George

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Summerbell, T.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

Sutherland, J. E.

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

Myer, Horatio

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Henry, Charles S.

Napier, T. B.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

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

Nicholls, George

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Norman, Sir Henry

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

Higham, John Sharp

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Nuttall, Harry

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

O' Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Tomkinson, James

Hodge, John

O' Grady, J.

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Parker, James (Halifax)

Toulmin, George

Holt, Richard Durning

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Hooper, A. G.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Ure, Alexander

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

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

Vivian, Henry

Horniman, Emslie John

Perks, Sir Robert William

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

Walsh, Stephen

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Walton, Joseph

Hudson, Walter

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Hyde, Clarendon

Pirie, Duncan V.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Pollard, Dr.

Wardle, George J.

Jackson, R. S.

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

Waring, Walter

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

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

Wason, Rt Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Jardine, Sir J.

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Wason, John Catheart (Orkney)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

Waterlow, D. S.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Radford, G. H.

Watt, Henry A.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Rainy, A. Rolland

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Raphael, Herbert H.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Jowett, F. W.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Kekewich, Sir George

Redmond, William (Clare)

Wiles, Thomas

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Rees, J. D.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Laidlaw, Robert

Rendall, Athelstan

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

Williamson, A.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

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

Wills, Arthur Walters

Lambert, George

Richardson, A.

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

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Lehmann, R. C.

Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd)

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

Levy, Sir Maurice

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Lewis, John Herbert

Robinson, S.

Winfrey, R.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Wood, T. M' Kinnon

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Yoxall, James Henry

Lupton, Arnold

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Lyell, Charles Henry

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

Lynch, H. B.

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

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

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

1020

1021

NOES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peekham)

O' Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Ashley, W. W.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Gretton, John

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Balcarres, Lord

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston

Percy, Earl

Baldwin, Stanley

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

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

Haddock, George B.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Banbury Sir Frederick George

Hamilton, Marquess of

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Barnard, E. B.

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Remnant, James Farquharson

Beach, Hn, Michael Hugh Hicks

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Renwick, George

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Poter R.

Heaton, John Henniker

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Helmsley, Viscount

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Boland, John

Hill, Sir Clement

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpol)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hills, J. W.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hunt, Rowland

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Bull, Sir William James

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

SCOTT, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Kerry, Earl of

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

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

Keswick, William

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Kimber, Sir Henry

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Stanier, Beville

Castlereagh, Viscount

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Starkey, John R.

Cave, George

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

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

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

Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Wore

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Clive, Percy Archer

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

Thornton, Percy M.

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Tuke, Sir John Batty

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

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

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

M' Arthur, Charles

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

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

M' Calmont, Colonel James

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Craik, Sir Henry

Magnus, Sir Philip

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

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

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

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Winterton, Earl

Faber, George Denison (York)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

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

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Fardell, Sir T. George

Moore, William

Young, Samuel

Fell, Arthur

Morpeth, Viscount

Younger, George

Fotherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Forster, Henry William

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

Gardner, Ernest

Nield, Herbert

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Oddy, John James

Clause 4:
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSmoved to omit subsection 1. The object of the subsection was to give discretionary power to licensing justices to extinguish licences over and above that required to be compulsorily done by the Bill, subject to the financial provisions. The financial provisions were that before the licensing justices could do this they had to get the consent of the Licensing Commission, and also that the Licensing Commission should not give their consent unless they kept the total of the compensation levy at rates not more than those mentioned in the second schedule. He entirely objected to any com-
1022
pulsory reduction at all. The Act of 1904 was acting extremely well, and was fulfilling the purpose for which it was passed, namely, to give discretion to the justices in their own district, subject to Quarter Sessions, to reduce licences where they thought they were redundant, and if they extinguished licences to give due and proper market value. This extra reduction could only be carried out by an extra payment by the Licensing Commission if they had satisfied all the sums they had to pay out to fulfil the statutory reduction. If they made this extra payment they would make it at the expense of other districts in England and Wales, because if the amount was kept up to the total compensation levy

1023
in Schedule 2, the only monies which they would have to dispense would be the balances after they had met their statutory obligations. He should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he could give any calculations as to the amount of balances they anticipated. Were they anticipating that the compensation levy would be kept up to this maximum, because the amount of compensation which they would have to pay when the licences were extinguished would be far less than was being paid at present, because there was a reduction period. Every year the payments which they would have to make would be less, because they were only to pay the purchase value of the annuity, and, therefore, the less number of years the less the money which they would have to pay. He expected the Government were anticipating that the Licensing Commission would have large balances to dispose of. How were they going to dispose of them? Were they going to grant the application of some licensing benches to avail themselves of this section and reduce beyond the statutory obligation? Had the Government calculated the amount of compensation which would have to be paid? The estimate was that, taking the average of the reduction period, it would only be about one-fifteenth of that payable under the Act of 1904, and for the first year the calculation was that it would be about one-fifth. He had fourteen actual cases which had been compensated under the Act of 1904, and the average per licence worked out at £1,076. If the principle of the Bill had been in operation the average per licence would have been only £69 10s. The Government were, therefore, going to have large funds in hand. What were they going to do with them? Were they going to keep up the compensation levies? They ought not to do it. The compensation levy ought to be reduced as the period of reduction lapsed, and they ought not, so to speak, to force the pace and allow more money to be spent. There was another way in which they would be able to dispose of these licences. Under Clause 9 a further reduction could be carried out by Resolution for Wales, and it might be that the Government would have demands
1024
upon them to meet large payments for Wales. Were these payments to be made out of monies contributed from England? It would be a very great grievance to the licence-holders in this country to have to pay over to the compensation fund to compensate other districts. At the present moment they had not to do that. They knew that the monies they paid every year went to reduce licences in their own districts, and to a certain extent they got compensation, because the trade was supposed to improve in that district by the licences being extinguished; but it would not be so in this case. The compensation levy had to be levied over the whole of England and Wales at the same rate, to be paid into one fund, to be under the absolute discretion of the Star Chamber of Three sitting in London, who knew nothing about the circumstances of the district. That was very different now when Quarter Sessions and the local justices knew what the districts required. The Prime Minister had said he would place on the Paper either on Clause 7 or Clause 24 some Amendments to meet the case of the new licences granted under the Act of 1904. He did not see any such Amendment as that which had been mentioned on the Paper. Clause 7 would be reached on Wednesday, and therefore, the Amendment should be put on the Paper this evening. This clause would apply to the new licences granted under the Act of 1904 which would be included under the regular statute. He wished to remind the Committee what a very strong case these new licences had. A letter from the managing director of a large brewery company had been placed in his hands. The writer said—
"I should be much obliged if you could tell me how the Government proposes to treat licensees who obtained their licences under the 1904 Act. My company paid £6,000 only last autumn. I have seen the Solicitor-General, and his reply was that the authorities have no right to value on a ninety-nine years' lease, the licence being annual. But they have stuck to the £6,000."
There were 164 cases in which capital sums had been paid down and accepted as monopoly value, and all these new licences would be caught by this clause. These sums had been accepted because

1025
the licence had been regarded as a continuing property. There could be no stronger argument than the case of the general belief in the continuity of licences in the eyes not only of the magistrates, but also of the trade and the general public. Under the Act of 1904 justices, brewers, and other people had paid these sums for licences because they all regarded them as a continuing property. A man would not have paid £6,000 down last autumn if he thought his property was going to be confiscated. He urged that whatever happened to other on-licences, these new licences granted under the Act of 1904 ought, at all events, to be excepted from reduction under the clause.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 23, to leave out subsection 1."—(Mr. Samuel Roberts.)
Question proposed, "That subsection 1 stand part of the clause."
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir S. EVANS,)said the hon. Member had referred to cases in which the magistrates had levied a lump sum for monopoly value. That was a matter which was receiving the attention of the Government, but obviously the place to deal with it was on Clause 24, which would not be reached this week. Such cases were not included in this clause for any practical purposes. They were post-1904 licences and were not subject to compensation at all. The whole question raised by the Amendment was whether or not the number of licences to be reduced as fixed by the schedule was the minimum number or ought to be the maximum. The policy of the Government was that it was to be the minimum, and that if in any case the justices came to the conclusion that the circumstances of the locality would justify further reduction, they could reduce further subject to this, that if the reduction was in the number of licences which would be entitled to compensation, the discretion of the justices was fettered by the amount of money in their hands. The policy of the Government was to give discretion, subject to financial considerations, to make further reduc-
1026
tions over and above the reduction made compulsory under Section 1.
SIR E. CARSONcomplained that whenever the Opposition raised a point which was perfectly germane to the section under consideration they were told they ought to wait until they came to some other clause. If they pointed out that it was impossible to deal with a point without knowing what the intentions of the Government were, they were always told that if they waited for some other clause they would see an Amendment. That was an unreasonable and impossible way to carry on business. It was bad enough for the trade to know that so many thousands of houses were to be taken away every year, but were the Government going to add to the uncertainty by saying there were so many more thousands to be taken away? In every one of these matters the Government were proceeding absolutely in the dark. Whenever they were asked for information on any point they had none to give. They talked glibly about the power of companies to put by sinking funds, but when they asked for the figures the Government refused them. They knew perfectly well that that argument on the figures necessary for the sinking fund was based upon the majority behind the Government. When they asked for some calculation as to what sum would be available under certain circumstances for the extinguishing of those licences the reply of the Government was: "We do not know anything about it, and how can we give the figures?" If the Government compared their methods of compensation with that adopted under the Act of 1904 they could get at an approximate figure. They would not, however, do this, and they referred to leave the House without any information, and anything seemed to be good enough when they had the guillotine. That was the way they argued, and it did not matter whether there were 100 public-houses here or there. When the Government were asked for information about this clause their reply was that they had no information whatsoever to give. How did the financial provisions, as they affected this clause, stand? The compensation levy, as he gathered from the Bill, was

1027
not to be in proportion to the number of houses to be statutorily reduced. They could fix the maximum under this Bill, but that might not be required for the purposes of the statutory reduction at all, and it might be put there to accumulate a fund to take away extra houses. Surely before they passed a provision of that kind giving this power of taxation to the licensing justices, and giving these extra powers to the Licensing Commission which was to sit in London and have jurisdiction over the whole country, they ought to know something of the amount that would be required. Purely they ought to have some estimate made by the Government of the amount of money required for that purpose. They were being asked to pass this clause absolutely blindfolded, without knowing a single one of the elements that would enable them to come to any conclusion as to whether they ought to allow the clause to pass. The House had been told earlier by the First Commissioner of Works that he did not know the meaning of his own Amendment; now they learned that the Government had made no attempt to ascertain the financial effects of its scheme. So the matter went on, and the only answer that the Opposition could get from the Government was: "Don't you bother; we have got our majority, and it is only the licensed trade with which we are dealing."
*MR. CAVEsaid that hitherto the clause had been dealt with as being optional in character, but if it were read in conjunction with Clause 12 it would be seen not to be so. Together the clauses meant that if, after payment had been made for licensed houses abolished under the scheme for statutory reduction, a balance remained in hand, that balance must be applied to a further reduction in the number of houses. The result would be that instead of 30,000 licensed houses being abolished, as calculated by the Prime Minister, the number might be 40,000 or 50,000. The Bill instead of reducing licences by one-third would have the effect of reducing them compulsorily by a very much larger number. That was the effect of the Bill, whatever might be the intention of the Government. That being so, he submitted that the
1028
Committee were entitled to know what amount was expected to be available for this purpose. If the balance must be applied to a further reduction, they ought to know what the balance was expected to be and how many more houses were expected to be abolished during the reduction period. The Prime Minister had given an estimate, but he was pointing out that the number would in all probability be greatly increased. The giving of that indication might involve a calculation of what was the average amount to be paid for each house. He submitted that the calculation ought to be made. The scale under the Bill was a reduction on the old scale, the reduced sum amounting, some said, to a fourth, a sixth, a tenth, or a fifteenth of the amount payable under the Act of 1904. Figures had been given in support of that view, and no answer had been given by the other side. It seemed to him to be vital that they should have some material to enable them to judge the average amount of compensation under the Bill, the amount that would be available for compensation, and as a consequence the amount that must be applied under this clause for further reduction. The clause brought under the operation of this unfair scale a large number of houses. If a further reduction were to be made under the old system, it would not be so serious, but the effect was to bring under a grossly unjust scale a very much larger number of houses. The effect of the lower scale would be that a number of the houses suppressed would get nothing at all, or practically nothing in the way of compensation. Therefore, the clause in effect had for its purpose the putting of grave injustice on a number of holders. Another point was that not only under the statutory reduction was one part of the country to pay for another, but that was so also under this scale of optional reduction. In counties where an effort had been made—and there were many such—to keep the number of houses within limits which were thought to be required by the population, a levy would still be made on the remaining houses and a certain amount of that sum would go to compensate houses in another county or perhaps at the other end of the country

1029
where licences were abolished because they were not required. Thus, in Northumberland, which had one licenced house to every 500 of its population, practically no reduction would be made under the compulsory clause, but the money taken from that county would go to compensate for the reduction of houses in Cambridgeshire where the proportion was one licensed house to 133 of the population, and that notwithstanding the fact that the convictions for drunkenness in Northumberland averaged one for every sixty-two of the population, while in the county of Cambridge the proportion was one to 333. They were going to take away money from a county where there was a great proportion of drunkenness to compensate for the abolition of houses in a county which had nearly the least proportion of convictions for drunkenness. This clause intensified the injustice done by Clause 1, and its absurdities were even greater than those of the first clause of the Bill. He submitted that the Government ought to stop at the reduction which was outlined in introducing the Bill, and not attempt by this side wind in Clause 12 to introduce this further reduction compulsorily. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not compulsorily."] It was compulsorily. He did not think hon. Gentlemen had noticed the words in Clause 12. Once the justices in any part of the country proposed a further reduction, then if the Commission had money enough to pay compensation, the reduction would be made and it must be passed by the Commission. [An HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.] That was his argument. It was compulsory on the Commission. [An HON. MEMBER: Not on the justices.] No; he should be astonished to find that there was not in any part of the country a bench of magistrates which would propose a further optional reduction on the lines of this clause, and, if so, the compulsion was sure to become operative. The effect of the clause was that if in any county or parish, although not being in Wales, the justices desired to introduce total prohibition during the reduction period, and if they put their case before the Licensing Commission and there was money enough, the Commission must pass it, so that indirectly they were introducing popular prohibi-
1030
tion. He could not conceive that the proposal in the Bill had been fully considered by those who framed it.
MR. JAMES HOPEsaid the Solicitor-General had entirely failed to meet the contention of his hon. colleague. The contention was that under the financial proposals of the Bill there would be a substantial balance in the hands of the Licensing Commission. Did he understand the Solicitor-General to admit that there would be this large balance or not? Had he worked out the proposal? Those who had approached the matter from the Opposition point of view had worked it out to the best of their ability, and they said that there would be. There was a probability that there would be a large balance. Apparently the Solicitor-General was in doubt as to the effect of the proposal. Assuming that there was a large balance, how was the Licensing Commission to deal with it? Apparently under the subsection of Clause 12, to which his hon. and learned friend had referred, they would be obliged under local veto to comply with the demands for further reduction, amounting perhaps to total prohibition, if there were funds in hand. Were the Commissioners to satisfy the demand of each bench of licensing magistrates in the order in which the demand was received, or would they wait until they had reports from every county? On what principle would they act in the financial arrangements between one locality and another? What was the operation of Clause 9? Would Wales have priority? He was not at all sure that they ought. They had heard that the county which the hon. and learned Solicitor-General represented was the most drunken in Wales, that there the proportion of convictions for drunkenness was greatest. Supposing that a proposal for a reduction came from Glamorganshire, would that be binding on the local licensing magistrates? Whether the bench had been sufficiently strengthened under the present Government he had not inquired. At any rate, would it be mandatory on them to put forward a scheme for further reduction? Under this scheme would they have a priority over the other recommendations in England or other parts of Wales which

1031
were not supported by local option? He asked the Government on what scheme they could justify the taking of the compensation levy, say in Sussex or Sheffield, for the reduction of licences in this one specially inebriate county of Glamorgan?
MR. CHARLES ROBERTSthought that the power of optional reduction was an extremely valuable one to retain in the hands of the local licensing justices. For the justices to have an additional power of control would be as valuable as the reduction itself. It was not so much the quantum of the reduction as the power of control that was desirable, and that power should be in the hands of the local justices. The hon. and learned Member for Kingston had told them that in Northumberland there were very few licences in proportion to population, and that yet there was a very high record of drunkenness, and he compared that county with Cambridge. But he thought that any one who looked at the matter would see that there were differences between the two counties. In the one there was a scattered population, engaged in agriculture, drinking beer, and in the other there was a mining community with higher wages drinking spirits. It was said that the fund should not be spent in a district where the compensation levy was not made; but it made no difference to licence-holders whether the levy was spent thirty or forty miles away, or 300 miles away. Even at the present time compensation funds raised in one district were spent in another, and no further injustice would be done under this Bill than under the Act of 1904. He did not admit that it was an injustice, for after all the legislation was for the benefit of the nation as a whole, and the funds should be raised by a national levy.
*MR. G. D. FABERsaid it was rather amusing to hear the changes in the cries of the supporters of the Bill. In the afternoon the cry was: "Great is local option and the right of the people to over-ride the justices." That evening it was: "Great are the licensing justices with unfettered discretion." The day after to-morrow it would be: "Great is the Licensing Commission,
1032
for they are to over-ride everybody." All that proved the unreality of the Bill. The main purpose of the debate that night was to trot out the licensing justices and belittle Quarter Sessions. It had been said that the clause had been so framed that it would operate in favour of giving elasticity to the discretion of the local licensing justices; but the elasticity worked only in one direction. If they were going to give the justices power optionally to reduce or to increase the licences then there would be something in the argument for elasticity. What the hon. Member imagined to be elasticity was only power of compression. He should regard this clause with the greatest possible concern and alarm were it not for the financial limitation proposed in Clause 12. He admitted that subsection (3) of that clause screwed down the power of the justices to a certain extent. It said that optional reduction could not go on unless the compensation levy was sufficient to meet it. But under Schedule 2 the rate of levy was so high, and under Clause 10 the compensation was so ludicrously low, that there might be a very large surplus after the compensation provided for under this clause was paid.
There was great force in the question of his hon. friend the Member for Sheffield: "Who is going to have the preference?" Perhaps if the Solicitor-General had any say in the matter, gallant little Wales would come in, for Wales under Clause 9 of the Bill was to have the out and out power, not only of statutory reduction, but of doing away with licences altogether. Much money would be wanted for that purpose, and the Solicitor-General would be neither more nor less than himself if he failed to put forward the claims of Wales before those of any other section. He did not know whether the commissioners would contain within themselves all the elements of prescience and wisdom, but they would have a very difficult task to perform.
Whether any of these points had been thought out by the Government he did not know, but he rather doubted it, as they were going

1033
on from day to day in a haphazard manner, and what was done one day was undone the next. No doubt the worse the predicament which the Government got into with regard to the Bill the better for those who said it was a bad Bill—badly thought out, a Bill which did not tend to temperance, or anything else worth having by the people of this country. He hoped the Government would give them some serious reason for having brought in this clause at all. He ventured to think it was a mere figure head only intended to enable the Government to say to those who supported the plenary power of the licensing justices: "See what we did for you under Clause 4. We have given you these extraordinary powers." The clause only illustrated the fact that the Bill was a jumble of incongruities and impossibilities in favour of which the Government had not been able to produce any argument.
MR. JOHN WARDsaid there was one point upon which he could heartily agree with the hon. Member for York, and that was that the debate on this point to-night was an absolute farce. That was perfectly true. The method in which the subject had been dealt with and the lackadaisical manner in which he approached the subject plainly showed that the discussion was more for the purpose of sheer obstruction than for elucidating the particular clause under discussion. They were given to understand that hon. Gentlemen were very much interested in the discretion of the magistrates, and they protested that under certain circumstances they would have no option. He was rather afraid that at present that was much the position of affairs. He for the first time attended a private meeting of the Petty Sessions at Wandsworth, and when the Minutes wore read, the first Minute on the book read out by the chairman was to the effect that Petty Sessions had reported some sixteen licences which they thought were redundant and useless. Everybody agreed that the houses ought to be closed, but the Compensation Committee of Justices of the County of London had reported that Petty Sessions must grant
1034
eleven of these licences, as there were sufficient funds to deal with only five of them. He had hopes that some day a different power for the reduction of licences would be required, and under those circumstances he could quite understand how all temperance reformers were giving their most united support to this Bill. There might be points upon which they differed with regard to its application, but so far as its general principle was concerned, and the general principle of this main clause, they entirely agreed with it. He hoped they would have power given to the Licensing Commission to borrow money to make loans in order to provide for the rapid extinction of licences by optional reduction, and thus enable the Petty Sessions in many cases to make proposals for reduction far in excess and much more rapidly than was suggested by the schedule of the Bill. He could quite understand those who opposed the Bill saying that everything had been done that could be done by grandmotherly legislation to improve the position of affairs. He could quite understand that it was their business to obstruct this Bill in every way that they could, and if he held their opinions he should do the same; but the way in which they were endeavouring by mock heroics to convince the outside world that they were really debating the subject and wished for information was one of the most grotesque things he had seen for some time. They might convince themselves—he supposed people could convince themselves that they really did believe a thing—but he felt certain that they would not succeed in convincing anyone else that they were honest, especially in the obstructive tactics that had been adopted that evening. He gave the Bill what little support he could as he thought it was a step in the right direction. It was the first opportunity he had had of saying anything during the whole of the discussion, and in reference to this section also he gave it his hearty support.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he had sat through most of the debate as a silent spectator, and had had as much opportunity of

1035
judging as the hon. Member for Stoke, and he did not think that the charges the hon. Member had made were in any way justified by the facts. The debate of that afternoon was of very great importance, and if arguments were pressed and repeated it was because the Government gave no answers to their pertinent and direct questions. Again, with regard to the debate which had taken place in the last hour, his hon. friend the Member for Sheffield and his hon. friend the Member for York had addressed certain pertinent questions to the Solicitor-General, but they had had no reply to them. He appealed to the two hon. Gentlemen whom he saw opposite to him, both of whom were noted in the House for their courtesy and lucidity of argument, to answer two or three questions which had been addressed to them. His hon. friend especially wanted to know whether the compensation money was to be reduced, and if so, to what amount? He did not know whether it was true that the Government had made no calculation in this respect, but he should imagine that there were certain materials available. But perhaps one of the two hon. Gentlemen would tell them whether they had any figures, or say that they did not think it necessary to make any valuation. Then his hon. friend put another pertinent question, which hon. Gentlemen opposite might think it worth while to answer. For his part he thought it would be an interesting answer if they could get it. It was why, if the compensation money was to be reduced, ought not the levy to be reduced at the same time? Then, again, they would like to know what was the estimated amount available for compensation. That was a point of principle which was extremely ably put by his hon. friend the Member for Sheffield. They had no time In which unduly to prolong the debate, and though they could not blame the Government for taking means so that their divisions should be taken with great regularity at certain hours, it was for them to say which point they preferred to discuss, and if they discussed it at greater length than some hon. Members thought reasonable he could honestly assure them it was because they were not satisfied with the answers they had
1036
received. The hon. Member for Lincoln said he valued this optional reduction, and that they having complained in the past that under this Bill they were to be governed by absolutely cast-iron rules as to the number of licences, he should have thought they would have welcomed this optional power which was given to the licensing justices. But this optional power was very much like the so-called local option which the Government proposed under this Bill. They trusted the magistrates in so far as there was local veto or local prohibition, but they did not give the absolute, fair, and open option to the magistrates to say whether there were sufficient licences in the district or whether it was necessary to bring them to a higher level. For himself he thought this clause was quite unnecessary. The Act of 1904 in his opinion was working extremely well, a satisfactory reduction of licences was being made all over the country, and this was being done without any hardship falling upon those who had an interest in the licences. So far as he was concerned, therefore, he objected even to the statutory reduction laid down in the other part of the Bill, and they looked upon this clause as an extra hardship seeing that a further reduction beyond that laid down by the Act might be made, and it was not in the power of the justices to say whether the reductions already made were not too great. He agreed with his hon. friend and therefore differed from the hon. and learned Gentleman as to the justice of taking money levied in one district for the purpose of paying compensation in another. It was certainly regarded as a hardship by the trade. He would not labour the point, as neither he nor his hon. friends desired unduly to protract these proceedings. He thought, therefore, if the hon. and learned Gentleman could reassure the Committee upon the three or four points that had been put to him the progress of the debate would be much accelerated.
SIR S. EVANSsaid he could not complain of the progress of the debate so far as it had gone, but he had thought it more convenient to speak immediately after the mover of the Amendment, at which time these points were not

1037
before him. He held that the words "compulsory reduction" were a misuse of the phrase in the sub-clause. The reduction was not compulsory, but purely discretionary in the local justices. What was compulsory, no doubt, was that after that discretion had been exercised by the justices, and they had determined what was called in the sub-clause "optional reduction," then, if there was a sufficient amount of money in the hands of the Licensing Commission—having regard not only to the claims made upon them, but to claims in the future—they were to give the necessary money towards carrying out the reduction. Surely it was better, after they had made a right rule to some extent, to be able to say that that rule in certain cases could be relaxed. If that were so, what better could they do than allow the local justices to determine the matter themselves? As to the question whether Wales was specially favoured, that could be discussed at the proper time. Of course, there would be nothing in the nature of priority. The Licensing Commission would have to take the general view all over the country, and although it was impossible to state the amount they hoped and believed that the Commission would have at their disposal some funds which would enable the optional reduction spoken of in this clause to be effected. As to the injustice of taking money out of one county and compensating in another, the fund under this Bill was a national fund. Under the Act of 1904 it was a county fund, and had to be so administered; but, although they had been long accustomed to the division into counties there was no particular charm in the division into counties for this purpose. It made very little difference whether money taken from one corner of a large county like Glamorganshire or some of the divisions of Yorkshire was used for compensating a licence-holder in the opposite corner, or whether it was used for compensation in another county. The position of the Government was that this was not the money of the publican at all. It was in the nature of taxation, and everybody knew that the trade had been able to stand the levy made under the Act of 1904, and would be able to stand the levy ma do upon it after this Bill became
1038
law. It was money in the nature of taxation, and was properly regarded as national money, and it would have to go into the national Exchequer. It had been said in the course of debate that the number of convictions for drunkenness in Glamorganshire was very large. That was true. But it must be remembered that the population of Glamorganshire was of a most varied character. There were men there from all parts of the world, and in the great industrial centres no doubt a good deal more drinking took place than one liked to see. But the number of convictions for drunkenness was not necessarily a test of the amount of drink consumed. He knew that in Glamorgan it was due not to the drunken habits of the people, but to the vigilance and activity of both police and magistrates.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid everybody was quite certain that the hon. and learned Gentleman would treat them with every courtesy and consideration, and the Committee were always glad to listen to him, because he always put his case in a clear and lucid manner. The reason why the hon. and learned Gentleman's answers were not satisfactory was not the want of clearness or lucidity, but because he had a bad case, in consequence of which even a gentleman of the hon. and learned Gentleman's great powers was unable to give satisfactory answers to questions put to him. When the hon. Member for Sheffield brought forward his Amendment, he referred to Clause 24, and the hon. and learned Gentleman remarked that the proper occasion to discuss Clause 24 was when that clause was arrived at. He noticed from the table of time allotted to the discussion of this Bill that the clause was to be discussed on the fifteenth allotted day, and that on that day there were fifteen clauses to be discussed. There were, no doubt, persons who desired to create some alteration in a trade which had been carried on for many years in this country under the auspices of the State. They desired to make a great reduction in the number of licences. The Prime Minister had said that one-third of the licences were going to be taken away in fourteen years.

1039
Supposing the hon. Member for Lincoln was the owner of a public-house. He would naturally be interested in this Bill, and having read the speech of the Prime Minister and found that the licences were to be reduced by one-third in fourteen years, he would read the speeches of great advocates of temperance, like the right hon. Member for the Spen Valley, and find that according to them in those fourteen years he would be able, by good business like discretion, to put by a sufficient sum to recoup him for the loss of his licence at the end of fourteen years. He would further read the speech of the hon. Member for Crewe, and would find that owing to the one-third reduction the remaining licensed houses would do considerably more trade, and that he would also be recouped in that way. He was at a loss to comprehend why hon. Gentlemen, whose pretension was that the Bill was going to promote temperance, cheered the sentiment that it would not promote temperance, but would allow the same amount of drinking to continue as in the past. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Lincoln would, of course, respectably conduct his house. He would read the debate and find to his horror—
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. CALDWELL): Order, order. The hon. Member is not addressing himself to the Amendment.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he would like most respectfully to point out that the subsection provided for an increase on the statutory number of reductions. It had been generally understood in the country that the reductions amounted to one-third, and it was only by reading the debates and going through the Bill carefully that one came across this subsection, which went further than the statement of the Prime Minister.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid the impression made on the country was not the matter under discussion. The Amendment dealt with the optional reduction as contained in the clause and not with what the country believed to be the reduction.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that he was pointing out that, unless the Amendment stood, the statement of the Prime Minister would be incorrect, though, of course, he would not say he intended it to be so, and the number of reductions would not be one-third but a very much larger number, because optional power would be given to the magistrates to increase the reductions beyond that amount. The Solicitor-General had instanced his own county of Glamorgan, where, he said, the justices were an efficient body of people to whom this optional power could be well entrusted. That would have been all very well if it had not been for the enforced reduction of one-third. If that were not in the Bill, he should have no objection to giving the justices discretion to reduce licences where they were not required, subject, of course, to certain restrictions. He quite agreed that in the majority of cases magistrates were to be trusted; but they had to look at every circumstance, and there were benches composed of gentlemen who were of advanced temperance opinion, and if they saw in the Bill a clause to this effect, they must ask why the optional power was given. The House of Commons, they would say, was a sensible body which legislated reasonably and did not put a clause into an Act unless it was desired that that clause should have some effect. If this optional clause, therefore, was put into the Bill, many would say that Parliament desired that they should reduce the number of licences far beyond the statutory reductions. Hon. Members said there was no harm in that, because compensation would be granted. It had, however, to be remembered that it was always held out to people who owned licences that they would be able to compensate themselves because they would have an extended time. There would not be the extended time to the extent that the optional clause was put into operation. The question had arisen as to whether there would or would not be sufficient money to compensate for licences extinguished under the optional clause, and it had been pointed out that there was the safeguard that the justices could not extinguish licences unless the new Commissioners, the Star Chamber, had the money for compensation. It had been asked where they were

1041
to get the money, and it had been said that there ought to be an abundance of it. That, however, could only be so if the compensation given to the one-third were less than it ought to be. There was an incentive to the Government to put in a clause of this kind, because then, if they reduced the compensation far beyond the proper amount, they would have more money available to provide for the optional reduction of licences. The Solicitor-General at the close of his speech made a remark which he did not understand. He said there was no hardship in this, because it was not their own money. He alluded to a statement made by the hon. Member for Sheffield and said it was not the publican's money. Might he ask the hon. and learned Gentleman this question: With whose money did he pay his taxes? His right hon. friend suggested his clients'. He did not agree. Although it was once his clients', he had earned it, and it was his property. It was the same with the publican. He had earned the money and earned it in a business authorised by Parliament for generations. He failed, therefore, to see how the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks were relevant. The hon. Gentleman had not a good case and was unable to sustain the attack. He was therefore obliged to commit himself to a statement scarcely worthy of his great reputation. He hoped the Government before refusing the Amendment, would pause and consider whether they had not gone far enough in providing for a reduction of one-third without giving this additional power to the licensing justices.
MR. RICHARDSONsaid that, as one who took a living interest in local life and who moved in and out among the people in his own city, he believed that this Bill would do as much good in the interests of real social reform and temperance as any measure that had been passed by this very progressive Parliament. He was specially delighted with this particular clause, and he hoped the Government would stand by it. He had the unenviable reputation of having lived in the famous Market Ward, Nottingham, which was mentioned by the Prime Minister, during the whole of his working life. If the universal and uni-
1042
form principle of the reduction of licences was applied there—it was a ward with 1,400 voters and seventy-nine licensed houses—sixty-nine out of the seventy-nine would be closed during the reduction period of fourteen years. He had found out how often the greatest number of licensed houses in proportion to population were to be found in the most congested areas of a town where the poorest people lived. He had in his city a singular exemplification of that where this optional principle should be applied. They had one ward, which was in the most ancient part of the city, and where the poorest people lived. He would not mention it. They had immediately running side by side with that ward a new ward, part of the city where building operations had been going on for the last fifteen years at a very rapid rate. In that new ward the temperance sentiment was very strong, and the result was that they had prevented many licensed houses being planted there. That was a ward in which they could afford to leave a good proportion of the licensed houses remaining during the next fourteen years, but the other ward where the number of licensed houses was greatest in proportion to population was the one which he should like to be dealt with, to have the number of houses reduced in proportion to population. For this reason, he hoped the optional principle would be applied. What about the case he mentioned last week in which they had a village just outside Nottingham with a population of 11,000 people and only one licensed house? That was the "Trent Bridge Inn" connected with the cricket ground. How were they going to apply the universal rule there? Would they do away with that house altogether? He supported the clause.
EARL WINTERTONsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had, although he did not intend it, given strong evidence in support of the contention that the clause should not be passed. The hon. Member began by referring to the famous Market Ward of Nottingham. His observations regarding that ward should have been made on the clause dealing with statutory reductions. He also went on to speak of some other ward near the Trent Bridge

1043
Cricket-ground, where he said there was only one public-house. He asked what would happen under the Bill. He would tell him. The magistrates could take that public-house away, and Trent Bridge would be worse off than it was now. He had, however, risen for the purpose of referring to the statements contained in the speeches of the Solicitor-General and the hon. Member for Lincoln, who had been the only serious supporters of the clause. Both the Solicitor-General and the hon. Member for Lincoln seemed chiefly to base their support of the clause and their belief in its value upon this principle of elasticity which was said to exist. But he failed to see that there was any elasticity in the clause at all; if so, it was elasticity of only one kind, or in other words the string would only pull one way. It enabled magistrates to reduce the number of licences, but not to increase it, and he felt that he must protest against these statements which were so constantly repeated that the people who used them themselves believed in them, that if they allowed option of one kind it was therefore giving some kind of elasticity. They heard the same argument on the local option clause, and he hoped the Committee would realise that in preventing other people, or magistrates, from giving more licences, there was no principle of elasticity at all. He based his opposition to the clause largely on the words which were used by the hon. Member for Hudders-field when speaking on the last Amendment. No one would deny that the hon. Gentleman had given much time and thought to these temperance questions, and might be regarded as an expert on them, and he said that he did not think the mere reduction of licences of very great value in reducing intemperance.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid the words quoted were used in reference to the general question of statutory reduction, raised by a previous Amendment, and were not relevant to the Amendment under discussion. Besides, it would be re-opening a discussion which had been closed by the decision of the Committee.
EARL WINTERTONsaid he believed that mere reduction, whether statutory or optional, would not do anything to solve the problem of intemperance. Really they had had from no one any real justification of this clause beyond the belief that it was a clause which allowed considerable elasticity to the magistrates, and he maintained that really no further reduction was required. Another evil effect of the subsection was that it further increased the instability and the risks which the licensing trade was compelled to run. He considered that by piling up the opportunities which various authorities had for injuring the licensing trade by taking away licences they were increasing the instability and risks of that trade, and although that argument might not appeal very much to some hon. Gentlemen opposite, because one constantly heard from them that it did not matter if the trade was unstable, yet the Committee should consider that by increasing the risks and the sense of insecurity and instability which licence-holders must have if this proposal was adopted, they would make it every year harder and harder for the trade to be carried on in a decent and proper fashion. On that ground, as much as on the ground that the clause was not really required, because they had already provided for statutory reductions in the Bill, he should support the Amendment of his hon. friend. He hoped the Committee would think twice before adding this proposal to the Bill. Some hon. Gentlemen might not think that a little more mattered, for after all their awowed object was to make it as hard as possible to sell drink, but this constant piling up of the risks under which a legitimate trade was to be carried on made it harder and harder for a decent class of men to go into the trade. If they contemplated abolition they were perfectly consistent in supporting this clause, but he appealed to those hon. Gentlemen opposite who believed, as many of them did, that the licensing trade should be carried on in a decent fashion, and that members of it should not be subjected to unnecessary risks, not to support the Government in bringing forward this proposal.
*MR. CLAVELL SALTERsaid the hon. Member for Stoke had intervened just now for the purpose mainly, as far as he could gather, of informing the Committee that the debate had degenerated into a farce and that obstruction was being practised, although the Solicitor-General expressly repudiated any such charge against the Opposition. The hon. Member, as he was good enough to tell them, had not previously given them the benefit of his assistance in those debates, but no sooner did the discussion degenerate into a farce than he considered it the proper moment to speak. Although not in the sense in which the hon. Member used the word, there was a good deal of farce about the prolonged debate in which they wore now engaged and in which they were doomed to be engaged for so many more days. There was an air of unreality about the whole debate, which he believed was profoundly impressing the people. He opposed the sub-section against which the Amendment was directed, on the short and single ground that it was a crying example of that inconsistency and irresolution which had marked the whole structure and conduct of the Bill. Someone must decide how many licensed-houses there should be in a district. They might leave that to various authorities, they might enact it themselves, or they might leave it to the locality and allow the justices or Quarter Sessions or the general body of the people themselves to represent the public opinion. Again, they might lay down their rule in Parliament and allow local modifications. But, in the name of all that was consistent, if they had local modifications and if they trusted the locality at all, they ought to trust it altogether. Parliament began by laying down a certain ratio to density of population as being the proper number of public-houses within the area. Either that was right or it was wrong. If it was right, if they were confident in their opinion, why did they allow any local interference with the ratio they had laid down. If they thought it right to allow a great voice to local opinion and local discretion, then they must in consistency, so far as that local voice was allowed to interfere, allow it to
1046
interfere freely in any direction it desired To his mind it was a matter of comparative unimportance whether it was the justices, or Quarter Sessions, or the people who were to revise and modify the ratio which was laid down. But the Government did not trust the justices except in one direction; they did not trust Quarter Sessions, because they were to be deprived of the power the last Act gave them; and they did not trust the people, for in England the people might forbid, but might not demand; while in Wales they were allowed to accelerate but not to retard the process of reduction. What the Bill did in this subsection, was to give power to those local people whose views agreed with those of the promoters of this Bill, while they deprived of power those woh differed from them. They gave power to a temperance bench, while giving no such power to the bench which had an opposite view. It had fallen to his lot to appear before a bench of licensing justices, and a fairly numerous bench, every member of which sat on the bench with the blue ribbon of pronounced temperance in his button-hole. That was the kind of bench which was given carte blanche, but a bench of a somewhat different view was not trusted and was given no discretion at all. And there was no safeguard in regard to expense, because by the simple expedient of giving to dispossessed persons, roughly speaking, one-eighth of that which justice and equity required they hoped to have a good surplus for optional reduction. Nor was there the safeguard of the Act of 1904 that those who desired to be virtuous should pay for it themselves. This Bill invited cheap virtue and cheap temperance; it invited areas to be exceedingly virtuous at the expense of the publicans among their neighbours. If they were going to allow any local interference with the ratio which Parliament had laid down, whatever authority they might choose to represent the people, they ought, in justice and consistency to allow that authority to exercise that discretion in one direction as well as in the other.
MR. GRETTONsaid the Government had not given the slightest indication to the Committee as to how

1047
they expected the financial proposals to work out. He could not confess that he was ignorant of that subject, because he had discussed it with many persons who were used to discussing Bills produced by teetotal enthusiasts and Radical Governments. They had tried to extract information as to how these financial proposals would work out in relation to optional reduction. The compensation to be paid under the compensation clauses would be very much lower than the compensation paid under the Act of 1904. That compensation, as years went on, would be paid upon a diminishing scale. What did the Government expect would be done by the Licensing Commission and the magistrates in relation to the compensation levy? This was germane to the whole subject of the surplus which would be available for optional reduction. There was nothing to fix the exact scale of charges which was to be determined by the Licensing Commission and graduated according to the schedule. What were the Government going to do? Were they going to accelerate the rate of reduction and carry out their statutory scale at an earlier period? There was nothing to prevent them doing that. At the end of the period they could go on charging their scale of levies, and so accumulate considerable surplus funds. There was nothing in the Bill to prevent the scale of charges and the powers under this clause being so worked that a very much larger number

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Black, Arthur W.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Clough, William

Armitage, R.

Brace, William

Clynes, J. R.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Bramsdon, T. A.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Astbury, John Meir

Branch, James

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Bright, J. A.

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

Barker, John

Brodie, H. C.

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Brooke, Stopford

Crooks, William

Barnes, G. N.

Bryce, J. Annan

Crosfield, A. H.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Crossley, William J.

Beale, W. P.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Curran, Peter Francis

Beauchamp, E.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Dalziel, James Henry

Beck, A. Cecil

Byles, William Pollard

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Bell, Richard

Cameron, Robert

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

Belloe, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

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

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

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Dobson, Thomas W.

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

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Duckworth, James

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

of licences might be got rid of in the fourteen years. If the compensation was as low as many hon. Gentlemen opposite desired, and the levy was kept at a sufficiently high point, they might get rid of the whole of the licences during the reduction period. Was that the intention of the Government? There was no appeal under the terms of this clause to Quarter Sessions.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think that question arises on this clause.
MR. GRETTONsaid this was a very important question—
*THE CHAIRMAN: It is not a question of its importance, but whether it arises on subsection 1.
MR. GRETTONsaid this subsection in regard to optional reduction was most vague. They had been placed under the greatest difficulty in discussing it, and no hon. Member opposite could explain what it meant, or how it would work out. The only conclusion it was possible to come to was that this clause had been drawn up on the advice of some right hon. Gentleman not present, and in his absence there was no one to explain it.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Aves, 249; Noes, 109. (Division List No. 272.)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Lehmann, R. C.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Levy, Sir Maurice

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Erskine, David C.

Lewis, John Herbert

Sears, J. E.

Essex, R. W.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Seaverns, J. H.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lupton, Arnold

Seddon, J.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Shackleton, David James

Everett, R. Lacey

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Fenwick, Charles

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Sherwell, Arthur James

Ferens, T. R.

Maclean, Donald

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

M' Callum, John M.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Findlay, Alexander

M' Crae, Sir George

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Fuller, John Michael F.

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

Snowden, P.

Fullerton, Hugh

Maddison, Frederick

Soares, Ernest J.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Gill, A. H.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Steadman, W. C.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

Marnham, F. J.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Glover, Thomas

Massie, J.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Menzies, Walter.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Summerbell, T.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Middlebrook, William

Sutherland, J. E.

Gulland, John W.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Mond, A.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Hall, Frederick

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Montgomery, H. G.

Thomasson, Franklin

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

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

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Morse, L. L.

Tomkinson, James

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

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Toulmin, George

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Myer, Horatio

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

Napier, T. B.

Ure, Alexander

Harwood, George

Nicholls, George

Verney, F. W.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Vivian, Henry

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Norman, Sir Henry

Walsh, Stephen

Helme, Norval Watson

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Walton, Joseph

Hemmerde, Edward George

Nuttall, Harry

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wardle, George J.

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

Partington, Oswald

Waring, Walter

Henry, Charles S.

Paulton, James Mellor

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

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

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Waterlow, D. S.

Higham, John Sharp

Pirie, Duncan V.

Watt, Henry A.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Pollard, Dr.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

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

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Hodge, John

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Holt, Richard Durning

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

Whitehead, Rowland

Hooper, A. G.

Radford, G. H.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Wiles, Thomas

Horniman, Emslie John

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Rees, J. D.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Rendall, Athelstan

Wills, Arthur Walters

Hudson, Walter

Richards, Thomas (W. M'nmu'th

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Hyde, Clarendon

Richardson, A.

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Ridsdale, E. A.

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

Johnson, John (Gateshcad)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)

Winfrey, R.

Jowett, F. W.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Kekewich, Sir George

Robinson, S.

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

Laidlaw, Robert

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Roe, Sir Thomas

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Lambert, George

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

NOES.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

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

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Balcarres, Lord

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Ashley, W. W.

Baldwin, Stanley

Banner, John S. Harmood-

1050

1051

Baring, Capt, Hn. G. (Winchester

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Haddock, George B.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hamilton, Marquess of

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bowles, G. Stewart

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Renwick, George

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Helmsley, Viscount

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Bull, Sir William James

Hill, Sir Clement

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hills, J. W.

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Keswick, William

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Cave, George

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Paneras, E.

Stanier, Beville

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Starkey, John R.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

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

Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

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

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

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

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Valentia, Viscount

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

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

M' Arthur, Charles

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

Craik, Sir Henry

M' Calmont, Colonel James

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Magnus, Sir Philip

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

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

Faber, George Denison (York)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Winterton, Earl

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

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

Fardell, Sir T. George

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Young, Samuel

Fell, Arthur

Morpeth, Viscount

Younger, George

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Gardner, Ernest

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Oddy, John James

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Parkes, Ebenezer

Gretton, John

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

*MR. CAVEmoved to insert, before the word "extinguish" the words "refer or," with the object of retaining the system created by the Act of 1904, under which licences, instead of being refused or dealt with by petty sessions were referred to Quarter Sessions to be dealt with. Nobody who was familiar with the operation of the Act of 1904 would deny that it had worked extremely well. Under that Act each bench in a county considered the requirements of its own district, and having decided that certain licences were unnecessary, they were referred to Quarter Sessions to be dealt with. Quarter Sessions reviewed the whole county, and they dealt with the Licences, taking into consideration those which could be dispensed with and the means at their disposal. The Act had been fully used. Speaking with some years experience of the operation of that Act and as chairman of the licensing committee in his county and of Quarter Sessions, he said most emphatically that all the licences which were really unnecessary or harmful could be dealt with under the Act within
1052
a very moderate period, without dislocating the trade of the country or reducing the present scale of compensation. He did not know whether hon. Members had seen the report presented to the Quarter Sessional divisions of Lancashire by the clerk of the peace for that county. The county licensing committees obtained from all the Petty Sessions returns of the licences which they thought ought to be suppressed, and made an estimate of the amount required fully to compensate the owners of those licences. They estimated that, in a period of fifteen years, with the use of the Act of 1904, they would be able to deal with all the needless licences on the footing of compensating every person interested. He deeply regretted that within so short a period an Act which had been shown to be a useful and beneficial Act and productive of temperance should, in effect, be repealed by this Bill. Those who had taken a practical and active interest in the question of temperance, chairmen of Quarter Sessions, justices, and others, would all say that by the simple operation of the Act of

1053
1904 every real grievance and danger in the matter of an excess of public-houses could be dealt with without any real loss to, or deprivation of the rights of, persons interested. The effect of the Amendment, if accepted, would be to keep alive that statute. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were rather disposed to deal with the question of the reduction of houses as if the Act of 1904 had not been passed. No doubt there was a minority in the; last Parliament who objected to that Act and rightly fought it to the end, but once passed, it was an Act of Parliament, and he did not remember a case of an Act of first class importance which had created substantial interests being reversed by a subsequent Act without provision being made for the protection of those interests. Vested interests in the right to compansation were created by the Act of 1904, and according to the traditions of Parliament, whatever new legislation was passed on the subject, they ought to protect these interests. He could not make that statement more clearly than it was made by the present Lord Chancellor. During the passage through this House of the Bill of 1904 the Lord Chancellor, then Sir Robert Reid, said:—
"Parliament could repeal this Act (1904) in case it became law. But … there would be a legal fixity of tenure recognised in the eyes of the law in every public-house in the country, and they could not try the experiment of local option without buying out every single one of the public-houses in the local option district at an inflated price enhanced by the fixity of tenure created by this Bill. … This Bill was for all time, if anything in human affairs could be for all time. This fixity of tenure would be as fixed and certain and protracted a tenure as any of them might have in land."
Now, on that principle, to every interest created by the Act of 1904, fair protection ought to be given. The clause which they were now discussing was more drastic than the Act of 1904, because it enabled justices to suppress licences by the grant of very inadequate compensation. He maintained that the matter was of so great importance to individuals that it ought not to be dealt with by the justices upon the local benches of small districts, but by the Court of Quarter Sessions of the whole county. The Bill proposed, however, to abolish all reference or right of appeal to Quarter Sessions;
1054
except that in so far as optional reduction beyond the statutory limit was concerned a right of appeal was reserved. It was on these grounds, and because of the great importance of the question that he begged to move his Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 25, after the word 'to,' to insert the words 'refer or.'"—(Mr. Cave.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR S. EVANSsaid that the hon. and learned Gentleman under what appeared to be a very simple Amendment had delivered to the Committee an elaborate argument on the Act of 1904 and the interests created by it. He was not going to be tempted by the hon. and learned Gentleman into any discussion on that subject. The Committee were engaged in altering the Act of 1904 in some particulars; and were following some of the principles established under that Act for the first time. With regard to the hon. and learned Gentleman's particular Amendment he would like to call the attention of the Committee to what would be the operation of it if carried. The hon. and learned Gentleman told the Committee that he proposed to retain the old practice and procedure established under the Act of 1904, merely in regard to statutory reduction. Now, the Committee had dealt with the statutory reduction in the first part of the Bill, and they had imposed upon the local justices the duty of carrying out that statutory reduction; or, in other words, to reduce the number of licences by about 30,000 within fourteen years. What the hon. and learned Gentleman desired to do was to have a different procedure adopted in regard to any further optional reduction. He was certain that the Committee would come to the conclusion that if the local justices were the proper tribunal to deal with statutory reductions under Clause 1, there should be the same procedure under the same authority in dealing with optional reductions under Clause 4. It was sometimes forgotten that the local benches and the Court of Quarter Sessions were different bodies of men. There was a reason

1055
for giving Courts of Quarter Sessions a right to deal with the cases in which compensation was refused under the Act of 1904. The fund from which the compensation was to be given was a county fund, to be administered by the Court of Quarter Sessions, and it was right to give the county some control over the licences which were to be taken away. That reason would no longer exist under this clause, for the fund would be a central fund for the whole of England and Wales, and there was no reason arising out of the character of the fund for dispossessing the local justices of the power of dealing with the matter, and compelling the reference to Quarter Sessions of optional reductions of licences. The Committee had already determined the body which should deal with statutory reductions, and it would not be prudent to have a separate tribunal and a separate procedure in dealing with optional reductions of licences. The Government could not accept the Amendment.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid there was one thing that could not be denied, viz., that the point raised by his hon. and learned friend was of very great importance and interest, and he could not but regret that a Cabinet Council was now going on which entirely prevented the Committee from having the assistance of any Cabinet Minister at all, or indeed of any Member of the Government concerned with the construction and drafting of the Bill. The speech of the hon. and learned Solicitor-General was a speech of ability. He had not a word to say against him, or against the courtesy he had displayed on this and on other occasions. But that was not the question. On this occasion he maintained there ought to be some Cabinet Minister present, perhaps not during the dinner hour, which he admitted was a painful necessity, but they had long passed that hour, they had been for some time in the full swing of the debate, and he did say that it would be proper for some Member of the Cabinet to be present during the discussion. Very much slighter omissions
1056
were severely noticed in the last Parliament. He admitted the enormous strain of legislation and administration for ten months in the year on Ministers, but he thought that was not an adequate excuse for leaving the front bench utterly unadorned by the presence of any right hon. Gentleman belonging to the higher grade in the Ministerial hierarchy. The hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down resisted what he called the temptation of replying to the arguments of his hon. and learned friend the Member for Kingston, backed up as these arguments were by the authority of the present Lord Chancellor. He thought that that was one of those exhibitions of virtue which were extremely easy to display. There were certain temptations which the weakest amongst them must sometimes resist. The temptation to answer an argument to which you can see no reply was one of those temptations resistance to which made virtue easy, and that virtue the hon. and learned Gentleman had been able to practise that night in a manner which would excite the admiration of and satisfy the Nonconformist conscience. Passing from that, he thought that the argument of the Solicitor-General was singularly weak. It amounted to this: that one system had been already established under Clause 1 for dealing with statutory licences and that it would be exceedingly inconvenient and undesirable to have a parallel and contemporaneous system for dealing with licences which were outside the legal limit, and which under the Bill might be also diminished. But the Government loved these duplications, the whole Bill was full of them. They had two systems of local option; they had magistrates and the parish both dealing with the question of new licences; and he could not conceive whence this horror of doubling the machinery arose in the hon. and learned Gentleman's breast. The truth was that although his hon. friend's Amendment would be a much better Amendment if the rules of the House enabled them to give it a large extension, there was no reason whatever against their giving it such extension as

1057
they could on the present occasion. Evidently the Government were not content with destroying what the present Lord Chancellor said were sacred, viz., such rights as were created by the Act of 1904, but they went further and went beyond those substantial interests. Their aversion to that Act was so great that they desired to pull down those portions of it which, so far as he could discover, it would have done them no harm to keep. His hon. friend had a large acquaintance with the actual working of the Act of 1904. He was himself a chairman of Quarter Sessions, and had the minutest and most constant knowledge of what went on in regard to the machinery, especially of the Act of 1904, and when he came down and told the House that the machinery had worked perfectly during the three years in which it had been tried, that it had given contentment both to the magistrates who constituted what might be called the Court of First Instance, and also to the Court of Quarter Sessions, who might be described as a Court of Review, it was perfectly unintelligible why the Government should come forward and destroy a mechanism which had, unlike the mechanism which they proposed in this Bill, been shown by the test of experience to be a good working machine. There could be no reason for destroying it. On the contrary, by the arbitrary, cast-iron and extremely foolish rule which they had chosen to establish in Clause 1, they had made it quite certain that there would be an immense reduction of licences, whether that reduction was desirable in the interests of the locality or not. Under this clause they made it possible to have still further reductions. Those reductions might inflict great hardship upon the locality in which they occurred. Why should there not be some reference to the Court of Quarter Sessions, that had done its duty so well in the past as a Court of Appeal? The argument seemed to be conclusive, but,
1058
conclusive or not, it had not been replied to by the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down. Under those circumstances, if his hon. friend went to a division he should certainly support him.
*THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,)said that he could not for a moment pretend that an Under-Secretary was to be regarded either as useful or ornamental. But he protested against the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman that that bench had been left untenanted by any member of the Government who was concerned with the preparation and drafting of the Bill, for both his hon. and learned friend the Solicitor-General and himself had had that privilege. He could not assent to the assertion that this Amendment raised a question of large or grave importance. It by no means concerned the virtues or vices in general of the Act of 1904, but raised a question of very minute importance. There were three conditions under which a licence might be refused by the licensing justices. In the first place, there were the cases of misconduct or structural insufficiency. In that case the licences were not referred to Quarter Sessions, and they would not be referred to Quarter Sessions under this Bill. There was an appeal to Quarter Sessions at the present time, and there would be an appeal to Quarter Sessions under this Bill. In the second place, a licensee might be refused a renewal as part of the statutory reduction. That point was not raised by this Amendment, which only dealt with the part of the clause now under discussion, which was optional and additional reduction. Obviously, the powers of Quarter Sessions, under the Act of 1904 did not arise on this Amendment, so far as the refusal of the licence was part of the scheme of statutory reduction. This Amendment

1059
only touched the class of cases where licences were refused in the discretion of the justices over and above licences which they were to refuse under Clause 1, and all this clause did was to say that these licences should no longer go before Quarter Sessions as an administrative body by reference, but might come before Quarter Sessions as a judicial body on appeal. That was the whole difference between the law as it would stand and the law as it stood under the Act of 1904. It was not necessary to refer every licence to Quarter Sessions. Quarter Sessions were no longer concerned in the fund from which these licensees were to be compensated, but the Government agreed that there was a case for Quarter Sessions having a right to review if persons chose to come to them on appeal, and that was provided for in the second subsection of this clause by the words "subject to the foregoing provision." That said that—
"The licensing justices shall have the same powers and discretion (subject to the like appeal) as to refusing the renewal or transfer of an old 'on-licence' as they have for the time being with respect to other on-licences."
That was to say, they had the same power as to the renewal or transfer of the pre-1904 licence as they had in regard to the post-1904 licence.
SIR E. CARSONwished to point out in regard to the words "subject to the foregoing provision," that the foregoing provision was that the licensing justices had to do this and not Quarter Sessions.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the "foregoing provision" was that they had to obtain the consent of the Licensing Commission. Obviously that was so, and if hon. Members would look through the clause carefully, they would see that it was. They could not effect these additional reductions save in accordance with the "financial pro-
1060
visions of this Act," and it was subject to that "foregoing provision" that they were to take action, and the appeal was preserved. It was clearly stated in the subsection: "Subject to the like appeal." The right hon. Gentleman might interpret the words "subject to the like appeal" to be not subject to the like appeal, and he would have displayed the most remarkable ingenuity, but it was the intention of the subsection to preserve the same appeal as existed before 1904 as to the renewal of the licence. He thought that intention was carried out.
SIR E. CARSONsaid he had not the least desire to enter into a legal argument with the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary, though he wished to state his views. It was not the first time that the hon. Gentleman had laid down emphatic law which had been proved, upon reference to previous Acts, to have been entirely erroneous, and if he might be so audacious as to give the hon. Member a little advice, he would counsel him in the construction of an Act of Parliament to be not always so absolutely certain as he appeared to be.
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I was, of course, not acting upon my own opinion, but upon advice.
SIR E. CARSONsaid the hon. Member must not think for a moment that by merely raising a laugh on the wording of a clause he could construe an Act of Parliament. He dared say hon. Members thought his opinion was not worth much, and he did not quarrel with them in regard to the manner in which they appraised his legal opinion, but he never stated a legal opinion in this House which he did not conscientiously believe was the true construction of the particular matter which he was putting before the House. After all, the hon. Gentleman said they intended a certain thing.

1061
Well, he hoped they would put their intentions down, and that when they did so and they came to ask them about the matter they would be able to explain them. He also hoped hon. Gentleman would understand them, though it was not their experience during the Bill that they did, but it might be so, as the Bill went on. The hon. Gentleman said that this appeal was preserved. What did the section say?
"The obligation under this Act to carry out the statutory reduction shall not affect the power of the licensing justices to extinguish licences in any rural parish or urban area in excess of the number for the time being required to be extinguished under this scheme for statutory reduction, subject, in the case of the proposed extinction of an old on-licence involving the payment of compensation, to the financial provisions of this Act; and that power is in this Act referred to as 'the power of optional reduction.'"
In the case of statutory reduction was there any appeal? ["No."] And except under this Bill the licensing justices had no power to extinguish, while Quarter Sessions would have the power to extinguish under the Act of 1904. Where did the hon. Gentleman get the appeal? The hon. Member said it was in the second subsection in the words "subject to the like appeal" Yes, but that was subject to the foregoing provision, which said that the licensing justices should have the same power with regard to excess licences, and those which the statutory provision applied to. To his mind, as a lawyer, the matter was absolutely plain, but the Solicitor-General would probably give them some reason for dissenting. If he and the Solicitor-General disagreed they made it plain, and his challenge to the Government was to make it plain, and that would put an end to the whole matter. Might he also remind the Committee that the argument put forward by the Under-Secretary was entirely different from that put forward by the Solicitor-General, who argued that no appeal was necessary, because there was no appeal
1062
under the Act of 1904. [The Solicitor-General dissented.] That was the way he took it.
SIR S. EVANSsaid he certainly did not intend to say that, and he did not think he did say it.
SIR E. CARSONsaid he certainly took down the words: "There is no appeal under the Act of 1904." Of course there was not, because the matter went to Quarter Sessions on a reference. Why did the hon. and learned Gentleman enter into a learned disquisition as to the reasons why, under the Act of 1904, it went to Quarter Sessions? What was the necessity for that if they were not taking away the jurisdiction? He said the reason was because the fund was distributed by Quarter Sessions. What was the necessity of this if they were not taking away the jurisdiction of Quarter Sessions? The truth of the matter was that there was an attempt in this section and in the next subsection to get rid of Quarter Sessions. That was the object of the Government. The Government were prepared to maintain the appeal in the case of a licence extinguished on account of misconduct, but would give no appeal where the licence had been taken away and the man had conducted his house well. The reason for that was that they did not trust Quarter Sessions, and because they knew that the Quarter Sessions who were removed from local prejudice of a particular district had refused to lend themselves to the practices that had prevailed in certain Petty Sessions. The Under-Secretary for the Home Department had said that this matter had no relation to the Act of 1904. Was that so? Was there no argument to be found in the fact that they were bringing in extra provisions, outside altogether the statutory reduction, to compel further reductions, although the Opposition were able to point out that the Act of 1904 had been

1063
working admirably, and had been getting rid by degrees of every licence that could be possibly objected to in any district. The one fault of the Act of 1904 was that it was successful. It was a second fault in the eyes of hon. Members opposite that it did not do an injustice. That was a fault that hon. Members opposite never could forgive. What answer did the Under-Secretary give to the quotation made by the hon. Member for Kingston from the present Lord Chancellor that if they interfered with the interests created under the Act of 1904 they would have to compensate for them? He gave no answer at all. They gave the go-by to their own Lord Chancellor. What did they care about the Lord Chancellor when they had got a Solicitor-General? At the time the Act of 1904 was passing they used to say they would pay no attention to it, because the by-elections were going against it. The Opposition would pay no attention to the Act of 1908, because the bye-elections were going against it. Was that the kind of argument to be used from one Parliament to another? The truth was that neither this section nor any other section of the Bill had been thought out by the Government. They had remained satisfied with this—that they were going to do the maximum of injustice at the cheapest possible price. No answer had been given to the Member for Kingston, and if the Amendment went to a division he would be prepared to support it in the Division Lobby.
SIR S. EVANSsaid he did not propose to answer the hon. and learned Gentleman's
rhetoric, but merely to answer quickly and plainly a point of law. The second sub-clause provided that—
"Subject to the foregoing provision the licensing justices shall have the same powers and discretion, subject to the like appeal as to refussing the renewal or transfer of an old on-licence as they have for the time being with repect to other on-licences."
Sub-clause 4 provided that the right of appeal was taken away in the case of the refusal of the licensing justices to renew an on-licence where the licensing justices declared that the licence was extinguished in pursuance of a scheme for statutory reduction under the Act. The right of appeal was, therefore, only taken away in that case. In every other case it still continued.
SIR E. CARSONsaid his opinion remained the same as before the hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation. However, there was very little use in pursuing a discussion of this character, seeing that the hon. and learned Gentleman had said, in a quite fair way, that he would make the matter perfectly clear. He would suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman should consult with the draftsman, one of the most experienced gentlemen in the employment of the Government.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 110; Noes, 270. (Division List No. 273.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Faber, George Denison (York)

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

Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

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

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Fell, Arthur

M' Arthur, Charles

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

M' Calmont, Colonel James

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Forster, Henry William

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Stanier, Beville

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Starkey, John R.

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Morpeth, Viscount

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Gretton, John

Morrison-Bell, Captain

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

Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

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

Nield, Herbert

Valentia, Viscount

Haddock, George B.

Oddy, John James

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Hamilton, Marquess of

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

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

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Whitbread, Howard)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Helmsley, Viscount

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

Hill, Sir Clement

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Winterton, Earl

Hills, J. W.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Young, Samuel

Hunt, Rowland

Renton, Leslie

Younger, George

Kerry, Earl of

Renwick, George

Keswick, William

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Cave and Mr. Meysey-Thompson.

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Rothschild, Hon, Lionel Walter

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Gill, A. H.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Cheetham, John Frederick

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Agnew, George William

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

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

Allen, Charcles P. (Stroud)

Clough, William

Glover, Thomas

Armitage, R.

Clynes, J. R.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Greenwood, G. (Pererborough)

Astbury, John Meir

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

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

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

Gulland, John W.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Barker, John

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Cox, Harold

Hall, Frederick

Barnes, G. N.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossend'le

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N)

Crooks, William

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Beale, W. P.

Crosfield, A. H.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Beauchamp, E.

Crossley, William J.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Bell, Richard

Curran, Peter Francis

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Dalziel, James Henry

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

Belloe, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

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

Black, Arthur W.

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Bottomley, Horatio

Duckworth, James

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Bowerman, C. W.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Helme, Norval Watson

Brace, William

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Hemmerde, Edward George

Bramsdon, T. A.

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Branch, James

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Henry, Charles S.

Brigg, John

Erskine, David C.

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

Bright, J. A.

Essex, R. W.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Brodie, H. C.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Higham, John Sharp

Brooke, Stopford

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Bryce, J. Annan

Everett, R. Lacey

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Fenwick, Charles

Hodge, John

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Ferens, T. R.

Holt, Richard Durning

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Hooper, A. G.

Byles, William Pollard

Findlay, Alexander

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

Cameron, Robert

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Horniman, Emslie John

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Fullerton, Hugh

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Hudson, Walter

1066

1067

Hyde, Clarendon

O' Grady, J.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Jardine, Sir J.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Partington, Oswald

Strachey, Sir Edward

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Paulton, James Mellor

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Summerbell, T.

Jowett, F. W.

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

Sutherland, J. E.

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Kekewich, Sir George

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Laidlaw, Robert

Pollard, Dr.

Thomasson, Franklin

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

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

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

Lambert, George

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Tomkinson, James

Lehmann, R. C.

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

Toulmin, George

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Radford, G. H.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Levy, Sir Maurice

Rainy, A. Rolland

Ure, Alexander

Lewis, John Herbert

Raphael, Herbert H.

Verney, F. W.

Lupton, Arnold

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Vivian, Henry

Lyell, Charles Henry

Rendall, Athelstan

Walsh, Stephen

Lynch, H. B.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Walton, Joseph

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Maclean, Donald

Richardson, A.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

Macpherson, J. T.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wardle, George J.

M' Callum, John M.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Waring, Walter

M' Crae, Sir George

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

M' Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.

Waterlow, D. S.

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

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Watt, Henry A.

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

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Maddison, Frederick

Robinson, S.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

Markham, Arthur Basil

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Whitehead, Rowland

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

Roe, Sir Thomas

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Marnham, F. J.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Wiles, Thomas

Massie, J.

Russell, Rt. Hon, T. W.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Menzies, Walter

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Williamson, A.

Middlebrook, William

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Molteno, Percy Alport

Seaverns, J. H.

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

Mond, A.

Seddon, J.

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

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Shackleton, David James

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Montgomery, H. G.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

Morrell, Philip

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Morse, L. L.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Winfrey, R.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Wood, T. M' Kinnon

Myer, Horatio

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Nicholls, George

Snowden, P.

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

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Soares, Ernest J.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Nuttall, Harry

Steadman, W. C.

And, it being after Eleven of the Clock the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

OLD-AGE PENSIONS ACT, 1908.
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 20th October; Mr. Burns];
1068
to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 303.]
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 31st July, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at eight minutes after Eleven o'clock.

EARL, OF ROSSE.
Petition of William Edward Parsons, Earl of Rosse in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland,; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
The Lord Ettrick (L. Napier) took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with: Local Government Provisional Order (No. 3).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

RETURNS; REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 4146. Morocco (Casablanca).
  No. 4147. Belgium (Belguim, 1907, an first half of 1908).
  No. 4148. United States (agriculture of States of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana).
  No. 4149. Sweden (Gothenburg).

  COLONIES: MISCELLANEOUS.
  No. 56. Turks and Caicos Islands; Report on the salt industry, by Mr. F. H. Watkins, Commissioner of the Turks and Caicos Islands.
  TRANSVAAL.
  Further correspondence relating to legislation affecting Asiatics in the Transvaal (in continuation of [Cd. 3892.], February, 1908.)
  Further correspondence relating to Native affairs in Natal (in continuation of [Cd. 4194.] and [Cd. 4195.], July, 1908).
  MINES (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Minutes of Evidence taken before the Royal Commission on Mines, with index and appendices. Volume III.
  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Agricultural statistics of Ireland, with detailed Report for the year 1907.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887.
  Return of the number of eviction notices filed during the quarter ended 30th September, 1908.

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES.
  Third Report (Northern Area) on Fishery and Hydrographical Investigations in the North Sea and adjacent waters 1904–1906; Statistical Papers (in continuation of Second Report, Part I. Hydrography [Cd. 3358.]).
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 TO 1903.
  Order 7572, dated 8th October, 1908, revoking Order No. 6985, dated 11th October, 1905, and defining a specified part of the port of Manchester as a foreign animals wharf.
  DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS, 1877 TO 1907.
  Order, dated 5th October, 1908, entitled "The American Gooseberry Mildew (Shropshire) Order of 1908."
  SUPERANNUATION (TREASURY MINUTES).
  Granting retired allowances under, Section 2 of the Superannuation Act to: Mr. H. S. Bell, telegraph engineer, second class, Post Office, dated 16th September, 1908; Mr. W. D. Ballantyne, sorting clerk and telegraphist, Edinburgh Post Office, dated and October, 1908.
  BANKRUPTCY.
  General Rule, dated 20th August, 1908, in substitution for Rule 103 of the Bankruptcy Rules, 1886, made pursuant to Section 127 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883.
  CENSUS OF PRODUCTION ACT, 1906.
  Rules made by the Board of Trade, XL.—LXXVII.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894 (CON VEYANCE OF FISH FROM TRAWLERS).
  Regulations made pursuant to the provisions of Section 417 of the Act.
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.
  Account of the receipts and expenditure of the Paymaster-General on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature in respect of the funds of suitors of the Court in the year ended 29th February, 1908; also account of the National Debt Commissioners for the same period in respect of funds held by them on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon.
  POST OFFICE (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL PARCEL POST, GERMAN, SAMOA (APIA)).
  The Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post Amendment (No. 23) Warrant, 1908, dated 15th August, 1908.
  OLD-AGE PENSIONS ACT.
  Old-Age Pensions Regulations, dated 15th October, 1908.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP.
  Orders, dated 13th October, 1908, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department—
  (Special Exception — Holidays.) — In pursuance of Section 45 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, granting a special exception under that section in respect of the women and young persons employed in (a) florists' workshops, (b) hospital laundries in Scotland.
  (Special Exception—Meal Times.)—In pursuance of Section 40 (4) of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, extending the special exceptions under that section to florists' workshops.
  (Special Exception—Employment inside and outside on the same day.)—In pursuance of Section 46 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, granting a special exception under that section to florists' workshops.
  (Special Exception—Overtime.)—In pursuance of Section 49 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, extending the special exception under that section to certain non-textile factories and workshops, and revoking the Orders of 29th December, 1903, and 15th November, 1904.

  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Orders made by the following borough councils, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for certain classes of shops within the respective boroughs: Salford; Sunderland.
  SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1907.
  Act of sederunt regulating the fees of sheriff officers in the Sheriff Courts in Scotland.

  LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1881.
  Annual Local Taxation (Scotland) Returns for the year 1906–1907.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (IRELAND).
  Return respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to Order of 21st July last), and to be printed. [No. 209.]
  CHILDREN BILL.
  Brought from the Commons, read 1a, to be printed; and to be read 2a on Wednesday the 28th instant (The Lord Steward (E. Beauchamp)). [No. 208.]

  NURSES REGISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day read, for the House being put into Committee (on recommitment).
  Moved, "That the House do resolve itself into the said Committee."—(Lord Ampthill.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2:
  *THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCILmoved to amend the provision—
  "'The Council' means the General Council of Nursing Education and Registration of the United Kingdom,"
  by omitting the words "of Nursing Education and Registration of" and inserting the words "for the Registration of Nurses in." He explained that the object of the Amendment was to confine the character of the Bill to the registration of nurses.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, lines 8 and 9, to leave out the words 'of Nursing Education and Registration of,' and to insert the words 'for the Registration of Nurses in.'"—(Viscount Wolverhampton.)
  LORD AMPTHILLsaid he was quite willing to accept the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON*VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON moved to leave out the words "trained nurse or." The provision would then read—
  "The term 'registered nurse' means a nurse who is for the time being registered in the nurses register."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 10, to leave out the words 'trained nurse or.'"—(Viscount Wolverhampton.)
  LORD AMPTHILLsaid that as a similar Amendment stood in his name on the Paper, it followed that he agreed to it.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONthen moved a further Amendment not on the Paper to Clause 2. It was to add the words—
  "The term' Local Government Board' means in relation to Poor Law institutions in Scotland and Ireland the Local Government Board for Scotland and the Local Government Board for Ireland, respectively."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, after line 12, to insert the words 'the term "Local Government Board" means in relation to Poor Law institutions in Scotland and Ireland the Local Government Board for Scotland and the Local Government Board for Ireland, respectively.'"—(Viscount Wolverhampton.)
  LORD AMPTHILLsaid this Amendment was designed to render unnecessary several Amendments which stood in the name of Lord Ashbourne. He thought it an improvement on the method proposed by his noble and learned friend Lord Ashbourne for explaining that which it was necessary to explain.
  LORD ASHBOURNEcould not accept this statement as to his Amendments. He said he preferred explaining them himself.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3:
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4:
  LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL moved to substitute "sixteen" for "fifteen," as the number of persons of which the Council should consist. His object was to provide for the representation of Ireland, a matter on which he imagined there would be absolutely no disagreement. Their Lordships would remember that the Select Committee of the House of Commons who considered this question in two successive sessions were very explicit in recommending that the Council should not exceed a certain number. Fifteen was the number they gave; but he trusted that, nevertheless, the

  891
  Lord President would be willing to agree to the slight increase of one which he proposed, in order to provide, in a manner which he thought would be more convenient than the other method suggested, for the representation of Ireland.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 19, to leave out the word 'fifteen,' and to insert the word 'sixteen.'"—(Lord Ampthill.)
  LORD ASHBOURNEreferred to his Amendment on the Paper also dealing with the number of persons of which the Council should consist. He agreed that it was not desirable to add to the number unduly, and that no increase, should be made which could reasonably be avoided. He was prepared to acquiesce in the Government view to make way for an Irish nurse by reducing the number of English nurses from four to three rather than the proposal to increase the number of nurses from six to seven. The suggestion of the Lord President would work out the same without increasing the number of the Council. In a subsequent Amendment he asked that "eighteen" should be substituted for "fifteen," but he admitted that that number would be one too many, and that he only required seventeen to carry out his object. If the Bill stood as Lord Ampthill and the Government suggested, the whole burden of representation in the case of Scotland and Ireland would be placed upon one nurse from each country. No one had a higher respect for Scottish and Irish female intelligence than he had, but it was hardly reasonable to say that that representation was adequate. The clause provided that one registered medical practitioner should be appointed by the Local Government Board for England. He proposed, in a subsequent Amendment, to provide also for one to be appointed by the Local Government Board for Ireland and one by the Local Government Board for Scotland. He was not concerned as to whether it might be desired to throw over some other members of the Council to make way for these two; but it was not reasonable in so large and important a Council to place the whole burden of maintaining
  892
  the Irish or Scottish case upon one nurse. He hoped the Lord President would consider the matter.
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid the question was, after all, what was the desirable number. The Committee who considered the Bill unanimously recommended that the number should not exceed fifteen, and they coupled with that a strong opinion that it should not be more than eleven. The Government were anxious that there should be full and proper representation on the Council, not only of England but also of Scotland and of Ireland; but he thought that in extending the number to sixteen they would be really going as far as they ought to go in the matter.
  LORD ASHBOURNEwished to know who the sixteenth person was to be. Room was made for an Irish nurse by putting one of the English nurses aside and altering the number from four to three. That being so, where did the sixteenth person come in? He desired to make the number seventeen, so as to provide for one registered medical practitioner being appointed by the Local Government Board for Ireland and one by the Local Government Board for Scotland.
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid there were to be seven registered nurses elected as the direct representatives of registered nurses. Four were to be elected by the nurses registered in the general register whose registered address was in England or Wales, one by the nurses registered in the general register whose registered address was in Scotland, one by the nurses registered in the general register whose registered address was in Ireland, and one, who should be a past or present matron of a public hospital for the insane, by the nurses registered in the Mental Nurses Register. That absorbed the entire number.
  LORD AMPTHILLheld that there was a grave objection to the proposal of Lord Ashbourne. To increase the number of the representatives appointed by the Local Government Board would upset the balance between doctors and nurses on the Council—a matter likely to lead to a great deal of difficulty and jealousy.

  893
  Under the present proposal it was as evenly balanced as possible. The noble and learned Lord had said that the whole burden of representation would be on one nurse. He thought that hardly a fair statement of the case. They might take it that anybody appointed to a council of this kind would not be a partisan, but would endeavour to be representative of the interests of the whole kingdom. Secondly, there were the three persons appointed by the Privy Council, who might be taken to be impartial and generally representative. Those were his reasons for preferring to adhere to his own proposal that the Council should be increased by one only.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, I think the Committee will agree that, as a general principle, it is desirable that this Council should not be increased in numbers to a greater extent than can be helped. These bodies work more easily and more efficiently when not too large. The noble and learned Lord opposite asked how it was, if we were prepared to agree to the increase from fifteen to sixteen, that we also proposed to substitute three for four in subsection (f). The answer is that if sixteen is agreed to my noble friend would not propose to move the other Amendment, but would maintain the figure at four as it stands at present.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD STANMOREcalled attention to the provision in the clause that three members of the Council should be "appointed by the Privy Council." He asked whether the Lord President could inform him what was the meaning in this connection, of the words "appointed by the Privy Council." Did they mean appointed by the King in Council, or by the Lord President of the Council, or by the vote of the members of the Council?
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid the appointments would be made in the same way as all other appointments made by the Privy Council—namely, by the Lord President.
  LORD STANMOREthought it would be better that it should be so defined in the Bill.
  VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON moved to amend Paragraph (d)—
  "Three registered medical practitioners to be appointed by the British Medical Association, one to be a physician, one a surgeon, and one a general practitioner."
  by leaving out all the words after "Association."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 5, to leave out from the word 'Association' to the end of Paragraph (d)."—(Viscount Wolverhampton.)
  LORD AMPTHILLaccepted the Amendment, which would, he said, give greater latitude and discretion to the British Medical Association.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE moved to insert in place of the words which had just been omitted, the words "one to be resident in England, one to be resident in Ireland, and one to be resident in Scotland." He understood that these words would be accepted.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 5, to insert the words 'one to be resident in England, one to be resident in Ireland, and one to be resident in Scotland.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  LORD AMPTHILLsuggested that, instead of "resident in," words should be substituted providing that one should be representative of England, one of Ireland, and one of Scotland. There were obvious inconveniences attached to the words "resident in." The Council would probably meet in London, and it might be difficult for a doctor living in Ireland or in Scotland to attend; but there might be in London a doctor who would be regarded as representative of either Scotland or Ireland whom it would be convenient to place upon the Council. The words he suggested—namely, "representative of"—would, of course, not exclude the possibility of appointing a doctor who was resident in Scotland or in Ireland. The words were wider, and gave larger discretion,

  895
  and he hoped, therefore, that his suggestion would commend itself to Lord Ashbourne.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid the words "representative of" would imply "chosen by," and would give rise to many opportunities of dispute.
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid his difficulty in reference to Lord Ampthill's suggestion was: Who was to be the electing body? They would have to create some sort of organisation in Scotland and Ireland in order to elect the representative. He thought it would be better to leave it as was proposed by Lord Ashbourne.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL moved to increase from six to seven the number of registered nurses to be elected as the direct representatives of the registered nurses. This was, he explained, consequential upon the Amendment which their Lordships had already accepted in regard to the number of the Council.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 10, to leave out the word 'six,' and to insert the word 'seven.'"—(Lord Ampthill.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONthen moved that this additional member of the council should be elected by the nurses registered in Ireland.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 15, after the word 'Scotland,' to insert the words 'one shall be elected by the nurses registered in the general register whose registered address is in Ireland.'"—(Viscount Wolverhampton.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid that in these Amendments the Committee had dealt with the constitution and appointment of the general council. But the clause also provided for the appointment of a temporary council of six, which was to bring the Act into operation. Of these six, two
  896
  were to be appointed by the Matrons' Council of Great Britain and Ireland, and one by the Society for the State Registration of Trained Nurses; and he desired to know whether the Lord President of the Council had satisfied himself that these bodies were of sufficient standing to be entrusted with these appointments. If such information as he had been able to obtain was correct, these two bodies were practically the same, or, at any rate, they were ruled by the same people.
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid he had no personal knowledge of the composition of the bodies.
  LORD AMPTHILLsaid he could answer the question of his noble friend. The Matron's Council was founded in 1894, and its primary object was to bring about a uniform system of education, examination, certification, and State registration of nurses in British hospitals. For years it maintained a committee which laboured steadily with that object in view; and its work increased so much that in 1902 it was decided to form a society having for its sole object the State registration of trained nurses. But until the formation of that society the Matrons' Council was the only body working to secure the registration of nurses, and that in itself, he thought, constituted a sufficient claim why it should be represented on the provisonal council which was to set up the machinery for the election of the general council. He could guess what had suggested the question of his noble friend. There was a letter about the Bill in The Times that morning, which was as well timed as it was inaccurate. There were two flagrant inaccuracies which sufficiently condemned the rest of the letter. These were that the Matrons' Council was to be permanently represented on the general council; and that the Society for the State Registration of Trained Nurses was to enjoy a similar privilege. Their Lordships had the Bill before them, and they could see that these statements were quite inaccurate. As to the membership of the Matrons' Council, it consisted of close on 200 past and present matrons of hospitals and infirmaries, and that did not include

  897
  several honorary members, representing foreign countries and the Colonies, who had worked for the State registration of nurses. The membership might have been much larger but for the fact that many matrons were the paid servants of hospital committees, who were strongly opposed to the registration policy of the council.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid that, accurate as was Lord Amp-thill's information generally, his guess in this case was entirely erroneous. His question was not prompted by the letter in The Times, because he had not fallen into either of the inaccuracies which the noble Lord had pointed out. He hoped the Lord President of the Council would satisfy himself of the standing of the two bodies by examining their lists of members before he allowed the Bill to pass in its present form.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My noble friend will, no doubt, take the step which the noble Lord suggests. But I might point out that this is really a temporary provision, and that the whole object of these subsections is to get a generally representative council of that very large section of the nursing body who are in favour of the registration of nurses. There are other nurses who are not in favour of registration, and do not wish to have anything to do with it. They, I suppose, do not desire to be and will not be, represented on this body. I confess it appears to me—and I have some knowledge of the composition of these bodies from having held the office which my noble friend now holds—that, generally speaking, that object of obtaining ladies who are representative of nursing will be very well carried out by the provisions contained in the Bill.
  Consequential and drafting Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 5 to 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9:
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 10:
  Drafting and consequential Amendments agreed to.
  LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE moved to add a new subsection providing that the council might appoint three or more members to act as a committee for Ireland and for Scotland, respectively, and might authorise each such committee, subject to revision or approval by the Council, to transact any business of the Council concerning Ireland or Scotland, respectively, which the Council might think it expedient to delegate to such committee. He hoped the Amendment would commend itself to the Lord President for he had been informed that these committees would be a great convenience.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 11, after the word 'Act,' to insert 'The Council may appoint three or more members to act as a committee for Ireland and for Scotland, respectively, and may authorise each such committee, subject to revision or approval by the Council, to transact any business of the Council concerning Ireland or Scotland, respectively, which the Council may think it expedient to delegate to such committee.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONopposed the Amendment. He said the proposal was both unnecessary and inexpedient. He thought it undesirable to set up statutory committees who would require separate officials. The clerical work could be perfectly well done in the central office in London, and there was nothing to prevent the Council appointing sub-committees to report on specific points, which would be preferable to a statutory delegation of functions. Uniformity of regulations and procedure was desirable for all parts of the United Kingdom.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that after the Lord President's statement he would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYunderstood that some little difficulty would arise under the Bill in respect to the

  899
  nurses attached to the Admiralty and the War Office. He believed the matter had been brought to the attention of His Majesty's Government by those qualified to speak upon it, and he would like to ask the Lord President whether it had been considered and what arrangements they proposed in order to meet the difficulties that had been brought to their notice.
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid that the view of the Privy Council was that the provision in Clause 10, to the effect that—
  "No rules made under this section shall have effect until the same shall have been approved by the Privy Council, and the Privy Council may approve, the rules, either without or subject to, such modifications as the Privy Council think proper."
  constituted ample protection to both Army and Navy nurses. He understood that it was probable that on the Report stage the Admiralty and the War Office would desire to insert additional words in order to guard against any possible defects in the procedure. Those Amendments would, of course, be very carefully and favourably considered. It was desirable that no rules made under the Bill should have the effect of law until they had received full consideration at the hands of the Privy Council, who would hear representations from public departments and localities with respect to any specific regulation to which they objected.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYfelt sure it would be a source of satisfaction to their Lordships to understand from the Lord President that the intervention of the Privy Council under this clause would not be a formal matter, but that they would exercise effective control of all the regulations under the Act. As it was the intention of the Government to raise the specific matter at the next stage of the Bill, he would not now trouble their Lordships further with regard to it.
  Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 11:
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that Clause 11 as it stood provided that—
  "Any person who within three years from the commencement of this Act claims to be certified
  900
  thereunder shall be so certified provided such person is at least twenty-one years of age, and either: (1) Holds a three years certificate of training from a general hospital approved by the Council, or from a Poor Law institution recommended by the Local Government Board, and is of good character; or (2) produces evidence of training satisfactory to the Council, and has, in addition, been for at least three years in bona fide practice as a nurse, and is of good character."
  He moved to insert, after the word "hospital," the words "or from hospitals." If the provision were confined to a three years certificate from one hospital only, a large number of the best Irish nurses would be excluded.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 16, after the word 'hospital,' to insert the words 'or from hospitals.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONaccepted the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE moved to delete the words "a poor law" and to insert in their place the word "an." This would leave the Local Government Board a wide and unfettered discretion. The Lord President had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the words "a Poor Law institution recommended by the Local Government Board" and to insert the words "an institution which the Local Government Board recommend and certify to be wholly or partly maintained out of the rates." He hoped these words would not be added, as they might exclude some first-class institutions which obtained nothing from the rates.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 16, to leave out the words 'a Poor Law,' and to insert the word 'an.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid the two points were quite separate. He therefore hoped the Committee would deal with the noble and learned Lord's Amendment apart from the question of the rates.
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid that Lord Ashbourne's Amendment was exactly similar to the first part of his

  901
  (the Lord President's) subsequent Amendment. He therefore accepted it.
  LORD AMPTHILLcould not agree to the Amendment, the effect of which would be that any institution could be recommended by the Local Government Board.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: We have not reached that point yet. We are on the Amendment of Lord Ashbourne to leave out the words "a Poor Law," and to insert the word "an." I think if the noble Lord would agree to postpone the discussion until we come to the Amendment of my noble, friend the Lord President it would be far more convenient, because the two points overlap.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid the only question was whether the Lord President would think it desirable to press for the addition of the words "and certify to be wholly or partly maintained out of the rates." He ventured to hope he would not. Surely the Local Government Board might be trusted in the matter.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYhoped that, as a matter of order, the Committee would follow the advice of the noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal, and dispose of the non-contentious Amend-meat first. The further point as to the introduction of the rates would arise on a subsequent Amendment.
  LORD AMPTHILLsaid that the only object in putting in the words "Poor Law institution" was to indicate that the Local Government Board should confine their recommendations to institutions over which they had a certain amount of control. The effect of Lora Ashbourne's Amendment would be to leave it open to the Local Government Board to recommend institutions with which they had nothing whatever to do.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I may say that we do not propose to agree to what the noble and learned Lord (Lord Ashbourne) suggests—namely, the omission of my noble friend's words when we come to them. We do not think it
  902
  would be reasonable to do what would be in effect turning the Local Government Board into the council; that is to say, to allow it to certify institutions of all kinds with which it has no sort of connection. I do not know whether Lord Ampthill is prepared to agree to the modified form of Amendment suggested by the Lord President, but if he is he will be able to allow the noble and learned Lord's Amendment now before the Committee to pass, because it is really part of our Amendment. Of course, if he objects in toto to any change in the Bill, he would be right in speaking now in order to express his views.
  LORD BURGHCLEREthought there was a good deal of point in Lord Ampthill's contention, because if the Committee accepted the Amendment of Lord Ashbourne as it stood and did not eventually adopt the Amendment of the Lord President they would be placed in a position of great difficulty. He therefore suggested that Lord Ashbourne should withdraw his Amendment and allow the Lord President's Amendment to be moved in the form in which it stood on the Paper.
  THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I take it that Lord Ashbourne will withdraw his Amendment.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: Very well.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONthen moved to leave out "a Poor Law institution recommended by the Local Govern-met Board" in order to insert "an institution which the Local Government Board recommend and certify to be wholly or partly maintained out of rates."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, lines 16 and 17, to leave out the words 'a Poor Law institution recommended by the Local Government Board,' and to insert the words 'an institution which the Local Government Board recommend and certify to be wholly or partly maintained out of rates.'"—(Viscount Wolverhampton.)
  LORD ASHBOURNEintimated that, as the Lord President and the Leader of

  903
  the House held that it was desirable that these words should be inserted, and as the noble Lord in charge of the Bill agreed, he would not press his opposition.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYregretted the insertion of the proposed words for the reason which Lord Ampthill had given for supporting their insertion. He thought there ought to be some body superior to the Council in order to secure that a proper hospital should not be boycotted on account of professional jealousies.
  LORD AMPTHILLsaid that Clause 10 established the Privy Council as the authority superior to the Nursing Council, and in any case it was best not to anticipate that unfair and invidious distinctions would be made.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYhardly thought Clause 10 covered the point. No doubt Clause 10 gave the Privy Council a general power to control the regulations made under that clause; but Clause 11 contained a specific enactment which no regulations made by the Privy Council would be allowed to overcome. There certainly ought to be some authority with the right of jurisdistion in the case of institutions rashly or unfairly excluded by the Nursing Council. He suggested that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill should consider whether the Privy Council should not be inserted in place of the Local Government Board.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 17, after the word 'institution,' to insert the words 'or institutions,' and after the word 'Board,' to insert the words 'of England, Ireland, or Scotland.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  *THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Is this a consequential Amendment?
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD ASHBOURNEdesired before the Committee passed from Clause 11, to ask the attention of the Lord President to one particular matter. There were, he said, a number of nurses in Ireland
  904
  at the present moment who had worked for some considerable time under the certificate of the Local Government Board. Clause 11 was framed with a view of saving the status of existing nurses, and he would be glad if the Lord President would consider before the next stage of the Bill whether words could not be inserted which would save the right to go on the register of nurses at present certified by the Local Government Board.
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONassured the noble and learned Lord that the point should receive consideration before the Report Stage.
  LORD AMPTHILLsaid the Committee had been rushed into an acceptance of the last Amendment, moved by Lord Ashbourne, on the assurance of the Lord Chairman that it was consequential. It was consequential, but consequential upon an Amendment which had been withdrawn—that was, so far as the first part of it was concerned. As to the second part of the Amendment, inserting, after the word "Board," the words "of England, Ireland or Scotland," that matter had been disposed of by the definition clause carried on the Motion of the Lord President of the Council. Lord Ashbourne's Amendment, therefore, was not necessary, but he (Lord Ampthill) had no opportunity of intervening before it was passed.
  THE LORD CHAIRMAN: It can be put right on Report.
  Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 12:
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid he understood that the principle of his Amendment to this clause was accepted by the Lord President. It was really consequential.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 25, after the word 'hospital,' to insert the words 'or of hospitals.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  LORD AMPTHILL, in expressing his agreement with the Amendment, explained that though they seemed trivial

  905
  these words met an important case. The tendency of hospitals was to specialise, to have special hospitals for special diseases, and the consequence was that a fully-trained nurse had to undergo her training at more than one hospital. The provision as it stood might be read to require that she must have a certificate from one hospital only. The words which their Lordships had already inserted in the Bill and which it was now proposed to add in Clause 12 met this difficulty—a difficulty, which he understood, would arise more particularly in Ireland.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential and drafting Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 13:
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 14:
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 15:
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  LORD AMPTHILLsaid the clause provided for the payment by every registered nurse of a fee of 2s. 6d. before 13th January in each year, and if a nurse made default, his or her name "shall" be removed from the register, but "may" be restored in certain circumstances. He moved to substitute "may" for "shall" in the first case and "shall" for "may" in the second. He pointed out that no latitude was given in the case of a nurse living abroad. He thought the removal of a name should be discretionary and the restoration of the same obligatory.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, line 17, to leave out the word 'shall,' and to insert the word 'may,' and in
  906
  line 18, to leave out the word 'may,' and to insert the word 'shall.'"—(Lord Ampthill.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHthought that if the restoration was to be made, as declared in the clause, on proof that the failure to pay was due to inadvertence or mistake or on other satisfactory explanation, it should remain discretionary.
  LORD AMPTHILLsaid he was going to ask their Lordships, without notice, to leave out the last sentence of the section.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I do not feel sure that that would be quite a safe course to take, because it might almost involve the restoration of the name of a nurse whom it was undesirable to restore for other reasons. I think it would be far better to change "shall" to "may" in the first case, but to leave "may" in the second case.
  LORD AMPTHILLexpressed his willingness to bow to the opinion of the Lord Privy Seal in the matter, and amended his Amendment accordingly by deleting the second half.
  On Question Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 16 agreed to.
  Clause 17:
  LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL moved to amend the provision enacting a penalty in the case of anyone not registered under the Bill who, after the commencement of the Act, knowingly used the title "registered nurse." He moved to substitute for the words "after the commencement of this Act" the words "after the publication of the first Annual Register of Nurses." The expression now in the clause was a little vague, and he thought it would be an improvement to define more accurately the precise moment of time.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, line 37, to leave out the words 'commencement of this Act,' and to insert the

  907
  words 'publication of the first Annual Register of Nurses registered under this Act.'"—(Lord Ampthill.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 18 agreed to.
  Clause 19:
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 20:
  LORD AMPTHILLhad an Amendment on the Paper to Clause 20. The clause provided that—
  "Before suspending or removing any nurse's name from the register on account of breach of any rules or misconduct, the Council shall send to such nurse a statement in writing by registered letter, of the breach or misconduct imputed to him or her, and shall afford the nurse an opportunity of giving an explanation in writing or in person;"
  and the Amendment proposed to add at the end of the clause the words—
  "And of being legally represented if he or she so desires."
  He said that on further consideration, he was very much inclined to ask their Lordships' permission not to move this Amendment. It had been represented to him from various quarters that it was desired, both by doctors and nurses, that a provision of this kind should be inserted; but he now felt that the point was amply met by the right of appeal accorded in Clause 21, and it seemed to him very possible that an addition of this kind to the clause might suggest the employment of counsel and be a very considerable embarrassment to the Nursing Council. If, therefore, their Lordships had no objection he would not move the Amendment.
  LORD ASHBOURNE, who had a similar Amendment on the Paper, said that unless he heard some further reason from the Lord President of the Council he would move his Amendment. He did not wish to encourage the incurring
  908
  of legal costs, but it might happen that a nurse's character and status were at stake, and she might be ruined if she had not an opportunity of making her case. It might be that she was unable to do it herself, and there should be a provision that in such circumstances she might have the benefit of professional assistance. He, therefore, thought it reasonable to insert the proposed words.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 7, line 35, after the word 'person,' to insert the words 'or by legal representation if he or she so desires.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid the Government took the view which Lord Ampthill had expressed, that the insertion of these words would considerably add to the cost of the procedure and involve a sort of legal trial in every case. Moreover, the Bill already provided for an appeal to a proper Court, where the matter would be fully considered.
  LORD ASHBOURNEintimated that he would not press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 20 agreed to.
  Clause 21:
  LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE moved to amend this clause, which ran—
  "Any registered nurse aggrieved by a decision of the Council removing his or her name from the register within three months from the notification of such decision may appeal therefrom to the High Court of Justice in England and Wales, and to the Lord Ordinary officiating on the Bills in the Court of Session in Scotland, and such appeal shall be final."
  He proposed to insert, after the word "therefrom," the words "according to his or her registered place of residence, either" and to insert, after the word "Wales," the words "or to the High Court of Justice in Ireland." This was a matter of machinery, and his Amendment provided that regard should be had to the registered place of residence.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 7, line 39, after the word 'therefrom,' to insert the words 'according to his or

  909
  her registered place of residence, either,' and after the word 'Wales,' to insert the words 'or to the High Court of Justice in Ireland.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  LORD AMPTHILLwas disposed to accept the Amendment if the noble and learned Lord persisted in it, but ventured to suggest a difficulty that might arise. A nurse who had given her permanent residence as in Ireland, but who happened for the time being to be attending a case in England, would be compelled, under Lord Ashbourne's Amendment, to appeal to the High Court of Justice in Ireland. In such a case the provision would constitute a great inconvenience.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid the Amendment had been drafted after full consideration and on the advice of a high legal authority.
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONrecognised the difficulty to which Lord Ampthill had called attention, and asked whether it would not meet the case if an alternative were given to the appellant to go to any one of the three Courts. It would obviously be unfair to compel a nurse who was at the moment living in Ireland, but whose registered address was in England, to come over to England to maintain the appeal, and vice versa. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord would consider the point. He was sure their only desire was to do what was right in the interests of those concerned.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid that as the clause stood the nurse might appeal to the High Court of Justice in England and Wales and to the Lord Ordinary officiating on the Bills in the Court of Session in Scotland. The whole drafting of the Clause required reconsideration.
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONexpressed the opinion that an appeal to the County Court would meet the case.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYthought the Lord Pesident's previous suggestion—namely, that the appellant should have power to go to any one of the three Courts—the right one. He hoped that on Report the Lord President
  910
  would deal with the matter in that way. The residence of the nurse was not a material matter.
  LORD ASHBOURNEthought it would be wiser to leave the words out at this stage, and consider the matter further before Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  "In line 2, after the word 'Scotland,' to insert the words 'and to the High Court of Justice in Ireland.'"—(Viscount Wolverhampton.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHquestioned whether the word "and" in the Amendment should not be "or."
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I think "and" is used before in the clause, and erroneously. It should be "or" in each case.
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON: I will carefully consider the drafting before the Report stage.
  Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 22 agreed to.
  Clause 23:
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out Clause 23."—(Viscount Wolverhampton.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 24 agreed to.
  LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL moved the addition of the following new clause: "This Act shall not be construed to affect or apply to the gratuitous nursing of the sick by friends or members of a family, and also it shall not apply to any person attending the sick for hire, but who does not in any way assume to be a registered nurse under this Act." He was doubtful as to the expediency of introducing this clause, and he was not satisfied with the wording, but it had been strongly desired by some

  911
  members of the medical profession and by authorities in Ireland. He did not think there was anything in the Bill to suggest that gratuitous nursing would be affected, but he invited an opinion from the Committee.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert the following new clause: 'This Act shall not be construed to affect or apply to the gratuitous nursing of the sick by friends or members of a family, and also it shall not apply to any person attending the sick for hire, but who does not in any way assume to be a registered nurse under this Act.'"—(Lord Ampthill.)
  THE EARL OF MAYOsuggested that better words would be: "This Act shall not apply to or affect nursing of the sick by any person not registered under the Act, and who does not in any way assume to be a registered nurse." There was a strong feeling in regard to nursing by nuns in hospitals. It was a delicate subject to approach, but he thought that words should show that the Act cast no slur on nurses not on the register.
  *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONwas inclined to think that danger of a misunderstanding of the Act as interfering with gratuitous nursing was imaginary. He could not consent to the Amendment without further consideration.
  THE EARL OF MAYOagreed with the Lord President that the danger was, perhaps, imaginary, but said that imaginary dangers in Ireland very often worked against the beneficial operation of an Act of Parliament, and they wished to avoid that in this case.
  LORD BURGHCLEREthought it was a matter that might be dealt with in the definition clause.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: So far as I am able to understand the subject before us, these words are really quite unnecessary, and I should venture to suggest that they were not only unnecessary but somewhat misleading. There is nothing in the Bill, as I find it, which could possibly affect or apply to gratuitous nursing by members of a family or others, and if we insert these words we suggest that there is something
  912
  in the Bill which it does not contain. My noble friend was, evidently, by his language, not much enamoured of his own Amendment, and I venture to advise him not to press it.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid the Bill was popular with nurses, but to avoid mistaken ideas getting about, it would be well that words should be introduced making it abundantly plain that non-registered nurses were absolutely free to follow their calling.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I have no objection whatever to this matter being considered again on Report, but I find myself in general agreement with the noble Marquess on the Front Opposition Bench. It seems to me that the insertion of words of a kindly and consoling character, to reassure people who do not read the Act of Parliament and do not know the law, is a practice which ought as far as possible to be avoided, and I hope the matter will be allowed to drop.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD AMPTHILLalso had the following new clause on the Paper—
  "Nothing contained in this Act shall be considered as conferring any authority to practise medicine or to undertake the treatment or cure of disease."
  He said it was of the same character as the clause which had just been under discussion, and was for the purpose of addressing what the noble Earl the Leader of the House had called kindly and consoling words to the medical profession. His own view was that the clause did not seem necessary, and as he took it that that was the sense of the Committee he would not move it.
  Title:—
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, to leave out the words 'qualifications of trained nurses, and to provide for their registration,' and to insert the words 'registration of nurses.'"—(Viscount Wolverhampton.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received

  913
  on Monday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. [No. 210].

  IRISH LOANS—RETURN.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Return as to loans contracted by local authorities in Ireland, etc., ordered to be laid before the House on the 21st July last has yet been furnished. I am told that the Return is likely to be laid upon the Table in dummy to-morrow, but we do not want it in dummy; we want the real thing. There is a Bill shortly to come before your Lordships' House dealing with the housing of the working-classes in Ireland, and it is most important that this Return should be laid on the Table before that discussion is taken. I am told, also, that the delay is due to the printers in Ireland. This is not the first time that we have had to complain of that sort of thing. The Return was ordered to be laid before the House on 21st July, and surely plenty of time has elapsed to enable a Return of that sort to be printed. I see the noble Lord, Lord Denman, in his place, and I should like to ask if there is any chance of our having the Return before the Bill to which I have referred comes up for consideration in Committee.
  LORD DENMAN: The noble Earl has been misinformed with regard to the Return in question. It was laid of the Table on Friday, and was sent to Ireland to be printed on that day. I cannot tell the noble Earl when we shall get the Return back from the printers—that really is not my business—but I hope it will be here to-morrow. It was an extremely complicated Return, and I can assure the noble Earl that no time was lost in its preparation. In case the Return is not back from the printers in time, I would suggest that the noble Earl or any other Peer interested should call at the Irish Office and look at the copy, of which they can make any use they wish in the discussion on the Housing Bill.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four 'clock